Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine [Archive] - Page 10

Skybird

02-09-15, 04:01 PM

Dear Ukrainian we support you psychologically, we can't support you physically by any means.

We will perhaps send some money, but no weapons of any kind, we are not interested in getting Russia even more angry as they already are.

Therefore Dear Ukrainian-you have to fight your enemies by you own with what you got.

Got the idea to this, when I saw todays news on Danish TV. Merkel against the American idea to send weapons to Ukraine.

Are I for or against? Well if it's true that Russia is supporting.....(forgot the word, for this fighting group in eastern Ukraine) then we should give the same support to the Ukraine in the west.

Markus

The Ukrainians had 23 years to come to terms with their newly founded state. But they kept on supporting corrupted politicians, right extremeists, and criminal elites, finding maybe even civil uprise and armed rebellion not worth it. So they got what they got, and they voted for what they got, and after 2 and a half decades they could have known what they voted for.

And after all, the basic sin is that 23 years ago the Ukraine never should have been formed up as one state in its modern borders, for that guaranteed the conflict to simmer on and on. And different to what is claimed now, a historic precedent for modern Ukraine'S teritory and thus its integrity - never existed.

If you make your bed to lay down in, and accept to have a mungo under the blanket and a cobra under the pillow - don't expect the night not to become "interesting".

When I, at the time they founded it as a state, as a young man and student could know how it would end, and said so to my buddies at university, then I fail to understand why political "experts" and people knowing the place much better than I do, could not have forseen it as well. Mayn people say they< find it tragic, and that they are stunned and surprised by how the Ukraine turns out to be. I say it turns out to be like it was to be expected that it would.

Heck, and back then I even was still not interested in politics at all!

CCIP

02-09-15, 04:07 PM

As for supporting the Ukraine, as I said, the problem there is systemic. They really do need some serious support and reform, but not by way of handing them free weapons. That's not going to fix what's been a system that - on every side - has been dysfunctional, corrupt, and unable to function effectively. The various political sides have been pointing fingers in all sorts of directions, but the fact is that the bulk of the problem is internal. Ukraine is a failed state that had been unable to resolve its problems, especially problems of federalization. As much as it's easy to blame Russia here, what started this whole mess isn't outside interference, but a refusal between the "orange" and "blue" sides to have any kind of meaningful system that works for both, and an effort to keep everything centralized when clearly that's not going to work. They're trying to maintain what's effectively an early 20th-century nation-state model in a country that's neither a united nation, nor an effective state, nor is in the 20th century anymore. It won't bridge the huge division that had already split and polarized the country more than a decade ago. Weapons and war are only going to drive it further apart.

ikalugin

02-10-15, 04:34 AM

I can tell you what can fill russians' plates if the system collapses - leather belt bouillon :rotfl2::rotfl2:
(remember the Holodomor?) :woot:
Suffered by the South west of RSFSR on equal scale actually.

ikalugin

02-10-15, 04:36 AM

CCIP you may find this:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/09/how-not-to-save-ukraine-arming-kiev-is-a-bad-idea/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AEditors%20Picks&utm_campaign=2014_EditorsPicksRS2%2F9
Article of interest to you.

August

02-10-15, 07:04 AM

So Moscow thinks it's a bad idea to do what they've been doing for the rebels. Go figure.

ikalugin

02-10-15, 07:08 AM

So Moscow thinks it's a bad idea to do what they've been doing for the rebels. Go figure.
Did you read the article?

August

02-10-15, 07:09 AM

Did you read the article?

I did. Does it not match the position of the Russian government?

ikalugin

02-10-15, 07:25 AM

I did. Does it not match the position of the Russian government?
Then your question is provocative, as in the article it is clearly stated that the Russian actions within the Ukrainian crisis (the support of separatist forces falls under that category) was in nature reactionary to actions of other parties.

Thus further escalation by those parties would lead not to deterence of Russia, but to an reactionary escalation.

In my opinion a perfect (if idealistic of me) would be a common, inclusive security treaty system within Europe, that understands and accommodates for all of the concerns by the states and is based on (but not limited to) existing common principles and agreements.

Such a treaty system would take away any valid security concerns (of Poland and Russia for example) while not being offensive towards any party in Europe (regardless of its' status within other organisations).

Ideally such system should also over rule any other exisiting security treaties within Europe (such as NATO and Collective Security Treaty) as to prevent a conflict between different less inclusive alliance systems within European region.

Skybird

02-10-15, 07:56 AM

Paper is patient.

If I would base my views on believing blindly newspapers close to the US government, I would sing the US government's song, and if I would blindly believe what is written in Russian mainstream press, I would be an uncritical follower of Putin and read his lips in rapture.

Truth is neither side plays honestly here, and both sides are a side with interests that are opposing the interests of the other side.

The treaty system you refer to, ikalugin, has been kicked with boots form both sides by now, diplomatic boots from the West violating it in its spirit, and factual boots from the East violating it's written letter. To me, both are offences rendering the treaty useless, seen that way the us mushing for NATO moving onto Russian borders even more is as guilty as Russia de facto running a military support and combat operation in another formally sovereign nation (how ever stupidily designed that nation may have come into life). I by now consider those security treaties to be obsolete.

We are back for a cold war and arms race. And since no side is really financially well-armed for a repetition of that, it will become a very interesting adventure and economic impacts on both sides of the "frontline" once the debt bombs explode into our faces. By the years 2018-2020, Russia will have completed more or less its modernization cycle of its ground forces, then we will see if after that they start to grow in size, or remain on the quality and quantity levels they are on. The West will continue to shrink its forces for getting fewer, more expensive platforms in a hope of them being superior enough to compensate for numerically being outnumbered. And I doubt that formula will work better than it did during the last cold war - in case of a war in the past that would have - despite all reason - have excluded nuclear weapons, I think the Soviets would have raced through right to the channel. Maybe under high losses - but they would have won it. After all, it seems to me NATO's bid back then was not to prevent a Soviet victory, but to make it so costly that Moscow would decide that it would be too expensive a victory.

kranz

02-10-15, 08:29 AM

yup, we need another treaty. like the one signed in Minsk.
Separatists with russian support being sent through the backdoor has pushed forward much beyond the borders set in the treaty. Yet they say we should NOT send weapons to Ukraine to avoid the escalation of the conflict...

the latest news is that Ukrainian positions in Krematorsk were attacked with the Tornado system rockets - in service only in the russian army.

Dowly

02-10-15, 08:46 AM

the latest news is that Ukrainian positions in Krematorsk were attacked with the Tornado system rockets - in service only in the russian army.
Would love to hear how they ascertained that Tornado was firing the rockets.

ikalugin

02-10-15, 09:37 AM

Skybird, the existing system did not follow the principles layed out by me at the same time, thus such system did not exist so far. If you wish I could go into details.

kranz, Minsk agreements were violated by both sides, example of such violation by the Ukrainians was them keeping the Donetsk airport (which was agreed to be given to the separatist control).

August

02-10-15, 10:10 AM

Then your question is provocative, as in the article it is clearly stated that the Russian actions within the Ukrainian crisis (the support of separatist forces falls under that category) was in nature reactionary to actions of other parties.

Thus further escalation by those parties would lead not to deterence of Russia, but to an reactionary escalation.

I understand your point but it seems to me that Russia has escalated the situation already. Those sure aren't captured Ukrainian artillery and heavy weapons that the rebels are using so how can it be provocative to help Kiev in a similar manner?

ikalugin

02-10-15, 10:37 AM

I understand your point but it seems to me that Russia has escalated the situation already. Those sure aren't captured Ukrainian artillery and heavy weapons that the rebels are using so how can it be provocative to help Kiev in a similar manner?
Which in turn was a response to the actions of the Western/Kiev side, this spiral (of escalation) could be tracked back to the Maidan events of the 2013-2014 winter.

Note that the activities of Voentorg (and Northern Wind) were directly linked to the actions by West/Kiev and we're reactionary (ie a build up of CTO forces would be countered by supplies to separatists, ect).
Then there is the old Minsk framework, which neither side truly followed, essentially neither side did any active steps towards implementing that framework (even though it was Russia which was accused of all ills and violations).

Schroeder

02-10-15, 11:08 AM

Which in turn was a response to the actions of the Western/Kiev side, this spiral (of escalation) could be tracked back to the Maidan events of the 2013-2014 winter.

Note that the activities of Voentorg (and Northern Wind) were directly linked to the actions by West/Kiev and we're reactionary (ie a build up of CTO forces would be countered by supplies to separatists, ect).
Then there is the old Minsk framework, which neither side truly followed, essentially neither side did any active steps towards implementing that framework (even though it was Russia which was accused of all ills and violations).
All of this would make sense...if Ukraine was part of Russia. I don't see western Troops marching around in Ukraine. I don't see Leopard and Abrams tanks in Ukrainian service. I don't see western artillery systems in the arsenal of the Ukrainian forces. So what exactly did Moscow "react" to in a sovereign country that justified it's actions?

kranz

02-10-15, 11:29 AM

Would love to hear how they ascertained that Tornado was firing the rockets.
the article is in Polish so far. you gonna learn Polish or wait for the translation?
please let me know.

Which in turn was a response to the actions of the Western/Kiev side, this spiral (of escalation) could be tracked back to the Maidan events of the 2013-2014 winter.

right.
Maidan, CIA, Polish services training Ukrainians, plots, skimming and dealing behind russia's back...you sure you don't need a doc?

All of this would make sense...if Ukraine was part of Russia. I don't see western Troops marching around in Ukraine. I don't see Leopard and Abrams tanks in Ukrainian service. I don't see western artillery systems in the arsenal of the Ukrainian forces. So what exactly did Moscow "react" to in a sovereign country that justified it's actions?
this.

obviously it's russia who is escalating the conflict. I can't really imagine how a bunch of paramilitary freaks could wage war against a regular army WITHOUT support of another regular army. Basically, most of the gear used by separatists IS russian. I know you've been fed with lies that 'separatists captured a lot of ukrainian gear and now they are using it' as well as 'these were ukrainian rockets which shot down air malaysia'.

A few days ago I saw a documentary about russian mothers who lost their sons at Lubiansk, Donetsk. At least 80 funerals took place at one time in Pskov (Russia) around August. Those who died were the soldiers of this unit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76th_Guards_Air_Assault_Division
Mothers were paid not to talk about their losses, foreign journalists trying to visit the graves are treated as trespassers and beaten up.
Western propaganda, huh?

Dowly

02-10-15, 11:43 AM

the article is in Polish so far. you gonna learn Polish or wait for the translation?
please let me know.
If you could translate the key parts, I would appreciate it. :yep:

Oberon

02-10-15, 12:07 PM

Catfish

02-10-15, 12:07 PM

CCIP

02-10-15, 12:11 PM

A few days ago I saw a documentary about russian mothers who lost their sons at Lubiansk, Donetsk. At least 80 funerals took place at one time in Pskov (Russia) around August. Those who died were the soldiers of this unit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76th_Guards_Air_Assault_Division
Mothers were paid not to talk about their losses, foreign journalists trying to visit the graves are treated as trespassers and beaten up.

Just curious, where did you get the number of 80? I followed that story (beatings and slashed tires and all), and I think the highest number I ever heard was 5. I don't know about foreign reports, but Russian activists trying to uncover that story ended up with no more than two dozen graves and names (and probably as many black eyes, slashed tires, and death threats) that they'd located in all of Russia in August.

There were as many as 80 casualties reported in that unit, but the word is they were buried mostly in the Ukraine to avoid the word spreading out.

mapuc

02-10-15, 12:21 PM

Let see if I got this right

about an hour ago I saw on Danish TV, one of the journalist talking about military solution to help Ukraine. Some of the NATO's members have speculated in that

He mentioned Poland, who could as some kind of last resort-Give military assists to Ukraine.

OK Poland feel threaten by the civil war in Ukraine(Russia)- If they chose side then they will for sure be threaten by the other part in the civil war.

Markus

kranz

02-10-15, 12:51 PM

Just curious, where did you get the number of 80?

There were as many as 80 casualties reported in that unit, but the word is they were buried mostly in the Ukraine to avoid the word spreading out.

in a short documentary made by two journalists from one of the Polish TV stations. I doubt it has been translated or sth.
The journalist talked to two of the mothers and some villagers from the suburbs of Pskov. They stated that one day, after scheduled funerals had taken place, military came, accompanied by (possibly) friends of the soldiers and the whole procedure of around 80 funerals was carried out.

227 according to this article https://openrussia.org/post/view/1772/
250 according to another one in Polish
1500 according to an organization held by Russian mothers who lost their sons.

ikalugin

02-10-15, 01:43 PM

Heh, Gruz 200 founder (and the Gruz 200 initiative) is still seen as a credible source, even after what Shariy did to her.

As a clarification - she was inventing the lists, both of Russian and Ukrainian dead, and was extorting money from Ukrainian citizens for various services (ranging from assisting transfer of real PoWs to getting dead people out of fictional Russian death camps).

Back on the topic though - what happened in Ukraine was a violent take over of power, which was completely supported (and in part organised) by Western parties to further their geopolitical objectives without regarding Russian (or local for that matter) interests. I mean no one now even talks about what was in that association agreement and if it was at all beneficial to Ukraine (it was not).
The south/eastern communities (and Russia as their geopolitical back up) have reacted symmetrically. If in western/central areas the local government offices and armouries are captured, so would happen in the south/east. If the new central government would crack down on those south/eastern communities using their armed forces, we would arm the resistance. And so on and so forth, actions of the south/east (and Russia) were always reactive.
Thus, speaking in terms of ultimatums and applying further pressure would not solve the conflict by deterring Russia - it would escalate it.

Morever - providing arms to the Ukrainians would not bring any immediate (or even medium term) benefits, as the core issues are within the poor organisation of the CTO Forces and lack of reform, not lack of modern weapons.

August

02-10-15, 03:04 PM

Which in turn was a response to the actions of the Western/Kiev side, this spiral (of escalation) could be tracked back to the Maidan events of the 2013-2014 winter.

Isn't that comparing apples and oranges? The internal affairs of a nation are a far cry from annexing a part of another country.

Skybird

02-10-15, 03:45 PM

Isn't that comparing apples and oranges? The internal affairs of a nation are a far cry from annexing a part of another country.
In the 80s: Honduras? Panama? Nicaragua? Iraq 2003? Vietnam? That were internal affairs of those states. But that did not stop the US from massive interferences and weapons deliveries, even interventions and all-out war. Nor has the CIA be shy of interfering fundamentally in the Ukraine.

We also recall the massive US support for dictatorships and torture regimes in South America. The opportunistic support for brutla reigmes in africa if it served and serves American interest in resources. The close alliances with terror-supporters in the Muslim world.

America is not more and not less an honest broker than Russia is. And both act for their very own interests. Morals and justice have nothing to do with it, but geostrategic self interest: and that includes to damage the other fore the purpose of just weakening the other.

I do not favour the one over the other. I call both by their name: egoist actors. Morals have nothing to do with it, that is just propaganda for the plebs, to make them rally behind oneself. America does like that, and Russia does like that and probaly even more successful (media say never has Russians' hostile sentiments against the West been so intense like today).

If Russia would deliver military grade weapons to the cartels in Mexico, or would stage a coup in Canada to topple the government and implement a Kremlin-friendly one - the US would not stand by and do nothing, but would do EVERYTHING necessary to prevent or reverse that.

Don't even try to convince me or many others that you wouldn't. You would, and you know it. Thats as certain as it was clear that the US would not tolerate Russian missiles on Cuba. At no cost would the US accept Russian troops and sensors on Mexican and Canadian soil ten kilometers behind the border, and Russian warships and SSNs and fighters and bombers having a base at the Lake Erie (if thta makes military sense... :) ).

So lecturing other about the wrong in doing what your nation itself has done repeatedly, and is doing until today, is not really convincing. The US has not the moral credibility to do so anymore. And I told you that before - already in 2003.

What Mexico or Canada is for you, Ukraine and Easteuropean states are for Russia. The European states they already lost, naively believing in promises they had been given, and being mocked for by Americna dipolmats who told them to shut up, the promises were never turned into treaties. You betrayed their good willingness there. So now do not compolain that they do not make the same mistake again anymore, and act prememtoively when America diplomacy very obviously has started to push once again to bring Ukraine into NATO and the US fleet into Sewastopol therefore. What you would never accept with Canada or Mexico, you nevertheless demand the Russians to accept regarding the Ukraine, after you already betrayed their trust over the neutral puffer the Easteuropeans states were promised to remain? That is double standards.

These double standards maybe is what emotionally angers me most in all this. This hilarious display of hypocrisy and moral haughtiness.

---

I also remind of the example of Georgia again. Like there, the leadership in Kiev today is none we should wish to deal with. Not at all. The West had placed its bets on the wrong horse in Georgia, and the EU even admitted that afterwards, shutting the door for him and ignoring him. Washington ignores the bitter truth until today: that Saakashvili was the villain behind the wanted escalation. That it wants Georgia again into NATO shows, that it is pure powerpolitics that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with justice or moral rights. The historical supression of the Abchasians with brute force by the Georgians until the war, plays no role in American reasoning, too. The moral card only gets played when it serves America's powerpolitical interests. If it is more opportune to act immorally, America does not hesitate to do so.

So much for morals!

Onkel Neal

02-10-15, 05:37 PM

Isn't that comparing apples and oranges? The internal affairs of a nation are a far cry from annexing a part of another country.

What? Wouldn't annexing a country be interfering with it's affairs?:06:

Back on the topic though - what happened in Ukraine was a violent take over of power, which was completely supported (and in part organised) by Western parties to further their geopolitical objectives without regarding Russian (or local for that matter) interests. I mean no one now even talks about what was in that association agreement and if it was at all beneficial to Ukraine (it was not).

Weren't there thousands of people protesting to change govt?

Thus, speaking in terms of ultimatums and applying further pressure would not solve the conflict by deterring Russia - it would escalate it.

No doubt. Russia is going to get want they want, the West may as well accept it with as little bloodshed as possible.

CCIP

02-10-15, 06:17 PM

kranz

02-10-15, 06:19 PM

Weren't there thousands of people protesting to change govt?
In his theory they were on the CIA payroll so it doesn't count.
How about the sheikhs lowering the oil price thus ruining the russian economy?:hmmm:

August

02-10-15, 08:00 PM

In the 80s: Honduras? Panama? Nicaragua? Iraq 2003? Vietnam? That were internal affairs of those states. But that did not stop the US from massive interferences and weapons deliveries, even interventions and all-out war. Nor has the CIA be shy of interfering fundamentally in the Ukraine.

Completely besides the point Skybird. First off name the part of any of those countries that we've annexed.

Secondly I said nothing about the rightness or wrongness of Russia's Ukrainian adventures except to say that if they're going to arm and support one side then they have no justification to say that we shouldn't arm and support the other side.

August

02-10-15, 08:03 PM

Skybird

02-10-15, 09:19 PM

Completely besides the point Skybird. First off name the part of any of those countries that we've annexed.

Annexation is not the only "evil". Arming civil wars to topple regimes, wars against, occupation, invasion, and killing hundreds of thosuands in this, are not any less meaningful.

Secondly I said nothing about the rightness or wrongness of Russia's Ukrainian adventures except to say that if they're going to arm and support one side then they have no justification to say that we shouldn't arm and support the other side.
Just that you have far less interests there, than they have.

If you send arms to Canada, the Russians can say that you have no justification to demand that they shall not arm the opposition in Canada? The first question would be: what business do they have in Canada? None. Like you have none in the Ukraine.

At the end of all the word wringing, they have far greater geostrategic interests in that region of the world, than America. America's only interest there is to tighten its grip around Russia. And it has been like that since the end of the cold war. Geostrategic interests of big powers may be seen as immoral, and injust, and illegal, and godknowswhat - but in this world I see myself living in they nevertheless are a hard fact of life, and their existence cannot be denied, no matter the moral assessment of them.

And if you ignore them too severely, what you get as a consequence is big, big wars.

Skybird

02-10-15, 09:27 PM

All of this would make sense...if Ukraine was part of Russia. I don't see western Troops marching around in Ukraine. I don't see Leopard and Abrams tanks in Ukrainian service. I don't see western artillery systems in the arsenal of the Ukrainian forces. So what exactly did Moscow "react" to in a sovereign country that justified it's actions?
The constant dance of the Ukrainians on Moscow's nose, and far more important: the serious new effort to bring thre Ukraine into the EU, which would only be the prelude to have it joining NATO - and thus the Crimean becoming a naval base and air base for US forces in the Black Sea. That was explained so often now, months ago, it does not become less important only because opportunistically time and again ignoring it.

One could have known in advance in Washington that Moscow would not shy away form anything necessary to prevent the Crimean becoming a NATO area. If they could only have achieved their goal by fullscaloe war against the totlaiuty of the Ukraine, they would have done it, before NATO could embark on turning it into a fortress. And probably one knew indeed! Which only shows the cynism when now the suffering of the civilian population is media-effectively mourned and complained about in the West. Anything the Russians did from autumn 2013 on - is just exercising their doctrine of maskirovska to prevent that NATO scenario becoming true.

Or did you seriously think Putin is eager to become the endless paymaster of the Eastern part of the Ukraine just for sentimental reasons...?

No NATO military is in the Ukraine, you listed that above in your post very correctly. And the Russians want to make sure that it stays that way. That's what it all is about, thats why it started. All what they take on the way to that goal, is just bonus prizes, and prey of opportunity.

CCIP

02-10-15, 09:52 PM

If you send arms to Canada, the Russians can say that you have no justification to demand that they shall not arm the opposition in Canada? The first question would be: what business do they have in Canada? None. Like you have none in the Ukraine.

Incidentally, Canada's experience could also offer some very useful lessons for the underlying problems of federalization and regional rights that are tearing Ukraine apart. Things could've gone very ugly with Quebec, but through patience and constitutional process, it'd been brought back from a relative brink in the 1970s (when there was terrorism, threats of secession, and all that). I'm not saying Canada got everything right, and there are still problems, but notably - noone overthrew anything, nobody armed either side, and in the end, a constitutional process was followed. Crucially, there was will to compromise on the notion of nationhood, and will to agree to some disagreements, give concessions and priviliges on language and cultural rights, and more recently - even declare Quebec as a nation within the federal structure of Canada. Not everyone here is happy with it, but the more I think of it and the more I look at Ukraine, the more I appreciate the way Canada has dealt with its separatist problem.

August

02-10-15, 10:52 PM

Annexation is not the only "evil". Arming civil wars to topple regimes, wars against, occupation, invasion, and killing hundreds of thosuands in this, are not any less meaningful.

Again, irrelevant. And for a guy who bemoans being held responsible for the sins of previous generations you are very quick to play that card against someone else.

Just that you have far less interests there, than they have.

If you send arms to Canada, the Russians can say that you have no justification to demand that they shall not arm the opposition in Canada? The first question would be: what business do they have in Canada? None. Like you have none in the Ukraine.

That's a really poor analogy. A much better one would be whether the Russians have the right to send arms to the Canadian government if we Americans have occupied then annexed Montreal and are now militarily supporting separatist armies as they advance into the rest of eastern Canada. I'd say in that instance the Canadians have the right to get help from anyone they want.

And if you ignore them too severely, what you get as a consequence is big, big wars.

Or maybe you don't play Nevile Chamberlain and you stare down tyranny to win freedom for millions. The Berlin Airlift for instance? By your theory we should just have let the whole city fall to the Russians, after all Berlin is a lot closer to Russia than it is to the US right?

ikalugin

02-11-15, 05:03 AM

After the cursory glance.

Did anyone read EU assosiation agreement? Because if you did you would not say that signing it was/is/will be beneficial to Ukraine.

Those angry people at Maidan never voted to the Yanukovich, but were taking power in an undemocratic way, as they have failed again and again to out vote the south-east.

kranz

02-11-15, 05:20 AM

Those angry people at Maidan never voted to the Yanukovich, but were taking power in an undemocratic way, as they have failed again and again to out vote the south-east.
That's the kremlin's narrative which you believe in. Fortunately it has nothing to do with the reality.
Technically speaking Maidan had nothing to do with removing Yanukovich which was a purely democratic decision.
btw, you forgot to mention how Yanukovich wanted to suppress the protesters with the help of russian thugs. Was that even legal?

Schroeder

02-11-15, 06:21 AM

Those angry people at Maidan never voted to the Yanukovich, but were taking power in an undemocratic way, as they have failed again and again to out vote the south-east.
Putin himself once said that he told Yanukovich before the revolution that his time was over and that he had no chance at the next election. Why would Putin say that to him if those few angry people at Maidan would have never had a chance to outvote the south-east? Obviously Putin himself saw that the majority of Ukrainians didn't like Yanukovich anymore or he wouldn't have made that statement.

ikalugin

02-11-15, 07:34 AM

That's the kremlin's narrative which you believe in. Fortunately it has nothing to do with the reality.
Technically speaking Maidan had nothing to do with removing Yanukovich which was a purely democratic decision.
btw, you forgot to mention how Yanukovich wanted to suppress the protesters with the help of russian thugs. Was that even legal?
He didn't loose the elections, there was no referendum, impeachment procedure was not followed. Hence he was not pressed out of power legaly.

Russian as in Russian citizens or ethnic Russians (Ukrainian citizens)? But then I guess that you believe in evil thugs attacking peaceful protesters (who didn't use violence at all) and view Gruz 200 as a credible source.

ikalugin

02-11-15, 07:38 AM

Putin himself once said that he told Yanukovich before the revolution that his time was over and that he had no chance at the next election. Why would Putin say that to him if those few angry people at Maidan would have never had a chance to outvote the south-east? Obviously Putin himself saw that the majority of Ukrainians didn't like Yanukovich anymore or he wouldn't have made that statement.
Specific candidate being politically dead and a political faction not having suitable candidates are two different things. Hence why one wonders, why was Ukraine pressed to sign a horrible association agreement? Why didn't they wait until the elections?

Skybird

02-11-15, 08:38 AM

Again, irrelevant. And for a guy who bemoans being held responsible for the sins of previous generations you are very quick to play that card against someone else.
Because you support these policies until today. You can complain about me if I would defend Nazi views.

That's a really poor analogy. A much better one would be whether the Russians have the right to send arms to the Canadian government if we Americans have occupied then annexed Montreal and are now militarily supporting separatist armies as they advance into the rest of eastern Canada. I'd say in that instance the Canadians have the right to get help from anyone they want.Pointless regarding the context in which I gave it as a reply. You may think establishing a puppert reoigme and helping it to torture and suppress its population or financing terrorism, is different from annexing that place, is the lesser evil. It is not, you just make a morally undefendable, but opportunistic choice - to support your view.

Or maybe you don't play Nevile Chamberlain and you stare down tyranny to win freedom for millions. The Berlin Airlift for instance? By your theory we should just have let the whole city fall to the Russians, after all Berlin is a lot closer to Russia than it is to the US right?You call provoking somebody else, a "defence". You expect somebody else acting stupdily against his vital interests, so that your interests get boosted.

As you know, I play chess. Let me explain it by this analogy: if I play the white pieces and move my queen to f3 and my bishop to a4 early in the opening, I would be stupid not to expect Black to do something about my idea to break in on f7 and checkmating him. OF course he would react to that, and since the plan of mine is plain and obvious to see, that is a certain prediction of his behavior. And when Washington moves to make the Ukraine a NATO candidate by pushing the Europeans to bring the Ukraine into the EU as a first step, the Russian response after their bad experiences with Washington 15 and 20 years ago is certain and easy to predict, too.

And I think Washington knew that (else I would need to assume them to be blind and completely retarded, braindead idioos). Which in conclusion leads to realising that Washington wanted things to turn out like this - it is a good opportunity to raise pressure on Putin, and that is what America really is about - the Ukrainian people play no role in Washington's alculations here, not more than the Kremlin cares for their fate.In the end, what Washington always wanted since 1989, is the exstence of Russia to end as a state capable to act globallyx and as a strong opponent to American interest to remain the globally dominant player. It is not about supporting the Ukraine, that is only a strawman argument - it is about getting Russia out of the way. It has always been about that. And many politicians like MacCain never have hidden that.

Political interests should never be mistaken with the moral statements given by ordinary people in the streets. Both are worlds apart. Nations have no morals. Nations have interests.

You would not have entered WWII, if Roosevelt would not have seen the strategic relevance of europe for the US and its global ambitions to take over from the British, its not as if your forefathers were too eager to join, weren'T you - until Pearl Harbour the huge majority of Americans wanted to have nothing to do with the events in Europe. Pearl Harbour was the best thing that could happen to make Americans change their minds on that - because it left them no other choice, the Japanese victory on the battle of that day and the crushing losses for the American fleet were too significant as if one could just ignore them.

Today, you have little intention obviously to do something against the massacres taking place in Kongo, Somalia and Nigeria currently, outclassing the bloodshed in Ukraine. But Ukraine is different from Nigeria, Kongo Somalia, here you can poke the Russians in their eye, and different to the Africna states Ukraine is a card you can play in your match for provoking the Russians and pushing them back (at least that was the plan). When it comes to areas of rare ressources and precious earths, your country has little scruples only to cooperate with warlords and prevent unwanted political leaderships opposing your economic interests, that leads as far as boosting civil wars and supporting the assassination of unwanted oppositional politicians that threaten to establish a government hostile to american company interests. You are not one inch better in these regards than the Russians, Europeans, or Chinese.

Your little Vietnam adventure costed 1 million of local residents, most of them civilians, their lives. Your little Iraq 03 adventure opened the gate to more violence and bloodshed and torture, than the Saddam regime committed. Compared to that quantity of suffering your policies have brought over others, the annexation of a peninsula like the Crimean is the by far smaller evil.

Take care when dismounting that moral high horse of yours, it is so high that you easily break you neck if slipping and falling during dismounting.

I know that Amerians tend to see themselves as the shining centre of the human universe, but you are not. You are better than some, but not better than many others. Many shades of grey, and not too rarely obvious dark and black spots on your jacket as well. You just are very skilled in changing your jackets fast, on the fly, according to what colour opportunistically is needed in order to boost your strategic and economic interests. The ideals and pathos is for the young men only, to make them rally behind their leaders and to make them willing to donor themselves for the "just cause", but wars are not decided by ideals nowadays, but strategic and economic considerations. In other words: the young, good-willed ones simply get lied to, and abused. They got and get betrayed - you may have noted over the years that I almost never attack your country's military and servicemen, but very often your political leaders and agitators, and the naivety of the public.

Of course I am realistic enough to know that they usually do not like to hear that when telling them that. But there is a reason why I would want Bush and gang to be court martialed over - to summarise it - high treason, and lined up before a firing squad. The US losses in Iraq alone are based on betrayal and lies from their side, not to mention the chaos they unleashed in Iraq that has led to the death of a six digits number of people and the whole place beign messed up and descending in instability. They have not only caused the gates of chaos opening in Iraq, and have damaged the longtermed strategic interests of America and the whole West, but they have sent Americans for whom they were directly responsible, into death over nothing else but lies and foul excuses. As so often, the costs for American global "idealism" once again gets paid for by foreign people. By the hundreds of thousands.

I tell you what, idealism alone is simply not good enough. And when it is not kept in check by a strong sense of realism, than I rather prefer to have nothing to do with idealism alone at all. To say how one would wish the world to be, is one thing, and nothing wrong in saying so, it may help to form a better plan. But to act as if it were like that, is irresponsible. Look at the trail of chaos and war your country has left in history in the past 50 years or so. It speaks volumes.

That your country also is so eager to unnecessarily fight wars in a way that despite its military superiority it nevertheless suffers strategic defeats, is your own business, I admit. I can just stand and watch in bewilderment.

kranz

02-11-15, 08:59 AM

He didn't loose the elections, there was no referendum, impeachment procedure was not followed. Hence he was not pressed out of power legaly.
it was.
has the decision ever been legally questioned or ruled out? no, it hasn't.
technically speaking he was removed legally as no one has ever questioned it on the terms of the legal basis.

ikalugin

02-11-15, 09:13 AM

it was.
has the decision ever been legally questioned or ruled out? no, it hasn't.
technically speaking he was removed legally as no one has ever questioned it on the terms of the legal basis.
Considering that the constitutional court has been shuffled (another breach of constitution by the way) and all opponents violently silenced (by armed nationalists, for example various opposition parties and media outlets were purged) there was no legal opposition to this movement within the Ukraine.
Thus, as the procedure was not followed and anyone objecting was violently and undemocraticaly silenced I would say that getting Yanukovich out of the office was not a legal or democratic move.

The main problem that plagues Ukraine at the moment is not the war (after all it is localised in the south-east), or ramplant corruption due to rogue politicians getting into power (the actual corruption levels have increased, but then Ukraine has a long standing tradition of poor governance) or lack of reforms (which are demanded by the IMF) with resulting lack of money (either spent on war or stolen on not provided by external parties in the first place) - it is the lack of centralised and organised power.
Ie Ukraine is moving down to anarchy path of history (something that did happen during the dissolution of Russian empire), this is the biggest problem they face in my opinion, and this is the reason why they do so poorly in the war (lack of organisation and poor logistics is the killer).

CCIP

02-11-15, 09:38 AM

The Berlin Airlift for instance? By your theory we should just have let the whole city fall to the Russians, after all Berlin is a lot closer to Russia than it is to the US right?

See, if this was the analogy, I would be 100% behind this - but I don't see how this applies. The Berlin Airlift wasn't about supplying weapons to a third party, last I checked. In fact other than supplying the small and militarily-irrelevant Western garrison in Berlin that was agreed on with the Russians, those planes took virtually no military supplies into Berlin. What they brought instead was civil supplies, propping up the infrastructure and economy, bolstering morale, and allowing Berlin to survive independently while keeping a fair standard of living - even in the worst of circumstances. For all the temptation that there would've been to react militarily to the Russians' illegal actions in blocking the land corridors, the West didn't cave to it and instead pursued a route that was previously agreed on with the Russians, and though it first it made them ticked, ultimately it ended up de-escalating the situation by proving that Berlin would survive - not as a fortress, but as a civil entity. If there were an actual armed war over Berlin, it would be over in a day. Lesson in de-escalation to be learned there perhaps.

That's the kremlin's narrative which you believe in. Fortunately it has nothing to do with the reality.
Technically speaking Maidan had nothing to do with removing Yanukovich which was a purely democratic decision.
btw, you forgot to mention how Yanukovich wanted to suppress the protesters with the help of russian thugs. Was that even legal?

So let me get this straight: low approval ratings + claims by political opponents = constitutional mandate to overthrow government?

Let's see, Obama and Hollande have low ratings. You're not going to have trouble finding people (especially on the internet) who claim that Obama plans to send all American gun owners to FEMA death camps, or that Hollande works for the MOSSAD. Impeachment time!

I don't have any problem with the Maidan as a political protest, nor do I have an issue with the Orange side reflecting a real political need in the Ukraine. That's not the problem here - the problem is a lack of respect for constitutional principles. It was a political tantrum, and if we consider that praiseworthy, I worry about where Western constitutional democracy is heading.

August

02-11-15, 09:54 AM

Because you support these policies until today. You can complain about me if I would defend Nazi views.

I see enough similarities with your advocacy that Burmese leaders should have their families threatened with assassination if they don't act the way you believe they should. As well as your all encompassing hatred of Muslims and other brown skinned Auslanders. Can't have it both ways my friend.

Pointless regarding the context in which I gave it as a reply.No it's not, it's far more accurate than your badly thought out attempt at role reversal.

You call provoking somebody else, a "defence". You expect somebody else acting stupdily against his vital interests, so that your interests get boosted.The Berlin Airlift was provoking the Russians. Maintaining a bastion of freedom in the middle of a puppet country was definitely against their interests. You can ignore it but I think it illustrates my point quite nicely.

August

02-11-15, 10:06 AM

See, if this was the analogy, I would be 100% behind this - but I don't see how this applies.

Well if the Berlin Airlift isn't a good enough example for you CCIP then how about the 50 years or so we spent barring the Russians from extending their control over the rest of Europe? We armed the Bundeswehr with our weapons, we stationed troops and equipment on the borders of West Germany. Maybe we were wrong to do that given our relative distance from the Fulda gap compared to Russias. Seems so if we ever went by what Skybirds ideas of right and wrong.

kranz

02-11-15, 11:03 AM

So let me get this straight: low approval ratings + claims by political opponents = constitutional mandate to overthrow government?

0.2/10
his removal was voted in the ukrainian parliment - that is by direct representatives of the ukrainian nation. 73% of the MPs did NOT want him as the president. sure there were some 'constitutional issues' but it wasn't the minority who out-voted him but the majority. vox populi, vox dei. don't like democracy - move to russia. oh wait...

I don't have any problem with the Maidan as a political protest, nor do I have an issue with the Orange side reflecting a real political need in the Ukraine. That's not the problem here - the problem is a lack of respect for constitutional principles. It was a political tantrum, and if we consider that praiseworthy, I worry about where Western constitutional democracy is heading.
so, following your logic...Yanukovich was removed by undemocratic forces so he decided to find a refuge in the 'democratic paradise' of russia. right? right.
only because i don't want more infractions this month I will say: it doesn't hold water.

Skybird

02-11-15, 01:12 PM

I see enough similarities with your advocacy that Burmese leaders should have their families threatened with assassination if they don't act the way you believe they should.
Ah, we are at the point of the show where you once again become personally insulting, which was to be expected sooner or later.

Would you please quote the complete context in which I said that - I remember it all to well, but why should I do YOUR job of putting a quote in the correct way when you are only about spitting out some misleading agitation anyway in order to give me a bad name. Im really sick and tired of again and again needing to correct the ways you misquote me intentionally, to distort what I actually said and meant. Context is so important you know, but for you it often is simply unwelcomed. In this case it would give my statement somewhat a slightly different meaning that would slightly spoil it for you, but that's life...

As well as your all encompassing hatred of Muslims and other brown skinned Auslanders. Can't have it both ways my friend.
And more defaming agitation by you, underhanded cheater that you are. Where have I ever attacked people for being brown-skinned? where have I ever attacked Ausländer in general? I have such a differentiated view on migrants and have differentiated between migrant groups often and expressed and explained that so often, that again your verbal poison here only qualifies as agitation and lie. I also have often enough criticised the ideology of Islam, wich again you simply turn into "racism", which only shows how bancrupt your intellect really is on that matter.

No it's not, it's far more accurate than your badly thought out attempt at role reversal.
You can parrot yourself as often as you want. It remains to be a failed parade.

The Berlin Airlift was provoking the Russians. Maintaining a bastion of freedom in the middle of a puppet country was definitely against their interests. You can ignore it but I think it illustrates my point quite nicely.

No, it does not because you comfortably, as so very very often, ignore some details that would spil your picture of a story. Mainly that Germany was not a point of strong interest for the USSR only, but for the US as well. Some decades later you broke off an already almost won war and let a murderous tyrant in place, and handed him his helicopters while you watched when he massacred thousands and thousands of Shia that your secret service before had motivated to rebel and prmsied them help - and then betrayed them. That was because then it was not your interest to have "an airlift" or something, but to have Saddam in power and to have him cracking down on the Shia so that his claim for power would be more unchallenged again. Twenty years before it was in your interest to stage a war that costed one million people, mostly non-combatants, their lives, when trying to "save" their country by trying to destroy it.

Also, the US was in a very different stance towards the USSR during the Berlin criiss, than it is in over the ukraine, against Russia today. Not only is there no claim to lay in the Ukraine, no strategic value that goes beoind simnply getting closer on Russia and provoking it to react robustly, but the Wetsenr psoition is much weaker, and any military preparation that could threaten Russia there could be answered by Russia much faster and in a way that completely neutrlaises any Wetsern miliutary ambitions. NATO is too weak. And if they want Russia could overroll all of Ukrtaine in one sdweeping offence in a no lopnge rdi8sguised war between Russia and the ukraine. I said it before: if one wants to shorten the suffering of the people there, one of the two sides must be deafeted, and it is absurd to assume that that could be Russians/rebels. The sooner Kiev realises that the East is lost, the soner the Ukraine could get split, and the sooner stability could re-enter. And then one can start to make a deal with the Russians: the Western part leaning to the EU, the East to Russia, and no NATO membership, but neutrality. That may not rerd maximum idelaism. But it is realistic.

You accused me of appeasement before. There are quite strong financial sanctions in place, they will not make Russia stop in the forseeable future, because it has too big financial reserves still and as many money printers as Washington has, but they are fading, and foreign capital is fleeing the country as well as the wealth of own residents, which leaves the economy in increasing troubles, and very serious troubles. The fiscal and economic costs for Moscow are enormous, and are hampering their economy, and it will mount even more. All that is causing feedbacks for Western economies as well, especially Germany pays heavily since its was economcially so severely engaged in Russia. Our financial losses due to supporting the sanctions are dwarfing all and evertyhign that the US economy is risking in this, so for you Americans it is easy to demand more sanctions and more sacrifce - you risk little there, you have little to lose - we are footing the bill! In the face of the numbers we are refering to here, calling that "appeasement" is a bit rich. It is not boom-boom and bang-bang, certainly not that spectacular, but it makes the Russians pay. It does not stop them but it makes them pay, and they will pay dearly. Your demand for extending the war by arming Kiev's troops, will make the Russian pay much less, and will not stop them either.

You think it is just me telling you this. Not really just me . It is the British minister of defence who is quoted in an interview with a German newspaper today and whose remarks on the sanctions and the possibility of weapon deliveries I just summarized in the above, I have read them in German just an hour ago.

---

P.S.
Since I know by long experience that August never cares to take back his insulting misquotings, I do his homework for him. In a long ago discussion I said about the situation in Burma back then that it makes no sense to have a conflict always fought at the cost of the public but saving the leaders responsible for the conflict from the costs of the conflict, allowing them to go back to their families as if nothing happened, and enjoy their company while the slaughtering outside goes on. No war is fought as easily and carelessly as the war in which one must not participate in the suffering, but can leave the paying of the bill in pains only to others. I said that there also uses to be the trend in such leaders' families that they educate their offsprings in the mental attitude and spirit they act themselves by, so that after their death the son or daughter take over and continue the wickedness of their fathers. Prominent modern examples would be the Kims, Gaddafi's sons, and Saddam's sons - I wish they all would have been found by a falling allied bomb when they still were small and unable to commit any crimes, that would have saved quite some later victims of theirs. I proposed that therefore one should consider to not declare families of such leaders being immune from persecution and even threatening/targetting them by military strikes, in order to bring any such conflict closer to the personal experience of the responsible leader, and to deliver an warning example to others coming after them.

That is slightly different a reasoning than August's poisonous claim that I proposed to kill Burmesian leader's children if said leaders "do not do what I want them to do".

You're a malicious cheater, August. It was a mistake to again opening comm channels to you, since this is not the first time since then that again you try to stab me from behind. And that's why you now go back onto the ignore list of mine. And this time its forever.

Skybird

02-11-15, 01:14 PM

What a lovely couple. Think the two deserve each other.

http://www11.pic-upload.de/11.02.15/nzec2hgn1l.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-26110511/Unbenannt.jpg.html)

mapuc

02-11-15, 01:22 PM

(I have NONE on the ignore-list. We live in a democracy where we have free speech who goes both ways)

Heard something interesting on the news today

A journalist in USA said

Obama is monitoring the meeting in Minsk and if this meeting should fail Many republican wants to send weapon to Ukraine's military

Some said this could be a war between the US and Russia by proxy

Markus

CCIP

02-11-15, 01:31 PM

73% of the MPs did NOT want him as the president. sure there were some 'constitutional issues' but it wasn't the minority who out-voted him but the majority. vox populi, vox dei. don't like democracy - move to russia. oh wait...

The constitutional requirement for impeachment, at least as per the constitution that was active at the time, was for 3/4 of the parliament AND a review by Ukraine's supreme judiciary. Neither occurred. I don't doubt Yanukovich eventually would've been impeached regardless, but there's a matter of jumping the gun.

My logic isn't anything related and I don't know where you're getting this idea that I'm somehow a pro-Putin, pro-Russian-policy advocate here. I guess that's because anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong and supports "evil Russia". You know, you've accused another person of trolling in this thread, but I keep looking back and I only see one person - and one only - who takes both an unreasonable, uncritically biased position AND uses rhetorical tactics that amount to trolling, as in, provoking other members into escalating defensive responses. You've been trying to provoke ikalugin for a long time and I admire the fact that he's kept his cool. Now I'm not even sure why you're trying to provoke me, but you've been both unreasonable and rude. I'm sorry if this is just an effort to have a genuine discussion that's somehow not coming through, but somehow I don't think so. And I really don't appreciate that.

August

02-11-15, 02:19 PM

Schroeder

02-11-15, 02:31 PM

(I have NONE on the ignore-list. We live in a democracy where we have free speech who goes both ways)

Actually that's not the case. You have the right to speak but you don't have the right to be listened to or being taken serious. So it's not a two way right and everyone can decide to whom he wants to listen to and who he wants to ignore.

Oberon

02-11-15, 03:10 PM

Anyway, the real reason that the US and Russia are butting heads over the Ukraine is for control of 'The Zone'. :03:

Schroeder

02-11-15, 03:11 PM

Anyway, the real reason that the US and Russia are butting heads over the Ukraine is for control of 'The Zone'. :03:
Get out of here STALKER!:stare:

mapuc

02-11-15, 03:13 PM

Actually that's not the case. You have the right to speak but you don't have the right to be listened to or being taken serious. So it's not a two way right and everyone can decide to whom he wants to listen to and who he wants to ignore.

If you want to be taken serious then you should also let your opponent speak whatever you like the spoken words or not-That how I see it.

Lets go back on track again shouldn't we

Markus

Oberon

02-11-15, 03:21 PM

Get out of here STALKER!:stare:

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/713/512/c16.gif

Skybird

02-11-15, 04:46 PM

(I have NONE on the ignore-list. We live in a democracy where we have free speech who goes both ways
Wrong. this place is owned by Neal and his rules define what goes and what not. You have no right to slam into my living room if I do not allow it, and start holding speeches to me.

You can however try to gain legal "possession" of place and time, for example renting the city hall, hold an assembly and there hold your speech.

Get the difference? Like Oberon said, you have no right to demand others needing to listen to you. And you need to own the place and the time to freely speak.

Skybird

02-11-15, 05:23 PM

German media refer to Lavrow with saying the talks in Minsk go along "active", which would mean " better than super." There are growing rumours that a treaty could be signed tomorrow.

We will see.

If a treaty gets signed, it still needs to be obeyed, and that is the crux of the matter.

Rebel leaders also are in Minsk. Wowh. They say a seize firer would need 36 hours to come into effect along the whole front.

That Lavrow is voicing happiness with the talks so far also could be the result of the fact that any agreement Russia would find acceptable would mostly serve Russian interests, and if there is no agreement, it again serves Russian interests. They cannot lose anything in Minsk. And as Merkel said earlier last week: there is no scenario with or without weapon deliveries by the West that would impress Putin so much that he would fear that despite his superior military position he nevertheless could militarily lose this. He cannot.

Betonov

02-11-15, 06:01 PM

I like how he posts another wall of text at me then runs away so he gets the last word. What a baby he is.

Like playing chess with a pigeon.
Knocks over your king, poops on the table and then flies away to brag to kindred about his victory.

August

02-11-15, 06:58 PM

Like playing chess with a pigeon.
Knocks over your king, poops on the table and then flies away to brag to kindred about his victory.

Ok now THAT is funny! :)

Onkel Neal

02-11-15, 06:59 PM

The problem wasn't that thousands of people were protesting, the problem was that the protests eventually turned violent and completely shut out a different side to this conflict. There is a line between the Tea Party organizing an anti-Obama march in Washington, and the Tea Party staying on the Mall, forming a militia, and engaging in gunfights with the PD, Secret Service, FBI, DHS, or whoever else came to clear them out.

I'm not defending Yanukovich at all and I don't doubt for a second that protesting his regime's corruption, flaky policies, and poor decisions re: economic cooperation with Europe was a good cause. But there's a line. At the end of the day, thousands of loud angry people with support in parliament are still not "The People". The problem is that however you slice it, this was an unconstitutional way of creating government change, and it forever alienated what was, and still is, a very large population of the Eastern Ukraine that are less "pro-Russian" and more "pro-themselves". Just as anywhere, the point of constitutional government is to serve the interest of more than just one group or ideology. What would you say if the Tea Party one day stormed the White House and declared the president impeached? And I'd even agree that they'd have a point but still, that is not how you do things in a constitutional way.

That was the breakdown point in this crisis. It cut off constitutional means of resolving it within the Ukraine, and showed interested parties - including Russia - that they had to protect their interests with other means. I'm not even justifying those interests, but I have to agree with ikalugin there - this is where the escalation came from. And in this way, it absolutely does parallel many "regime change" scenarios where the West had acted no better than Russia, from the POV of international law, making it easy for Russia to help themselves to Crimea and act like it was their right.

I thought armed overthrow of the government was sort of business as usual in that part of the world? :-? Isn't that what Russia did in Georgia a few years back? But I understand your point, although it is a stretch imagining the Tea Party or any US group taking a shot at storming the WH, don't you agree?

So the escalation came from the overwhelming popular support of deposing a democratically elected head of state. I agree, that's not the best way to reorganize the government. Still, and I am not very up to speed on this, being from Texas and all, but still, this really looks like the Russian SOP. If Merkel is not able to put the brakes on Putin, I'm betting on tanks in Kiev by summer. I just hope Obama's timidness pays off for once and the US stays out of this mess.

Hey, I appreciate the time you take in your rebuttles, CCIP. I probably learn more about this situation from you, ikalugin, and kranz than I do from the mainstream media:up:

August

02-11-15, 07:17 PM

...although it is a stretch imagining the Tea Party or any US group taking a shot at storming the WH, don't you agree?

Oh I don't know about that. If the Feds were to start shooting at protestors and attacking them with armored vehicles like Yanukovychs goons did they just might.

Onkel Neal

02-11-15, 07:20 PM

:o Well, ok, yeah that's true! Is that what happened in Kiev?

Oh, and Sky, just because August doesn't agree with you and can match your arguments, is no reason to ignore him. You should give him some credit, he has a credible pov.

August

02-11-15, 07:26 PM

:o Well, ok, yeah that's true! Is that what happened in Kiev?

Oh yeah That and more. Far more ham fisted than the Feds have been since the Indian wars.

Onkel Neal

02-11-15, 07:36 PM

It's going to be ok, the Russian dictator is moving towards peace, according to Time. :yep:

Putin’s Push for Peace Renews Hopes for a Ceasefire in Ukraine

Throughout the conflict in eastern Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has tried hard to keep himself apart from the warring sides. He has neither met publicly with the leaders of Ukraine’s pro-Russian separatist rebellion nor engaged in a formal round of peace talks with their enemies in the Ukrainian government. The Kremlin, he insists, is not a party to the conflict. Which is what makes the latest round of peace talks feel weightier, if not also more hopeful, than the previous ones.

Yeah, wow. Little wonder so few trust the MSM. Time calls the pitch and it's a strike.

http://time.com/3704897/putin-peace-ukraine-minsk/

Skybird

02-11-15, 08:56 PM

I thought armed overthrow of the government was sort of business as usual in that part of the world? :-? Isn't that what Russia did in Georgia a few years back?
what what what? A Russian armed overthrow took place in Georgia? Tell me all about it! I recall it all so very different, with Saakashvili never having been out of office (to the great regret of his people whom he used clubs on later to keep them down and in line).

We had a long thread back in that year, on the Georgia war. You may want to look it up again despite its partial nastiness. I think ti even were several threads. History ran along a little different than what you indicate there. Even the tame and lame EU later found Saakashvili to have been the bad guy and liar. Why do you think he was avoided, and persona non grata since then?

And no, I am not ironic.

Skybird

02-11-15, 09:00 PM

It's going to be ok, the Russian dictator is moving towards peace, according to Time. :yep:

Yeah, wow. Little wonder so few trust the MSM. Time calls the pitch and it's a strike.

http://time.com/3704897/putin-peace-ukraine-minsk/

LINK: Maskirovka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maskirovka)

"Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan."
http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsT/39206-9042.gif

ikalugin

02-12-15, 02:57 AM

Actually we don't have a plan. The whole system is very subjective and is based on feeling the path that your superior wishes for.

kranz, CCIP has a valid point - technically impeachment was not conducted properly, so it was a violent and illegal/undemocratic take over of power.

P.s. I don't block anyone, as after all I am not forced to read the posts if I don't want to. And damn Skybird makes those text walls, they feel like a minefield encountered by an advancing tnk division.

ikalugin

02-12-15, 03:21 AM

Neal, CCIP is probably the most objectively balanced poster on this topic. I use his and Skybird's broad shoulders to hide behind :p.

That said, what we could try to discuss, is in which way the West could help the CTO Forces military and Ukraine in general, without considering the political long term consequences.

Oberon

02-12-15, 06:29 AM

they feel like a minefield encountered by an advancing tnk division.

Thank God for Captain du Toit!

http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/tanks/sherman/SH24.jpg

ikalugin

02-12-15, 06:43 AM

I use the superior devices of Soviet Design :P
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xfFA6J3UPdA/Uelt6Y3Nh1I/AAAAAAAAAg4/3hAd7crrffI/s1600/%25D0%25A2%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BA+%25D0%25A 2-34-85+%25D0%25BE%25D1%2581%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B0%25D1%2 589%25D0%25B5%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BD%25D1%258B%25D0%2 5B9+%25D1%2582%25D1%2580%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BB%25D0% 25BE%25D0%25BC+%25D0%259F%25D0%25A2-3%25D0%259C2.jpg

On topic - I heard that new Minsk agreements were signed. I wonder if Ukrainian leadership would be capable of honoring them.

kranz

02-12-15, 07:52 AM

Oh I don't know about that. If the Feds were to start shooting at protestors and attacking them with armored vehicles like Yanukovychs goons did they just might.
if I can add something: shooting Feds and North Korean snipers and thugs.
(Russian snipers and thugs killed/beat to death quite a few of the protestants)

Oleg Kuzminykh, the bald guy from the article/video is thrown (after he is lynched) into a car...with russian registration plates.
http://mw.ua/UKRAINE/captive-ukrainian-cyborg-is-lynched-in-donetsk-994_.html

ikalugin

02-12-15, 07:56 AM

Russian snipers firing out of the Maidan controlled buildings? Ok.

Lynched implies that he was murdered? Note, people in general are less than happy when they get bombarded. At least he was treated better than the separatists captured by loyalist forces (which are sometimes executed on the spot - remember that bucket video?).
Ahh, loyalists exchanging innocents ("without blood on their hands" - ie political prisoners) for their captured combat troops - yet another priceless move.

ikalugin

02-12-15, 08:02 AM

That said, I do wonder if Ukraine would be capable of honoring the new Minsk agreements, what ever they may be, as it has failed to do so with the previous ones (for example not leaving the air port, which they have agreed to transfer to separatists), especially with the growing inability to control their own troops (especially the volunteers, such as Azov and Aidar units).

kranz

02-12-15, 08:27 AM

The constitutional requirement for impeachment, at least as per the constitution that was active at the time, was for 3/4 of the parliament AND a review by Ukraine's supreme judiciary. Neither occurred. I don't doubt Yanukovich eventually would've been impeached regardless, but there's a matter of jumping the gun.

agreed. it was unconstitutional. the way communism ended in Poland in 1989 wasn't 'constitutional' either. Were Causescu and his wife executed in accordance with the constitution? Mubarak? Gaddafi? What they did was 'betray' their people. Yanukovich's case cannot be compared to the rest - because he was democratically out-voted which I already said. Call it unconstitutional - has anyone challenged this decision on the terms of its legal basis? No? Why didn't he stay and try to rescind the 'unconstitutional impeachment'? Hmm?
I agree that violating the constitution and making a precedent is not the best way to set standards...but hey, wasn't it russia who has been helping him from the very beginning? What was russia's role in suppressing the initial riots at Maidan? Hmm? Was it constitutional to ask a third party to resolve the inner issues of Ukraine (Schroeder's post above). The parliament clearly stated that the president was no longer able to fulfill his duties.

You've been trying to provoke ikalugin for a long time and I admire the fact that he's kept his cool.
what else could he do with his lies and hypocrisy? He denied that russia supported the separatists even though he was proven wrong several times by several people. After russia's involvement became so obvious that no one else in this thread could deny it, he started with another story of 'unconstitutional impeachment procedure which justified russia's intervention'. Really? Am I supposed to agree with that?
The place for liars and hypocrites is at the end of the bus.
I can even understand Skybird's way of thinking - that Ukraine is an artificial nation (which is historically true), therefore shouldn't exist. At least he doesn't deny russia's role in all that mess.

ikalugin

02-12-15, 08:45 AM

Except there was a legal impeachment procedure, which was not enacted.

Now, why did he flee, why there was no legal resistance? Because Maidan activists have violently seized power and removed opposition by the use of force.

Was there no interference by external parties during Maidan? No, there was both legal political pressure (for Yanukovich to buckle in) from the western parties and direct support for Maidan (financial, informational and so on).
I do note however how you avoid the issue of the original association agreement, I guess there is no need to show that it was not beneficial to Ukraine (was not preperly publically studied at all, even by the Rada), as it would undermine your views.

P.s. kranz, am I on your ignore list? Just checking :)

P.p.s. I (as an educated person) could consider and support (within a discussion) multiple views.

Skybird

02-12-15, 10:15 AM

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31359021

Old news painted in fresh colours. Check this thread from maybe spring last year. The theory that Yanukovich agents started to snipe on the Maidan, is questionable, to put it this way. Radio comm recordings seem to indicate that his security had nho clue on what was going on when the sniping started. The first shots came from buildings that at that time were under control by protesters, witnesses from the scene have confirmed. Thats the side that later claimed power for the new government that there is now.

Check this thread (150+ pages...) from earlier last year, maybe sometime during springtime, I believe I linked to it somewhere back then. But I am not certain.

It certainly was a very misty event, and I wonder whether we will ever get5 known the real truth of what happend when and why. Only that it has not been like Moscow, the West or Kiev claim - I think that we can take for granted.

kranz

02-12-15, 10:15 AM

50 russian tanks are reported to have crossed the ukrainian border while today's negotiations were in progress.:yeah:

Oberon

02-12-15, 10:35 AM

IIRC, it started in 29th November 2013 with protesters and the standard police, the police used tear gas since a handful of protesters tried to storm a government building, and the protesters used fireworks and tear gas in return.
A day or two later was when Berkut rocked up and started smashing heads in, and that then caused riots the next day and a public building to be occupied.
After that, that was when the occupation of Maidan began in earnest, and after that was when Yanukovych started seeking help from Russia, signing in anti-protest laws, and generally trying to use any method he could to crack down on the protests. It was after that the police began shooting protestors, two died on the 21st and 22nd January 2014 from being shot by the police.
Two days later three police were injured, and five days after that the Prime Minister resigned (he'd already narrowly avoided a vote of no confidence earlier in the month). Yanukovych then pulled a sickie until 4th Feburary, which enabled him to avoid meeting with protestors or sign in laws.
On the 18th February protesters advanced on parliament, hoping to force the repeal of the anti-protesting law, and the next day a state of emergency was declared, and the Minister of Internal Affairs declared that he had signed authorisation of live ammunition to be used on the protesters, and Sergei Lavrov arrived in Kiev to see how secure the Russian embassy was, although no-one from the embassy met him, so chances are his mission was to see how stable Yanukovych was and to prepare for what was to come next.
On the 21st February, Yanukovych and parliament declared the 22nd and 23rd as days of mourning...and then he disappeared along with many of his ministers, around the same time that Klitchsko announced that he was going to vote for a no-confidence bill against Yanukovych. The bill was indeed unconstitutional, but since Yanukovych had already fled to Russia by this point it really didn't matter anymore.
Did he flee because he feared for his life? Undoubtedly, by the 21st of February it was clear that his days were numbered, he'd clung to power as long as he could but he was now isolated and his base was gone. At this point it really didn't matter what was constitutional or not because even if he'd have stayed, he would have been removed, either by the army, or eventually though a constitutional movement.
To be honest, when Yanukovych fled, officially the Euromaidan group wasn't actually in power (Klitschko was still in opposition), but the mob was close to storming and removing him by force if required, so he definitely was time limited, but he was still in power when he fled to Russia, chances are Lavrov got a message through to him that his time was up and it would be better to flee to Russia than to go down trying to have the Euromaidan group shot and then have the police and army turn on him.

Yes, it was a coup, and Yanukovych could have avoided it if he had reacted differently to the Euromaidan movement, rather than confronting it head on. Honestly, having come to power in a popular uprising himself he should have known better. :nope:

Oberon

02-12-15, 10:43 AM

Check this thread (150+ pages...) from earlier last year, maybe sometime during springtime, I believe I linked to it somewhere back then. But I am not certain.

The actual Maidan protests last until about page 3 or 4 of this thread, I believe.

Onkel Neal

02-12-15, 11:49 AM

what what what? A Russian armed overthrow took place in Georgia? Tell me all about it! I recall it all so very different, with Saakashvili never having been out of office (to the great regret of his people whom he used clubs on later to keep them down and in line).

We had a long thread back in that year, on the Georgia war. You may want to look it up again despite its partial nastiness. I think ti even were several threads. History ran along a little different than what you indicate there. Even the tame and lame EU later found Saakashvili to have been the bad guy and liar. Why do you think he was avoided, and persona non grata since then?

And no, I am not ironic.

Ok, my error, I was thinking of the Georgian revolution me and Brian Williams led... sorry:doh:

ikalugin

02-12-15, 12:04 PM

50 russian tanks are reported to have crossed the ukrainian border while today's negotiations were in progress.:yeah:
.... By the same man that claimed the use of tactical nuclear weapons? Ahh, I was mistaken, he was talking about the Cheburashka systems (and other such pearls, I could present them if need be), it was the other guy who was talking about tactical nuclear weapons.

Skybird

02-12-15, 12:46 PM

The actual Maidan protests last until about page 3 or 4 of this thread, I believe.

No, it was from some time after the events, could have been weeks or months later. It was not before some time has passed, that the radio records were published and eye witnesses also gave descriptions, the latter was what was focussed on most.

It did not make the news during the time when the Maidan events actually happened. Obviously. Such things always get revealed later on only, rarely only when they happen. But I am not scanning some dozen thread pages now. Maybe it even was a separate thread I linked it in. Anyway, it got ignored back then in the West (although it was material researched by Wetsern journalists, not Russian propaganda only) , and it will be ignored today as well. The Kiev government today must be painted in bright colours only, if you are about to throw billions and billions of Western tax payers' money after them. Thats what the minimum compromise from yesterday (if it holds, which is a very big "if") will cost us: dozens of billions.

Thank God we have gold like hay...

Onkel Neal

02-12-15, 06:42 PM

what what what? A Russian armed overthrow took place in Georgia? Tell me all about it! I recall it all so very different, with Saakashvili never having been out of office (to the great regret of his people whom he used clubs on later to keep them down and in line).

We had a long thread back in that year, on the Georgia war. You may want to look it up again despite its partial nastiness. I think ti even were several threads. History ran along a little different than what you indicate there. Even the tame and lame EU later found Saakashvili to have been the bad guy and liar. Why do you think he was avoided, and persona non grata since then?

And no, I am not ironic.

Ok, I had to go refamilairize myself with this issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Russo-Georgian_War), re: overthrow, I was thinking about something else, but it was another territory grab by Russia.

August

02-12-15, 06:47 PM

I doubt that Russia will take over all of the Ukraine. I'm sure they won't want Chernobyl back for instance.

ikalugin

02-12-15, 11:34 PM

I doubt that Russia will take over all of the Ukraine. I'm sure they won't want Chernobyl back for instance.
Most of that area is actually safe now b/c of the half life of the isotopes released.

Onkel Neal

02-13-15, 12:10 AM

That's good to hear. :yep:

ikalugin

02-13-15, 01:57 AM

Ok, I had to go refamilairize myself with this issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Russo-Georgian_War), re: overthrow, I was thinking about something else, but it was another territory grab by Russia.
Actually aggression by Georgia against Russia, followed by swift fired disarmament. You should read the report by the EU fact finding mission :)

To clarify - land grab assumes that a party increases it's influence over a given territory, does it not? What happened there was Georgia (with US/NATO support) trying to change the status quo (and it actually managed to do so in Adjaria) and commiting an act of aggression against Russia in the process (by bombarding Russian peacekeepers who were stationed there legaly).

Note, Georgian peacekeepers have participated in that act of aggression, which is an interesting way to use peacekeepers.

Betonov

02-13-15, 03:06 AM

Most of that area is actually safe now b/c of the half life of the isotopes released.

I heard tourism is booming the last few years [NOT sarcasm].

ikalugin

02-13-15, 03:10 AM

I heard tourism is booming the last few years [NOT sarcasm].
Yes, you could legaly visit the place.

Back on track:
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/dragon_first_1/72271520/85440/85440_original.jpg

Betonov

02-13-15, 04:57 AM

Who's blue, who's red.
The frontlines are a bloby mess, can't deduct

ikalugin

02-13-15, 06:34 AM

If you are reading a Russian military tradition map - then the friendlies are red and the enemies are blue.

Map depicts the cauldron at debaltsevo.

Betonov

02-13-15, 06:43 AM

So Ukraine red, rebels blue.

Skybird

02-13-15, 06:47 AM

Actually aggression by Georgia against Russia, followed by swift fired disarmament. You should read the report by the EU fact finding mission :)

To clarify - land grab assumes that a party increases it's influence over a given territory, does it not? What happened there was Georgia (with US/NATO support) trying to change the status quo (and it actually managed to do so in Adjaria) and commiting an act of aggression against Russia in the process (by bombarding Russian peacekeepers who were stationed there legaly).

Note, Georgian peacekeepers have participated in that act of aggression, which is an interesting way to use peacekeepers.

Also note that the Abkhazians wanted to secede from the Georgians since 1989 when the Soviet Union broke apart. The relation between the Abkhazians and Georgians always has been a difficult one over the centuries even when "united" in a shared kingdom, it became difficult at the latest when the Abkhazians converted to Islam and the majoriy of Georgians stays Christian. The latter dominated the first for longer times, and sometimes even by violence, discrimination also often played a role in their shared history, unfortunately. The Abkhazians had good reason not wanting to stay with the Georgians when Georgia turned from a Soviet republic into a sovereign state, they had been given Georgians' fists not rarely in history.

As a libertarian I always support the natural right of any regional people/population to decide all by themselves whether they want to secede from a national union with others, and if that union claims the right to nevertheless dominate and subjugate them to own administration and ruling, this simply is declaring the one people as property of the other, in other words: its slavery and occupation then. I would have accepted the Scots becoming indipendent, if they would have voted that way. I support the Catalunian people wanting to secede form Spanish rule. I would support Bavaria if it votes vor seceding from the Federal Republic, and I would wish Texas all the best if Texas would want to leave the American Union.

The only thing that goes not is if the seceding faction demands others to finance it if it cannot maintain itself. That's one of the two reasons why I am against an experiment like Kosovo. If the people of another country (the people footing the bill, not the government only!) voluntarily decide to finance a seceding faction, than its not my business, however. But I have a big problem with political leaders for very basic and principal reasons anyway. I do not even tolerate their useless and antisocial parasitical caste to exist.

There is no moral legitimation and no natural right whatever to force people under your rule if they do not want to join or stay in a union with you, that simple it is. The Russians did not had to grab territory in Abkhazia, for the regional population there wanted even to join Russia all by themselves, voluntarily, as an autonomous province of Russia, like it was for them under Soviet rule, which gave them some form of distance and protection from Georgian discrimination. Something that the Kremlin did not accept that way, but it took the invitation to turn Abkhazia into a kind of Russia-protected befriended state. It also was a warning shot against NATO once again trying to take a grab (!) in the Caucasus.

The big boss giving autonomy to a sub region, means little if that sub region does not want just autonomy, but independence, giving it autonomy does not buy the big boss any moral legitimation to keep them in a union by force with that autonomy. Any constitution, treaty or law that claims the right that one people may force another people into a union that it does not want, naturally is invalid, and morally impotent anyway.

Georgia is Christian, mostly orthodox, by roughly 90%, 10% of the people are Muslim. I do not know if those numbers reflect the status before or after the Abkhazian secession.

Oberon

02-13-15, 06:57 AM

Hmmm, looks like the fiercest fighting there is going to be around Hill 303.4 (assuming that they are hill numbers), that's quite a pocket that the Ukrainian forces have found themselves in.

(Blue is Ukrainian forces, red are separatists by the looks of it)

Estimates of several thousand Ukrainian forces trapped in the cauldron, and despite several attempts by the forces outside of it, they are still stuck there.
Can you say 'kessel'? :03:

I wager that the 15th will come and go and fighting will still carry on around this point, there is no way the separatists are going to want to let this advantage go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7kxFIBSKhk

ikalugin

02-13-15, 07:02 AM

So Ukraine red, rebels blue.

This is a pro separatists source. Thus separatists are red and loyalists are blue.

Betonov

02-13-15, 07:11 AM

This is a pro separatists source. Thus separatists are red and loyalists are blue.

And that's why maps need a short explanation and a key :stare:
I can read Cyrillic and didn't had a clue.

ikalugin

02-13-15, 07:11 AM

Operon, the separatists destroyed the loyalist's ammunition dump in Debaltsevo cauldron (and this did produce a mushroom cloud). We would see how the cauldron reduction would work out, it appears that loyalists tend to cluster their forces in urban areas and lack meaningful control of surrounding terrain (allowing the separatist's subversion groups to operate there and making division of cauldron simpler). And after all maybe separatists do have burritos.

Skybird

02-13-15, 07:15 AM

No matter the Kessel battle, I pout little faith only into the Minsk agreement anyway. I doubt it is worth the paper it is written on. And Putin has won anyway. With such an agreement, and without it as well. He even did not need to pull somebody over the table, that he could only win in any scenario during those talks was clear from beginning on anyway. That's why he was so relaxed and all others so tensed.

What did Lavrow say during a break? Things go "better than super". :)

ikalugin

02-13-15, 07:21 AM

I wonder if those agreements allows foreign instructors in Ukraine, including those from NATO states.

Skybird

02-13-15, 07:26 AM

Just in German news: after the return of American Abrams combat units to Germany has been confirmed to be completed until summer, it now gets reported that the Americans are sending back the first squadron of A-10Cs to Germany as well.

Like the Abrams tanks, the A-10 had been withdrawn from Germany completely some years ago.

I expect a rise in US interceptors in Germany or Poland as well.

However, I think that at least parts of these units should move even further to the east, to Central Poland, Western Hungary and Western Slovakia. And the three Baltic states should be given a boost in heavy infantry.

Skybird

02-13-15, 07:29 AM

I wonder if those agreements allows foreign instructors in Ukraine, including those from NATO states.
You couldn't prevent it anyway. Lets not demand what cannot be controlled anyway.

I am certain that there are Russian weapon platform specialists and instructors among the separatists and Western intel support for the Ukraine right now, and that there will be more NATO training missions for Kiev soon.

ikalugin

02-13-15, 07:37 AM

My point is - how do we interpret the part of the agreement regarding the removal of foreign mercenaries and troops?

Would NATO instructors (Intel specialists) constitute a breach of the agreement? If no, then what kind of Russian presence would be seen as a such breach?

Dowly

02-13-15, 07:44 AM

@Betonov, this might be a bit clearer: http://liveuamap.com/

ikalugin

02-13-15, 07:54 AM

http://news.kremlin.ru/ref_notes/4804
Text in Russian (I am not sure if there are reputable originals in other languages). Note the point 10:
- all foreign troops (and mercenaries) and equipment are to be removed from Ukraine, all illegal armed groups disarmed.

Now, while it does imply that -all- (ie both Russian and Western) troops and equipment items, as well as all non legalised units are to be removed, there is the matter of the VSN (Armed Forces of Novorossiya).
The problem there is that the second last point means that the local authorities (ie the separatists) have a right to form "people's militia" and the local legislation passed by separatists allows the police to have all sorts of systems. Hence (in my opinion, after all I am no student of the law) there is a loophole that the VSN may use, while retaining all of their equipment.

Oberon

02-13-15, 08:17 AM

I wager both sides will just train their respective allies over the border. :03:

ikalugin

02-13-15, 08:36 AM

I wager both sides will just train their respective allies over the border. :03:
This would result in the west blaming Russia on being the sole party violating the agreements and increasing the sanctions.

kranz

02-13-15, 08:47 AM

Well, so far only russians have been so dumb as... to:
-get caught on the ukrainian side
-get recorded on the ukrainian side
-record themselves saying 'hey mummy, we are here in ukraine fighting <s>for mother russia</s> against the faschists'
-post their selfies on facebook 'i'm here in ukraine fighting <s>for mother russia</s>against the faschists'
-forget to remove markings from the equipment
-forget to leave military service books on the russian side of the border
-forget to leave their dog tags on the russian side of the border
-forget to leave their passports (passports? rly? :har::har::har:)
-and so on, and so forth

Now, NATO 'soldiers' and 'intel' specialists:
-?

Call me biased but I have yet to see a recording, passport, dog tag, or ANY OTHER FRIGGING (no apologies for the caps) kind of proof they are in ukraine.
No? Hmm? Anything? Still nothing? Maybe a footprint? A fibre from a NATO uniform? A sample of semen? NATO marking? Youtube vid? Satellite photos of NATO vehicles?

Oberon

02-13-15, 08:48 AM

This would result in the west blaming Russia on being the sole party violating the agreements and increasing the sanctions.

That would not surprise me. :dead:

kranz

02-13-15, 09:08 AM

It doesn't surprise me that russia is the ONLY side (except for ukraine and the separatists) involved in the conflict.

ikalugin

02-13-15, 09:12 AM

It doesn't surprise me that russia is the ONLY side (except for ukraine and the separatists) involved in the conflict.
I guess you do read my posts after all. By the way, did you ever consider that a lot of "evidence" provided by the Ukrainian side was simply fabricated? For example the documentation they "Founded" in allegedly Russian APC stated that it had a single mechanic-driver, a female, over multiple conscription periods, who happened not to be a driver mechanic at the time (actually working in unrelated storage facility, seen from the articles prior to the war).

If you so inquire I could provide examples of falsified evidence on every single point you made.

As to the NATO specialists, what kind of presense are you talking about? If you clarify, then I could begin responding to your post factually and not with empty accusations.

On topic - why is Russia considered the sole non Ukrainian (loyalist or separatist) side to this conflict?

Onkel Neal

02-13-15, 09:44 AM

Because, there are Russian troops and equipment in the conflict, but not German, UK, or US?

I guess it depends on the news sources one is listening to. I'm hearing that on just about everything.

ikalugin

02-13-15, 10:08 AM

Because, there are Russian troops and equipment in the conflict, but not German, UK, or US?

I guess it depends on the news sources one is listening to. I'm hearing that on just about everything.
Okay, some clarifications.

What kind of troops are we talking about? Specialists/volunteers or regular en mass ground forces?

Otherwise, would it be helpful if I would look for evidence towards NATO countries participating in those categories?

CCIP

02-13-15, 10:13 AM

Likewise, there are many foreign volunteers in the Ukrainian volunteer battalions. We even had one right here on the forum. Now, they're not necessarily there on approval from their country, but I think it's a little premature to say there's no foreigners or foreign weapons involved there. In actuality, there is a lot. There are even a couple of all-foreign units fighting in the Ukrainian side.

kranz

02-13-15, 10:42 AM

comparing a regular army, taking part in military aggression in a sovereign country, supported by heavy gear, with (alleged) mercenaries, volunteer battalions...
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/fry-not-sure.gif

In actuality, there is a lot
obviously you have seen it and will link us all the proofs 'in a moment'. Right? Right.

Betonov

02-13-15, 10:53 AM

@Betonov, this might be a bit clearer: http://liveuamap.com/

Uh, nice.

Check the area around Frankfurt, British tank destroyes German garden :rotfl2:

CCIP

02-13-15, 10:56 AM

not very hard to find, here's an example. numerous links and examples there. Large portions of the Azov and Aidar battalions are foreign, and they're organized to keep foreign volunteers in same units for better cohesion. These are organized units. Both, particularly Azov, have significant heavy weapons support, and are certainly officially backed by VSU

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/6531154

Notice that I neither denied anything about Russian troops or units, nor suggested that they're doing some noble work there. But neither are the foreign volunteers on the other side. I've zero sympathy for them and I think what they're doing is in itself both criminal and counter-productive

Can you kindly stop trolling me please? thank you

kranz

02-13-15, 11:22 AM

(ie both Russian and Western) troops and equipment items, as well as all non legalised units are to be removed,
he differentiated between legalized and non-legalized.

Legalized:
-russian
-western (proofs? :har:)

non-legalized
-?

Likewise, there are many foreign volunteers in the Ukrainian volunteer battalions.

Legalized volunteers? A new category of an army unit? They volunteer but they are given orders from their government..that's NEW I must say.

A linguist who has never heard of oxymorons...

Can you kindly stop trolling me please? thank you
tro..what?
isn't it forbidden in the rules of the forum to tell others what to do or not to do?
I know that your (plural) narrative has been shattered into tiny pieces and you are pretty much left with false accusations of trolling and whatnot but there are still some questions/requests you can answer.
Western (legalized) troops for example.

Dowly

02-13-15, 11:28 AM

@Kranz

Do you have ANY concrete proof to back up anything you say?

I am still waiting you to translate the key parts from the polish article saying Tornado system was used in Kramatorks.

Dont get me wrong, Kranz, I do believe Russia has her hands on this, but to what extent? I do not know and the propaganda is so thick on both sides that
it needs to be concrete proof before I believe any of it.

CCIP

02-13-15, 11:47 AM

as per Google dictionary

make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

how do you expect me to respond when you keep insulting my intelligence? Why do you have a monopoly on truthful narrative in this scenario? I'm not sure why. I'm not asking for agreement, just respect and consideration in debate tactics. You'd think someone with academic background in history and international law, personal experience with modern Russia, and extensive contact with Ukraine and Ukrainians is allowed to have a viewpoint.The main reason I'm still involved in this discussion at all is because I care about what's going on. I have friends and relatives caught up in this conflict, and I certainly wouldn't characterize them as pro-Russian. If nothing else, my paternal surname is Pripechko, and a portion of my background is not just Ukrainian, but even Western catholic Ukrainian.

I'm certainly not claiming to be a spokesman for Ukrainians or for truth here, and I'm not interested in promoting a narrative - I'm just trying to make sense of the situation. But I'm certainly no spokesman for Putin's policies or anything of the sort, and I'm not sure where you got this idea. How many times do I have to say that before you cool down and learn to disagree without being insulting and condescending?

ikalugin

02-13-15, 01:29 PM

I think a moderator needs to take a look at this.

Onkel Neal

02-13-15, 02:22 PM

It can't be me, I'm knee-deep in this discussion. :88)

And I probably shouldn't be. I don't have much time to spend searching the net and reading different sources to compare. I get 90% of my news during the day while driving and listening to NPR, CNN, BBC, and Fox, in that order. I won't try to say there is 100% accuracy or zero "propaganda" with those sources, we all know who Dan Rather, Diane Rehm, and Brian Williams are. But, I will say that I would be willing to bet as for propaganda, they are much lower than anything coming from Russia or Eastern Europe. When I was a young man, I always heard that we in the US had it good, and the life under communism was difficult and often dangerous. I always wondered how much of that was bs and propaganda, the "we are better" mentality based on self-interest and national ego. When I got the chance to travel to Russia and spend a month there in 1993, I found out most of what I grew up hearing was spot on. And many of the Russians I met and got to know told me they had grown up hearing how life in the US was difficult, and dangerous, and how the rich oppressed the poor, etc. They grew to see their propaganda dissolve before the reality.

So, I don't know what is actually happening on the ground in Ukraine, I'm not there, and I don't have a real interest in the outcome, except it would be nice to see an outcome based on justice and equality where people can be free. Russia really seems to have a tough time dealing with people wanting out of their sphere of influence. Just keep me in mind when the day comes that Texas decides to bolt from the USA, ok? Sneak us some tanks across the Louisiana border.:shucks:

mapuc

02-13-15, 02:43 PM

we should ask us self this question

Who has the biggest benefit in using propaganda ?

Markus

Skybird

02-13-15, 02:54 PM

It helps to remember what Russian interests are. Russian interests are to influence the Ukraine in a certain fashion, but in a way and by choice of tools that make it difficult to hold Russia responsible by showing a photo with a bear that holds a smoking gun.

Therefore, while Ukrainian reports on Russian tank columns being wiped out by brave Ukrainian defenders at the border, nuclear weapons being used and Russian passports collected from prisoners must be taken with caution (as proven by repeated bad experience), it is believable to assume that probably no regular Russian army troops are engaged in the Ukraine, but that weapons and platforms get delivered. It also is reasonable to assume that the more complicated of these platforms, especially air defences, cannot be operated by separatist militias and veterans, but are operated by Russian specialist that wear no Russian uniforms while doing so. Probably there also are Russian advisers, trainers and instructors, maybe intel officers. Maskirovka.

But regular Russian army companies or batallions? That is where for me it starts to become unbelievable.

Its a pity that the Western intel services will never easily release any undisputable photographic evidence demasking the Russian maskirovka, evidence Western politicians claim to have, but do not present in order to not reveal what their satellites and sensors are capable of. Such evidence would make many things much easier - either for the one or the other side.

This also is a _ unintended - message in itself from the West to the Ukraine, and it says that the Ukraine is not important enough for the West as if it would compromise its recce assets over it and tell the Russian side what their spying platforms in space and on the ground can do, and what not.

It's sometimes said: "follow the money". Regarding the Ukraine war I say: "Follow the Russian interest". Understanding Putin's interest (not the interest we would wish him to have!) can help you to understand what claims regarding events are more and what claims are less believable. Also kaep on mind that Russia will abuse inviting weaknesses presented to it. To know about such weaknesses of the Ukraine, also can tell you where the Russians are more likely to act.

What they want is to avoid being surprised with a smoking hand in their gun, and they do not want to give up formal legitimation of their doing, even if it indeed is only formal, and an alibi only. They want to prevent stability and unity and a strong Ukraine, and they want a lasting influence in Ukrainian inner politics, so that the Ukraine will already find it difficult to join even just the EU - but will not be accepted into NATO for sure. And finally they do not want to end up needing to pay for larger parts of the Ukraine. Indeed they want the West to also pay for the separatists' territories, except the Crimean, obviously. As I see it, these priorities dictate their actions and decisions. There is ZERO common ground with the West on all this, and that is why it all comes down to one simple question: who has the stronger muscle and the bigger club and the longer breath. The West's chances are grim, it cannot prevent any of these Russian plans, it can only make their realisation more costly for Russia.

Lets face it, the Russians are the strongest player at the table. This should be considered before carelessly helping to extend the conflict and the population's suffering. A Russian defeat is so unlikely that I do not waste any thought on it, so I must conclude that Kiev must suffer a defeat before the following order can add stability as a precondition for ending the misery. That is realism. Sympathy for Putin or Russian politics has nothing to do with it. Stomping with one's feet on the ground in emotional indignation, is meaningless and does nothing.

ikalugin

02-13-15, 03:19 PM

Skybird, you assume that Russia is pro active in this crisis, which it is not.

The key Russian interest in that whole affair was and is:
- securing western frontier.

This is vital as the only country on that frontier that is not in NATO (or does nor plan to enter it) is Belorussia. The Ukrainian events made us to begin a change in basing of our military units - that border was largely undefended (as Ukraine was seen as a state that was either friendly or neutral).

This is consistent with the terms presented by Lavrov through the conflict - they allow for a neutral Ukraine.
Thus, if there were certain guarantees that Ukraine would remain neutral buffer zone (ie would not be accepted into NATO by NATO), then Russia would have no reason to support the Donbas separatists and would cut them loose.
Otherwise we must ensure that there is that buffer zone, by defeating the new puppet regime through direct invasion if need be, as for us the enroachment and aggressive western posture (which began not in 2014, but in 2013 and earlier, with Magnitsky case and such). We won't allow another 1941 to happen and would strike first if need be.

The key mistake that is made (in my opinion) by western diplomats is that they do not seek to make real diplomacy, but rather try to force their terms onto other parties by applying pressure. Agreements created in such a way would never be stable.

mapuc

02-13-15, 03:30 PM

This is copied, translatet from The Danish news side DR.

"US: Russia move heavy weapons into Ukraine

Counterproductive to the recent peace agreement moves Russia heavy weapons to Eastern Ukraine, says the US State Department.

It is clearly not of the spirit of this week's agreement, says the US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki at a news conference.

US intelligence shows according to Jen Psaki that Russia has drawn heavy artillery and multiple rocket launch systems around the Ukrainian city Debaltseve where they bombards Ukrainian positions.

- We are convinced that it is the Russian military, not the separatists systems, says Psaki."

Markus

Skybird

02-13-15, 04:05 PM

ikalugin,

of course Russia is as pro active as it can be short of declaring a formal state of war...! I know that Putin insists on Russia being not seen as a side in this conflict. He lies, that simple. It is not just Kiev versus the separatists, it is Kiev versus the separatists plus Russia. It always was. It just tries extremely hard, and for the most successful, to hide that and to deceive the public over it. That also is maskirovka.

CCIP

02-13-15, 11:22 PM

I would agree that Russia is proactive, although it's more opportunist and inclined to play geopolitical games than having some sort of imperial master plan. I don't think Russia's involvement is helping and I'd like to see a ceasefire that would be adhered to and that would remove direct and eventually indirect Russian support. Anything that helps de-escalation is good.

I think propaganda is a two way game. Beyond that, another point I keep trying to make is that this is not a conflict that pooped out of nowhere - I'd been predicting a collapse and risk of civil war in Ukraine for more than 10 years now. And it wasn't because of Russia - it's because of Ukraine's flawed model of statehood and nationhood. The Yanukovich and the Yuschenko/Timoshenko sides are equally guilty of it. I don't trust either Tzar Putin or Willy Wonka in this, and certainly not the right wing Ukrainian extremists nor the very questionable separatists. These are all generating propaganda, compounded by further political bias in the media that reports it elsewhere. I'm happy some people here have such confidence in their sources, but if a militant Russia is the ONLY problem they're seeing, I urge you to reconsider, especially if the solution to it is supposed to be military support for the other side. Help stop the fighting, not escalate it; help the Ukrainian government resolve its problems of federalization, not erase them. And for crying out loud, acknowledge that maybe giving arms to paramilitary groups with dubious affiliations is not the best idea. Want to be better than Russia? Act like it. Don't buy into propaganda and don't do the same thing they're doing.

And Neal, no offense, but I find in far more extensive personal experience in the US that American beliefs about Russians are probably more warped and influenced by propaganda than the average Russian's. At least Russians are amply exposed to native depictions from American popular media, whereas most Americans seem to learn about Russians through their stereotypical depictions in the same American media which have little to do with any reality.

CCIP

02-14-15, 01:53 AM

As to my beef with the issue of "let's send arms to Ukraine! support democracy!" - I just find it incredibly cynical and inhumane. All I see is just another example of "at least he's our S.O.B.", a bad old policy that's failed so many times for the US in particular, I'm aghast it's even still on the table. That's not how you build a "bastion of democracy". All you build that way is a bastion of S.O.Bs.

You want to help Ukraine? First of all, push through a real ceasefire. Stop the bloodshed. Forget about Russia, Crimea, the eastern breakaway regions etc. for a moment. The Russians are not coming to Kiev anytime soon, they're not that stupid. Don't give weapons to militias that are barely under anyone's control. Don't throw cash sums at a corrupt government. Instead, buy Ukrainian wheat. Buy Ukrainian coal. Buy Ukrainian manufactured goods. Buy more of them, at better prices than Russia ever paid. Make it easier for them to get to your market and enjoy access to all the things you enjoy, at reasonable cost.Invest in Ukrainian industries of all sorts.Hire Ukrainian workers. Make it easier for Ukrainians to get working visas. Subsidize Ukrainian innovation. Ukrainians don't need your darn weapons - the Ukraine has one of the world's best qualified and experienced munitions industries, which is only a little rusty for mismanagement and misuse. Ukraine has one of the world's most capable aerospace industries. Ukraine has a lot of highly qualified professionals without jobs, and high quality products without buyers. Change that. Help them succeed.
And you know what'll happen next? The east and Crimea will be begging to come back to the Ukraine. It'll give countries in the neighborhood, including Russia, something to aspire to.

The problem is that this clamouring to send weapons, this desire to see Russia beaten, isn't helping anyone except possibly Russia. Nobody wants to buy Ukrainian goods (except, ironically, Russians); everybody has enough problems with jobs of their own to help Ukrainians. You want to know why the East and Crimea have fallen to Russian influence? Look at their economic output. Look who'd been buying their goods. Look where their unemployed skilled labour mainly goes for temp migrant work. I'll give you a hint: really big country, starts with R. So what's the answer you give - send weapons, really? At best, it shows a desire to just use Ukraine as a buffer to keep a deadlock against Russian-backed separatists. At worst, it's just a cynical desire for Ukrainians to kill each other and maybe some Russians too, just to stay busy and relevant. I find that kind of thinking reprehensible.

The Ukraine is not a poor little country. It's a highly developed, big, diverse place with a lot of potential. It's not your personal buffer against Russia. It's problem is not it's people. Its problem is not separatism or foreign occupation. It's problem is horrid mismanagement and an inability to adapt itself to 21st century realities, whether economic or political. The way to fix that is to stop the violence and help Ukraine succeed economically, infrastructurally, as a civic system with a confident, secure, diverse population who feel at home and feel like they're valued and listened to. So, value them. Listen to them. Don't turn them into cannon fodder for your stupid (or Putin's stupid, or whoever else's stupid) war. How difficult is that?

Betonov

02-14-15, 02:43 AM

I would agree that Russia is proactive, although it's more opportunist and inclined to play geopolitical games than having some sort of imperial master plan.

My opinion also.

It would be naive to think Russians arent' helping the rebel side, but I doubt they had a master plan all along.

Onkel Neal

02-14-15, 09:21 AM

And Neal, no offense, but I find in far more extensive personal experience in the US that American beliefs about Russians are probably more warped and influenced by propaganda than the average Russian's. At least Russians are amply exposed to native depictions from American popular media, whereas most Americans seem to learn about Russians through their stereotypical depictions in the same American media which have little to do with any reality.

No offense taken, my friend. :salute: I just have my experiences from living in the US 35 years and then going to see Russia for myself, and finding all that I had been told in those 35 years was true. Which beliefs did you find warped? What stereotypical depictions did you encounter, from whom (what kind of Americans? Southern, Northern? City dwellers? Workers? College people? Curious here.) Are you saying Pravada was a more reliable source of factual information than the Washington Post or the Economist?

ikalugin

02-14-15, 05:06 PM

There is a difference between being reactive (in eastern Ukraine the events were shaped not by Kremlin, but by separatists and Kiev loyalists), or opportunists (Crimea) and being pro active, ie shaping the events the way you want them.

The main reason why Putin has the decrease in popularity is not because of sanctions, but because he is not pro active in this conflict.

Oberon

02-14-15, 05:40 PM

President Poroshenko has declared a ceasefire across Ukraine.

Onkel Neal

02-14-15, 05:47 PM

Let's hope it holds and all the parties can reach a resolution.

Oberon

02-14-15, 05:56 PM

Let's hope it holds and all the parties can reach a resolution.

Aye, fingers crossed. I'm not holding my breath, but we'll see. :hmmm:

CCIP

02-14-15, 06:06 PM

Skybird

02-14-15, 06:42 PM

Like several former Soviet Republics and non-Soviet regions becoming states (Kosovo), the Ukraine was born at the cost of bearing a so-called frozen conflict. This one currently is not frozen anymore, and if it should not blast away for years and decades to come, if at least there should be the chance for a lasting settlement and a scenario where it does not erupt again and again, the Ukraine needs to be split in some way, and Kiev must suffer a defeat that is so clear that it cannot deny it and cannot afford to deny it.

Also, the West must understand and accept certain Russian key priorities regarding that region. Both is not liked by many, and I do not say it is just or fair. But it is the only realistic chance to get out of the spiral and not buying the end of this crisis at the cost of already starting to found the next one.

The Russians also have to understand one thing, and it is vital that the West delivers that message by according deeds and facts created on the ground: that this Russian way of handling things will not work with any of the former Soviet vasalls that now already are part of NATO.

This^ can only be had by substantially boosting force presence in the Eastern member states, and gaining the capability of defending the three Baltic states as well (which right now I consider to be impossible). We will need to let Putin get away with all this Ukraine match, and with keeping the Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence - but we would be well advised to make this a very costly matter for Russia. There can be no business a usual after this.

The devil in this is that this will cost us a very big amount of money as well. And that in a constantly growing crisis of paper money and debts. Fundamentally boosting defence budgets, is not popular, and in principle, if talking real value-money, it is impossible, it can only be done on illusive credit, since we have no credits bolstered by savings anymore. From Austrian school's view, that is dramatic.

Last time we had such a constellation of financial and political factors, it led to brown socialists taking over, and WWII was the result.

Oberon

02-14-15, 06:50 PM

Sadly, I don't think this is nearly over. Unless some serious political breakthroughs are made, a summer campaign still looks very likely - the latest round of fighting was more or less jousting for good starting positions. But I'm hoping that the Ukrainian government uses the respite wisely and doesn't only focus on the military situation in the meantime.

Trouble is, if they don't, others will. Whoever doesn't prepare themselves for the summer offensive will be caught off guard when summer comes.
Hopefully though it won't come to that, but you're probably right, that's if the seperatists don't ignore the cease-fire because they have the upper hand in Debaltsevo, but we'll see what the next 24 to 48 hours bring.

Oberon

02-14-15, 06:55 PM

The devil in this is that this will cost us a very big amount of money as well. And that in a constantly growing crisis of paper money and debts. Fundamentally boosting defence budgets, is not popular, and in principle, if talking real value-money, it is impossible, it can only be done on illusive credit, since we have no credits bolstered by savings anymore. From Austrian school's view, that is dramatic.

Last time we had such a constellation of financial and political factors, it led to brown socialists taking over, and WWII was the result.

That is a problem that flickers in the back of my mind too, a lot of extra funding is going to have to go into NATO to bolster up defences that have either been let to run down since 1991, or have been altered to deal with a desert environment. We don't have that funding.
Something is going to have to give somewhere...although to be fair, Russia doesn't have that money either, and their military is in the middle of a massive overhaul which probably won't be complete until next decade, but it's still something we're going to have to look at if we're determined to go back to the Cold War again.
Unless of course America is looking to stop Cold War 2 before it starts by collapsing Russia again through economic means, again. :hmmm: That probably won't work as well as they hope it will, if indeed that is their plan (which I personally doubt it).

Skybird

02-14-15, 07:23 PM

Well, Russia has enough money to buy gold like crazy, and when comparing their debts to their GDP, they score hilariously better than the US, Britain or Germany. Russias debts equal around 12-15% of its GDP, For the US that value would be somewhere between 110 and 125%, for Germany around 82-85%, and Britain also somewhere between 80 and 90%.

And that is just the explicit debt burden. The implicit, hidden debts you can multiply with factors in the range of most likely 3-5, and then add the result to the explicit debts - for the Wetsern states, not Russia. Russia has less wellfare and all that costly gimmicks, so I would expect their implcit debts to be smaller than that of Wetsern states. But I never read about their implicit debt burden in detail, I must admit, only calculations for Western states.

Russias economic problems are structural, not so much financial. Many say that Russia is financially god knows how weak. while I see the balance shifting against their favour within the coming decades, I nevertheless disagree with these people's assessment. They could always start to do like we do - creating "money" from nothing, and would have much more free manouvering space to waste that way before they end up like we did. At the cost of disconnecting from global markets and isolating their economy, I admit, but that would nothing new for them. Also, the biog globalization hype seems to be over anyway, and a national contraction seems to creep in anyway, especially in the 2nd and 3rd world economies.

Not easy to see the future is, says Yoda.

Kixa

02-14-15, 07:57 PM

kranz

02-15-15, 05:03 AM

Russian students apologizing for russia's aggression in ukraine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VklUdwiiuGE

(a response to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WTem6zo9fiw)

ikalugin

02-15-15, 05:56 AM

Well from what I have heard ceasefire is more or less working so far. Lets hope that it continues to do so.

kranz

02-15-15, 06:35 AM

2 civilians died after Grad attack after the ceasefire.

ikalugin

02-15-15, 07:28 AM

Where? When? Sources?

Skybird

02-15-15, 07:46 AM

Where? When? Sources?
German "FOCUS":

10.19 Uhr: Kurz nach dem Beginn der Waffenruhe in der Ostukraine sind nach Behördenangaben zwei Zivilisten bei einem Separatistenangriff getötet worden. Ein alter Mann und eine Frau seien rund 20 Minuten nach Inkrafttreten der Waffenruhe beim Einschlag einer Grad-Rakete in dem Dorf Popasna in der Region Lugansk ums Leben gekommen, sagte der Regionalgouverneur Gennadij Moskal am Sonntag. Es scheint der einzige schwerere Zwischenfall seit Beginn der Waffenruhe. Die meisten Beteiligten sprechen davon, dass der Waffenstillstand eingehalten werde. Allerdings berichten Augenzeugen vor allem aus der Region um Debalzewe von Artilleriekämpfen, die auch nach Eintritt der Feuerpause weitergehen.
http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-krise/ukraine-krise-ukraine-vor-waffenruhe-poroschenko-droht-mit-kriegsrecht_id_4476956.html

One Grad fired by separatists hit the village Popasna near Lugansk, says regional governor Gennadi Moskal. 20 minutes after thje cease-fire came into effect, the victims are an old man and his wife. Most eye witnesses confirm the case-fire to hold, but in the region of Debalzewe fighting continues with artillery shelling.

Dowly

02-15-15, 07:49 AM

English, motherlover. Do you speak it?

Skybird

02-15-15, 07:51 AM

English, motherlover. Do you speak it?I translated it below the German passage. Eyes wide shut? iKalugin wanted a source. He got one.

Dowly

02-15-15, 07:58 AM

I translated it below the German passage. Eyes wide shut? iKalugin wanted a source. He got one.
That's not the point. The point is, you yet again, choose to use a source written in german. It has been pointed out to you quite a few times to use english as this is an international forum.

You are the only one who seems to have trouble grasping that idea.

Here, took me one google search and the first link was to BusinessInsider's english article about the two deaths:
http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-two-civilians-killed-after-start-of-ukraine-ceasefire-2015-2?IR=T

It really isn't that hard, Skybird.

ikalugin

02-15-15, 08:53 AM

So the original source is the statement by a regional governor, ok.

Betonov

02-15-15, 09:09 AM

Problem with civil wars is that they are a bit more emotional and even of the top levels of both sides respect the cease fire, all the rage filled lieutenants and sergeants won't.
Especially in de-centralized forces like rebels and Ukraine.

ikalugin

02-15-15, 09:27 AM

Another factor that would make the Spring/Summer campaign interesting - is the wear of equipment due to usage. Ie you get barrel wear for artillery pieces and tanks, worn out engines, ect.

This, coupled with slow replenishment rates, would probably de mechanize Ukrainian CTO Forces (as evident from their "new" motorised brigades being formed).

Skybird

02-15-15, 11:25 AM

That's not the point. The point is, you yet again, choose to use a source written in german. It has been pointed out to you quite a few times to use english as this is an international forum.

You are wrong, nobody ever recommended me to not use German sources anymore - but if I do use them, to translate what they say or are about, with respect to the forum's official language. And I did translate it for sure.

I did it like this because nothing critical needed to be proven and studied as "source code", it was about a time, a place and a name that ikalugin wanted, and I gave him that since I just a minute before had read it. No need to make it complicated.

Its not as if English sources are the only valid sources there are in the world, although many people seem to think so. And sometimes non-English sources are even better or have to say something that in the english mainstream press gets ignored.

You are not aware how often I read something in German media, identify the reference the text may make to an international source and then quote the latter only. Any why should you. I just say that I do like that often, too. Or do you think that I read English media by routine, prefering them over German ones? I scanned them regularly in the past, but no more. Heck we have enough media in German, and I am German and live in Germany, so why should I read as if I were English?

So, it was not about not using German sources - but if I do: to translate them instead of only quoting the German source/text. With that I comply now.

CCIP

02-15-15, 06:42 PM

And as to the events that got this thread started, the BBC have been conducting their own investigation of the events on the Maidan last February, when the shooting started:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31359021

Their initial finding seems to be that in fact both sides were shooting, and both sides have since been working to cover up their involvement. Not only that, but there is suggestion that the pro-Maidan snipers were likely first to fire on the police, triggering the initial escalation.

Dan D

02-15-15, 06:55 PM

What is your opinion, would it be okay for the Ukraine to to ask to join the EU and the NATO, given that their are a sovereign state? What spekas against it?
Russia could join the EU, too.

mapuc

02-15-15, 07:02 PM

It seem that the evidence that there are Russian soldiers in Eastern Ukraine is so overwhelming

The question is

How many are there ?
What kind of soldiers ?
What is their real purpose ?

I do hope that "This" ceasefire holds all the way....until a peacetreaty have been signed.

Markus

CCIP

02-15-15, 07:17 PM

The problem with the Ukraine joining NATO would be what Skybird mentioned earlier - when the Cold War (or maybe we should now call it Cold War I) ended, there was mutual agreement between Russia and NATO to withdraw troops from each other's borders and avoid expansion towards each other, without at least considering each other's interests. Russia withdrew; NATO did not. Russia would view the Ukraine joining NATO as a hostile, expansionist act that threatens its national security - and not without reason. After all, NATO is a military organization.

All of this is moot point now, because I think Ukraine will likely join NATO and the EU at some point in the future, assuming the current regime there survives. This has already pre-emptively angered Russia, so it's not exactly a way to de-escalate anything. Once the current conflict settles down, what you're likely to see is Russia bolstering its military in the European theater and building new nuclear weapons sites to make up for those that would now be rendered ineffective by proximity to Ukraine. Ukraine is also likely to become a drain on both NATO and EU resources and budgets.

Not a great deal for everyone involved. Personally, while I don't think a more Euro-integrated Ukraine is a bad idea at all, it will be costly for the EU. Ukraine wants in, but I have a feeling that with all the EU problems going on, it's Europe that will actually be stalling them from joining for as long as possible now. NATO presence, in my view, won't solve anything - it would be too little, too late to solve what's already happened with the separatists. Military means aren't going to bring back the eastern breakaway regions anymore - the time for that has passed. And I don't think NATO is the best means to a working political solution.

Skybird

02-15-15, 07:17 PM

At least one of these organisations has it in its statutes that no nation can join them that has an internal conflict running. I think it was NATO for sure, but I am not certain. I even think that both organisations have such rules. Not that the EU is especially keen to follow its rules, if that is not opportune.

None of these organisations has any formulated and legally binding obligation in its statues that it must accept anybody who is asking. There is no right to join, only a right to ask whether one would be allowed in. So even if the Kievian Ukraine would ask, this does not mean there is any mandatory obligation that they must be allowed in. Not legally, and of course also not morally.

So the real question is whether it would be wise for EU or NATO to let them in. And that is - at least it should be - a sober weighing of the gains for the union, against the risks and costs. The opponent player is a militarily very potent player, with one of the two biggest nuclear arsenals in the world. That should not be forgotten for even just one second. what it brutally comes down to, is this: is the Ukraine worth it to start an American/European-Russian world war over it? The answer must be a crystal-clear No, of course, because we should know what a war between the two nuclear heavyweights in the world could mean.

That is why I said quite early in this thread that I doubt that Putin would invade the whole Ukraine. Occupying it would only mean immense costs - and for what? What was to be achieved - preventing the Ukraine to join NATO via joining the EU first - has been achieved already by destabilising it, and taking the Crimean. More occupation only means more costs for no more gains. The strategic objective already has been secured. With the territorial status now he even can hope to get away with not needing to pay for the Eastern separatist provinces at all, but make the EU and the ICF paying for them, too. A welcomed payback for the sanctions and the fiscal exodus from Russia currently.

This also means the outlook on the Ukraine must be pessimistic. A stable Ukraine means a Ukraine that may be seen as a candidate for joining the EU and later NATO - and that is not the formulated and explicit Russian interest. This also means the realistic expectation for the future is that the Russians will continue to keep the ukraine in a state of disarray and disorder, to prevent it becoming too stable. Sobering, isn't it.

What the Ukraine can hope for at best once the present dust has settled, is to get de facto split, and then play the game much like the Fins have done: a balanced neutrality that takes into account the big bad neighbour in the East, and while maintaining ties to the West, not pushing these ties too far.

That may not be morally nice, but that is the facts of life. Smaller, weaker nations must consider whether they upset a bigger, stronger neighbour, or not, this is becasue they are small, and weak. Ukraine, imo a failed state from beginning on and one with an inbuilt frozen conflict, forgot that and thought it could get away, maybe. The result is the war today.

In the system of the cold war, this would never have been tried. How said Kissinger once: the world to stay stable either needs one hegemon, or two superpowers. I think he is right there. But the world today is not like that, and that is why it now is off balance, and anarchy spreads.

Oberon

02-15-15, 07:19 PM

What is your opinion, would it be okay for the Ukraine to to ask to join the EU and the NATO, given that their are a sovereign state? What spekas against it?
Russia could join the EU, too.

I'd say the pros and cons for the Ukraine joining the EU are:

Pro:
Closer forward basing between EU heartland and Russia
Increased manpower and landmass
Goodwill bonus with Eastern Europe
Potential for business exploitation

Cons:
Ukraines economy makes Greece look solvent

At a time when the EUs economy is very fragile, attaching another failing economic mass to it (especially if the east of Ukraine does succeede from Ukraine and goes to Russia, taking nearly all of Ukraines industry with it) is not going to sit well with voters, especially in Germany and France.
It would be great if Russia did join the EU...but I suspect it would take a lot of work to make the two economies join together properly without collapsing either. Plus, I don't think the nationalist elements of the Russian ruling elite would permit such an action to take place.
Nothing to say that the Ukraine can't become an observer or potential candidate, but certainly there would need to be a lot of internal and external work between the EU, Ukraine and Russia before such an event can take place without completely destabilising the area. Of course, that would require co-operation and co-ordination which isn't currently available...although if this cease-fire holds...well... :hmmm:

ikalugin

02-15-15, 07:28 PM

We would be ok with joining the OECD/EU/NATO if the terms were right.

CCIP

02-15-15, 07:28 PM

How many are there ?
What kind of soldiers ?
What is their real purpose ?

From a variety of reports...

-up to 7,000
-a number of small professional detachments of fighting troops (e.g. airborne troops, spetznaz, possibly some mechanized/armor units). I've not seen any convincing evidence of anything larger than independent battallion-sized detachments ever operating there as combat units. It is likely that the majority of Russian combat troops to operate in the Ukraine only enter there on short, temporary operations and do not have a continuous presence - which helps with deniability.
It also appears likely that the vast majority of Russian troops and contractors are there as support personnel rather than combat troops, and prefer not to be seen in the frontline.
-what do you think their purpose is? It's pretty obviously providing strategic support to the separatists, to prevent their positions from collapsing and to help them achieve their stated goals. The separatists' military aims are not hard to find - they say that they plan to "re"capture all of the territory of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, which they claim to represent. They still have a long way to go - right now they only control slightly under 50% of that territory.

mapuc

02-15-15, 07:37 PM

Someone mention NATO and Ukraine in one meaning

As three Danish Minister said in a interview some days ago

Ukraine are free to seek membership in NATO, but Ukraine is far from ready to join NATO.

When the question came to EU the answer was the same...Ukraine is not ready.

Markus

Oberon

02-15-15, 07:41 PM

We would be ok with joining the OECD/EU/NATO if the terms were right.

Up until April last year there was a fairly good level of co-operation between NATO and Russia, there was even a joint exercise in 2011. I think that the fallout from the Ukraine though is going to last for a decade at least. :dead:

mapuc

02-15-15, 07:44 PM

From a variety of reports...

-up to 7,000
-a number of small professional detachments of fighting troops (e.g. airborne troops, spetznaz, possibly some mechanized/armor units). I've not seen any convincing evidence of anything larger than independent battallion-sized detachments ever operating there as combat units. It is likely that the majority of Russian combat troops to operate in the Ukraine only enter there on short, temporary operations and do not have a continuous presence - which helps with deniability.
It also appears likely that the vast majority of Russian troops and contractors are there as support personnel rather than combat troops, and prefer not to be seen in the frontline.
-what do you think their purpose is? It's pretty obviously providing strategic support to the separatists, to prevent their positions from collapsing and to help them achieve their stated goals. The separatists' military aims are not hard to find - they say that they plan to "re"capture all of the territory of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, which they claim to represent. They still have a long way to go - right now they only control slightly under 50% of that territory.

Thank you for your answer.
the last question-What is their real purpose ?
I asked it for I really don't know what their purpose is

Is it as you wrote

"It also appears likely that the vast majority of Russian troops and contractors are there as support personnel rather than combat troops, and prefer not to be seen in the frontline. "

Or they are there for more military support to The separatists.

Do understand I have on several videos from Ukraine seen Russian equiptment and soldiers(without the flag on their left shoulder) but I have not yet seen Russian soldies in combat.

Markus

mapuc

02-15-15, 07:49 PM

To be honest-I have lost track in how all this started.

I see and read lots and lots of stuff-most of it seems to be huge amount of conspiracy. CIA behind it, German behind it, Russia behind it a.s.o

Markus

CCIP

02-15-15, 07:58 PM

Do understand I have on several videos from Ukraine seen Russian equiptment and soldiers(without the flag on their left shoulder) but I have not yet seen Russian soldies in combat.

You're not going to see Russians openly entering the conflict anytime soon, if ever. There's no reason for them to - for the moment, whatever is going on there is working in the separatists' favour.

The added complicating factor is that most of the local population in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions speak Russian as their first language and are indistinguishable from Russians. It's very hard if not impossible to prove who is Russian there and who isn't.

Onkel Neal

02-15-15, 08:06 PM

Up until April last year there was a fairly good level of co-operation between NATO and Russia, there was even a joint exercise in 2011. I think that the fallout from the Ukraine though is going to last for a decade at least. :dead:https://imgflip.com/readImage?iid=17699

Dan D

02-15-15, 08:06 PM

The problem with the Ukraine joining NATO would be what Skybird mentioned earlier - when the Cold War (or maybe we should now call it Cold War I) ended, there was mutual agreement between Russia and NATO to withdraw troops from each other's borders and avoid expansion towards each other, without at least considering each other's interests. Russia withdrew; NATO did not. Russia would view the Ukraine joining NATO as a hostile, expansionist act that threatens its national security - and not without reason. After all, NATO is a military organization..

I completely agree with you. And I don't think that the Ukraine will join the Nato. When the Ukraine says they want to join the Nato, the Nato members are wringing their hands, because that means too much of a trouble. Someone should tell the Ukraine, that they can't join the NAto all too soon. The Ukraine in the Eu oin the other hand, that would be ok. If Europe makes big business with the US and Canada with the TTIP agreement, why should not the EIU make agreements with Russiia and its sphere of
influence.. Right now, you can buy US products at gas stations here in Germany. But the US products have the gas station label "may contain geneticaly modified food". We don't want that here. On the other hand I want to buy Hellman's Mayonaise here in Germany withhout trade barriers.

I guess that somes ir up. People are afraid that a TTIP agreement with the US capitalist pigs will lower consumer rights, if I understand the present debate correctely.

ikalugin

02-15-15, 08:28 PM

The problem is that a certain part of Ukrainian public believes in the "magic EU association would make Ukraine into a prosperous country (as in - as prosperous as France/Germany and without doing much)" myth the same way they believe in "independent Ukraine would become new France/Canada (again without doing much themselves - after all it was the evil RSFSR that oppressed them for so long)" and "Soviet Ukraine would achieve true utopian communism in your life time" myths.

In a way that myth was grown by Yanukovich himself (actually began by the Orange Revolution leaders), which is one of the reasons we had very little pity for him when it crashed down on him (with external aid of interested parties, but still), as he could not match the myth and the real agreement he was getting out of the EU.

p.s. moral of the story - if you wish to do well, work a lot to that end and do not rely on some "magic" solution to all your problems. And if you fail - take responsibility and don't blame others.

Onkel Neal

02-15-15, 08:39 PM

.

p.s. moral of the story - if you wish to do well, work a lot to that end and do not rely on some "magic" solution to all your problems. And if you fail - take responsibility and don't blame others.

Let me know when you can visit Houston, I have a spare motorcycle, we can go riding. :subsim:

Skybird

02-15-15, 08:58 PM

If Europe makes big business with the US and Canada with the TTIP agreement, why should not the EIU make agreements with Russiia and its sphere of
influence.. Right now, you can buy US products at gas stations here in Germany. But the US products have the gas station label "may contain geneticaly modified food". We don't want that here. On the other hand I want to buy Hellman's Mayonaise here in Germany withhout trade barriers.

I guess that somes ir up. People are afraid that a TTIP agreement with the US capitalist pigs will lower consumer rights, if I understand the present debate correctely.

TTIP? Okay, an intermezzo on TTIP.

The arbiter courts that would bypass national law and ordinary courts is the main big No-No with TTIP, as far as I'm concerned. Their basic idea was once designed for trade and economic problems arising when doing business with some rogue state who suddenly played foul. These courts were designed to allow a settlement of the issue without needing to attend ordinary courts (they may be in the pockets of the big boss of said rogue state). What they now want to turn these arbiter courts into for TTIP is that a company that gets regulated by a nation in the EU, or by the EU, in any way it does not like, can sue this nation for full compensation and outside the normal legal framework, it then must be compensated at the cost of the tax payer and without the nation being able to defend its regulation by ordinary legal means. In other words companies get a totally superior word over national state law and can do what they want, sell what they want, and must not fear to ever be be banned from selling something that could poison people, that causes accidents, or poisons the environment - no government would dare to challenge them and regulate them, for it would automatically be made to pay, pay and pay damage compensations. The risks and dangers there, are immense.

That they try to implement these "arbiter" courts, is a declaration of a trade war. Already the name - "arbiter" court - is an abuse.

I also have a problem with the EU nations needing to get American permission if they introduce new laws - they must file these laws to the Us first for approval and can only implement them if the US agrees, else not, or they need to change them so that they please the US side. That is already unacceptable in itself, but that, as far as I understood it, the US in return must not ask the EU if the US wants to do some new laws, is the cream on top. Double standards, it is called.

At least these two points were the status of negotiations last time I read more about it, and that is many weeks ago. I hope they have defused these bombs.

In certain fields, American standards for consumer protection are not welcomed over here, sometimes for good reason, sometimes for irrational reasons. A good reason would be the uncritical and in case of Monsanto'S questionable practices: well-founded rejections of business practices for enforcing and cashing for the use of genetically modified seeds. An irrational reason would be the German fear of American "chlorine chicken", which indeed is a harmless practice.

A blessing TTIP could be for harmless ordinary day trading, to put it this way, and the avoidance of designing products twice: once to meet regulation standards for the US market, and then again to meet reguilations for the EU market. Car security, for example.

One would expect that I would welcome a liberalisation of the free market. But the problem that I have is that I see that TTIP is about anything - but not a free market. It helps to strengthen monopolists, and imposes company interest over national legislation and people's will - while preventing and/or undermining options for legal defence against that. And this in a EU world where the EU already turns over national sovereignty and becomes more and more centralist and tyrannic.

That's why I at least am against TTIP in its currently planned form. Chlorine chicken and such gaga-arguments by an afraid German public, are not my concerns.

That they try to dodge public awareness and negotiate with a level of secrecy that can only be explained by wanting to prevent the public learning what it is that gets turned into a treaty there, does not make it better. Such deals all too often are deals between lobbyists and criminals, with the public being betrayed and turned into a paymaster. As observers once reported on German TV: the number of people really knwpoing what currently on the table, is hilariously small, and most of those people that one day will be needed to legitimised that treaties, will never know in full what it is that they are demanded to sign. One must not be a conspiration theorist to ask: why do they do it like this, why do they prevent half a billion people who will be effected by TTIP in Europe and sold to Washington this, to learn and become aware of the true content - different from the propaganda that the EU spills out?

TTIP is a great benefit for the US. For the EU, and Germany, much less so. And I would be even sharper and say: it is not about liberalising the free market, but preventing the free market, and protecting established monopolists and their power interests to overrule national sovereign governments - in Europe at least.

If these points get deleted from the final treaty, than we can talk about signing an agreement. If just one point remains, altered or unaltered, I say to hell with TTIP.

antikristuseke

02-16-15, 05:31 AM

My russian is way too poor to understand it all, but is this a joke?
http://pauluskp.com/news/d4af2b72e

Betonov

02-16-15, 05:57 AM

My russian is way too poor to understand it all, but is this a joke?
http://pauluskp.com/news/d4af2b72e

I'm guessing defending Kiev and Odessa medals.
My track of events is poor, but the fighting is nowhere near Kiev :hmmm:

ikalugin

02-16-15, 06:14 AM

On medals it says "for taking Kiev" and "for liberating Odessa". Can't verify their authenticity.

Betonov

02-16-15, 07:15 AM

On medals it says "for taking Kiev" and "for liberating Odessa". Can't verify their authenticity.

Someone was very confident in a rebel victory.

MGR1

02-16-15, 08:10 AM

p.s. moral of the story - if you wish to do well, work a lot to that end and do not rely on some "magic" solution to all your problems. And if you fail - take responsibility and don't blame others.

Scottish National Party take note.

Then again, perhaps not.....:/\\!!

Mike.

ikalugin

02-16-15, 08:45 AM

Well, look at this graph of GDP per capita in PPP for those countries:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/GDP_PPP_per_capita_CIS.svg/langru-1000px-GDP_PPP_per_capita_CIS.svg.png
The lines are for:
- Russia.
- Kazahstan.
- Belorussia.
- Azerbaijan.
- Ukraine.

Guess which one is Ukraine? Why did authoritarian country like Belorussia do better than Ukraine, even though Ukraine had a better starting position (and better structure of economy)?

Growth of real GDP to the level of 1990, from official Ukrainian source:
http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2007/so_ek_r_u/soekru_u/12_2007/images/page_02.jpg
Note, how did Ukrainian economy compare to 1990 results?

Russia has learned the lessons from the post separation years (yes, Russian elites were just as guilty in the dissolving the USSR, as those of other member states) and tried to improve it's economy (oil did help ofcourse) by the Putin's de regulation of his first term.

kraznyi_oktjabr

02-16-15, 12:48 PM

it was.
has the decision ever been legally questioned or ruled out? no, it hasn't.
technically speaking he was removed legally as no one has ever questioned it on the terms of the legal basis.With that logic I can burn your house as long I ensure no one complains or atleast is promptly silenced...
50 russian tanks are reported to have crossed the ukrainian border while today's negotiations were in progress.:yeah: @Kranz

Do you have ANY concrete proof to back up anything you say?

I am still waiting you to translate the key parts from the polish article saying Tornado system was used in Kramatorks.

Dont get me wrong, Kranz, I do believe Russia has her hands on this, but to what extent? I do not know and the propaganda is so thick on both sides that
it needs to be concrete proof before I believe any of it.:agree: Constant flow of "truths" without providing evidence or source combined with immature attitude (insults, trolling etc.) is getting old. Grow up or shut up.

Skybird

02-16-15, 04:47 PM

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/01/25/how-nuclear-near-miss-would-disaster-today/TG4nhiUzPyFtcV0QGybj6J/story.html
Twenty years ago, a string of coincidences nearly set off a US-Russia nuclear crisis, but calmer heads prevailed. The risk is much higher today.Higher global risks with Russia's hybrid warfare:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/munich-conference-warns-of-greater-threat-of-nuclear-conflict-a-1018357.html

When asked if hybrid warfare could raise the danger of nuclear weapons being used, US diplomat Richard Burt -- who, in his role as chief negotiator, helped put together the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, between the United States and the Soviet Union -- answered in the affirmative. "The simple answer is yes. Both American and Russian nuclear arms are essentially on a kind of hair-trigger alert. Both sides have a nuclear posture where land-based missiles could be authorized for use in less than 15 minutes." In the situation of hybrid warfare, he warns, "that is a dangerous state of play."

"In the Cold War, we created mechanisms of security. A huge number of treaties and documents helped us to avoid a big and serious military crash," says former Foreign Minister Ivanov. "Now the threat of a war is higher than during the Cold War."

Bilge_Rat

02-16-15, 05:37 PM

video of a platoon of T72B3s spotted near Debaltseve over the weekend:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkbVnpEbVwY#t=11

but we all know there are no "Russians" in Ukraine. :arrgh!:

Bilge_Rat

02-16-15, 05:49 PM

this one is from two weeks ago, a pair of 203mm 2S7 "pion" Self-propelled guns spotted in Makiivka near Donetsk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LARtj2fEtLE

These guns require special training, not to mention 203 mm shells.

wonder where the "Separatists" got the guns, training and ammo for these? :hmmm:

Could it be these are "Russians"?!?! :arrgh!:

ikalugin

02-16-15, 06:36 PM

Noone denies support at this point, the question is about regular Russian Armed Forces troops being there in significant numbers.

What special training does the 203mm gun require?

p.s. are you sure that those are B3s?
And look at the positive side - it could
be a strong hint to the Kiev not to break
the ceasefire.

August

02-16-15, 06:52 PM

Admiral Halsey

02-16-15, 10:49 PM

Someone was very confident in a rebel victory.

That or Putin is about to have Russia officially get involved.

Oberon

02-17-15, 12:22 AM

That or Putin is about to have Russia officially get involved.

Why would he do that? He's got what he wanted. Ukraine is divided, the part that is left is in no fit state to join the EU or NATO any time soon, it's likely that the eastern part of the Ukraine will vote to split and join Russia along with Crimea. The medals are probably fan-made, rather than official Russian military. I do like the Putin with the flag one, very Soviet. :haha:

Admiral Halsey

02-17-15, 12:41 AM

Why would he do that? He's got what he wanted. Ukraine is divided, the part that is left is in no fit state to join the EU or NATO any time soon, it's likely that the eastern part of the Ukraine will vote to split and join Russia along with Crimea. The medals are probably fan-made, rather than official Russian military. I do like the Putin with the flag one, very Soviet. :haha:

Because the odds of the ceasefire actually producing anything are a million to one and he can't support the rebels for much longer without going official. Plus if he does end up grabbing the entire thing it removes a future threat to Russia's southern flank.

Oberon

02-17-15, 01:00 AM

Because the odds of the ceasefire actually producing anything are a million to one and he can't support the rebels for much longer without going official. Plus if he does end up grabbing the entire thing it removes a future threat to Russia's southern flank.

It's too much risk for not much gain, the western embargos and low oil prices are biting into Russias economy, taking the whole of the Ukraine isn't going to alleviate that, and in fact will just make the embargo much worse. The Minsk agreement does give a fair bit of power to the Donetsk and Lugansk separatists, their own militia, the promise of the decentralisation of power with privileges to them (including the right to create economic ties with Russia), although it's quite likely that the ceasefire won't last much longer than a few weeks, I doubt that Russia is willing to go all in and take the whole of the Ukraine, rationally wise it doesn't make sense...but then again, I've been wrong about Moscows intentions before, could be wrong again. Still, we'll see.

Admiral Halsey

02-17-15, 01:21 AM

It's too much risk for not much gain, the western embargos and low oil prices are biting into Russias economy, taking the whole of the Ukraine isn't going to alleviate that, and in fact will just make the embargo much worse. The Minsk agreement does give a fair bit of power to the Donetsk and Lugansk separatists, their own militia, the promise of the decentralisation of power with privileges to them (including the right to create economic ties with Russia), although it's quite likely that the ceasefire won't last much longer than a few weeks, I doubt that Russia is willing to go all in and take the whole of the Ukraine, rationally wise it doesn't make sense...but then again, I've been wrong about Moscows intentions before, could be wrong again. Still, we'll see.

Fair point on the sanctions but I honestly doubt Ukraine would intend to uphold any agreement long term. They'd try and crush the rebels the moment they could and eventually Putin will have to get Russia officially involved if for no other reason then to insure the rebels are safe from Ukrainian reprisals.

Oberon

02-17-15, 01:33 AM

Fair point on the sanctions but I honestly doubt Ukraine would intend to uphold any agreement long term. They'd try and crush the rebels the moment they could and eventually Putin will have to get Russia officially involved if for no other reason then to insure the rebels are safe from Ukrainian reprisals.

Well, that's not in the short term, as ikalugin has pointed out it's likely to be the summer before any full scale offensives are taken out. The conditions in Ukraine are pretty poor at the moment, and not conducive to the kind of proper military operations that the Ukrainian military is probably trained to undertake. Between that and general poor upkeep of the Ukrainian armed forces, at the moment the Ukrainian military is losing.
In fact the ceasefire came just in time for several thousand Ukrainian forces trapped in a pocket near Debaltsevo, their outlook was pretty grim but as long as this holds they will be able to return to their lines in due course.
Chances are, both sides are going to use this time to prepare for the next round of military action which is probably going to start within two to three months, there will be skirmishes in the meantime, but no real major action as both sides resupply and rearm. The OCSE inspectors are a fly in the ointment, but I suspect that they will be kept away from certain areas, as they were back when the Malaysian airliner went down, the seperatists will be taken across the border into Russia to receive some more training, and I dare say that more tanks will 'accidentally' cross the border into Ukraine and become part of the separatists arsenal.

I'd say...March-April before this whole thing falls down, maybe a little longer, it depends on how long it takes both sides to rearm and reorganise.

ikalugin

02-17-15, 07:45 AM

About medals - those are made by "Novorussia" thus are not official Russian ones. That said there is an official Russian medal for the Crimean action.

About the support of Russia, we would continue pumping the separatists up to the level, when they could defend themselves without direct Russian involvement. There would be no offensive operations by the separatists until spring/summer, as they need to compensate their losses from winter campaign.
This opens a window for genuine diplomacy, and maybe abiding by some Minsk memorandum points (such as withdrawing heavy armaments and foreign troops/specialists), conducting constitutional reform and so on.

Bilge_Rat

02-17-15, 09:06 AM

Another hopeful sign, the EU is starting to break the Taboo about ignoring Russian Army units in East Ukraine:

The EU has broken its taboo on referring to Russian forces in east Ukraine in its official documents.

It said in its Official Journal on Monday (16 February) that Russian deputy defence minister Anatoly Antonov is being added to its blacklist because he is “involved in supporting the deployment of Russian troops in Ukraine (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.040.01.0014.01.ENG)”.

It listed first deputy defence minister Arkady Bakhin for the same reason.

It also listed Andrei Kartapolov, a senior Russian military commander, for being “involved in shaping and implementing the military campaign of the Russian forces in Ukraine”.

The text in the legal gazette was signed off by EU foreign relations chief Federica Mogherini.

https://euobserver.com/foreign/127667

Unless Putin radically changes course soon, it wont be long until military aid is flowing to Ukraine.

Oberon

02-17-15, 11:29 AM

(such as withdrawing heavy armaments ...)

That seems to be the current sticking point for both sides, and since OCSE inspectors are unable to enter the Debaltsevo area... :/\\!! It's the traditional 'Who blinks first', the separatists probably don't want to withdraw their heavy weaponry until the Ukrainian forces do, and vice versa for the Ukrainian forces...not to mention that the separatists probably have a strong desire to press home their current advantage and eliminate as many Ukrainian forces as they can so that there will be less to face them come summer. :dead:

Dowly

02-17-15, 11:33 AM

Yup, both sides are saying that they withdraw their heavy weapons, if the other side does so first.

@Bilge_Rat: How do you know those are T-72B3s? I dont think the B3 is externally very much different from older models. :hmmm:

CCIP

02-17-15, 12:03 PM

One of the issues with Debaltsevo specifically is that it ended up in a sort of grey area. The separatists are claiming that it's theirs under ceasefire terms (because they had previously controlled it), the Ukrainian army refuses to withdraw.

antikristuseke

02-17-15, 12:55 PM

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/02/17/origin-of-artillery-attacks/
The Bellingcat investigation team used internationally-recognized methods and satellite imagery to analyze a total of 1,353 artillery craters in eastern Ukraine and determine their trajectories. We located firing positions that closely matched these trajectories, all of which were inside Russian territory with one exception (which was less than 2km from the Russian border).

Three artillery attack case studies were investigated in this report: Amvrosiivka (14 July 2014), between Dolzhanskaya-Capital mine and the village of Panchenkove (16 July to 8 August 2014), and Khmelnytskyi (25 July 2014). Artillery crater analysis concluded that there were a total of ten primary attack trajectories across all the case studies. From each of these attack trajectories a firing position was identified. Nine of these firing positions were – without any doubt – within the territory of Russia, with three within 400 to 800m of a military camp. The one position in Ukraine was near Chervonopartyzansk, within the territory of Ukraine 1.2km south, and 1.5km north of the border with Russia.

I have no idea how credible that report is, but if it is true, this is fairly damning.

ikalugin, about those medals, never though they were official Russian issue, given that they were for sale with prices underneath it looked like a private enterprise, I was just curious if it was a real thing or someones idea of a joke. Thanks.

XabbaRus

02-17-15, 02:19 PM

Ah yes bellingcat. I'm just not convinced. I know the guy is the poster child for "citizen journalism" but after the press were proclaiming him a chemical weapons expert I turned off. Something doesn't add up. Given 12 months ago he was sitting at home playing World of Warcraft.

CCIP

02-17-15, 02:21 PM

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/02/17/origin-of-artillery-attacks/

I have no idea how credible that report is, but if it is true, this is fairly damning.

ikalugin, about those medals, never though they were official Russian issue, given that they were for sale with prices underneath it looked like a private enterprise, I was just curious if it was a real thing or someones idea of a joke. Thanks.

Now that is interesting! This is the sort of stuff I'd like to see more of as evidence goes, but only if it's backed up by official reports after. I hope there are official investigations that follow it.

Otherwise, would not surprise me. The recent pictures of landed/unexploded projectiles also point to use of Tornado systems pretty definitively. Wherever they're being shot from, these are obviously Russian artillery systems.

Bilge_Rat

02-17-15, 02:44 PM

@Bilge_Rat: How do you know those are T-72B3s? I dont think the B3 is externally very much different from older models. :hmmm:

these have been identified as SOSNA-U thermal sights which is apparently only found on the latest T-72B3 model.

http://cs624627.vk.me/v624627091/1e095/Wr0EbxVqHB4.jpg

mapuc

02-17-15, 02:49 PM

Some more thoughts

Some one wrote that (name of weapon type, who I forgot the name off) need a trained crew.

1. Does Ukraine have similar weapons in their arsenal as Russia has been send to Eastern Ukraine ?

2. If yes, aren't many of the Ukrainian soldier been trained to use these weapons among these even soldier who live in Eastern Ukraine.

If no in both question, then it must be russian soldier that are controlling these weapons or ?

Markus

Dowly

02-17-15, 03:29 PM

these have been identified as SOSNA-U thermal sights which is apparently only found on the latest T-72B3 model.
That rectangular 'window'? No, it's on many many many maaany T-72s. No idea what it is, periscope I would assume, but it definitely isnt some Russian only equipment.

See, that's my problem. The Loyalists are trying to force the public opinion against Russia.
And the West is with them. They show us blurry satellite photos of.. err.. something and say "Yep, RUSSIANS!".

I am definitely not on the Russian side here, hell I'm a Finn ffs.
But the past week or two, it has been just Loyalists throwing crap and hoping it'll stick, none of it hasnt.

West needs some actual, concrete evidence of Russian units being involved, before they make the decision to supply Ukraine with military aid.

Catfish

02-17-15, 03:51 PM

^ @Dowly: Exactly that.

Our german (transatlantic young leaders lmao) media showing some russian tanks in Georgien from years ago, and selling us this as russian tanks being now on ukrainian soil. Have done that repeatedly, and everytime proven as falso, so they had to excuse, everytime.
Liars.

Betonov

02-17-15, 03:55 PM

See, that's my problem. The Loyalists are trying to force the public opinion against Russia.
And the West is with them. They show us blurry satellite photos of.. err.. something and say "Yep, RUSSIANS!"...

West needs some actual, concrete evidence of Russian units being involved, before they make the decision to supply Ukraine with military aid.

If the West is ready to accept blurry satellite photos of... er... something without actual concrete evidence, is it possible that the West has already decided that the Russians are to blame, evidence be damned.

Bilge_Rat

02-17-15, 04:25 PM

how to spot a T-72B3:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cmWI0UGX2HU/VLQLF1wX-jI/AAAAAAAAAMk/b6JvOOBDuO4/s1600/T-64%2Band%2BT-72%2BSide%2Bby%2BSide_html_m4b7984.png

now compare that to the three tanks in the video I posted.

Dowly

02-17-15, 04:25 PM

If the West is ready to accept blurry satellite photos of... er... something without actual concrete evidence, is it possible that the West has already decided that the Russians are to blame, evidence be damned.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know.

What I know is:
We've been show blurry satellite images, showing blastmarks and rectangulars, identified as Russians. I would like to see those original high res images.

Videos of Russians tanks, that Ukraine doesn't use. Still waiting for anyone to point out what makes those tanks Russian tanks?

There's more, but lastly, if there are so many Russian units in Ukraine,
where are the bodies? Where are photos of them?
If they are fighting, surely there'd be some evidence of them being there?

But.. we got nothing, just words saying "RUSSIANS!"

kranz

02-17-15, 04:37 PM

There's more, but lastly, if there are so many Russian units in Ukraine,
where are the bodies? Where are photos of them?
If they are fighting, surely there'd be some evidence of them being there?

But.. we got nothing, just words saying "RUSSIANS!"

mass secret burials in Pskov and mobile crematories are nothing. ok.

I still have a few posts to reply to but I'll do it in 'due time'.

Dowly

02-17-15, 04:39 PM

how to spot a T-72B3:

now compare that to the three tanks in the video I posted.
For one, that huge "SOSNUA-S" (aka smoking gun) is missing.
Meteorogical sensor, much higher in that second photo that on the first one.
Can it be retracted? Is it unique to T-72B3? You claim so, show me proof.
Kontakt-5 is used by Russia, Ukraine and Serbia.
EDIT: Also, DVE-BS "aka Meteorogical sensor", appears to be a wind gauge used in T-90s, so who made that picture doesnt know what he talks about.

Again, what makes you think it is T-72B3?

mass secret burials in Pskov and mobile crematories are nothing. ok.

I still have a few posts to reply to but I'll do it in 'due time'.

Proof? Oh wait, I've asked you before, you dont do 'proof'.

Bilge_Rat

02-17-15, 04:54 PM

There's more, but lastly, if there are so many Russian units in Ukraine,
where are the bodies? Where are photos of them?
If they are fighting, surely there'd be some evidence of them being there?

But.. we got nothing, just words saying "RUSSIANS!"

you mean...proof.. like this?

As fighting continued to flare in the east particularly around Donetsk airport, an online organisation has catalogued more than 260 people (https://openrussia.org/post/view/1772/) reportedly killed in eastern Ukraine. The Open Russia organisation (http://openrussia.info/) , started by the Kremlin critic Mikhail Khodorkovsky, has also published a map (https://openrussia.org/post/view/1931/) showing where the dead are from.

The official denial of Russian military participation in Ukraine (http://www.theguardian.com/world/ukraine) has pressured the relatives of those who served and died there to keep silent, and could deprive many of them of the benefits to which they are entitled. But some have started to speak out.

Yelena Tumanova, a hospital orderly from Russia’s Mari El republic (http://rbth.com/multimedia/pictures/2013/10/25/life_in_mari_el_between_the_natural_and_supernatur al_31149.html), said her son Anton Tumanov told her by phone on 10 August that his army unit was being sent to Donetsk. On 20 August, a coffin came back to Mari El with a small window through which she could see his face. His legs had been torn off by an artillery strike, his comrades told her. He was 20 years old.

State-controlled television has occasionally reported on the deaths of Russian “volunteers” in Ukraine, but any discussion of servicemen being deployed there remains taboo. And despite a wealth of evidence that active-duty Russian soldiers have been in Ukraine – including 10 Russian paratroopers captured in Ukraine in August, Nato satellite photos (http://aco.nato.int/new-satellite-imagery-exposes-russian-combat-troops-inside-ukraine.aspx) showing tanks crossing the border, and a rash of secret funerals (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/29/russia-ukraine-war-asking) of soldiers across Russia – the Kremlin has denied that it has deployed troops to help the pro-Russia rebels.

The “volunteer” service Putin referred to is often anything but, according to several rights advocates. They say soldiers have told them that they were pressured to sign documents to go on a “business trip” to eastern Ukraine or “volunteer” in other ways. Tumanov told his mother that his commanders offered a 400,000-rouble bonus to sign up to fight in Ukraine, then simply ordered them forward when volunteers weren’t forthcoming. Some captured Russian paratroopers recounted that they had gone on a supposed training mission in armoured carriers and only later realised they were in Ukraine.

etc., etc.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/19/russia-official-silence-for-families-troops-killed-in-ukraine

the evidence is easy to find if you just bother to look for it. :ping:

Dowly

02-17-15, 05:08 PM

the evidence is easy to find if you just bother to look for it. :ping:
Then show me. Show me hard evidence of Russian units in Ukraine.

Again, why do you think those are T72B3s?

And as Ikalugin asked, "What special training does the 203mm gun require?"

You make these claims, now would be a good time to show some evidence.

August

02-17-15, 05:12 PM

I have to wonder Dowley, just what if anything would constitute real proof to you? Just trying to find out where you set the bar.

Dowly

02-17-15, 05:20 PM

I have to wonder Dowley, just what if anything would constitute real proof to you? Just trying to find out where you set the bar.
I saw your last post before you deleted it, kinda could mirror your question back to you too. :)

Something concrete.

Not blurry satellite images that could be anything (ukraine and separatists have MRLSs), videos that show T72s, labeled as T72B3s (eventho the changes are mostly internal and would be very hard to identify as B3s).

Well.. anything really. Show me any actual proof, pictures, videos of Russian Units in Ukraine and I coincide my point.

If there was concrete proof, West would already be in Ukraine, but it's just "maybe"'s and "might"'s.

Bilge_Rat

02-17-15, 05:24 PM

Then show me. Show me hard evidence of Russian units in Ukraine.

At one point Dowly, you have to ask yourself a simple question: what do you believe?

for close to a year now, there have been claims of Russian units in Ukraine: You had an influx of Russian speaking "volunteers", the Rebels kept "capturing" brand new Russian military equipment, you had actual Russian soldiers that got "lost" wandering through Ukraine, you had many, many videos of unmarked units wearing Russian uniforms and riding in Russian military vehicles, you had a sudden reversal of UKR forces in august that could only plausibly be caused by an influx of new troops, you had multiple stories of secret military funerals in Russia , etc. etc.

Now what do you think is going on? Do you really think there is a massive western conspiracy to "invent" the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine? Why? to what end?

If the US/EU really wanted to arm Ukraine, they would just do it.

kranz

02-17-15, 05:30 PM

Proof? Oh wait, I've asked you before, you dont do 'proof'.
I really see completely no reason for posting new proofs since you haven't debunked the old ones.

Rockstar

02-17-15, 05:35 PM

Proof, you want proof Dowly? Well here it is, read it and weep buddy.

Sure its an artist's rendition, but its worked it before.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/americas_colin_powell0s_photographic_evidence/img/5.jpg

Bilge_Rat

02-17-15, 05:36 PM

T72-B3:

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72b3_l4.jpg

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72b3_l1.jpg

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72b3.htm

now check the video, you will see it is a match.

http://cs624627.vk.me/v624627091/1e095/Wr0EbxVqHB4.jpg

kranz

02-17-15, 05:37 PM

I have to wonder Dowley, just what if anything would constitute real proof to you? Just trying to find out where you set the bar.
His bar is set to putin saying 'these are our troops'. Just like he admitted to seizing the Crimea and to sending the 'green people' there.

Dowly

02-17-15, 05:43 PM

At one point Dowly, you have to ask yourself a simple question: what do you believe?

for close to a year now, there have been claims of Russian units in Ukraine: You had an influx of Russian speaking "volunteers", the Rebels kept "capturing" brand new Russian military equipment, you had actual Russian soldiers that got "lost" wandering through Ukraine, you had many, many videos of unmarked units wearing Russian uniforms and riding in Russian military vehicles, you had a sudden reversal of UKR forces in august that could only plausibly be caused by an influx of new troops, you had multiple stories of secret military funerals in Russia , etc. etc.

Now what do you think is going on? Do you really think there is a massive western conspiracy to "invent" the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine? Why? to what end?

If the US/EU really wanted to arm Ukraine, they would just do it.

But we can't prove they were Russians, nor we can prove they werent.
Right?

I really see completely no reason for posting new proofs since you haven't debunked the old ones.
List the evidence, then.
Proof, you want proof Dowly? Well here it is, read it and weep buddy.

Sure its an artist's rendition, but its worked it before.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/americas_colin_powell0s_photographic_evidence/img/5.jpg
Does it make wine? Because if it does, I'm all for it!
Really, what is it?

Betonov

02-17-15, 05:47 PM

Does it make wine? Because if it does, I'm all for it!
Really, what is it?

It doesn't make Vodka, no distillation unit.
I'm guessing water purifier unit, division size.

August

02-17-15, 05:48 PM

Well.. anything really. Show me any actual proof, pictures, videos of Russian Units in Ukraine and I coincide my point.

Well you say you want actual proof but I have to wonder just what that entails exactly After all if those are indeed B3's then he has shown you proof and you're just refusing to recognize it. Is Kranz correct when he says nothing less than a public admission by Putin himself will do?

CCIP

02-17-15, 05:49 PM

Does it make wine? Because if it does, I'm all for it!
Really, what is it?

It was the among the "proof" that started the Iraq war in 2003. I mean, why would there be a massive conspiracy to "invent" the presence of chemical weapons in Iraq? Why? To what end?

If the US wanted to bomb Iraq, they would just do it.

Dowly

02-17-15, 05:55 PM

Well you say you want actual proof but I have to wonder just what that entails exactly After all if those are indeed B3's then he has shown you proof and you're just refusing to recognize it. Is Kranz correct when he says nothing less than a public admission by Putin himself will do?

Ok, Bilge_Rat's first picture was this:
http://cs624627.vk.me/v624627091/1e095/Wr0EbxVqHB4.jpg

Seems to point towards the rectangular area.

I responded that it is found on number of T72s.

He posted this image next:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cmWI0UGX2HU/VLQLF1wX-jI/AAAAAAAAAMk/b6JvOOBDuO4/s1600/T-64%2Band%2BT-72%2BSide%2Bby%2BSide_html_m4b7984.png

And I pointed out mistakes like:
For one, that huge "SOSNUA-S" (aka smoking gun) is missing from the original image.
Meteorogical sensor, much higher in that second photo that on the first one.
Can it be retracted? Is it unique to T-72B3? You claim so, show me proof.
Kontakt-5 is used by Russia, Ukraine and Serbia.
Also, DVE-BS "aka Meteorogical sensor", appears to be a wind gauge used in T-90s, so who made that picture doesnt know what he talks about.

August

02-17-15, 06:03 PM

massive conspiracy to "invent" the presence of chemical weapons in Iraq

Any proof of this?

kranz

02-17-15, 06:05 PM

August

02-17-15, 06:12 PM

You claim so, show me proof.

I don't believe I have claimed anything. Just asking you what you would deem adequate.

CCIP

02-17-15, 06:13 PM

The paratroopers from the ytube vid - got lost?
Elena Tumanova's testimony concerning her son, Anton. Last reported position - Luhansk, ukraine.http://www.tvn24.pl/wiadomosci-ze-swiata,2/rosyjscy-zolnierze-na-ukrainie-reportaz-czarno-na-bialym,511569.html
It's in polish - rewind to 7+ to see the graves of three soldiers, Anton's among them. All of them buried in Psko.
Disprove this.

I don't think anybody disputes located graves. I've seen good proofs of number of graves.

The real question is: what conclusion are we supposed to get from this? What is the solution? Would you like to see some more graves next to those maybe?

Any proof of this?

That was an ironic response paraphrasing the wording applied to the current claims.

As to the reports, I don't think it matters whether it was faulty intelligence or conspiracy - the fact remains that the evidence was complete bunk, despite being assessed as strong enough as to commit the US to a war and waste tens of (or perhaps hundreds) thousands of lives. The immense human cost and political/economic/social disarray caused by the fatally flawed "at least he's our SOB" foreign policy approach continues unabated. Why? To what end?

CCIP

02-17-15, 06:37 PM

And more generally, I think people are confusing claims and proofs, evidence and conclusions. One does not win an argument by stating a fact - you have to provide a plausible and logical warrant that connects claim to data and adequately qualifies it. Likewise, one especially does not win an argument by stating data and then requiring the opposing side to disprove your argument - that's not an argument, that's just data. Data is only a small part of an argument. Perhaps if you had a coherent argument that you'd made, articulated, warranted and qualified, that would be a more acceptable discussion as opposed to just mocking the other side.

August

02-17-15, 06:50 PM

I don't think anybody disputes located graves. I've seen good proofs of number of graves.

The real question is: what conclusion are we supposed to get from this? What is the solution? Would you like to see some more graves next to those maybe?

You demand proof then when someone presents some all you can do is question their motives? At least be like Dowly and say what you think makes it not proof of Russian involvement in Ukraine.

That was an ironic response paraphrasing the wording applied to the current claims. My bad.

As to the reports, I don't think it matters whether it was faulty intelligence or conspiracy - the fact remains that the evidence was complete bunk, despite being assessed as strong enough as to commit the US to a war and waste tens of (or perhaps hundreds) thousands of lives. The immense human cost and political/economic/social disarray caused by the fatally flawed "at least he's our SOB" foreign policy approach continues unabated. Why? To what end?"Why? To what end?" Aren't those are questions that are only pertinent if it was a conspiracy, which you admit it may not be? I don't claim to have any answers here either but it seems to me that to some folks here no proof is ever going to be good enough. We endlessly quibble over the definition of "is" and meanwhile Russia continues to get away with carving up a neighboring country.

CCIP

02-17-15, 07:12 PM

I've stated my position on this pretty clearly before - I have no interest in trying to disprove whose tanks those are and I'm certainly not trying to justify Russia's involvement. But I'm also cautioning against a black-and-white view of this and against escalating this conflict in particular. I don't trust the Ukrainian loyalist side and I don't trust their claims, and there has been some major distortion coming from them - see the BBC report I'd linked just a couple of pages ago for example. Is this really what you want to support?

As I said, my vested interest in the conflict is that I don't want to see people suffering, and I am gravely worried about my friends and relatives in the affected regions. In the same vein, the many Iraqis I know (by way of my work) have said the same thing - they might not have been fans of Hussein, but they didn't ask for what's happening there now. Behind the seemingly-heroic proposals to send arms to Ukraine I see profiteering and a military-industrial complex that had already been shown to be willing to lie to promote their business.

There's better solutions to all of this. One of them is understanding Ukraine's economic issues and issues of federalization. I fail to see how arming one side or the other solves any of them.

Likewise, if all you see in this situation is Russia carving up Ukraine, I'll suggest that you should look at the history, specifically the economic issues and problems of federalism in the Ukraine. These didn't spring out of nowhere. And they're not going to be solved by military means.

August

02-17-15, 09:10 PM

I fail to see how arming one side or the other solves any of them.

If neither side were armed I would agree with you but the thing is one side has already been armed and continues to be armed. I understand your concerns about the Ukrainians but it just doesn't seem right to ignore such an unfair situation.

Likewise, if all you see in this situation is Russia carving up Ukraine, I'll suggest that you should look at the history, specifically the economic issues and problems of federalism in the Ukraine. These didn't spring out of nowhere. And they're not going to be solved by military means.

Like I said their problems are indeed being solved by military means. Means made in Russia and being supplied to only one side.

Oberon

02-17-15, 10:13 PM

*puts on waders*

Right...let's just have a list of the T-72s that Ukraine operates.

The T-72MP:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/images/t-72mp_p110-2l.jpg

T-72AM 'Banan'
http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t72_series/banan/banan_001.jpg

T-72AG
http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t72_series/t72ag/t72ag_001.jpg

T-72-120
http://www.kampfpanzer.de/image/txt/t-72-120_1.jpg

T-72E
http://newspepper.su/images/2011/6/9/tanks.jpg

BMT-72
http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/501/BMT-72_4.jpg

There's also the BTS-5B but that's a recovery vehicle and you'd need to have had a few bottles of vodka to mistake it for a B3... :dead:

Here's a site that has a good collection of T-72s in service:
http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t72_series/t72-series.html

Now...the T-72 in the video...that does look a fair bit unlike a Ukrainian T-72, there are two optic devices, one which is circled and one below it. Furthermore, the ERA which the T-72 in the video is unlike many of the Ukrainian T-72s.
The video that the still is from is here:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=037_1424061566

Got to admit, it does look a fair bit like the Sosna-U. :hmmm: Not quite smoking gun, but justification for wars have been made out of less.

CCIP

02-17-15, 10:34 PM

Oberon

02-17-15, 10:58 PM

One more thing I'll point out: I'm completely 100% in favour of withdrawing all Russian troops from there, whoever they are and whatever their level of organization, and I also totally support the sanctions against Russia. But I think the only thing that escalation and armament is going to accomplish is give Russia more things to shoot at and more excuses to get involved. There's really not a military solution to a problem - and I think if the Ukraine is supported in pursuing a military solution to the separatists, the cure will be worse than the disease. Although to be honest, I don't think there's really a good way out of this anymore. I think all signs point to both sides readying for a violent summer campaign.

Sadly I think you're right. I mean, if the US arms the Ukrainian military, Russia will just up the level of support that it's giving the separatists, until we have a game of tennis going on between the US and Russia over who can give the most powerful weaponry to their respective sides...probably wind up with the Ukrainians flying F-35s or something...let's face it, someone has got to find a use for that thing. :O: :haha:

But yes, jibes at the Golden Eagle aside, it is shaping up to be a bloody summer, and I think the US will likely supply arms to Ukraine, but I doubt it'll do much more than just increase the bloodshed, sadly. I don't think there's any way the Ukrainian military can get the separatist area back under control. Even if it smashed its way through, there would be an insurgency issue to contend with for the coming years. The area is pretty much a write off, Ukraine would be better off to cut its losses, it's a pretty small area in total, I think they lost more when Crimea went, and what industry is in there is probably a smouldering ruin by now. :dead:

ikalugin

02-18-15, 12:58 AM

@Bilge Rat,
Still using Gruz 200 as your source? O dear.

CCIP

02-18-15, 01:14 AM

Here is another angle on the problem: militarily, is it really arms shortages and Russians that are the problem?

I'm open to looking at any sources that I'm provided with, but last I checked Ukraine ranked 25th on the global firepower index, with 160,000 active troops and a million reserves, nearly 3000 tanks, over 8000 AFVs, and nearly 4000 barrels of heavy artillery. They have a domestic munition industry that should be able to more than adequately provide for their needs.

Meanwhile, from any credible source I can discern, I haven't seen any estimate of more than 7000 Russians operating in the Ukraine (and more realistically, 3-4000) and a total separatist force that's maybe 20-25k troops. What problem is the sending of arms going to address, exactly?

It strikes me that the real problems are those of organization and logistics, and maybe more importantly of morale and motivation. And as I see it, the well-armed but disorganized and disillusioned Ukrainian army is hardly going to benefit from any escalation - and here we begin to enter a slippery slope of arming militias which, shall we say, are morally nuanced.

As for Russia, the current level of their involvement is a drop in the bucket. It doesn't begin to dent their resources (and in fact any cost of their involvement had already been more than compensated for in the budget), while politically, any escalation only helps the media circus and bolsters support for Putin's regime. They can keep escalating away for a while yet without changing tack. There's literally nothing short of a direct military commitment from the west that will change their approach, because it works. And a direct ultimatum from the west won't happen.

So as I see it, the "military solution" and supplying arms is a non-starter. Lack of arms, in a nation that until recently had been a major arms exporter, does not add up. Personally, as I see it, someone (besides Putin) sees political gain to be made from escalating the conflict, while someone else sees a business opportunity in furnishing "promotional samples" of weaponry to a military that doesn't seem to need it. Knowing how business is usually done in the Ukraine, particularly seeing Poroshenko's stature in Ukrainian business (and one does not simply walk into Ukrainian business without some greased palms), I can already begin to guess how that discussion probably went down...

I reiterate: don't send arms to Ukraine. Don't escalate this war if you care about actual Ukrainian lives.

kranz

02-18-15, 08:50 AM

Ukrainians have been finally forced to withdraw from Debalceve.
That's what deals with russia are worth.

Bilge_Rat

02-18-15, 11:02 AM

In terms of actual military aid, Ukraine is looking for specific Hi-Tech items to enhance the capability of their forces:

Klimkin said: “We’ve been getting closer to receiving more military-technical assistance. It’s not about buying a couple of tanks … It’s about modern warfare, training, logistics, organisation.”

He said Ukraine desperately needed hi-tech radio, radar and reconnaissance equipment to stop Ukrainian soldiers having their communications intercepted and improve battlefield efficiency. “We can’t win the war against Russia … But what we need to counter the aggression and to defend our country is not to lose the war,” Klimkin said.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/04/ukraine-military-financial-support-imf-kerry

Other items discussed are anti-tank weapons which are needed to defend against the large number of tanks the "Rebels" have. There are rumours the U.S. may provide Javelin ATGMs to Ukraine.

None of this would allow Ukraine to defeat Russia, but it would help Ukraine to stabilize the front lines. Remember, Ukrainian forces have been on the defensive since last august, it is the "Rebel"/Russian forces that are expanding their territory westward.

02-18-15, 11:40 AM

I reiterate: don't send arms to Ukraine. Don't escalate this war if you care about actual Ukrainian lives.

To create some sort of equilibrium by sending more arms might be the solution.
The Ukrainians can make their own choices on this issue I think...weather all this is worth fighting for or not.
Why the rebels should considering negotiations or even less likely withdrawal from some territories with their Russian support while fighting inferior army.
You can not have it all...be against everything Putin is doing and expect things to just work out by themselves.
Putin could give up if the domestically the overall price would become too high to continue this campaign.
Then some serous negotiation might be possible.

Betonov

02-18-15, 11:51 AM

XabbaRus

02-18-15, 11:59 AM

Putin is very powerful, I don't deny that. However I love how he's built up in the western press as all powerful and nothing happens without his say so, and this would all stop in an instant if he sent the order.

It's more complicated than that. Fact is neither the western governments and certainly not the western BBC have absolutely any comprehension to the nation's psychology and what makes them tick.

Send the arms if you think that will make them stop, it will however chime right with Putin's idea that the west are a threat and need to be confronted leading to possibly open intervention with marked vehicles and no pretense. IE a supposed show of force will not make him back down. Maybe, just maybe on this occasion some pride has to be swallowed and with this I mean no more NATO expansion.

Thinking about it the whole NATO thing in a way has become a self fulfilling prophecy. NATO expands eastwards even though Russia at the time and for a long time afterwards was not a threat (despite assurances, verbal as they may have been no to), NATO is primarily there to defend against Russian aggression, and now we have this conflict.

It will however be interesting now the Ukrainian army has abandoned Debaltsve if things will quiet down. I do however think a few bullets need to be quietly put in the heads of rebel groups that don't stop.

Catfish

02-18-15, 12:58 PM

*puts on waders*

Right...let's just have a list of the T-72s that Ukraine operates.
[...]
Got to admit, it does look a fair bit like the Sosna-U. :hmmm: Not quite smoking gun, but justification for wars have been made out of less.

Can't they just photoshop a red star on it, this will be enough evidence then. :hmm2:

Oberon

02-18-15, 01:19 PM

Can't they just photoshop a red star on it, this will be enough evidence then. :hmm2:

Only if it can be operational within 45 minutes. :O:

Bilge_Rat

02-18-15, 01:21 PM

http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1424263028/344/11250344_600x400.jpg

antikristuseke

02-18-15, 02:09 PM

Like I said, it's naive to think Putin is not involved in this mess but I completely understand Dowly about wanting some concrete proof about Russians in Ukraine.
Dowly lives next to Russia and the loudest anti Russian sentiment (kranz excluded) are from people that live one (1) Europe and one (1) Atlantic ocean away.

I also live in Russia and am fairly convinced that Russia is heavily involved in this conflict. Though more on the signals intelligence, material support and mercenary side as that all provides plausible deniability. It would be idiocy to send in their latest versions of heavy equipment that would stick out like a sore thumb in theater.
Ukrainian armies main problems seem to stem from a lack of effective communications and command, not materiel shortages or a lack of manpower. The separatists have seemingly constructed communications jamming and interception equipment out of microwaves and washing machines, either that or they are getting specialized help.
Now when it comes to weather this conflict was created by Russian intelligence services or it sprang up in a power vacum and they latched on as a means to further their interests, I am leaning towards the latter option personally.

All that said, propaganda from all directions is so thick that it is very difficult to make heads or tails of things and my opinion might be completely wrong, hopefully time will tell.
Edit: I also don't think the west has it's hands clean here, it is just international politics being played out on Ukrainian soil now where conflicting interests have collided.