Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine [Archive] - Page 9

Bilge_Rat

11-19-14, 02:08 PM

Thank a for the video, could you comment which items of equipment are staffed (in your opinion) by regular Russian Troops? After quick look on my phone I could see (correct me if I am wrong):
- lots of trucks with field generators, water tanks and such.
- a number of trucks with towed artillery pieces.
- a battery command post vehicle? (Cant positively ID it, it is on common chassis - a BTR80 derivative i think)

well, you have a convoy of brand new military trucks, all painted Russian green, in unit formation, with all the requisite equipment and covers in place and all the servicemen seem to be wearing regular Russian uniforms.

My initial impression is that this is a regular Russian army unit, but I will play along. What is your explanation?

ikalugin

11-19-14, 02:10 PM

Product bundling.

Ie apart from the possible explanation that those are indeed regular Russian troops (yet to be proven of course, but such definitive proof is quite obviously difficult to make) I could think up of:
- Separatists moving around their equipment (it doesn't say that it has just crossed the border, at least from what I could tell), equipment most likely supplied by Russia.
- Russian troops delivering a package of weapons (in this case it appears to be a towed artillery Divizion, at later point i couold try to ID the specific equipment items, count them and so on if you wish) with their munitions to the separatists.

P.s. and I don't rise the issue of geolocation and dating, as you appear to be a sufficiently honest opponent in an argument and AP to be the good kind of media (and no, I don't really trust media of any kind to be precise in such cases, so I would always prefer to have video or photo data to be independently geo located and time stamped).

August

11-19-14, 10:57 PM

US ingerence/interventionism through military attack, sabotage and agitation since the end of the second world war.

I said "expansionism". Have any of those places on your list been annexed by the US?

Yes we may meddle in other countries business but Russia eats them. Since the fall of the Soviet Union Russia has annexed parts of two different countries. List that.

Besides, what another country does or doesn't do is immaterial. We're talking about Russia and Ukraine. The way I see it your attempt to change the subject only illustrates the weakness of your argument.

ikalugin

11-19-14, 11:31 PM

Criemea (from Ukraine) is the first one I assume (even through technically it went independent first and was recognised as such by Russia), which is the second?

CCIP

11-20-14, 12:32 AM

I think he's referring to the Georgian 2008 war, which by the way would be tremendously inaccurate and shows a lack of understanding of the post-Soviet history of that region. Neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia are part of Russia, and their relationship with the Kremlin is strained at best (particularly in the case of Abkhazia and particularly since the fall of Saakashvili's government in Georgia). And that's without mentioning the history of those conflicts during the 90s.

In that regard, the US history of "regime change" is more clearly found both as a formal policy and in practice during the same period, and with arguably worse results for all involved.

Dmitry Markov

11-20-14, 01:14 AM

Yep, technically even Crimea wasn't "annexed" - it was a reunion with an independent state.
As for Abhazia and South Osetia, they are independent states and so far they didn't ask for joining RF. On the other hand, the Republic of Crimea did.

PS. I haven't checked this thread for some time - there were some fantastic "holy wars" I've missed - wish it could be the only kind of human antagonism...

ikalugin

11-20-14, 02:44 AM

Meanwhile - Russia has completed formation of the new regiment in Crimea, it's commander used to serve in the Ukrainian Armed forces.
http://im.kommersant.ru/Issues.photo/DAILY/2014/210/KMO_145207_00024_1_t222_212702.jpg
The units which are/will be stationed in Crimea include but not limited to:
- 801st Naval Infantry Brigade.
- 501st Detached Naval Infantry Battalion.
- 1096th SAM Regiment.
- 126th Coastal Defence Brigade.
- newly formed 8th Detached Artillery Regiment.

Naval forces expected to be stationed in Crimea by 2020:
- 6 pr. 11356 frigates (under construction).
- 6 pr. 06363 submarines (under construction).
- up to 10 pr. 21631 Small Missile Ships (under construction).

Note - all of those vessels are capable of carrying long range cruise missiles, project 21631 is essentially an armed and mobile platform for it's 8 cell UKSK.

Jimbuna

11-20-14, 07:09 AM

I'd just like to flag up a point....

This thread has moved positively in the right direction and is now being debated in a positive, adult-like and non-aggressive manner.

Credit to all of you that make it so.

I for one certainly enjoy catching up on the thread developments.

Bilge_Rat

11-20-14, 09:06 AM

Criemea (from Ukraine) is the first one I assume (even through technically it went independent first and was recognised as such by Russia),

Yep, technically even Crimea wasn't "annexed" - it was a reunion with an independent state.

That may be the view from Russia, but that is not how the rest of the world sees it.

Crimea was invaded by Russian troops and annexed after a rather dubious referendum. It's an armed invasion, pure and simple.

For the record, no Nato member recognizes the annexation of Crimea by Russia.

Skybird

11-20-14, 09:41 AM

There are three decisive factors that determine the motives and goings of politics. The first factor is: power. The second is: power. And then the third is: power. Whoever thinks that politics is about finding reasonable answers to something, already approaches the issue of politics in a completely misled and mistaken attitude. - free quote after Roland Baader, German libertarian

The US is no exception from this, nor is it Russia. Both are imperial actors, or long to be imperial actors. None of them is holy, and none of them represents "just causes". That is just lies both tell their own people as an excuse. Their methods and ways may differ on not more than the cosmetic level. But their intentions and motives are the very same. None of the two is morally better than the other.

I do not chose between the two anymore. I reject both. Choosing between them, ilustrates a childish naivety, imo, comparable to still believing in good Santa Claus.

Oberon

11-20-14, 09:51 AM

The key factor really is finding what defines power, and what type of power that you're talking about hard or soft power. At the moment Russia exerts hard power on Ukraine, whilst the US exerts soft power on Russia. Both are having an effect, and are also affecting the nations around the area involved, but they are quite different in their approaches.

ikalugin

11-20-14, 09:57 AM

That may be the view from Russia, but that is not how the rest of the world sees it.

Crimea was invaded by Russian troops and annexed after a rather dubious referendum. It's an armed invasion, pure and simple.

For the record, no Nato member recognizes the annexation of Crimea by Russia.
Russian troops were already in Crimea and (as far as I know) did not exceed the 25 thousand troop strength limitation. Thus I do not see why you call this an invasion.

What did happen was the sovereignty infringement (movement of Russian troops outside of their bases without the clear cut permission from Ukrainian authorities), even though it did receive justification (Yanukovich who was not properly impeached and local authorities) at a later point.

What grounds do you have to doubt the referendum results? Similar results were achieved in 90s, local ethnic make up and the voting patterns are also indirectly showing that the results (majority for joining Russian Federation) were true.

I don't really care if other interested parties (and NATO/EU are interested parties in the Ukrainian crisis) call Russia an aggressor, compare Russia to Ebola and otherwise pursue their agenda. And Kosovo doesn't help.

Skybird

11-20-14, 10:08 AM

Think less subtle, Oberon. I fear I am about a more archetypical understanding of the term "power" that politicians yearn for. It is that craving for power that turns the whole political caste in East and West into anti-social parasites and bed-fellows of corrupted business.

Power for the sake of power, controlling things, being in command, standing on top of the heap, always wanting more, wanting it all.

"Ego" is what it is about, both on a national and an individual politicians' level. The just cause, the reasonable decision, the voluntary associating by others, have nothing to do with it.

Power. What else to say...

Oberon

11-20-14, 10:12 AM

kranz

11-20-14, 10:24 AM

Russian troops were already in Crimea and (as far as I know) did not exceed the 25 thousand troop strength limitation. Thus I do not see why you call this an invasion.

What did happen was the sovereignty infringement (movement of Russian troops outside of their bases without the clear cut permission from Ukrainian authorities), even though it did receive justification (Yanukovich who was not properly impeached and local authorities) at a later point.

I don't really care if other interested parties

ok, I'm done with this thread. (basically got cancer reading this)
Trolls in the past have been keelhauled for lesser trolling but all of a sudden this guy gets some 'mod-shield' and is allowed to repeat his BS since August.
People who tried to argue with the troll either gave up (like me; Steve - the vids are there - take your time and find them; don't have the time? don't bother with 'moderating') or were banned (surprise, surprise).

Oberon

11-20-14, 10:42 AM

Well...Russian troops were already in Crimea, in their bases.

Then...they weren't in their bases, as ikalugin correctly pointed out, however the main quibbling point is the justification factor.
In my opinion the justification was lacking, however I can't point fingers at Russia when my own nation and our allies have used lesser justification for military action in the not too distant past.

ikalugin

11-20-14, 10:43 AM

Sailor Steve

11-20-14, 10:54 AM

ok, I'm done with this thread. (basically got cancer reading this)
Trolls in the past have been keelhauled for lesser trolling but all of a sudden this guy gets some 'mod-shield' and is allowed to repeat his BS since August.
Not true. People are infracted, brigged or keelhauled for attacks on other members, or for disruptive or inflamatory posting. The member you are commenting on has attacked no one. Whether you agree with his statements is your business. How you respond to them is ours. Are his coments really 'BS'? Prove it. Even if you do prove it, he is still entitled to make his claims, as you are allowed to counter them.

People who tried to argue with the troll either gave up (like me; Steve - the vids are there - take your time and find them;
As I've said repeatedly, it's your job to link to the videos and prove your claim, just as it's his job to prove his.

don't have the time? don't bother with 'moderating') or were banned (surprise, surprise).
The person who was banned was discovered by Neal to be an old troublemaker who was banned before. The real surprise is that you would use him as an example. He was the problem, not the Subsim staff or the person he self-destructed over.

Please confine your comments to the topic at hand, and I will do the same.

Bilge_Rat

11-20-14, 10:56 AM

Russian troops were already in Crimea and (as far as I know) did not exceed the 25 thousand troop strength limitation. Thus I do not see why you call this an invasion.

because it was an invasion of Ukraine by Russia, as "legitimate" as the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990.

Under the Kharkov agreements, Russian troops were confined to their bases and could only leave them to travel to and from Russia. Once they leave their bases to occupy Crimea, they were invading Ukraine.

What grounds do you have to doubt the referendum results? Similar results were achieved in 90s, local ethnic make up and the voting patterns are also indirectly showing that the results (majority for joining Russian Federation) were true.

let's see, where to start:

-referendum held at gunpoint by an invading force;

-referendum held in a two week period with only one side represented;

-no independent tabulation of results; etc., etc.

Now perhaps if a legitimate referendum had been held, the results would have been similar, but we will never know.

Only the Russians think invading a country, carving off a piece of its territory and holding a referendum at gunpoint is "legitimate".

11-20-14, 10:59 AM

Oh that, yeah, well that's part of human nature sadly. A desire to be King Rat at the top of the ladder, of course, you don't get to appreciate the view from the top of the ladder because you're too busy trying to stop one of the other rats from pulling you off the ladder. :03:

What is not about ego...ask Freud.

Yet when it comes to Putin I suppose he has some vision about future Russia , similar to how China is run.
In cases like this it is difficult to be concerned about every single citizen although the end result may benefit the whole nation...
Regular Russians are in a nothing to lose situation in this regard , they had been at the bottom including the ego.

In the west in more about here and right now.
Russians who don't have much tradition of democracy look at this western , sometimes schizophrenic behavior with skepticism.

ikalugin

11-20-14, 11:17 AM

because it was an invasion of Ukraine by Russia, as "legitimate" as the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990.

let's see, where to start:
-referendum held at gunpoint by an invading force;
-referendum held in a two week period with only one side represented;
-no independent tabulation of results; etc., etc.
Now perhaps if a legitimate referendum had been held, the results would have been similar, but we will never know. Only the Russians think invading a country, carving off a piece of its territory and holding a referendum at gunpoint is "legitimate".
Would you be so kind as to explain your Iraq example in detail, so I (at some later point) do not present your point of view in a wrong way? If I understand you correctly (and please do correct me if I am wrong) - you compare the use of forces legally station in Crimea, if without the proper initial authorisation (which did come at a later point from both the Ukrainian Commander in Chief and the local authority) to an invasion by an external third party (such as in Iraq 1990)?

As to the referendum, where the people forced to vote at the gun point? Was there a widely spread sentiment that their safety was threatened by the Russian Armed Forces (or the militia forces there)?

Was there no option to stay within the Ukraine during this referendum? What were the voting patterns for the region, did the local population support the Maidan events or their leaders?

Was there no media presence, or the external observers?

I would now answer those three groups of questions:

As far as I am aware no, they were not directly forced to vote. Nor was there a widely spread sentiment that the local population's safety was threatened, with the exception of the Crimean Tatar's ethnic group's parliament's executive organ - Meidzhlis (and their Islamic extremist wing which was promoting creation of the Islamic State of Crimea) and various fringe groups (such as the Ukrainian Nationalists), which were rightfully concerned for their safety, as per Russian law (but not the Ukrainian law, as Ukraine was using those organisations for decades to suppress local separatism) such hate/radical groups are prosecuted.

Yes, there was an option to stay within the Ukraine. However you could argue that there was no equal ability to promote that view via local media and other means, not that it would (most likely) matter due to the voting patterns.

There was, both the observes and journalists, even though such respected organisations as OSCE have refused to monitor it.

The point I am trying to make is that even though this process was imperfect, there was no reasonable possibility to conduct the matter in the ideal manner, if only for the violent suppression that would have occurred (and did occur historically), morever even such imperfect process is, overall, comparable to other such instances, for example - Kosovo, even though the details of those two cases were not exactly the same.

If you wish to discuss the matter of Kosovo example vs Crimean example - in detail I would gladly oblige.

ikalugin

11-20-14, 11:29 AM

What is not about ego...ask Freud.

Yet when it comes to Putin I suppose he has some vision about future Russia , similar to how China is run.
In cases like this it is difficult to be concerned about every single citizen although the end result may benefit the whole nation...
Regular Russians are in a nothing to lose situation in this regard , they had been at the bottom including the ego.

In the west in more about here and right now.
Russians who don't have much tradition of democracy look at this western , sometimes schizophrenic behavior with skepticism.
I think the key is closer to the policy (both internal and external) that was conducted by Boris Yeltsin and his team (though in the second term he was so drunk that a number of presidential orders were signed for him and I think without his consent).

11-20-14, 11:32 AM

I think the key is closer to the policy (both internal and external) that was conducted by Boris Yeltsin and his team (though in the second term he was so drunk that a number of presidential orders were signed for him and I think without his consent).

Ahh yes ...forgot Boris Yeltsin.:yep:

Bilge_Rat

11-20-14, 11:35 AM

ikalugin

11-20-14, 11:36 AM

Ikalugin,

so you are claiming that it is perfectly legitimate for:

1) one country to invade another country;

2) immediately hold a referendum;

3) announce that it "won" the referendum without any independent verification or observers;

4) annex the part of the country it invaded.

Could you please point out what part of international law allows that sort of behavior, I seemed to have missed that part.
I did not claim that. In fact I have claimed something completely different, now it appears that there is a degree of misunderstanding here. Would it help if I clarify my position again, quite possibly countering those 5 points?

Susexx

11-20-14, 11:47 AM

Think about Kosovo. Almost like in the Crimea. But everyone is silent.

Bilge_Rat

11-20-14, 11:50 AM

I did not claim that. In fact I have claimed something completely different, now it appears that there is a degree of misunderstanding here. Would it help if I clarify my position again, quite possibly countering those 5 points?

Please do.

BTW, according to figures out of Russia, it appears as few as 15-30% of eligible voters in Crimea voted in favour of annexation with Russia:

Russian government agency reveals fraudulent nature of the Crimean referendum results

In the opinion of virtually all the experts and citizens interviewed:
- The vast majority of the citizens of Sevastopol voted in favor of unification with Russia in the referendum (50-80%); in Crimea, various data show that 50-60% voted for unification with Russia, with a turnout of 30-50%.
50 to 60% of a 30-50% turnout suggests that only about 15 to 30% of eligible voters actually voted for annexation. Moreover, the low turnout rate, combined with evidence of intimidation and violence by pro-Russia forces (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/03/crimea-referendum-thugs-on-the-streets.html), strongly suggests that many opponents of annexation chose not to vote out of fear

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/06/russian-government-agency-reveals-fraudulent-nature-of-the-crimean-referendum-results/

ikalugin

11-20-14, 12:05 PM

Please do.

BTW, according to figures out of Russia, it appears as few as 15-30% of eligible voters in Crimea voted in favour of annexation with Russia:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/06/russian-government-agency-reveals-fraudulent-nature-of-the-crimean-referendum-results/

Yes, I am aware of this article. However, as, again, it is said within the article, the blog post was removed, the source of this information regarding the referendum results cannot be verified. And it is not beyond doubt that this data may have been either erroneous or in fact injected, as those websites were known to be hijacked a number of times.

The claim of the physical violence is largely unbased as:
- there is still no direct and sufficient evidence that people where forced to vote by the use of forces or threat of such use.
- there is still no direct or sufficient evidence that people where intimidated on a large scale, in those articles we are only presented with isolated incidents, shown from a biased perspective.

I would do the 5 point reply in the next post here.

p.s. I have also not seen the original blog post, so I cannot actually say if it existed in the first place.

CCIP

11-20-14, 12:16 PM

I think everyone who is able to articulate their opinion without name-calling, can keep a respectful tone and cover his issues in detail without calling for killing of other people etc. deserves a "mod shield". Just because you disagree with someone's political stance or cultural background doesn't make them a troll.

For the record, I'm as anti-Putin and anti-annexation of Crimea as someone can get. I come from a long line of Russian/Soviet liberal dissidents and, at this point in my life, consider myself a political emigrant from Russia. But I don't see either Crimea or the Ukraine or Russia's geopolitical interests as being somehow above rational discussion, and I certainly don't see either as a reason to start posting blatantly Russophobic commentary or justifying others' wrongs (even if they're lesser wrongs) and then turning around and accusing Russians of trolling when they turn up to defend or qualify their own views. If you tell them to shut up because their country is bad or something and they have to live with some sort of perpetual existentialist shame because of their country's history, you'll never accomplish anything, other than maybe making yourself feel like a bigger man. Which in that situation would hardly be true anyway, because that's a very petty way of getting through arguments.

Betonov

11-20-14, 12:30 PM

Think about Kosovo. Almost like in the Crimea. But everyone is silent.

Because Kosovo was an oppressed albanian majority defecting FROM evil Serbs.
Everyone hates the Serbs.

11-20-14, 12:32 PM

Because Kosovo was an oppressed albanian majority defecting FROM evil Serbs.
Everyone hates the Serbs.

if I recall a lot of very nasty thing actually happened before NATO got involved to resolve the mess.
With Ukraine it is sort of the other way around or simultaneous.:hmmm:

Jimbuna

11-20-14, 12:40 PM

ok, I'm done with this thread. (basically got cancer reading this)
Trolls in the past have been keelhauled for lesser trolling but all of a sudden this guy gets some 'mod-shield' and is allowed to repeat his BS since August.
People who tried to argue with the troll either gave up (like me; Steve - the vids are there - take your time and find them; don't have the time? don't bother with 'moderating') or were banned (surprise, surprise).

If that is how you feel then so be it but I will add that I am a little disappointed after having posted (see quoted post below).

For the record: Nobody has a 'mod shield' and I believe my stance on name calling and insults is well known on this forum.

I'll talk to Steve regarding the position of moderation because we do discuss forum members concerns quite regularly on Skype.

As far as I'm concerned Steve has intervened with justification and well within the remit given to Steve and I by Neal in our positions as 'Global Moderators'. He has sought to give clarification to comments and did not threaten or give any warnings or infractions. 'Damned if you do' and 'damned if you don't' springs to mind here.

I'd just like to flag up a point....

This thread has moved positively in the right direction and is now being debated in a positive, adult-like and non-aggressive manner.

Credit to all of you that make it so.

I for one certainly enjoy catching up on the thread developments.

I think everyone who is able to articulate their opinion without name-calling, can keep a respectful tone and cover his issues in detail without calling for killing of other people etc. deserves a "mod shield". Just because you disagree with someone's political stance or cultural background doesn't make them a troll.

For the record, I'm as anti-Putin and anti-annexation of Crimea as someone can get. I come from a long line of Russian/Soviet liberal dissidents and, at this point in my life, consider myself a political emigrant from Russia. But I don't see either Crimea or the Ukraine or Russia's geopolitical interests as being somehow above rational discussion, and I certainly don't see either as a reason to start posting blatantly Russophobic commentary or justifying others' wrongs (even if they're lesser wrongs) and then turning around and accusing Russians of trolling when they turn up to defend or qualify their own views. If you tell them to shut up because their country is bad or something and they have to live with some sort of perpetual existentialist shame because of their country's history, you'll never accomplish anything, other than maybe making yourself feel like a bigger man. Which in that situation would hardly be true anyway, because that's a very petty way of getting through arguments.

QFT

Bilge_Rat

11-20-14, 12:58 PM

Yes, I am aware of this article. However, as, again, it is said within the article, the blog post was removed, the source of this information regarding the referendum results cannot be verified. And it is not beyond doubt that this data may have been either erroneous or in fact injected, as those websites were known to be hijacked a number of times.

Perhaps, but you are still in a situation where according to "official" Russian results which are impossible to independently verify, 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia, while according to the "Council of the President of the Russian Federation", it may be as little as 15-30% of eligible voters who voted to join Russia.

As I said before, a very dubious referendum.

Betonov

11-20-14, 02:23 PM

if I recall a lot of very nasty thing actually happened before NATO got involved to resolve the mess.
With Ukraine it is sort of the other way around or simultaneous.:hmmm:

Similar case, but different mechanics.

In Crimea the Russians helped the Russians in Crimea to forcefully detach the area from Ukraine and attach it to Russia. The internal conflict was started with the intent of moving from Kiev to Moscow.

In Kosovo Albania did not help Albanians in Kosovo to gain independence and the area was declared a sovereign state. The process happened by outside powers diplomatically and Serbia lost Kosovo with a signature. The internal conflict happened years before and was not intended to free Kosovo.

Kosovo has more similarities with Israel in 1948 than Crimea

Susexx

11-20-14, 03:20 PM

Perhaps, but you are still in a situation where according to "official" Russian results which are impossible to independently verify, 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia, while according to the "Council of the President of the Russian Federation", it may be as little as 15-30% of eligible voters who voted to join Russia.

As I said before, a very dubious referendum.

Come visit in Crimea, ask the residents. Learn a lot and without news of a "zombie box" (TV)

Catfish

11-20-14, 04:16 PM

Go there and see the real thing, and see how we are being led by the nose, by the Media? Who would want to see the truth...:huh:

Dmitry Markov

11-20-14, 04:48 PM

Come visit in Crimea, ask the residents. Learn a lot and without news of a "zombie box" (TV)

That's exactly what I wanted to write! If You ever happen to visit Crimea and talk to locals then thoughts of "people who were forced to vote" or "in fact they've voted the other way" would just be gone. People just saw what was happening in Kiev and didn't want that mess to happen in their cities.

I'll give you another insight:
For example, my friend's parents live in Mariupol, Donetsk Region (or People's Republic of Donetsk depending on point of view). In May they had a vote for independence from Kiev. Guy's parents voted for independence as vast majority of their neighbours did, being sure that Russia will openly support them, and won't let Kiev's forces to enter their region not to say the city (They had some point in that knowing that at the moment Putin had a permission from Federation Council to use military force in Ukraine). Now they hardly ever talk to their son being sure that Russia has betrayed them allowing Kiev to occupate Mariupol and not helping openly. They think it's not fair that we helped Crimea and didn't help Donbass. They think they are living under occupation by Kiev and we left them under fire and if only our troops entered Donbass in May straight after their referendum, it could prevent all that bloodshed we can see now. That's their point.

August

11-20-14, 07:33 PM

If You ever happen to visit Crimea and talk to locals

Dmitry the only locals left are Russians. All the Ukrainian speakers and the Crimean Tartars, some 12% of the population according to the article below, have been driven out.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/03/ukraine

Susexx

11-21-14, 02:13 PM

Dmitry Markov

11-22-14, 03:32 AM

Dmitry the only locals left are Russians. All the Ukrainian speakers and the Crimean Tartars, some 12% of the population according to the article below, have been driven out.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/03/ukraine

Thanks for interesting reading - in search for info on Crimea the author went to Lvov (!):hmmm: , found the only Tatar radical he(or she - the article is anonymous)could reach there, and makes unapproved statements about mass migration.
Again - if you are interested in inter-ethnic relationship in Crimea, you better go there, visit Yalta, Koktebel, Sevastopol and then Tatar villages, talk to locals - either Tatars or Russians or Ukrainian. Yes there are people who don't like Crimea to be Russian again and who moved to Ukraine ( families of Ukrainian officers who didn't join Russian service for example) but western media tend to exaggerate their amount.

August

11-22-14, 08:39 PM

... but western media tend to exaggerate their amount.

And Russian media tend to minimize their amount. Bottom line here is that the Russians have managed to carve off a piece of another country and they are obviously working to take more of it. In both cases there will be people forced to abandon what had been their homes.

Skybird

11-25-14, 06:10 AM

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/war-in-ukraine-a-result-of-misunderstandings-between-europe-and-russia-a-1004706-druck.html

A - longer - narrative documentary on the events 2010 to winter 2013 that led to the splitting of the Ukraine. The story being told last but not least is that of a massive failing of German foreign policy due to

a clash of two different foreign policy cultures.
Also, massive ignorance for the Russian to-be-expected reactions and the Russian interests as well as a good dose of arrogance were used to create this unneeded drama.

One should have seen Ukraine as a bridge between Europe and Russia, instead of forcing it to choose for Europe over Russia. One can argue in holy ideals or principles of Western and Central Ukrainians wanting to be associated with the EU (and one wonders what weighs heavier here: the idealistic undertone - or the promise of huge amounts of foreign tax money being channeled to the Ukraine) for as long as one wants: it does not change the facts of reality. And the facts of reality are that Russia has vital own-interests that must try to prevent the Ukraine turning all-West.

This to recognise is where the EU and Berlin have failed miserably. And Washington? Traditionally anti-Russian for the sake of being anti-Russian, probably from all beginning on saw the Ukraine as an opportunity to once again push borders towards Russia and move alliances closer to its borderposts.

That Russia would not just sit on the side fence and watch it, could have been forseen. But Germany and the EU chosed to deliberately not wanting to see it from Russia's point of view.

Things to be learned from all this: it is a stupid thing to demand a rival/opponent to act stupidly and in violation of his own self-interest. The price of this is paid in the main by people living in the Ukraine, then mostly by the German economy who has losses in the high billions due to the sanctions while being epxetded to be Europe's paymaster nevertheless, and also the ordinary people in Russia facing mounting prices and shortages of consumer goods.

America is cheap off in all this. And due to it dominating the IMF sees the free bonus chance to force not necessarily "freedom and liberty" but its own views becoming realsisied in the future forming of the Ukraine.

Catfish

11-25-14, 06:48 AM

"One should have seen Ukraine as a bridge between Europe and Russia, instead of forcing it to choose for Europe over Russia."

"Also, massive ignorance for the Russian to-be-expected reactions and the Russian interests as well as a good dose of arrogance were used to create this unneeded drama."

THAT!

Bilge_Rat

11-25-14, 07:03 AM

A - longer - narrative documentary on the events 2010 to winter 2013 that led to the splitting of the Ukraine. The story being told last but not least is that of a massive failing of German foreign policy

so it was all Germany's fault.

figures. :yep:

Skybird

11-25-14, 08:20 AM

so it was all Germany's fault.

figures. :yep:

No, not all, but being the one European nation with better relations to Russia than anyone else in Europe and with better trade with Russia than anyone else as well (I think), Germany shares its good and not small heap of the responsibility-pie. Brussel and Washington as well as the union of Eastern-European nations also have to accept their shares. Nobody cared for taking Russian interests serious.

Its like the essay says: Merkel made it a one principle-thing (ours, of course) by focussing on Tymochenko exclusively, and fading everything else out. And that had her missing reality by several lightyears.

The article also says that the EU personnel could not even imagine that somebody does not want to join their fantastic club. Another big mistake.

Bilge_Rat

11-25-14, 10:20 AM

I was being facetious. A lot of blame has been placed on the Vilnius agreement and yes, the negotiators were naive, but it does not look like Yanukovych was ever serious about signing the agreement.

Ukraine has major economic problems. Its economy was never reformed or modernised after independence. It is one of the poorest, most corrupt countries in Europe. It was kept propped up, partly by Russia, though cheap gas prices and imports of Ukrainian goods.

Yanukovych was talking to the EU, partly because his government was short of cash, partly because a sizable voting block wants closer ties with the EU.

Yanukovych would probably have signed the agreement if the EU gave him cash with no strings attached, but the EU/IMF, quite rightly, wanted economic/structural reforms. Yanukovych could never have agreed to these reforms, such as reducing corruption, since it would have undermined his own political base.

He probably would also have preferred not to sign a deal with Russia, since again there was opposition from western Ukrainians, but Russia did not ask for any structural refoms and gave him cash up front.

So no, the Vilnius agreement was not the cause of present situation, it was only one of many contributing factors.

Catfish

12-05-14, 02:33 PM

Regarding the title of this thread: We know now that there never was a "huge pro-EU rally gripping the Ukraine".

Radio voice of Russia, in german TV (Voice Berlin) .. ahem :03:

But still interesting and unmasking interview with a german professor of economics with a calm, boring voice, and then some TNT behind it (in german):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu5ge9hChjw#t=344

Germany will not pay the Ukraine's debts, France can't, the EU will probably go haywire about it. Win-win for the US, but not for the british economic market in London.

I just wonder what the near-future western Ukraine will do with its eastern roots cut, if the promises of capitalism fail to be fulfilled. :hmmm:

Oberon

12-05-14, 03:02 PM

Not a great deal it can do really, it's like a plant being pulled out without the roots and expecting it to grow still. I guess, if the Kiev government wasn't as corrupt and incompetant as it's shaping up to be it could use the money that it's going to get to build up industry in the west, but I doubt that'll happen.

I do wonder how the war has been affecting things at Chernobyl, it's pretty far away from the frontlines (at the moment) so hopefully things won't have been affected and the New Safe Confinement will still be completed by next year.

Catfish

12-05-14, 03:19 PM

Oberon

12-05-14, 03:32 PM

^The US has secretly invested 5 billion dollars in the last two months alone, into a pro-western Ukraine regime, maybe they are able to at least pay the concrete for the tchernobly sakophague with that :03:

One could bloody hope so! :haha:

From what I've read, it's actually being built by the French, so make of that what you will. :03:

Catfish

12-05-14, 04:25 PM

By .. the french !! :eek:
And it has to be renewed again and again, for the next 20.000 years.

Maybe we should give the region to North Korea, anything that happens there only influences the rest of the world some 50 years later (enough for me) :hmm2:

Oberon

12-05-14, 04:37 PM

I dunno, if the sarcophagus collapses, depending on which way the winds are blowing you might get some interesting vegetables in the garden. :hmmm: :haha:

Betonov

12-05-14, 04:53 PM

I dunno, if the sarcophagus collapses, depending on which way the winds are blowing you might get some interesting vegetables in the garden. :hmmm: :haha:

I'll ask my parents. I think all the small gardens were ordered to destroy the produce.

Oberon

12-05-14, 05:29 PM

I'll ask my parents. I think all the small gardens were ordered to destroy the produce.

We only lifted the mandatory radioactive testing of sheep that graze on lands with contaminated peat in 2012. :dead:

Skybird

12-06-14, 01:15 PM

Does Putin play Pool? He delivers his return via the bank::D

GAZPROM has buried its plan for the Southstream pipeline that should have dleivered gas via the Black Sea to Bulgaria. EU bureaucrats demanded GAZPROM to not control gas deliveries and the pipeline network simultaneously anyway, something that the Russians tried to achieve. But the Russian way to "comply" now is a very aggressive and angry move. They have signed treaties with this extremely uncomfortable "partner" of the EU instead, Turkey. Russia will follow the SouthStream pipeline construction, but not to Bulgaria, but to Turkey - and it will end there. Also, all deliveries that so far, via Ukraine, reached Bulgaria, also will be delivered via Turkey. This has several consequences.

Russia will be able to nevertheless use the ordered pipes for construction, its investements so far do not become void. It frees itself from the troubles with an ever nagging EU bureaucracy. It opens a new consumer market, Turkey. And it can smile while watching how Turkey will dance on Europe'S nosetip, now having an extremely powerful tool do annoy Europe with.

Bulgaria will lose three trillion in investments, and also the yearly transit fees it had hoped for. The bill goes to Brussel, no doubt. Ukraine will lose transit fees as well. Bill to Brussel again. Turkey will raise more demands for getting this and that concession, because the EU must directly negotiate the gas distribution with Turkey now. :haha: In how far these concessions will even strain the relations between the EU and Washington, remains to be seen. I see some creative potential for troubles there, when considering the great Sultan's recent megalomaniac behaviours and history-correcting speeches. :up: Oh, and the pipeline from the Russian contact points in Turkey to the European gas network, also needs to be built (=financed) by Brussel now (Turkey will leave them little room there, but milk them). The cream on top of it: Europe cannot afford to not buy from Turkey, because Southstream will be the second most important gas transit line right after the delivery via the German pipelines. Not getting that gas is no option. And Bulgaria now will get its gas from Turkey.

Played elegantly over two or three banks, one has to give it to the Kremlin, this strike hurts, really. The costs go into the several trillions. And to force the EU to embrace Turkey - ingenious. I hate it, but from a Russian POV it is ingenious a move. Its like the US being forced to embrace Venezuela or Cuba. It will be an intensified source of constant pain, annoyance and misery for Europe. Leave Turkey out and miss the gas, or accept to get closer with Turkey and it's treasons and conspiracies to get that gas. Brilliant! I totally hate it, but its brilliant.

Skybird

12-06-14, 01:24 PM

I'll ask my parents. I think all the small gardens were ordered to destroy the produce.
Vegetables and fruits in private gardens withion a 200m distance to German Autobahnen are so heavily contaminated that they are forbidden to be sold on markets, due to exceeding legal limits, sometimes extremely heavily. There private owners are recommened to not eat them (what they do nevertheless, because the officials do not tell them).

Maybe we can build a tube-sarcophagus for the autobahnen as well? :D

And if the one in Chernobyl collapses - simply do not report it, then nobody worries.

Betonov

12-06-14, 03:22 PM

Jesenice is a steel mil town inside an Alpine valley and the vegetables there used to be so contaminated that they conducted electricity.

Filters and massive plant closures made the air clean again.

Skybird

12-07-14, 06:36 AM

Eat it and feel the body electric! :O:

Betonov

12-07-14, 07:06 AM

No one in the area suffers from iron deficiency.

But everyone is terrified of thunderstorms :doh:

Skybird

12-07-14, 08:51 AM

No one in the area suffers from iron deficiency.

But everyone is terrified of thunderstorms :doh:

Scotty beams them up - bzzzzzp... :timeout:

Jimbuna

12-07-14, 09:11 AM

No one in the area suffers from iron deficiency.

But everyone is terrified of thunderstorms :doh:

That's polarisation for ya :)

Catfish

12-09-14, 05:03 PM

"Are you a member of a terrorist association ?"
"I'm married."

"We are fighting for freedom of speech"
"But in Russia, not here!"

Weapons costs for 2013:

Germany/England/France: 168 billion Dollars

NATO expenses for Europe: 286 billion dollars

USA: 640 billion dollars

(NATO in all: 945 billion dollars)

Russia: 88 billion dollars

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Don't let facts interfere with good old propaganda.

"It is good to see, that NATO can operate so independently!" *
(Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO General secretary)
* from the facts

We really should be afraid, and spend much more money for "defense". :haha:

I wonder if the TV news anchorman Mr. Kleber and our chancellor Merkel, were able to count the slaps in their faces, during a show that was broadcasted immediately after the daily lies called "News", directly proving that Merkel and the state media had used faked photo material, and lied blatantly.

in german.. "Neues aus der Anstalt":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhfzqClXQxU

Skybird

12-09-14, 06:30 PM

Catfish

12-10-14, 03:20 AM

What i see is that NATO spends more than ten times the money, than Russia, on weapons.

Because those numbers are about the money invested directly for weapons and armament, not about internal wages, (mis)management, or corruption.

Even if the numbers were a bit off (which i doubt, since they an be easily accessed all over the web), and it became known that a lot of money for military hardware is trickling away somewhere within NATO management and "influence that shall not be named", there should be enough left, don't you think so ? Ten. Times. :03:

And if you say that following numbers, the Taliban, Al Quaeda and what not have not been destroyed in spite of billions of money spent to destroy them i must ask you, if those billions were then spent wisely ?
U-boats/subs and Longbow helicopters and F-35s are nice to look at, but how do you want to exterminate terrorism with that?

Do you think a 500.000 dollar missile is worth the investition, if you destroy a tent with it ?
Maybe that is because they target wedding parties ? More value for money ?

But it is not about the Taliban or Al Quaeda, it is about Russia here, and a completey crazed arms race.
Read the world leaders strategy, from Breczinksi to all those other lunatics that drive politics, instead of elected people.

For your entertainment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHF9-ruI9Y4
German dubbing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL_CiiwGvXM
Original english: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ2ZenOV5qg

ikalugin

12-10-14, 04:44 AM

That easy it is not, Catfish. You should figure out easily, why. If such number comparisons would really meaning anything, that the Taliban in Afghanistanm should have been annihilated, the Iraq war would have stopped after the Iraqi defeat in 2003, and the IS would be unable to conquer anything at all.

Rommel said something about amassing firepower in one point of interest, by that the inferior force destroys the superior one.

And it always depends on WHAT that money in a defence budget is being spend for.
If one counts major items of equipment European NATO members procured in the post Cold War years you would see that NATO has a numerical (and qualatative) advantage.

GPV15 and GPV20 (the 2015 and 2020 rearmament programs in Russia) were looking to challenge this balance, but GPV2020 is only starting to gain momentum and we don't know how it would work out (due to changing geopolitical and economical situation), GPV15 by itself is fairly inadequate, as is GPV20 in some departments (such as the surface ships).

p.s. read this:
http://twower.livejournal.com/1510188.html
For your own amusement. I could provide translation if required.

Oberon

12-10-14, 10:17 PM

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/dragon_first_1/72271520/62830/62830_original.jpg

ikalugin

12-16-14, 06:46 AM

There are unconfirmed reports stating that:
- in last 4 days 32 cargo planes landed in the Ukraine, delivering not only the non lethal aids (thermals, armor, counter mortar radars and such) but a number of IFVs, artillery systems, anti tank weapons.
- the day before yesterday 10 IFVs and 3 howziters were unloaded in Odessa.
- last week 2 trains loaded with heavy weapons arrived from Eastern Europe.

Does any one else have anything on the Loyalist's weapons supplies?

Betonov

12-16-14, 07:31 AM

Confederate flags for the rebels :haha:

Skybird

12-16-14, 07:36 AM

Take it with a grain of salt.

The man served on that system? Then either he is a separatist, and his finger-pointing at loyalists should not be taken as the last word on the issue. Or he is a loyalist - but then why would he want to let the separatists off the hook and point fingers at his own camp?

Anyway, after last night's decisions of the Russian central bank the more interesting question is how long Russia can stand the financial pressure. Putin made the mistake to assume that military power alone is good enough to be seen as one of the big guys in the block. And there he has forgotten to check the history of the big European nations of the past 500 years. You need an economic structure as well that can maintain it. And there is where Russia is weak. Just exporting resources and not modernising the home industry - the resulting strategical weakness now gets mercilessly demonstrated. I think we will see a repetition of the cold war economy: years, maybe 1-2 decades of decline and slow motion collapse, state-planned economy increasing even further to (mis-)manage the lacks, poverty spreading again and at the end the big loud BANG and everything back to the starting line.

And just printing money from nothing also does not work for long time, because the Rubel is not the Dollar and the Russian currency cannot maintain any illusions to live a bit longer, like the Dollar still can. Different than the Rubel, the Dollar still is the master of deceptions. The Rubel cannot deceive anyone.

For Putin, all this could become dangerous. That does not necessarily mean regime change, like Washington assumes and Europe hopes. After Putin comes just another clone of the same scheme.

Skybird

12-16-14, 07:41 AM

Interesting is the piece of news on Odessa. I argued since longer time that Odessa is another hotspot of traditional Russian interest.

With the economic problems Putin now has, he has no other choice than to push on with his military distraction of his people, to keep their minds occupied. That si what makes the situation so hopeless to be solved diplomatically. Putin no longer has alternatice choices now even if he would like to chnage his course. It would cost him office, power, reputation at home, maybe even his freedom. He no longer rides the beast he unleashed. The beast rides him.

ikalugin

12-16-14, 07:48 AM

I have commented on the Buk video in the other thread.

As to the Russian economy, the way it would work:
- the defence industry/critical sectors would receive direct investments from the foreign currency financial reserves and thus would do just fine.
- the various target programs (social sector spending) would also receive similar investments but on lesser scale.
- the small/medium business would have trouble with acquiring the foreign financing (or the domestic financing due to the high rate set by the Central Bank), but their activities would be deregulated so maybe it works out for them.
- public would suffer from scarcity of high tect consumer products (ie Iphones), but they should be fine nesseseties wise.

Thus the question is - how long would those conditions last for? Would EU renew/expand the sanctions? Would the oil prices keep falling? If the conditions do change before the financial reserves run out, then we are in the clear. If they don't, then it depends on how the reform (promised by Putin on his December the 4th address) does, if it does well then we are again sort of in the clear.

Important point - while it is often correct to assume that a large private business would be run better in the Western world than a large Government owned firm, this is not true in Russia - both would run at about the same level of efficiency.

Skybird

12-16-14, 08:10 AM

Russia'S reserves in foreign financial high-liquidity assets and foreign currencies were around 510 billion in January 2014. In November they were less than 430 billion. The central bank's lead interest rate has tripled from 5.5% in early 2014 to 17% since yesterday: in less than 12 months. Russia's gold reserves also have shrunk, while until 2013 it tried to constantly increase them.

The trend is clear. And worse: the trend is sharpening up. It will not be another 11 months again before another 80 billion have dissappeared. The social and economical follow-up costs also worsen things further.

No battery lasts forever, ikalugin. As I said, Russia slips back into living conditions and state-managed misery again like in the cold war economy.

When in one year you loose 15% or more of your reserves without compensation, and the loosing trend worstens, accelerates, then you are in big trouble. And the number of years you have, is extremely limited. The low oil price does not make it any better for Russia. Why do you think the US-ally Saudi Arabia has blocked OPEC to cap the production quota in a bid to increase the oil price?

And I have not even mentioned the avoiding of Russia by foreign private and economic investors, and the dramatic ouitward flow of Russian private wealth that flees the country. I do not have the number right now, but in autumn the talk was of seveala dozen billions already.

Skybird

12-16-14, 08:11 AM

Could it be we both now messed up/mistook the two threads...? :haha:

I am also missing one posting by me that I made just an hour ago or so, it is no longer there. Instead I get another one duplicated in both threads now?

ikalugin

12-16-14, 08:58 AM

Where did I claim that reserves would last forever? Do you read my posts?

The social part (ie the price of neseseties such as basic clothes, food, generic medicine and so on) is not really damaged by the sanctions - as those goods are produced in Russia with the budget (in ruble terms) staying the same.

Sure people wont get their Iphones (luxury clothing, ect) cheaply - but this is not really the same as the late Soviet period (where money was spent on investment into heavy industry and not basic consumer products).
And I have not even mentioned the avoiding of Russia by foreign private and economic investors, and the dramatic ouitward flow of Russian private wealth that flees the country. I do not have the number right now, but in autumn the talk was of seveala dozen billions already.
Just means that we would have to look into where we get the money or if we should invest the reserve funds into Russian economy.

As to Sauidi Arabia - in my opinion the reason why quotas were not cut (like an OPEC member - Venezuella has suggested) is because central OPEC countries plan to increase their market share by under cutting their competitors.

12-16-14, 10:33 AM

Skybird

12-16-14, 12:19 PM

Where did I claim that reserves would last forever? Do you read my posts?

Yes I do, and since you saiud that

the defence industry/critical sectors would receive direct investments from the foreign currency financial reserves and thus would do just fine.
- the various target programs (social sector spending) would also receive similar investments but on lesser scale.
I decided to hint you at the fact that you can do that only for a forseeable amount of time - and not longer. The reserve pool that you referred to, only holds so and so much reserves - and not more. One sixth of that pool already got consumed in just this year, and the trend is worstening. Those reserves will not last for another five years coming.

Catfish

12-16-14, 01:15 PM

It would be great if Mr Putin could focus on building strong economy before playing it superpower having access to oil only.
Build the economy , become strong and proud nation and the rest may follow.

:haha:
How cynical lol.
We hinder Russia in building up its economy since 1989.

Once Russia threw communism overboard and jumped the capitalist bandwagon (then behaving like every other good imperialist country), it now has to suffer sanctions from all the world, so it cannot build up its economy. Having resources can be a curse ..

Build from with in out not the other way around, meanwhile it all turns out as smoke and mirrors. Sure. Other than NATO with its 840 billion dollars, Russia only spent 88 billions in 2013, for its military.

And, following your logic, it only shows its muscles and cannot be a real threat then, due to inflation and printing money. Just like the .. oh wait ..
Who are you afraid of then ?

Oberon

12-16-14, 09:43 PM

An interesting read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30483873

12-16-14, 10:55 PM

An interesting read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30483873

Good read but I personally don't believe things would be much different if west pored some money into Russia.
The eastern courtiers literally run into NATO by themselves with Russia opposing it from the very beginning.:hmmm:
Russia lost , it should swallow the bitter pill.
It may have loads of nukes but it is not superpower ... N Korea has nukes.
Yet it is big and reach country with great human assets - it should build on it not going along with some wet dreams of ex KGB agent.

Oberon

12-16-14, 11:18 PM

But the attitude going into the 2000s would be slightly different with Russia and the US working together. The seeds were there but no-one provided them with the water or food to grow, it was, in short, a missed opportunity. That's not to say that Russia is completely innocent in the path to where we are, both sides have basically refused to deviate from the Cold War playbook and as such we have boomeranged back into the Cold War.
Now, whilst some people may wish to pull a Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf in regards to the state of the Russian economy at the moment and the affect the sanctions are having on it, there is a real risk that these sanctions may result in Putin being replaced by someone who is even harder to work with, who is even more nationalistic, who is even more willing to put the military where his mouth is.
If, as the article suggests, 1989 was a repeat of 1918, and 2014 is a repeat again, then I hope that our Versailles sanction doesn't give Russia a Hitler...basically.

12-16-14, 11:22 PM

Now, whilst some people may wish to pull a Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf in regards to the state of the Russian economy at the moment and the affect the sanctions are having on it, there is a real risk that these sanctions may result in Putin being replaced by someone who is even harder to work with, who is even more nationalistic, who is even more willing to put the military where his mouth is

This crossed my mind as well.

ikalugin

12-16-14, 11:22 PM

Good read but I personally don't believe things would be much different if west pored some money into Russia.
The eastern courtiers literally run into NATO by themselves with Russia opposing it from the very beginning.:hmmm:
Russia lost , it should swallow the bitter pill.
It may have loads of nukes but it is not superpower ... N Korea has nukes.
Yet it is big and reach country with great human assets - it should build on it not going along with some wet dreams of ex KGB agent.
Cold war resolution was (still is) viewed differently by the West and Russia. Quite some time ago I have posted an article to that effect. You could access it here:
http://pozneronline.ru/2014/03/7200/

What Russia opposes to is the expansion of unfriendly and aggressive alliance that it is not a part of eastwards.

ikalugin

12-17-14, 06:41 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcd68FktZUU
Allegedly this is evidence of the T64BV being loaded on the 31.05.2014 into the An124 series aircraft, to be transported from Krasnoyarsk (Russia) to Taganrog (Russia). The dates and location have to be checked, so far I have not seen any independent verification of this.

While this (and a number of other such videos) does not prove anything conclusively this could be counted as indirect evidence about the early weapon's supplies to the separatists.

Catfish

12-17-14, 07:01 AM

"The West won against the Soviet Union."
Isn't this attitude a bit primitive and naive, apart from being plain dumb and arrogant? In bank terms, the West is as bankrupt as the Soviet Union was, in 1989, we just keep on printing money and do not care for the future.

There was no one interested in the west, to help build up capital/funds in post Soviet Russia.
A few people (mostly in continental Europe) tried to help form and build a civilian society in the new Russia. But no general support or verve in establishing a democracy, it was much easier to try exploiting natural resources.

And now they get an embargo and blockade, because of exactly what ?

Being afraid of soviets and communism gets a bit old, even Poland should at some point realize that. Maybe today they are still afraid of Hitler ? Or Genghis Khan ?

This quote from the article linked by Oberon, sums up the real thing quite well:
"Why had the US, which had behaved with such wisdom and foresight in Poland, acted with such cruel neglect in the case of Russia? Step by step, and memoir by memoir, the true story came to light. The West had helped Poland financially and diplomatically because Poland would become the Eastern ramparts of an expanding Nato."

But WTH did the US see a rising democratic and capitalist country (post 1989 Russia starting) still as "the enemy", trying to still cruch them? Didn't they say they had won?
So, why ?

Skybird

12-17-14, 07:29 AM

kranz

12-17-14, 07:31 AM

even Poland should at some point realize that. Maybe today they are still afraid of Hitler ? Or Genghis Khan ?

I giggled.
.
.
.
.
.
not.

You've obviously missed Sailor Steve's post about 'not telling others what to do/not to do, haven't you?

Dunno where you are from (US?) but your hamburger-focused perspective on russians murdering innocent people in the east doesn't appeal to me.

A few days ago (2/3?) a Polish passenger plane was forced to change its course and altitude to avoid a collision with a russian 'intelligance' plane which had its transponders turned off (to avoid being detected ofc).

First they killed nearly 300 and now they want more.

Genghis Khan you say?:nope:

ikalugin

12-17-14, 07:32 AM

Skybird

12-17-14, 07:40 AM

"The West won against the Soviet Union."
Isn't this attitude a bit primitive and naive, apart from being plain dumb and arrogant?

The Soviet Union collapsed due to not being able to run the race anymore, while the West could. Seen that way, the West has won by outlasting the USSR.

The problem was how the winner behaved after his win. You can be a winner and still make the defeated not feel like second class, or you can pose and boast and make the other feel like a second grade sub-human. Especially America decided for something of the latter, for it has its antipathy against Russia in its genes by now. The abuse of Russia through the Yeltzin years and the rise of the oligarchs in Russia was the result. and the consequence of that was somebody like Putin coming - and cracking down hard on those oligarchs, teaching lessons of the like "You can act and be corrupt and run your shady businesses as long as you stick to that - but if you ever dare to once again trying to take over the state, you will get destroyed."

And Russia's relation to the West - in his early years, Putin has reached out to Europe, and like Peter the Grerat wanted to close the ties a bit, and get "more Europe" into Russia. Something that Washington always opposed and worked against, since it feared for its own influence in Europe. After the Russians were laughed about and NATO started to creep on their borders despite the promises not to do so, Putin had to realise that he had been naive a bit. And he adapted. The result is the Russia of the present that has turned away from the West once again.

A missed opportunity, Oberon said. Yes, exactly that: a missed opportunity. And although Russia always overestimated its own role, I nevertheless direct the lion's share of guilt for missing (intentiuonally, to some degree!) that opportunity to the West.

Catfish

12-17-14, 08:41 AM

I giggled.
.
.
not.

Well i hoped you had, since this comparison certainly was not meant too seriously. :D

But there is still some truth in that. After 1990, the baltic states and Poland had their own uprise of national feelings (who could blame them, after the soviet occupation).
However i will never understand why they called for NATO membership. I wonder how NATO even managed to persist, when its very reason for existence had suddenly gone astray. The then existing "new" Russia was not aggressive, with Gorbatchev and Yeltsin at the helm, but just of all during this time western nationalism and chauvinism had a great time.
In a time there was neither communism, nor a russian dictator, nor any army able to really attack anyone.

I would understand that now, after the russian bear was humiliated, and is now cornered with the NATO nagging at the frontdoor, hit by sanctions, but if you think about it the West's reaction towards Russia was and is as unfriendly, as it is unreasonable.

ikalugin

12-17-14, 08:49 AM

Well i hoped you had, since this comparison certainly was not meant too seriously. :D

But there is still some truth in that. After 1990, the baltic states and Poland had their own uprise of national feelings (who could blame them, after the soviet occupation).
However i will never understand why they called for NATO membership. I wonder how NATO even managed to persist, when its very reason for existence had suddenly gone astray. The then existing "new" Russia was not aggressive, with Gorbatchev and Yeltsin at the helm, but just of all during this time western nationalism and chauvinism had a great time.
In a time there was neither communism, nor a russian dictator, nor any army able to really attack anyone.

I would understand that now, after the russian bear was humiliated, and is now cornered with the NATO nagging at the frontdoor, hit by sanctions, but if you think about it the West's reaction towards Russia was and is as unfriendly, as it is unreasonable.
The timing of this Ukranian crisis is actually fairly good, considering that Russia was going (still is going) through an actual rearmament (replacing the 20+ year old weapons with some new or atleast upgraded, with serviceable if not top of the line quality) and a period of economic/industrial growth.

That said the economic sanctions may preclude this rearmament from being conducted now and in the future (as there would be some budget cuts - either defence or the social spending), thus precluding Russia from being an actual military threat (in the conventional sense, nukes are there to stay), as it is not really at the moment (correlation of forces and means, positioning of forces precludes Russia from being a major threat to Central and Western European nations and especially the North America - apart from modern video games of FPS subjanre where we crash all of NATO in like few days and land in mainland USA).

So, was a good plan and well played.

Meanwhile - the plans of producing the new ICBMs (heavy ICBM to replace the SS18 series and new rail mobile ICBM) are accelerated - the heavy one is to fly next year.

Skybird

12-17-14, 09:16 AM

A good plan and well played?

Militarily, yes - and very much so.

Putin just overlooked that he was a military regional giant whose economy was/is standing on feet of clay. Being a Judo-fighter he should have known the importance of a solid stand and basis.

The financial and economic index numbers are in free fall. They speak a clear language.

He probably also did not/could not forsee, or underestimated, the development of the price for oil. That alone already would have spelled disaster for Russia in the time before the Ukraine crisis went up in flames.

No military ambition without solid economical support. Else it ends in a dead end that forms its own ugly self-dynamics leading to disaster.

ikalugin

12-17-14, 09:29 AM

12-17-14, 10:36 AM

mapuc

12-17-14, 01:40 PM

Have just been reading a very interesting article in a Swedish news paper

What if Putin do something else than expected ?

Many expect due to the economical pressure that Putin will obey and withdraw from Eastern Ukraine- But what if he do the opposite

Markus

Catfish

12-17-14, 03:46 PM

^ "He" may retreat from the eastern Ukraine, if "he" was ever there, apert from supporting the russian-speaking majority in those areas.

"He" will not give back the Crimea area though, with Sevastopol as THE russian black sea base.

ikalugin

12-17-14, 11:53 PM

Do you remember all the talk about the stability of Russian democracy and the possibility of old timers taking over.
...after all Gorby was almost overthrown , also NATO is armament business yet not exactly ISIS threatening Moscow.
Gorbachev was overthrown during the dissolution of the USSR, which was a De jure a separatist process (though Russia with Yeltsin did participate in said process).

mapuc

12-18-14, 01:12 PM

First of all, I follow Skybirds suggestion..do not believe anything whatever it's from our own sources or from Russian sources

There is a thing I can't understand

According to our news sources and NATO's intelligence there are Russian soldiers in Eastern Ukraine and there are Russian war material

Russia refuse these allegations

Here is what I don't understand

Either our sources is not telling us the truth

Or

Russia government are very well aware of this.
or
The Russian government do not have full control over it's military forces. Meaning that there are some Russian Generals that act of their own

Markus

Oberon

12-18-14, 01:24 PM

Gorbachev was overthrown during the dissolution of the USSR, which was a De jure a separatist process (though Russia with Yeltsin did participate in said process).

According to that article this took place after the suggestion of an economic deal between Russia and the US failed to take place. Not suggesting that it was a direct result but it certainly can't have helped.
I wonder if Gorbachev had managed to get a deal with the US in a manner similar to that described in that article whether he would have managed to cling on to power a bit longer and ride through a more structured dissolution of the USSR. That being said, Yeltsin would still have worked to undermine him, but he might have been able to have pacified the hardliners a little with some economic relief...although it's always hard to tell what the hardliners would go for, they were particularly in denial in those last days of the USSR. :hmmm:

Skybird

12-18-14, 01:26 PM

Here is what I don't understand

Either our sources is not telling us the truth

Or

Russia government are very well aware of this.

or

The Russian government do not have full control over it's military forces. Meaning that there are some Russian Generals that act of their own

1 and 2 true, 3 extremely unlikely.

Nobody speaks all truth in all this. Because everybody has interests. Nothing is as easy for politicians and intel services than to tell lies and half-truths to the public. One could say it is part of the list with inevitable skills laid out in the job description.

mapuc

12-18-14, 01:48 PM

1 and 2 true, 3 extremely unlikely.

Nobody speaks all truth in all this. Because everybody has interests. Nothing is as easy for politicians and intel services than to tell lies and half-truths to the public. One could say it is part of the list with inevitable skills laid out in the job description.

When it comes to news from Ukraine I take it with a big lorry of salt.

It was due to some statement from a Russian Minister saying

You are telling us that there are Russian soldiers in Eastern Ukraine please show us some evidence

That's when I thought

Either....

Catfish

12-18-14, 02:07 PM

Again, can anyone tell me why Russia has been the enemy again, after the soviet fall in 1989 ?

Betonov

12-18-14, 02:20 PM

Again, can anyone tell me why Russia has been the enemy again, after the soviet fall in 1989 ?

the weapons industry can earn billions with terrorist hunts, but for a gazillion you need an opposing empire

12-18-14, 02:38 PM

Again, can anyone tell me why Russia has been the enemy again, after the soviet fall in 1989 ?

What if Russia wants to be an enemy for the same reason you think west wants to be an enemy.:ping:
Look at what is going on in Russia ... state controlled media , economy , old time rhetoric and so on...Turkey
Old timer has took over.

Russia want slice of pie yet the slice doesn't want it , so Russia does what it does in Ukraine and blame CIA for mind controlling.

Oberon

12-18-14, 02:57 PM

Again, can anyone tell me why Russia has been the enemy again, after the soviet fall in 1989 ?

It takes longer than thirty years for the frost from a Cold War to thaw...

mapuc

12-18-14, 03:35 PM

I use this thread ´cause we discuss Russia or the "new Russia"

Earlier today I saw on the news a Swedish minister saying that the huge exercise that Russia held last week in the Baltic Sea. Was not only the biggest since the days of the cold war, but also very new in many way, which wasn't seen before.

It had something to do with Russian bombers(didn't really catch it)

Markus

Skybird

12-19-14, 04:55 AM

Catfish

12-19-14, 05:09 AM

[...] In case of a hot war I think Russia would try to hold it, due to its location that makes it ideal to serve as a spearhead from which to spread a radar and SAM umbrella deep into NATO territory - the same what Washington wanted to do with the Crimean.

No!! You know exactly, like our news anchormen told us, that the NATO only installs rockets in the baltic states, Poland and Crimea, to protect Europe and Germany (only, of course) against syrian or iranian rockets!
Russia has nothing to do with it.

This is no joke, our good partners would never bely us, let alone our media. See all the ZDF news in 2012 and 2013.

Putin also has to believe that. If not, the NATO will drive that point home (probably straight to Moscow :03:)

12-19-14, 06:57 AM

No!! You know exactly, like our news anchormen told us, that the NATO only installs rockets in the baltic states, Poland and Crimea, to protect Europe and Germany (only, of course) against syrian or iranian rockets!
Russia has nothing to do with it.

This is no joke, our good partners would never bely us, let alone our media. See all the ZDF news in 2012 and 2013.

Putin also has to believe that. If not, the NATO will drive that point home (probably straight to Moscow :03:)

Ok fine.
...but what is your issue here?
Is it that The Pie has not been split in fair manner which would satisfy Putin?.

I think Moscow has nothing to fear as long as Moscow remains in Moscow.
It seems the Russians has problem with accepting the reality that Putin's charm alone doesn't work on ex soviet block courtiers.
Quite opposite possibly...
Russia must offer something more than that....

Catfish

12-19-14, 07:56 AM

No it's not fine at all.
There's no pie to split.

On one hand i guess Putin will not give back Sevastopol, as for the upper east of the Ukraine it seems the russian-speaking majority does not want to belong to the Ukraine after the putsch, and Russia sends the russian-speaking population in the east goods and food, and maybe (!) arms.
The latter is not proven, unless you take the tank photos from Georgia some time ago as evidence, that Russia invades the Ukraine now, as those old photos were presented yesterday in our daily news as "evidence" lmao).

Issues?

What does the NATO want in the Ukraine?
Ah the Ukraine cried for becoming a NATO member, directy after some .. err .. putsch, and then some right wing ukrainian 'Nazis' with SS runes on their helmet helping the new 'president', and some Mr. Brennan from the CIA visiting Kiev.
All with full approvement of the people, fully democratically, be sure. And the EU messing all up in following what is fed to them by the NATO.

What exactly should Russia offer ? NATO gun and rocket positions around Moscow ? I somehow think theer is nothing Russia could do. The last three times it tried, it received a kick in the behind, and a lot of laughter, from Bismarck to the post-cold war west.

Once again ye olde question: Why is Russia seen as an enemy, from 1990 on ?

12-19-14, 08:28 AM

What does the NATO want in the Ukraine?
Ah the Ukraine cried for becoming a NATO member, directy after some .. err .. putsch, and then some right wing ukrainian 'Nazis' with SS runes on their helmet helping the new 'president', and some Mr. Brennan from the CIA visiting Kiev.
All with full approvement of the people, fully democratically, be sure. And the EU messing all up in following what is fed to them by the NATO.

What exactly should Russia offer ? NATO gun and rocket positions around Moscow ? I somehow think theer is nothing Russia could do. The last three times it tried, it received a kick in the behind, and a lot of laughter, from Bismarck to the post-cold war west.

Enough with this SS mantra.
Yes there are right wingers and nazis in Ukraine , Russian media will scream about it because there is still nothing more just in Russia than fighting fascist aggressors.
This is good old manipulation .. just like in USA communism or in Russia capitalism used to be.
With those , one could scare children at night yet both are irrelevant somewhat by now.
In Russia the fascism mantra still works.

The putsch in Ukraine happened due to dissatisfaction to prolonged corruption.
Give some credit to the people as well ... people may lose the patience in particular when seeing the NATO members courtiers bordering with Ukraine improving while their own country regressing into filth.
Not everything is about CIA mind controlling... comm..on CIA cant even get reliable intelligence by torture....

If the role reversed Putin would be installing the missile defense where ever he can....right now he is at the wrong side of stick and plays this insulted no bull**** we will show them yet politician part.

Catfish

12-19-14, 08:44 AM

Enough with this SS mantra.

Well those helmets with the runes on it were also shown in TV, but very shortly, and were then quickly linked to ... east-ukrainian 'partisans' (!) by some ZDF anchorman. When someone protested, the show was just switched off. Good old neutral media :yep:

Yes there are right wingers and nazis in Ukraine

Yep there are. And some of those have been put in place by the new president, some as a personal garde, for him.
Of course Russia is not without guilt and uses its own propaganda, but the way the whole thing is handled in the local press and media is hilarious !

The putsch in Ukraine happened due to dissatisfaction to prolonged corruption, right, only the new prsident does not look any better in that respect than the old president, minus the ridiculous villa of the older.

And giving the western ukrainian people some credit, yes and agreed.
But also cut Russia some slack. Putin is a reasonable man, but he is treated like a pariah and no one speaks to him. The russian people see this as the EU sees it. The next president may be not so reasonable, but we have no one else than ourselves to blame, then.

Greetings,
Catfish

ikalugin

12-19-14, 09:28 AM

According to that article this took place after the suggestion of an economic deal between Russia and the US failed to take place. Not suggesting that it was a direct result but it certainly can't have helped.
I wonder if Gorbachev had managed to get a deal with the US in a manner similar to that described in that article whether he would have managed to cling on to power a bit longer and ride through a more structured dissolution of the USSR. That being said, Yeltsin would still have worked to undermine him, but he might have been able to have pacified the hardliners a little with some economic relief...although it's always hard to tell what the hardliners would go for, they were particularly in denial in those last days of the USSR. :hmmm:
Gorbachev failed badly on the external policy arena. For example - if I remember it right he was offered essentially free money by the West Germans to assist in the unification of Germany, but he didn't take it. He took the expensive loans (as Soviet credit rating was bad).

ikalugin

12-19-14, 09:30 AM

What if Russia wants to be an enemy for the same reason you think west wants to be an enemy.:ping:
Look at what is going on in Russia ... state controlled media , economy , old time rhetoric and so on...Turkey
Old timer has took over.

Russia want slice of pie yet the slice doesn't want it , so Russia does what it does in Ukraine and blame CIA for mind controlling.
Have you ever accessed the Echo of Moscow (radio station)?

For the reference it is indirectly controlled by the State (State->Gazprom->Gazprom Media->Echo of Moscow). The issue I am pointing out is that if a State owned company controls a media outlet it is not necessary spewing out pro Goverment propaganda.

ikalugin

12-19-14, 09:35 AM

The putsch in Ukraine happened due to dissatisfaction to prolonged corruption.
Give some credit to the people as well ... people may lose the patience in particular when seeing the NATO members courtiers bordering with Ukraine improving while their own country regressing into filth.
Not everything is about CIA mind controlling... comm..on CIA cant even get reliable intelligence by torture....

If the role reversed Putin would be installing the missile defense where ever he can....right now he is at the wrong side of stick and plays this insulted no bull**** we will show them yet politician part.
Really? Considering that Yanukovich (and his party) were going out of the office in the next elections? Considering that they have (after the events) elected just another set of corrupt politicians (a different Oligarh clan, but still and Oligarh clan)?

Nothing has changed for the better in the Ukraine in the recent year, not has there been any measures taken (that I am aware of) to improve the situation.

12-19-14, 09:44 AM

Nothing has changed for the better in the Ukraine in the recent year, not has there been any measures taken (that I am aware of) to improve the situation.

I don't know.
We will wait and see.

It is too early to judge the performance of current Ukrainian government.
Even if Ukrainians get rid of corruption and will work hard to rebuild the country it will take probably 20 years of development so one year with this mess still hanging over is irrelevant.

ikalugin

12-19-14, 11:37 AM

I don't know.
We will wait and see.

It is too early to judge the performance of current Ukrainian government.
Even if Ukrainians get rid of corruption and will work hard to rebuild the country it will take probably 20 years of development so one year with this mess still hanging over is irrelevant.
It is too early to make a final judgement indeed, however they are not doing any actions consistent with improving the situation.

Morever this does appear to be yet another repetition of the previous Maidan events (the so called Orange revolution - which resulted in Yanukovich being elected in the first place).

mapuc

12-19-14, 12:47 PM

The manouvers in my view had a clear focus on possible logistical support for and defence of the Russian enclave at Kaliningrad.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Kaliningrad_map.PNG

It makes plenty of military sense to practice that in times of growing tensions. In case of a hot war I think Russia would try to hold it, due to its location that makes it ideal to serve as a spearhead from which to spread a radar and SAM umbrella deep into NATO territory - the same what Washington wanted to do with the Crimean.

Could very well be. I am sure that this exercise was to train for a future invasion of Gotland.(Said by many swedish strategic person)

They have said that for Russia Gotland is the most impotant area in the baltic sea.

I'm no expert in that area, so maybe it is true or not.

Markus

Oberon

12-19-14, 12:49 PM

They have said that for Russia Gotland is the most impotant area in the baltic sea.

You can get pills for that. :yep:

mapuc

12-19-14, 01:30 PM

You can get pills for that. :yep:

The blue or the red ?

Edit make search for Russia, Gotland and strategic importance

Oberon

12-19-14, 03:39 PM

The blue or the red ?

Edit make search for Russia, Gotland and strategic importance

Blue at the moment...red later?

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WopbvjBMa3A/maxresdefault.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqy7T3W4qCs

Betonov

12-19-14, 03:53 PM

But this mission (loved the intro) was played in northern Norway, Gotland is east of Stockholm (about) ????

Oberon

12-19-14, 04:02 PM

But this mission (loved the intro) was played in northern Norway, Gotland is east of Stockholm (about) ????

Hush! :O::O::O::O: (Me too :03: And Mission two and fifteen :rock:)

Betonov

12-19-14, 04:05 PM

Hush! :O::O::O::O: (Me too :03: And Mission two and fifteen :rock:)

The entire game was awesome !!!!!!
I only hated that US mission right after the nuke (cronologically)

Oberon

12-19-14, 04:23 PM

The entire game was awesome !!!!!!
I only hated that US mission right after the nuke (cronologically)

Yeah, that one was a bit of a pain in the arse.

BossMark

12-21-14, 03:18 AM

Putin: It's too early to decide if I will run for re-election in 2018.

But not too early to decide the results.

CCIP

12-21-14, 09:33 AM

Considering where the economy is heading, who knows, he might not politically survive until 2018 (although that's perhaps wishful thinking on my part).

Catfish

12-21-14, 09:49 AM

And then we will get a russian Reagan, and we all know how this will turn out :haha:

ikalugin

12-23-14, 01:52 AM

Considering where the economy is heading, who knows, he might not politically survive until 2018 (although that's perhaps wishful thinking on my part).
It is wishful I think.

On topic - in a private conversation one financial specialist complained to me that corruption got worse in the Ukraine, and most people are participating in it (with few exceptions - example being the head of Presidential administration).

Also - did anybody know that technically decision to transfer Crimea to Ukraine (by Khrushev) was not legitimate, as he did not get a majority vote to support it?

BossMark

12-23-14, 03:19 AM

News: Putin named Russia's "Man of the Year" for 15th consecutive year.

As usual, second place went to "Or else."

ikalugin

12-23-14, 04:18 AM

News: Putin named Russia's "Man of the Year" for 15th consecutive year.

As usual, second place went to "Or else."
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/02/25/article-2106406-0287A47B00000578-488_634x457.jpg

Skybird

12-23-14, 05:28 AM

I see he shoots free his way to the negotiation table.

Skybird

12-24-14, 06:12 AM

My last political comment before the holidays :D :

I read that despite its economic and fincial worries and the loss of the crashdive of the Rubel, Moscow has intensified its strategy of dumping dollars and instead buying gold. The IMF say that

Russia, the world's fifth-largest holder of bullion reserves, raised gold holdings by 18.753 tonnes to 1,187.493 tonnes last month.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/23/gold-imf-holdings-idUSL3N0U705520141223

That means since 2005 they tripled their gold reserves, and despite their actual financial worries they have continued to increase their gold reserves for the 8th month in a row.

Western mainstream analysts say this is due to Russia needing to help its own gold mines. But that is only part of the truth. Russia runs this strategy since longer, and is joined by other major players like China and India. Russia also has started to dump the dollar in its state reserves.

By now, Russia holds around 10% of its state reserves in gold. Tendency: growing.

In case of short termed financial escalations of the Ukraine conflict and tightening banking sanctions, Russia becomes more independent from sanctions basing on the dollar-economy. Beyond that the growing independence from the dollar becomes an active strategic asset against the American dollar hegemony. Without major actors and economies accepting any more US debt money and state bonds, the system must collapse and would leave the Us stranded in total fiscal bancruptcy. Dollar and Euro are worth nothing already - its just that the people still have not understood that. once they do, we will have riots and scenes like civil war on the streets on the very same day.

Being a critic of the state-enforced paper-debt-"money" myself, I have wondered since long if maybe the sanction regime indeed helps Russia to silently continue with a plan to get rid of the dollar, both in private economy and state reserves. Mind you that the five major companies in Russia just were told to sold their foreign currency reserves they held. Sure, its the Rubel's dive and the sanctions, everybody says. But what if their is a much deeper masterplan behind it?

Gold over paper. Anytime. Every time. Central bankers being stupid enough to tell the public that that is old fashioned and gold is archaic, only worry about their own careers.

ikalugin

12-24-14, 06:29 AM

I was told that Ruble would stabilise at 50-55 Rubles for the USD.
http://i64.fastpic.ru/big/2014/1222/65/8a2e2ece8701e9946b2cf68173e9b365.png
The issue is that the peak in question was more of speculative nature than of some underlying economic reason
and many base their predictions on that peak rather than some longer term trends.

In general I find those western reports on imminent crash of Russian economy (based on the speculative jump on the Monday-Tuesday)
a bit premature and wishful, to say the least.

ikalugin

01-27-15, 03:16 PM

It looks like the war goes on and recent fighting indicates that separatists hold the initiative now, with a number of minor tactical victories (such as capturing the airport they were meant to have per Minsk agreements).

It is interesting to see how they are now trying to push loyalists out of Mariople (without much result yet) and to close a major pocket between Donetsk and Lugansk.

In other news - 12th Main Directorate of Russian MoD returns to Crimea:
http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2015/01/22_a_6384621.shtml

mapuc

01-27-15, 04:41 PM

CCIP

01-27-15, 05:52 PM

Why can't the two fighting parts do as they did during the Middle age, meet somewhere on the country side and make up there??

Markus

To be fair, this was often followed by entering the losing side's civilian villages, with raping, pillaging, and mass executions. So that's not exactly the greatest alternative.

kranz

01-28-15, 05:58 AM

Ukrainian POWs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vAUFl6ifRA
(+18)

it seems there is only one way to deal with these sick mfs being supported by sick russian mfs - radiation.

ikalugin

01-28-15, 06:29 AM

Both sides are bad, especially the loyalists who capture innocents to exchange with separatists for the loyalists soldiers.

kranz

01-28-15, 07:48 AM

ikalugin

01-28-15, 08:26 AM

somehow I haven't seen similar videos which would depict ukrainian soldiers maltreating separatists.

keep denying these war crimes committed with the support of russia. after all that is what you are told to do by your government and 'free' newspapers.:woot:
Have you not seen the video, where the Ukrainian loyalist murders the PoWs (by using a bucket)?

Heh, I condemn both sides for commuting the crimes they do (and call for improved discipline within the separatist movement), so it is not me, who is selective here.

Jimbuna

01-28-15, 09:06 AM

I really do appreciate the whole tragic mess in the region means a whole lot more to some community members here than many of us can honestly claim to realise but my concern is the smooth running of the boards and as such I am appealing for restraint and mutual respect from all contributors.

ikalugin

01-28-15, 11:06 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yZN60ZW2Q4
The video about the PoW execution. I could find the original video if you wish.

ikalugin

01-28-15, 11:14 AM

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/kot_ivanov/71733898/37334/37334_original.jpg

nikimcbee

01-28-15, 01:26 PM

Nice map.:salute:

August

01-28-15, 02:31 PM

'Doubt everything' – Ukrainian students' warning to Russian counterparts Students in Kiev release YouTube video for their Moscow equivalents speaking out against ‘rampant Kremlin propaganda’ they say fuels the conflict in eastern Ukraine. RFE/RL reports

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/28/doubt-everything-ukrainian-students-warning-to-russian-counterparts

CCIP

01-28-15, 06:22 PM

That map is insightful - in particular, it's interesting to see just how active things are around the Debaltsevo salient, something that Western media hardly talks about (virtually all the coverage I see here focuses on Donetsk and Mariupol). However, I have some skepticism about the map's bias. Particularly the fact that it shows more offensive movements by the Ukrainian military (at least in more places - whereas most indicators, particularly political, seem to suggest separatist initiative in the latest escalation), and its assignment of responsibility for certain things makes me wonder. The artillery strike on Mariupol being pinned on Ukrainian forces seems rather dubious, especially when you look at the positioning on forces in that area - doesn't make a whole lot of sense except as provocation, but given the situation I don't think anybody needs any more provoking as it is. :hmmm:

Skybird

01-28-15, 06:27 PM

On a side note: the last American M1 tanks have left Germany not so long time ago, I think just two or three years ago, I do not recall the exact date.

German media reported earlier this week that they are coming back. First American M1 tank units will be relocating back to Germany before summer.

Hexagramm 24 of the I Ching says:

To and fro goes the way.
On the seventh day comes return.

:D

kranz

01-29-15, 05:17 AM

I am appealing for restraint and mutual respect from all contributors.
dirty lies and truth denial exclude respect. It's not even the fact that he is wrong - no, no - he's deliberately lying and playing stupid for which I cannot have respect. The way he behaves here boils down to this:
A (several ppl in this thread): Russians play active role in Ukraine supporting the separatists with equipment etc.
B: no no no - these are lies. post proofs.
A: here are the proofs
B: 50 posts of 'no, no, no' to finally admit: ok, the separatists are supported by 'someone' but definitely not by russians.
A: but here are the proofs.
B: 50 posts of another 'no, no, no' to finally admit: ok, the gear might be russian but there have never been any russian troops there.
A: posts proofs
B: 50 posts of 'no, no, no - these are lies and Western propaganda'. ok - there might have been some troops but they just lost their way.
A: more proofs
B: more 'no, no, no'

After 2158 posts we learn that: 'Crimea has never actually been Ukrainian' and 'Russia has to support the separatists because they fight for their freedom and against loyalist fascists'
Basically he denied his own denial and is writing another narration. :up:
If he continues doing that, I promise this thread will burn.

However, I have some skepticism about the map's bias.
really? what did you expect of him?

:D
:D

ikalugin

01-29-15, 05:22 AM

Map is made by pro separatist biased group, that none the less tries to complile all available reports.

Recent "escalation" is another discussion topic and in my opinion happened b/c both sides ignored the Minsk agreements (ie the demarcation map). Why do I talk about both sides? Because the well known Donetsk airport was meant to go to the separatists as per Minsk agreements, yet the loyalists were never going to abandon it, not before they were forced to.

map source:
http://kot-ivanov.livejournal.com/8111.html
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/kot_ivanov/71733898/37882/37882_original.jpg
Note some of the engagements are very minor in nature, the over all initiative is in separatist's hands.

Map showing the real positions at various points in time and demarcation border:
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/bmpd/38024980/1790594/1790594_original.jpg

Bilge_Rat

01-29-15, 07:19 AM

There are two sets of maps floating around, put out one by the pro-Ukrainian and one by the pro-Russian groups.

This was the situation on jan. 20 according to Ukraine.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7ybOoLIEAA0RDZ.jpg

The map put out by the Russian side tends to be "optimistic" about what they have actually achieved. :ping:

ikalugin

01-29-15, 07:43 AM

I could be wrong, due to the low resolution of the Ukrainian map, but what is the difference between the two (apart from Russian troops being depicted everywhere on the Ukrainian map)?

Skybird

01-29-15, 07:54 AM

It seems the Ukrainians are outgunned, low on motivation and morale and their pays do not get paid very often. 50,000 more men of even older age were called in sokjme weeks ago - cannonfodder. The Ukrainian government now has announced rewards for soldiers destroying enemy platforms. A destroyed vehicle should be worth 500 Euros, a tank 2400, a shot down plane 6000 Euros.

:huh:

Now introduce a Goldrush and another shooting at the OK Corral - and we're back in the wild wild West made in the East.

I wonder, however, whether Putin has not overplayed his cards nevertheless.

Its two sides doing battle there that both are such that we should not wish to have anything to do with any of the two. Leave the two to themselves, and concentrate on containing the events to the area. The treaties regulating military relations between NATO and Russia, in parts effectively have been invalidated by now and are obsolete, and I see no valid legal obligation for NATO anymore to keep the Eastern nations of NATO as cleaned of foreign NATO presences as treaties before had ruled. We should not push into the Ukraine and further onto Russian borders. But the military defence capacities in Eastern NATO countries and the Baltic should be fundamentally beefed up. The rest of the confrontation game gets played on the economic and financial parquet floor anyway. And this new round gets played under very different financial conditions than during the cold war, the US and the west are fiscally not that superior and invulnerable anymore as they were back then. But currently they still are stronger and have the better cards in these regards.

But that could change in these times of financial turmoils very fast. But for the time being Moscow has more worries than the West when counting coins.

kranz

01-29-15, 08:23 AM

Russians are sending more mobile crematoria to Donbas. 7 units reached their destination around 20/23 January.

to give you the idea of what a mobile crematorium is:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=efe_1410266111

but hey - there have never been ANY russian troops there, right? right.

ikalugin

01-29-15, 08:48 AM

Jimbuna

01-29-15, 08:56 AM

dirty lies and truth denial exclude respect. It's not even the fact that he is wrong - no, no - he's deliberately lying and playing stupid for which I cannot have respect. The way he behaves here boils down to this:
A (several ppl in this thread): Russians play active role in Ukraine supporting the separatists with equipment etc.
B: no no no - these are lies. post proofs.
A: here are the proofs
B: 50 posts of 'no, no, no' to finally admit: ok, the separatists are supported by 'someone' but definitely not by russians.
A: but here are the proofs.
B: 50 posts of another 'no, no, no' to finally admit: ok, the gear might be russian but there have never been any russian troops there.
A: posts proofs
B: 50 posts of 'no, no, no - these are lies and Western propaganda'. ok - there might have been some troops but they just lost their way.
A: more proofs
B: more 'no, no, no'

After 2158 posts we learn that: 'Crimea has never actually been Ukrainian' and 'Russia has to support the separatists because they fight for their freedom and against loyalist fascists'
Basically he denied his own denial and is writing another narration. :up:
If he continues doing that, I promise this thread will burn.

really? what did you expect of him?

:D

I really do appreciate the whole tragic mess in the region means a whole lot more to some community members here than many of us can honestly claim to realise but my concern is the smooth running of the boards and as such I am appealing for restraint and mutual respect from all contributors.

Nothing much more to be said other than to make reference to my earlier appeal but I will reiterate my position when I state that all thread contributors are expected to adhere to the rules of this forum.

Now this "If he continues doing that, I promise this thread will burn." I can assure you should it happen will be met with swift and appropriate remedial action, of that let there be no doubt or ambiguity.

Spectemur Agendo

Onkel Neal

01-29-15, 09:23 AM

Nothing much more to be said other than to make reference to my earlier appeal but I will reiterate my position when I state that all thread contributors are expected to adhere to the rules of this forum.

Now this "If he continues doing that, I promise this thread will burn." I can assure you should it happen will be met with swift and appropriate remedial action, of that let there be no doubt or ambiguity.

Spectemur Agendo

Agreed. Keep this thread civil. This forum has people from all over so an effort to be courteous and diplomatic is necessary and expected.

Bilge_Rat

01-29-15, 09:25 AM

I could be wrong, due to the low resolution of the Ukrainian map, but what is the difference between the two (apart from Russian troops being depicted everywhere on the Ukrainian map)?

It is similar now, but that was not always the case in the past.

Here is another map put out by the Ukrainian side:

https://en.informnapalm.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/01/mapofsummary.jpg

https://en.informnapalm.org/informnapalm-teams-summary-assessment-january-28-2015/

Bilge_Rat

01-29-15, 09:27 AM

good overview of why the Russians have resumed the offensive:

To understand why the separatists and their Russian allies decided to end almost four months of relative passivity, it's helpful to try to imagine the situation from President Vladimir Putin's point of view.

At the end of last summer, Russia sent in regular troops to stop the Ukrainian army from eliminating the rebels. This resulted in a spectacular Ukrainian defeat near Ilovaysk. Suddenly, Ukraine was willing to talk and make concessions. The Minsk cease-fire agreement, signed in September by the rebels, the Ukrainian government, Russia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, effectively created a frozen conflict zone similar to Transnistria or South Ossetia.

Ukraine agreed to give the rebel-held areas special status, allowing them to govern themselves and even set up their own police forces. The semi-autonomous area would still, however, be the responsibility of Ukraine's social and financial systems. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko agreed to the conditions and the parliament quickly passed a bill that gave the rebels all they wanted.

Poroshenko, however, was never interested in maintaining this uneasy compromise (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-16/ukraine-s-capitulation-pleases-no-one). Neither he nor Ukrainian soldiers and volunteer fighters were willing to accept defeat. Poroshenko soon cut off all funding for social programs in rebel-held areas and moved to strengthen defenses along the separation line, thereby making Russia responsible for funding and governing most of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. At the same time, Poroshenko had the parliament rescind Ukraine's neutral status, taking an early step toward a NATO bid, and his rhetoric remained resolutely anti-Russian.

That wasn't what Putin had in mind. His initial goal was to reintegrate the separatist areas into Ukraine and use them to influence Ukrainian policies -- above all, to prevent any move toward NATO. Instead, Western countries kept up economic pressure on Russia, demanding it withdraw support from the rebels. To Putin, this looked like an attempt to deny Russia's victory. Putin decided that his Western adversaries had interpreted his earlier attempts to avoid large-scale sanctions -- such as the recognition of Poroshenko's election as president -- as a sign of weakness.

This explains why Putin doesn't see a diplomatic solution to the conflict and why all the efforts to bring one about have fallen through in recent weeks. Putin wants to develop a military advantage so he can talk to Ukraine and its Western allies from a position of strength. This also accounts for the rebels' repudiation of the Minsk ceasefire and the limited push against the weak Ukrainian army, which crumbles (http://goo.gl/Jg6h3z) every time it comes into contact with Russian units. Putin doesn't want to give Ukraine any more time to build up its military with Western help: He wants a lasting deal soon.

The West could respond to Putin in two ways. It could pressure Poroshenko into accepting a conditional surrender, a compromise that would keep Ukraine out of NATO, though not out of the European Union, and force it to reintegrate the eastern regions more or less on Russian terms. Alternatively, it could offer direct military aid to Ukraine, in the form of both weapons and troops. The first path -- the only one that has a chance of ending the bloodshed -- is unacceptable for reasons of vanity, and the second one means a war with Russia -- a prospect voters in Europe and the U.S. don't relish.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-26/why-putin-will-fight-on-in-ukraine

Bilge_Rat

01-29-15, 09:52 AM

Agreed. Keep this thread civil. This forum has people from all over so an effort to be courteous and diplomatic is necessary and expected.

I agree also. I certainly don't agree with Ikalugin on Ukraine, but he argues his points in accordance with forum rules and is always civil.

If we have the better arguments, we should be able to win by presenting facts and logical reasoning.

ikalugin

01-29-15, 12:42 PM

Interesting point of view, however it is not how we see this conflict unfolding. What you should look into (when discussing diplomatic solutions to the conflict) is the terms presented by both sides. Currently they are mutually unacceptable.

The understandable disrespect Ukraine and it's western allies have shown towards the Minsk agreements (the airport case if nothing else) does not help things either.

As to the military picture - what happens now is the combat recon/raiding/local skirmishes type operations in the most areas of the front (with exception to the Debaltsevo and the airport areas). Separatists do not feel any real need to conduct any aggressive operations (or have the ability to do so really), but their troops are sufficient to conduct minor key operations and maintain defence. If there was no push beyond the airport by the Ukrainian forces there would have been very little activity before spring, as both sides would have been training and otherwise preparing for spring-summer campaign.
On the other hand Ukraine I think did look into some sort of military victory and certainly needs it now, after the fall of the Airport and the destruction of "Cyborgs".

An important factor to consider is the re organisation of separatist forces from the militias and battalion sized groupings into brigade-corps structure, which improves their ability to fight the war.

Oberon

01-29-15, 02:23 PM

Another thing I noticed while I was browsing Google Earth earlier today that might have a fair bit of bearing on Russias directions towards Ukraine, and that's ICBMs.

There's a cluster of missile silos about 130 miles from the Ukrainian border, around Kozelsk, it's the most western silo complex still active in Russia, and having NATO radars in the Ukraine would put those silos within range. :hmmm:

Bilge_Rat

01-29-15, 05:04 PM

Here is a map in english prepared by the Ukrainian side. Heaviest fighting currently is in the Debaltseve bulge where Russian/rebel forces are trying to encircle Ukrainian forces.

http://img.24liveblog.com/2015/01/29/1422526014114137.jpg

ikalugin

01-30-15, 12:53 AM

01-30-15, 01:34 AM

Yes, main area of fighting does appear to be around the Debaltsevo pocket, but I have not seen any evidence of regular Russian forces in the area, even anecdotal one (such as "northern wind" sort of stuff).

Just to make things clear here , by what means you obtain the evidence?

....not that I myself have clue if any od those maps is correct.

ikalugin

01-30-15, 01:42 AM

Just to make things clear here , by what means you obtain the evidence?

....not that I myself have clue if any od those maps is correct.
Evidence of what?

01-30-15, 01:46 AM

Evidence of what?

but I have not seen any evidence of regular Russian forces in the area, even anecdotal one (such as "northern wind" sort of stuff).
:hmmm:

ikalugin

01-30-15, 01:50 AM

I survey the video and photo materials, as well as the official and unofficial media of both sides.

Even though my overview is by no means complete, I think I have an ok idea of what is happening there.

CCIP

01-31-15, 11:43 AM

And possibly of interest, especially if you want a platform to build and play out some re-enactment scenarios - Combat Mission: Black Sea is released today: http://www.battlefront.com/blacksea

ikalugin

02-02-15, 06:47 AM

http://m.ria.ru/world/20150202/1045450550.html
Separatists plan to conscript additional 100k troops.

Either this is separatists going serious or Russian Armed Forces intervening.

Betonov

02-02-15, 09:41 AM

Because we really can't trust either side to provide accurate info, we can send a Subsim expedition to the zone to gather un-biased info on the conflict.

Subsim can fund and I'll go in. I got nothing better to do anyways.
I'll refund afterwards when I publish a book about my journey into a war zone

CCIP

02-02-15, 01:12 PM

or Russian Armed Forces intervening.

Yeah, that's my main concern there, but it'd be almost too obvious - not sure what their game is right now. Raising 100k trained troops on that territory seems rather difficult. You also need quite a massive infrastructure to support a force that size. I can see a force that size being raised on its own, but I have trouble imagining it operating without direct logistics support from Russia.

ikalugin

02-02-15, 01:45 PM

There are 800k refugees in Russia, how many of those are of military age?

CCIP

02-02-15, 02:22 PM

There are 800k refugees in Russia, how many of those are of military age?

If we go by demographics of Ukraine in general, should be in the neighbourhood of 70-85k. But refugees in general also tend to be disproportionately women/children/elderly, so probably less than that. Exemptions for medical and other reasons included, plus assuming that many people who fled probably fled because they don't want to fight, I wouldn't count on a very large number from there being actually caught up in the call-up at all. Maybe 10-20k at most. It would be interesting if Russia actually enforced the call-up for conscription, but is there a legal basis for that?

Bilge_Rat

02-02-15, 03:03 PM

the 800k refugees in Russia has always been a soft number, but regardless, if they went to Russia, it was to escape the fighting.

The 100k callup is more likely a smoke screen to cover Russian reinforcements, as last august. Putin has short window to force a military solution and the "Rebels" are not doing that well.

CCIP

02-02-15, 03:25 PM

Putin has short window to force a military solution and the "Rebels" are not doing that well.

Well, that depends on how you define "rebels". If you mean the militias at large, they're doing pretty darn well for themselves. Since August, it was the Ukrainian military who've not been doing that well, and most of the clashes - including the recent ones - ended up disastrously for them. The Ukrainian lost several very large encirclement battles in a row, and appear to be in the middle of at least one other one right now - and by all indications, the situation in the Debaltsevo salient is set for another very costly loss for them. With Russian help, doubtless, but still - there was a time when I'd describe the separatist's situation as very dire and precarious, but not for the past 5-6 months.

Manpower is not the issue with the separatists anyway. With the tactics they've adopted, they don't even need that many men. What they need for their operations is effective logistics, and I think it's here that Russia's role has been most evident. Where some of the heaviest evidence against Russia seems to be emerging these days is not in combat troops being over the border, but support personnel (mostly non-professionals, by some indications - convicts, doing menial depot and convoy jobs to free up militias for combat). There's even legal cover for it, in the sense that these support personnel are there as civilian contractors, with paperwork that lists them as labourers, construction workers and mechanics. Let's not forget how important those are to winning a war - boots on the ground aren't everything.

mapuc

02-02-15, 04:42 PM

I don't know how your news program are telling about the crisis in Ukraine

Here it can be a 180 degrees different between the Danish news and the Swedish news

Here's an example

Danish news:
The leader of the pro Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine are planning to mobilize 100 K people or put a general mobilization in order

Swedish news
Pro Russian forces are mobilizing 100 K

And they both use the same pictures.

Markus

kraznyi_oktjabr

02-02-15, 05:12 PM

ikalugin

02-03-15, 01:47 AM

Important correction - they plan the armed forces expansion to 100k overall strength and to rise at least 5 BDes. This means 60k troops to be mobilised, mostly for the rear area duties.

This in turn would give separatists 12 BDe (2 tnk, 6 motorised rifle, 1 arty, 3 motorised infantry), which would be a force to be reckoned with.

The reason as to why the loyalists are not successful is b/c they did not reform in my opinion, not because of separatists strength or direct Russian intervention. This shows in poor coordination of troops.

ikalugin

02-03-15, 01:49 AM

:hmmm: Interesting. Here in Finland its same as in Denmark. Also about the same in BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31089142).
More or less the same here (with the obvious speculation as to where they would get the manpower), except for the correction that I have mentioned in the previous post.

CCIP

02-03-15, 02:25 AM

The reason as to why the loyalists are not successful is b/c they did not reform in my opinion, not because of separatists strength or direct Russian intervention. This shows in poor coordination of troops.

Yeah, I have to agree with that. Mostly based on the fact that this is actually what I've been hearing from the pro-Ukrainian sources as well.

The Ukrainian regular army was already in a bad state before this whole mess started. Much of the Soviet-tradition "old guard" was purged under Yuschenko, and it's only fair to guess that efforts to "westernize" the military were scuppered by Yanukovich and lack of money in equal measure. The overthrow made what was already a bad situation worse, and I've seen no signs since that the regular army has anything but deteriorated over time. They're not able to cope with the situation at all.

The "volunteer battallions" that stepped up and have been doing most of the fighting seem to vary like night and day, and have been complaining about each other and the regular army more than anybody else. Some of these militias are very competent and professional, some are fanatical, some are kind of just bad at what they do. Many of them have a poor link to Ukrainian military logistics, support, command and control - not because they don't want to, but because of the lack of effectiveness in all those things by the Ukrainian MoD. Some of the battalions have solved that problem by acquiring their own organic support systems - even their own artillery and aviation. On the surface of it, that makes them look impressive. But historically, relying on that kind of organic support has been shown to be hugely wasteful and unsustainable - at best creating some "hard" positions for a while which eventually find themselves surrounded.

Which seems to be exactly what's been going on last few months.

Whoever is in charge of the separatist side, they've got very good at exploiting those limitations. And the Ukrainian side doesn't seem to have adapted well at all. They badly need to reorganize and integrate the volunteer battalions into an effective support network if they want to have any hope in this. Instead, it seems like they've only put more faith in initiative of local commanders and organic support. Meanwhile regular Ukrainian forces seem to be fewer and fewer at the front, because noone has much faith in them there. That's the sense I'm getting, anyway.

tl;dr: the Ukrainian military's poor shape and lack of coordination is still maybe the biggest factor in all this. There's not really any other good explanation for why a fairly small separatist force is doing what they are.

By the way, this is hardly the first example in the post-Soviet space of a regular state army being totally disorganized and unable to adapt to fighting a smaller, non-state group. Actually that's sort of been the norm in most of these conflicts, much like it has in a lot of African conflicts for example. In a lot of ways, this war has been "Africanized" pretty thoroughly since early last summer.

ikalugin

02-03-15, 02:38 AM

The reason why the decisions are made on the low level is not because they place their faith on low level initiative, but because the high command is not capable. The reasons for that are:
- it being completely compromised opsec wise.
- incompetence.
- disunity of command (ie troops receive orders from different HQs).
- insufficient authority to discipline/command volunteer units.

ikalugin

02-03-15, 02:39 AM

Skybird

02-03-15, 06:33 AM

It gets reported the WH mulls the sending of weapons, amongst them AT missiles.

What would they say if the Kremlin sends military weapons to the cartels in Mexico? Or pushes for a coup in Canada and debates a Canadian membership in the Russian alliance? Armed support to a faction in one direct neighbouring country of the US homeland?

Stability coming back to the region should be the focus, not involvement. Containment. Getting involved with weapons deliveries will help to keep the war alive. The bill - in suffering - will be paid by the local populations. Stability can only be established if one of thr two sides get defeated. I do not really care which side it is as long as the "victor" does not get paid by europe.

And I stick to it: we should not want, at no cost, to end up in bed with any of the two sides - they both stink. Europe is closer to it than America. This Europeans should not forget. Also, the economical backblows are minor for America. For Europe, the paymasters especially, these backblows are severe.

You don'T play in the backyard of another great nuclear power. That was true for the USSR in Cuba. That is true for NATO in Georgia and the Ukraine.

Also, the US still needs Russia on other issues. Syria. Iran. Nuclear proliferation. "Winning" a bottomless black moneypit like the Ukraine and its criminal leading elites of gangsters, right extremists and oligarchs, and getting a bad end to any of the three mentioned examples, would be an extremely bad deal, loosing much, gaining nothing.

And the EU - could not need at all another hungry demander wanting to get fed, contributing nothing. Its not as if the Europeans do not already have dangerous economic an financial problems of their own. The least thing needed now is - the Ukraine.

Let the Russians pay for it. :up: That would damage Moscow much more.

ikalugin

02-03-15, 07:03 AM

That could be a good idea with Mexico.

We are not going to, not without a 100 percent slave tier loyal regime there.

That said, without sending those weapons there, the loyalists may collapse and loose the spring-summer campaign, which in turn could resolve the conflict in some unobvious manner. Not that the weapons would help ofc, as there are other core issues.

Skybird

02-03-15, 07:17 AM

The latest headlines from just minutes ago now say for the imminent future such weapon deliveries are put on ice, but are not off the table, Obama wants to convince Merkel first, else there would open an even wider rift between America and Europe. The Germans are against such deliveries.

CCIP

02-03-15, 10:07 AM

Also, if I were to go into a tin foil hat area, I would assume that those reinforcements (from mobilisation of Donbas population/refugess) have already went through 3-6 months of training in Russia and would enter spring/summer campaign as cohesive units and maybe even formations.

I wouldn't say that's so out there, but you bring up a good point - I think you're right in that both sides are basically preparing for a spring/summer campaign, and what we're seeing now is not the "military solution" coming down at all, but just jousting for position.

My take on the recent situation: It seems to me like over the fall and winter, the Ukrainian loyalist forces have fought themselves into some hard but dangerous/costly positions (e.g. the Donetsk airport, Debaltsevo salient). To relieve pressure on those positions, in early-mid January it seems like they launched some operations, notably some probes towards Donetsk itself. For whatever reasons, these mostly failed, and now separatists found themselves having the initiative, and they certainly weren't going to waste it. What you're seeing now is an effort to take down some of these more precarious forward positions, straighten out lines, and MAYBE get an encirclement situation at Debaltsevo, although it doesn't seem like they've had an easy time of it. It seems to me like the separatists are conscious of their limited manpower but secure in their supply situation right now, which is why there's a sudden (and tragic) upsurge in use of artillery. But right now, all this is just jousting for better position come spring. That's where I think the real escalation might start, unless they find a way to get back to talks.

Onkel Neal

02-05-15, 12:32 PM

I hate to say this, but Ukraine needs to take a long look at the chances they have in a war with Russia and plan accordingly. Assuming they cannot repel a Russian invasion, which is what I think it will come down to (over some pretext...of course), it would be better to form up a strong defensive line west of the area that the Russians are contesting and just accept a new border. Then join NATO.

kraznyi_oktjabr

02-05-15, 12:42 PM

Then join NATO.What is the point in joining a military alliance in which (practically) everyone is doing their best to save in defence expenses? :hmm2:

Onkel Neal

02-05-15, 12:45 PM

Yeah, that could change soon.

mapuc

02-05-15, 01:16 PM

Saw a discussion a Danish news program

one of the debater, some kind of expert to Russia said

Neither Merkel or Hollande have enough knowledge about the way Putin thinks.

Markus

Dowly

02-05-15, 01:24 PM

Saw a discussion a Danish news program

one of the debater, some kind of expert to Russia said

Neither Merkel or Hollande have enough knowledge about the way Putin thinks.

Markus

I doubt anyone knows how Putin thinks, even Putin is confused at times.

ikalugin

02-05-15, 01:25 PM

Can't access pages 145, 146, 147. Is that legit?

Schroeder

02-05-15, 01:28 PM

Can't access pages 145, 146, 147. Is that legit?
Sometimes the forum will show false pages for some odd reason. They don't exist so no need to worry.

mapuc

02-05-15, 01:48 PM

Can't access pages 145, 146, 147. Is that legit?

It's CIA, Mossad etc, and some invited members here, that discuss Ukraine and Russia

Markus

Jimbuna

02-05-15, 02:05 PM

Can't access pages 145, 146, 147. Is that legit?

This is the second post in page 145, and is as far as the thread has gone up to this point.

Dowly

02-05-15, 02:10 PM

Thread about missing pages here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=213205

mapuc

02-05-15, 03:56 PM

One thing is for sure every part in this conflict seems to suffer from Paranoid

Some Russian Minister are convinced NATO are planning to invade Russia.

Markus

Skybird

02-05-15, 04:11 PM

Well, American intel agencies repeatedly tried to link Putin to diseases they claim he would suffer from. It was said that he was terminally ill by pneumonia. Then it was said he was close to death from some drug addiction. Then he was expected to suffer death soon from an exotic virus infection, being terminally ill. Next it was claimed he would suffer from cancer, not having much time left to live. Yesterday I read that the latest story is that he has Asperger, that may not be a lethal disease, but it surely helps to make him look weired again.

So why not also paranoia now? The man is said to be so terribly ill, one problem more or less hardly makes a difference for him. :O:

kranz

02-05-15, 04:22 PM

One thing is for sure every part in this conflict seems to suffer from Paranoid
Markus
someone doesn't want to earn 'the exemplary member' pin...

Dowly

02-05-15, 04:28 PM

Skybird

02-05-15, 04:59 PM

Just recently: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/04/putin-aspergers-syndrome-study-pentagon/22855927/

Last autumn: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/vladimir-putin-cancer-reports-kremlin-rep-furiously-dismisses-speculation-over-russian-leaders-health-tells-media-to-bite-your-tongue-9830559.html

The other examples I quoted reach back up to four years, I estimate, but I do not care enough to google them all up now since I just displayed my amusement. I did not keep precise track, the claims were made for sure, however. The virus killing him I think was after some Asia trip he made.

Amusement for me. Wishful thinking for political America.

Betonov

02-05-15, 05:14 PM

mapuc

02-05-15, 05:20 PM

The Danish Government are on the same Line as USA

If USA decide to send arms to Ukraine, Denmark will follow them.

It start with morale support, then diplomatically help, then humanitarian help, then defensive weapon, then aggressive weapon, then.....

Markus

Stealhead

02-05-15, 06:33 PM

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10986699_10155176656245483_6731665745309428417_n.j pg?oh=46c49ff89d22a3d3d8d7fc658acaa9ee&oe=55522856&__gda__=1432651315_6ff40b9643ba5cf134ac5bb6431fff7 3
Well to split hairs they are not tanks so actually CNN is lying. Now if they said Russian self propelled guns different story altogether. Of course self propelled artillery is in fact a more effective tool in this instance.

Schroeder

02-05-15, 06:41 PM

Well to split hairs they are not tanks so actually CNN is lying. Now if they said Russian self propelled guns different story altogether. Of course self propelled artillery is in fact a more effective tool in this instance.
Would have been the first time a media outlet would have gotten that right. My second favorite thing is when they are talking about people who "are armed with machine guns" while they have AK 47s...:shifty:

Skybird

02-05-15, 07:37 PM

Hey Schroeder, have you heard of the new German APWC - the Armoured Pregnant Woman Carriers? We call them Pumas:

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/hohe-anforderungen-verzoegern-die-auslieferung-des-puma-panzers-13405087.html

This really made my evening yesterday. :D 3rd and 4th paragraph. I assume that is why there was not enough room for even just a medium machine gun in the turret (the puma has only a light machine gun as secondary): a medical kit for emergency baby deliveries is stored inside it instead. :shucks:

:timeout:
:haha:
:har:

I almost translated it for the forum.

NATO has a new secret weapon: the Germans. IS will laugh itself to death when they read this. We just need to dispose their bodies then, and we're done. :salute:

Other armies have their light machine guns carried by soldiers. The Germans move them around on APWCs. Why not, the Puma will need TWO flights by air transport to be airlifted in protection configuration C: one flight for the tank, and a second flight for the modular armour. :woot:

That is no problem and should not worry anyone. The new A400M has such a long list of flaws and problems after the first delivered plane got inspected by the BW that we soon will not have any airlift capacity anymore anyway. Creativly working around a problem , I call that.

Best was the comment by some BW spokesman, whzo messed up his wording. He said "The new airlifter has so unbelievably more problems than we have hoped for." :woot:- The next Anglosaxon claiming Germans have no sense of humour, gets shot, I swear it! :sunny:

Schroeder

02-05-15, 08:05 PM

HI assume that is why there was not enough room for even just a medium machine gun in the turret (the puma has only a light machine gun as secondary):

Holy cow I was always under the impression they would use the trusty old MG3 for that but no it's the MG4.:dead:

Other armies have their light machine guns carried by soldiers. The Germans move them around on APWCs. Why not, the Puma will need TWO flights by air transport to be airlifted in protection configuration C: one flight for the tank, and a second flight for the modular armour. :woot:
Well we also think that the Tiger helicopter doesn't need a traversable chin mounted gun...at least we gave it state of the art missiles: The HOT 3 (which goes back to the 1960s and is no fire and forget weapon so it needs constant guidance, perfect for the battlefield of the 21st century.):yeah:

That is no problem and should not worry anyone. The new A400M has such a long list of flaws and problems after the first delivered plane got inspected by the BW that we soon will not have any airlift capacity anymore anyway. Creativly working around a problem , I call that.
At least we are in the process of retiring the UH-1 Huey so we can now use the NH 90 for proper airlifting....oh ....wait....nevermind.:dead:

Oberon

02-05-15, 08:12 PM

You're not alone Germany, don't worry:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Category:British_Military_Procurement_Mysteries

Skybird

02-05-15, 08:44 PM

I partial translation of those two paragraphs:

Good laughter is caused in the industry by that for example (due to new legal statutes here in Germany, Skybird) the interior of the Puma infantry carrier must prevail so good climatic conditions in accordance with the workplace ordinance that even for heavily pregnant female soldiers transport use is still possible under battlefield and combat conditions.

The requisite threshold for the excess gas load (Schußgasentladung) into the passenger compartment of the Puma certainly had been sharpened even further, says the meticulous investigator of the procurement agency in Koblenz. The threat of "fruit water damage in female Puma passangers" has been strictly excluded. However, such requirements increased development costs by millions and a delayed delivery.
Who the hell do they think we send into battle? Highly pregnant women close to delivery trying to drown enemies in fruit water? :haha:

A Nahles quality joke this law monster is. Maybe in cooperation with Ursula Vonallein.

Weiberwirtschaft. :D

The Puma was meant to cost 7 million, and the Germans claimed it would be "cost-effective" (while being the most expensive IFV in operation and production worldwide even already during the planning). The costs are now at 10 million, and promise to rise even further. The 30mm cannon still cannot shoot straight and needs a crutch construction around the barrel of the cannon, the secondary is a lame 5.52, and the airmobility for full armour protection class C - meant for expeditionary service - can only be achieved by investing two airlift flights per one vehicle: one for the vehicle, and one for its armours. The article says that they still have over 1000 items on their error list. I hate this damn thing. Puma - the German answer to the F-35. Instead of 1000, only 350 now are planned to be bought. I expect in the end it will be even less. And no, they will not be worth their money.

Interest by international customers so far: ZERO.

Yes Germans can!

Betonov

02-06-15, 02:22 AM

Well to split hairs they are not tanks so actually CNN is lying. Now if they said Russian self propelled guns different story altogether. Of course self propelled artillery is in fact a more effective tool in this instance.

You know, media :88)

http://www.i-am-bored.com/media/Guide-to-Firearms1.jpg

Bilge_Rat

02-06-15, 05:19 AM

ikalugin

02-06-15, 05:38 AM

Correct answer would have been "Nikak net" or "Ne mogu znat'".

Betonov

02-06-15, 05:48 AM

Correct answer would have been "Nikak net" or "Ne mogu znat'".

Well, westerners mostly know niet. And that's it.

Schroeder

02-06-15, 06:32 AM

Correct answer would have been "Nikak net" or "Ne mogu znat'".
No one here would have understood that.;)

(but I also keep correcting people here when it comes to bogus German...:D)

Oberon

02-06-15, 06:42 AM

Well, westerners mostly know niet. And that's it.

I always thought it was 'Nyet' with a y. :hmmm: Then again, I spent a few years thinking Spasibo was Spasiba because of the pronunciation. :dead:

Betonov

02-06-15, 07:00 AM

I always thought it was 'Nyet' with a y. :hmmm: Then again, I spent a few years thinking Spasibo was Spasiba because of the pronunciation. :dead:

Slovene language officially doesn't have a ''Y'' and we have a rock group called Niet.

Then there's the Russian cyrillic that's like serb cyrillic only has a few more letters...

Aktungbby

02-06-15, 07:04 AM

No one here would have understood that.;)

(but I also keep correcting people here when it comes to bogus German...:D)

Wouldn't that be bogüs German?:D

nikimcbee

02-06-15, 10:40 AM

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10986699_10155176656245483_6731665745309428417_n.j pg?oh=46c49ff89d22a3d3d8d7fc658acaa9ee&oe=55522856&__gda__=1432651315_6ff40b9643ba5cf134ac5bb6431fff7 3

Is that Brian Williams there?:/\\k:

Slovene language officially doesn't have a ''Y'' and we have a rock group called Niet.
Why?

yuck yuck yuck.
Next show is at 8.

CCIP

02-06-15, 11:33 AM

I always thought it was 'Nyet' with a y. :hmmm: Then again, I spent a few years thinking Spasibo was Spasiba because of the pronunciation. :dead:

Linguist here :D

The "nyet"/"net"/"niet" thing is basically because Russian has two main "e"s: the "э", which is closer to the English e in "net" or "bet", and the "е", which is often stylized as "ye", but in actuality sounds like only the "e" part of "yet" or "yes". The difference between them being "hard"/"soft" or "low"/"high" - easiest explanation would be the difference between the German "u" and "ü". So the Russian word "нет" sounds like "nyet" if you took out the "y" but still pronounced the "e" in the same way as with the "y".

The "spasibo"/"spasiba" thing is a phonological issue with stress. Say in English, you have the noun "perfect" (pErfect) vs. the verb "to perfect" (perfEct) which, in most dialects, sound different because of which vowel you stress. Russian is similar, but with a caveat: in standard modern Russian (i.e. the dialects spoken in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and most other large cities), the vowels which are not stressed in a word are relatively "weak" sounds and sort of blend together, with "a"s and "o"s, and "i"s and "e"s that sound kind of the same or like some generic vowel in between. In "spasibo" (spasIbo), spelling rules aside, it doesn't matter if you make it "sposiba" or "spasibo" or "sposibo" or "spasiba" - as long as the "i" is clearly pronounced, the other two vowels really don't matter and will sound exactly the same when read out loud by a standard Russian speaker. Russian phonological tendencies like that are the basis of Russian memes and internet-speak, where people will intentionally misspell stuff because, hey, "privet" and "preved" sound exactly the same when read out by a normal Russian anyway!

That's not true of all dialects, and often for example someone who clearly enunciates their "o"s (regardless of stress in the word) is considered to sound "provincial". For example, my grandfather, who grew up in a village near Demyansk, pronounced his vowels very clearly and distinctly. But it wasn't the way they were written, either. For example, he always pronounced "ogorod" (vegetable garden) as a very clear and distinct "ugarod". Go figure!

tl;dr, Russian phonology is pretty funky :know:

Betonov

02-06-15, 11:49 AM

Why?

yuck yuck yuck.
Next show is at 8.

Zakaj?

Fuj fuj fuj,
naslednji nastop je ob 8.

we have a J to use as a Y :O:

August

02-06-15, 12:02 PM

No one here would have understood that.;)

(but I also keep correcting people here when it comes to bogus German...:D)

Veiny donkey chute mine froynd. :D

mapuc

02-06-15, 05:11 PM

According to the Danish News page the meeting between Putin, Merkel and Hollande was-unsuccessful

Markus

XabbaRus

02-06-15, 05:16 PM

According to BBC talks were constructive and substantial. Go figure.

mapuc

02-06-15, 05:28 PM

According to BBC talks were constructive and substantial. Go figure.

Now they have changed the title:
After the summit with Putin: Ceasefire must wait

The text is more positive than the title.

Markus

XabbaRus

02-07-15, 05:24 AM

Well just read the latest and it seems positive. Regardless of who is doing what I want a peaceful solution. My wife really fears the balloon could do up. I think Merkel and Hollande have the better chance.

Skybird

02-07-15, 06:05 AM

Merkel is the only Western heavyweight Putin really still speaks with, Hollande is just an alibi for the rest of Europe. German-Russian relations had been very close before this all came upon us/them.

However, there is a risk involved. If Merkel cannot acchieve anything substantial, then this is a signal that indeed all is lost. There will come nobody after her, she is the biggest calliber on offer to meet with Putin.

And as I said, things aren't anymore like they used to be. I am not certain that Putin still is interested in at least Germany/Merkel. He better would. Germany depends to some degree on Russian gas, yes, one third of its oil and one third of its gas is coming from Russia. But Russia needs German economic cooperation and stimuli even more desperately. This whole mess costs German economy an awful lot, the lost investments right now are stellar. But it costs Russia even more in the long run.

P.S.
At the security conference in Munich today, Merkel said this: "Das Problem ist, dass ich mir keine Situation vorstellen kann, in der eine verbesserte Ausrüstung der ukrainischen Armee dazu führt, dass Präsident Putin so beeindruckt ist, dass er glaubt, militärisch zu verlieren. Ich muss das so hart sagen. (...) Militärisch ist das nicht zu gewinnen, das ist die bittere Wahrheit."

Translation:
"The problem is that I cannot imagine any situation where a better military equipment for the Ukrainian army would lead to president Putin being so much impressed that he would believe that he could militarily lose this. (...) By military means, this case cannot be won, that is the bitter truth."

XabbaRus

02-07-15, 09:29 AM

Skybird

02-07-15, 10:01 AM

Agreed, if enough military assistance gets delivered that it would make a difference, it would be necessarily be at a scale where war with Russia is an extreme and incalculatable (is there such a word?) risk, if it is only enough assistance to not make a difference, then America only helps to extent the local conflict over time, and the suffering of the population.

If the suffering of the population should be brought to a quick end, one of the two sides there are must be defeated, else the conflict just simmers on and on.

I usually listen when MacCain thinks he wants to say something, but here he is thinking with his little Willy. He is too much a prisoner of cold war thinking, when it comes to Russia, he already was like that when Russia naively put some trust in Westsern promises 15, 20 years ago, and tried to mover closer to Europe. Having suffered in one stupidly launched and fought war himself, and then seeing three other wars (not counting) being either launched for stupid reasons or fought in inadeqwuate manners by his country, number of more smaller military operations not counted, he really should know it better.

America is often very easy with daring military adventures without thinking them to the end or having a longtime plan and perspective. Just emotional arousal and ideals and indignation - is just not enough. But the lion's share of the suffering and blood tool is payed by foreign populations, always. IOt wa sliike that in Vietnam. In Iraq 2.0. In Afghanistan. In Iraq 3.0. And always America claimed to have meant it well, as if that would excuse the immense bloodshed and failure it left behind. If it would be the nAmerican population suffering nthe chaos these policies have caused, it would act with much more foresight, and self-restraint, I'm certain - own experience with pain and misery makes for a formidable teacher. The WIA and KIA American forces so far suffered, in n umbers and scale in no way compare to the blood toll paid by foreign populations.

Why I mention all that "anti-American" ranting? Because especially MacCain should know it better. He really should, by his own biography, and by three later stupid wars after his own war story.

Getting involved and messing up foreign places, is easy. Bringing it all to a good end - in that regard mentioned four wars were disasters, and failures. How many more repetition of this lesson are needed to make US politics finally learn?

So far, all in all I am with Merkel here. Her views are not perfect, but the smallest evil of all bad options the West is left with.

Split the Ukraine, have the Western half as a pufferzone to Russia, let Russia pay (and ruin its finances even more) for the Eastern half, and have the EU establishing supportive trade relations but no political union with the West, or the EU. NATO membership is out of the question. After all, Western Ukraine/Kiev is so corrupt and criminally infested that one really should not want to have anything to do with it, their biographies and reputations should never be forgotten, for it speaks volumes.

It is said a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and I am a strong believer of this truth. Seen that way adding weak members that are doomed to stay net receivers of money for years and decades, never strenghten the union they become members of, but weaken it (how could it be any different, by all reason and logic...?) . The history of several of the newest EU members and the Balkans confirms me.

Catfish

02-07-15, 10:38 AM

As the (western!) News also said yesterday, Russia has not intervened or supported the eastern parts for three months now.

As for the photos showing russian tanks in Sevastopol, has anyone of who posted that, a map of the Ukraine ? :haha:

Oberon

02-07-15, 05:18 PM

https://36.media.tumblr.com/39ea78ab88790c651c93b946d3700e8e/tumblr_na26kmBnOH1tj9plfo1_400.jpg

mapuc

02-07-15, 05:41 PM

Propaganda everywhere even among us.

A friend had posted something about the crisis and a friend of him wrote

"USA and the EU behind the crisis in Ukraine"

I ask that person for a link

I got a link...some left wings stuff "Lavrov: USA and EU behind..."

Friends may give me links to article about the crisis, but those reports has to be independent otherwise I want read them.

Markus

Betonov

02-07-15, 05:46 PM

Respenus

02-07-15, 06:20 PM

You decide on its independence by yourself, but the following blog follows the conflict/war in Ukraine in great detail and does provide solid proof in form of pictures, videos and map analysis.

http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.ca/

Catfish

02-07-15, 06:29 PM

Propaganda everywhere even among us.
A friend had posted something about the crisis and a friend of him wrote
"USA and the EU behind the crisis in Ukraine"

It is basically a civil war, with some people being of russian descent there, and some others wanting to join the EU (but do not like their own "president" using Nazi thugs to keep control). Don't believe right wing media are less biased. There is also some truth with "The West" having interests in the Ukraine.

The "Ukraine" is a WW2-construct, created by the german army. There are different peoples with different descent, and political wants.
I still wonder why the back-then Soviet Union let it be that way, directly after WW2.

From Wiki:

"During the military occupation of Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskommissariat_Ukraine) by Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany), a large number of Ukrainians chose to cooperate with the Nazis. Reasons for this generally included resurgent Ukrainian nationalism, aspirations for Independence and widespread anger and resentment against the Russians over the Holodomor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Genocide), which occurred only a few years before. These were coupled with rampant racism towards other ethnic groups (such as Jews, Tatars, Roma peoples and Poles) as well as a prevailing sentiment of antisemitism. However, the absence of Ukrainian autonomy under the Nazis, mistreatment by the occupiers, and the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians as slave laborers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OST-Arbeiter), soon led to a rapid change in the attitude among the collaborators.
By the time the Red Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army) returned to Ukraine, a significant number of the population welcomed its soldiers as liberators.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_collaborationism_with_the_Axis_powers#ci te_note-1) More than 4.5 million Ukrainians joined the Red Army to fight Nazi Germany, and more than 250,000 served in Soviet partisan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisan) paramilitary units.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_collaborationism_with_the_Axis_powers#ci te_note-2)"

Take your choice and choose your side. Both aren't pretty.
it should be clear though, what the West has in mind.

Greetings,
Catfish

August

02-07-15, 06:52 PM

I agree but tell John McCain that. No offense to Americans here but I think this is something that will be made worse with more weapons. Positions are so entrenched in both sides. There has to be a compromise, rebels give up ideas for a separate state and possibly some short of federalist structure. Also NATO should be of the table. What gets me over the whole thing is the hypocrisy.

It's difficult to ignore a friendly nations pleas for help against outside aggression. If it were just them against their rebels it would be one thing but why should one side be helped and not the other?

CCIP

02-07-15, 07:07 PM

One word: escalation. I'm not sure it can even be avoided at this point, but I really don't think that's a good idea. Which is why I'd rather see some sort of long-term ceasefire worked out first if possible. The present situation is not good for Ukraine's government at all, but I don't think there's any risk of Russian or separatist tanks on the streets of Kiev anytime soon. The situation in the Donetsk region is bad but it's still not all-out war. There's not going to be a military solution to it without a massive escalation - and is that really what we want?

There's no immediate national security threat to the US being posed by this right now. On the other hand, if this conflict gets escalated further, you're going to see a much uglier situation.

Second peripheral reason: I'm not sure I consider arming what is clearly a failed state and a failed military a good idea. This has been already tried in Pakistan. Considering who much of the heavy fighting is done by in the Ukraine (i.e. the volunteer battalions who are not even accountable to the central government, and in some cases openly extremist), I don't think it's a good idea giving them weapons period. That's also been tried in Syria by trying to arm Assad's enemies, and now many of these weapons seem to be in the hands of ISIS.

What they really need to focus on instead is stabilizing Ukraine's civil economy and help it assert a functioning statehood, fixing their infrastructure and military organization in the process. For the moment this is still a low-level conflict, and escalating it will help nobody. I think this is actually a great opportunity for the West to make an ally of Ukraine. Doing it by escalating a war on their territory is not a good, sustainable way of doing that.

CCIP

02-07-15, 07:20 PM

(and to be fair, all of this is moot point anyway - I think this escalation is going to happen whether we like it or not, but I don't think we need to be especially excited or supportive of it. It's not doing anybody any good.)

Schroeder

02-07-15, 07:28 PM

It's not doing anybody any good.)
I guess the companies producing and selling weapons and their shareholders would tend to disagree. There is always a profit for someone in war.:-?

mapuc

02-07-15, 07:37 PM

I found this article in Danish Radio News

(have used Google translate)

Headlines
Putin raging against the West but rejects it ends with war

text
Russia does not want to go to war with others, but do not accept changes to the world order, it said.

There is no desire on the Russian side to start a war against anyone, Russian President Vladimir Putin said, according to Reuters.

But the president has in connection stressed that a world order where a single "leader" tells the others what to do, is not in the Russian interest.

- The West is trying to disrupt the world order

Saturday's comments are the first from Vladimir Putin, after his Friday night has been in prolonged negotiations with the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande to find an end to the crisis in Ukraine.

- There is obviously an attempt to limit our development by different means.

- There is an attempt to disrupt the existing world order (...) with an undeniable leader who would like to stay that way and have an expectation of being allowed everything, while others only have to do it, as he allows, and that only is in his interest, says Vladimir Putin.

the Russian interest rejects any notion of war
The Russian president should have continued to say that even if such a world order will not fall into good, Russian taste, so Russia will not go to war with anyone

- We will work with all, the president said during a meeting in the city of Sochi in Russia.

The comment from Vladimir Putin is on the same day as the world's security are debated at a conference in Munich.

From Danish Radio/
AFP / Reuters

your saying on that ?

Markus

nikimcbee

02-07-15, 07:37 PM

This is a time when Slovenia could have shined.
A small country, pro Western and pro Russian, acting as an honest broker between two sides...

Nope, because our diplomats couldn't broker a transaction in Mcdonalds :nope:

I can help Slovenia with that!:shucks:
What is one Jalapeno McDouble and an iced hazelnut coffee FTW.
You're welcome.

ikalugin

02-09-15, 05:20 AM

CCIP, I think this could be nkw viewed as a high intensity but low density war, especially when considering the spring campaign, as the separatists have found an air museum. That and the mobilisation efforts by the separatists.

CCIP

02-09-15, 12:29 PM

Meanwhile, if anyone still doubts whether this is a cold war scenario - latest polls from the Levada center in Russia show that 82% of Russians view the US negatively, and 71% view Europe negatively. 42% of Russians describe the US as "hostile".

A similar poll from early January by Pew Research in the west found that 72% of Americans and 74% of Europeans view Russia unfavorably.

Notably, in the past year these numbers have jumped by more than twice on both sides. Was Crimea really worth this?

ikalugin

02-09-15, 01:11 PM

If "party line" was to change suddenly then so would the opinion of Russian people. We are quite disciplined in that way. And yes, East Asia was always our enemy.

Crimea was a result, not the cause.

XabbaRus

02-09-15, 02:57 PM

I still worry how this is going to end. I'll be ok in the UK but I worry for my in-laws in Moscow being pensioners they are feeling the pinch.

CCIP

02-09-15, 03:14 PM

I still worry how this is going to end. I'll be ok in the UK but I worry for my in-laws in Moscow being pensioners they are feeling the pinch.

Same, but at the same time, at this point I also feel like a thorough collapse of the Russian economic (and with it, political) system is one of the only ways anything is going to change. I know it's a bit of a perverse thought since all my relatives and extended family are there, but I really don't know what else will change it. I guess that makes me one of those evil western-sympathising emigrants, but I honestly don't know what else will take Russia off the collision course with the West. Certainly not the current regime, who only seem to feed off the growing antagonism.