If it did happen there would be pictures of burning APCs all over the net even if just shot from far away. It's too good a propaganda opportunity to just let go to waste. So far we have nothing and that makes me doubt the whole thing.

Regarding uniforms I see some people here in my area with British, American or French camo clothes which can be bought in any army store. Doesn't necessarily have to mean anything.

It really is 50/50 right now, if they have attacked a Russian column then there is a clear cassus belli for limited Russian retaliation, however it's entirely possible that this is a lie from Kiev, I won't deny that, however Kiev will need something a bit stronger than that to get direct NATO assistance. T-80s rolling into Kharkov might do it. :hmmm:

No, it might not. NATO is not ready to engage Russia in a full war - on territory where many people speak Russian, practically. Not to mention that NATO is not ready for war on that scale at all. They even admitted that they could not even defend NATO member sin the East, if Russia strikes them. And Ukraine is not NATO. Trying to make it one was what got this current crisis running.

Well, the Russian defense ministry have flatly denied anything to do with this and have called the Ukrainian claims of destroying a Russian armoured column a "fantasy". So they certainly appear to have no interest in looking for a causus belli there :hmmm:

And when talking about NATO's will and capability, let's not forget Russia's either. Going to war, even a limited one, in the Ukraine would be no better for the Russians. The Russian experience with these "limited wars" has not been a good one and the high command should by now have thoroughly internalized that. Even the relatively successful 2008 Georgia conflict did not show the Russian military in the best light and exposed a lot of problems and weaknesses. It's possible to argue that they need a new test case - but more likely that most of the Russian military leadership regards this as a bad idea. Which, really, it is.

And will not happen remember your answer to me in my own thread
"A military strategic question"

Markus

Valid point, but it would probably get them to send something in aid, which is really what Kiev wants...something, anything to assist them in securing the eastern side of the country. I honestly would have trouble imagining the nations of NATO (at the very least the usual three, UK, US, France) not reacting at all to a full on Russian (I nearly typed Soviet there...talk about Freudian :/\\!!) invasion of the Ukraine.


Well, that's a bit of good news anyway, at least it shows there's no real intent on Russias behalf there at this moment in time.
Good point on the Russian forces experience in 'limited war', I guess in a way NATO has had a similar problem adjusting from a Cold War standpoint into littoral small conflict engagements. I know I have. :haha:
I, too, expect that the Russian military leadership thinks that it would be a bad idea, the trouble is, even with the siloviki around, how much weight would their opinion have if Putin was to put forward a politically and nationalistically weighted arguement for war. :hmmm:

In my own defence, I believe at one point I did put forward that Putin would not invade and annex Crimea...so, um...yeah, there's that.

Some days I do have a horrible feeling that in a past life I was Neville Chamberlain... :hmmm:

To be fair, taking Crimea the way it was taken was a stupid and costly move in every possible way. It's going to continue costing Russia a lot and, in many regards, is actually very helpful to the rest of Ukraine because it saddled Putin's government with a big logistical clusterfudge. By any independent account, it's rapidly turning into an economic black hole, and even keeping it supplied with necessities and connected to Russia is obscenely difficult and costly. The "Crimea is ours!" line is one they'll keep singing for a while in propaganda, but in reality I think many in the Russian leadership are probably regretting it already. If nothing else, I think it's one of the reasons Russia got a bit more cautious here.

As for Russian involvement - I don't think Putin is in favour of escalating or sending in troops. At least the strictly military side of the siloviki, with a few possible exceptions, is probably very against it. Government technocrats like Medvedev are definitely against it, although nobody cares about him anymore outside of twitter anyway. But I think there are some very hard nationalist elements in the Russian government, and also probably in the state security apparatus, who are still very much for it. Every fringe nationalist party is for it. A lot of regional nationalists (e.g. Kadyrov) are all for it, with some actively and openly supporting the anti-Kiev militias already. Ironically (or maybe not ironically at all!) maybe the loudest calls for intervention in the Ukraine are coming from the Communists, but again, nobody particularly cares about them there anymore either. Still, my bet is that for Putin, more than anything, he's looking for reasons NOT to get directly involved and to keep away the nationalist arguments. Ultimately though, I don't think it's his decision and I think if the political tide goes one way or the other in Russia, he'll go with it. We'll see which way it goes I guess. But again, at least on the military side, I'm pretty confident that Russian commanders realize as well as anyone that intervening directly would be a bad idea.

Pretty much sums it up for me :yep:

This is sure to make things in Ukraine much better:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-1...ensive/5676256

:nope:

Well so much for Russian assurances and guarantees to the US yesterday that Russia were not supplying military aid to the rebels.

On the other hand, I'd also take things these guys (and well, everybody else) says with a grain of salt.

On the other hand, the Ukrainian border service have inspected that aid convoy today and have said that they verified it to be humanitarian aid and are letting it through.

I still think that the Kremlin all in all plays this whole match according to its original two phase plan: to get the Crimean and deny it and the rest of Eastern Ukraine to NATO, and to enforce a federalist structure of the remaining Ukraine where the federalist forces of the Eastern provinces make sure the complete state remains to be no threat and is not likely to join EU, and more important: not joining NATO.

Its the only way I can make sense of this huge 280 trucks-convoy. It is the decpetion to prepare a Russian peace keeping. Russian tanks with additional emblems pointing at this direction should have been spotted already.

Kiev will hate to not get back the full territory that it claims.

I also still think that the West under no circumstances should get envolved there, and should not deliver military aid or forces. The Ukraine is a failed state, and a bottomless money pit. What the heck should the EU do with such a sinkhole for Western tax money? The EU is in desperate need of financial stability, not just more hungry mouths that demand to get fed. It'S in Euroope'S best interest to not get invoolved over the ukraine - militarily anyway, but also financially and economically. It just is costs, no gains, no real compensation different to "cultural enrichment". And the latter - pays no bills.

I still think that the Kremlin all in all plays this whole match according to its original two phase plan: to get the Crimean and deny it and the rest of Eastern Ukraine to NATO, and to enforce a federalist structure of the remaining Ukraine where the federalist forces of the Eastern provinces make sure the complete state remains to be no threat and is not likely to join EU, and more important: not joining NATO.

Its the only way I can make sense of this huge 280 trucks-convoy. It is the deception to prepare a Russian peace keeping mission. Russian tanks with additional emblems below and beside their national emblems, should have been spotted already.

Kiev will hate to not get back the full territory that it claims.

I also still think that the West under no circumstances should get envolved there, and should not deliver military aid or forces. The Ukraine is a failed state, and a bottomless money pit. What the heck should the EU do with such a sinkhole for Western tax money? The EU is in desperate need of financial stability, not just more hungry mouths that demand to get fed. It'S in Europe'S best interest to not get involved over the Ukraine - militarily anyway, but also financially and economically. It just is costs, no gains, no real compensation different to "cultural enrichment". And the latter - pays no bills, nor is it often to be seen. Quite the opposite: it causes more and higher bills, and does cultural damage.

The latest madness, claim and counter-claim...

Refugee convoy hit by rockets

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28832873

I am shocked. Shocked, I say! that any country would covertly send weapons to other areas in order to further their national policy.

You would not catch the US doing something like that. That would be wrong. :nope:

Considering how the US abused Russian good will - and weakness! - in the Yeltzin years, I would say that the US has lost the right to ride the moral high horse. When it comes boosting its foreign political goals, it is not one bit better or less unscrupulous than Moscow or Kiew.

Politics knows no morals. Only the mechanisms of power. Machiavelli was the first to see and describe that uncomproised, and with precisoion that is still mactual today. He described the ways the game is being played - He did not assess the morality of this or that method. This fine difference is that gets often misunderstood.

Whoosh

German media report today that the Dutch Safty Board heading the examination of the incident and authoring of the reports, has announced now that they will not publish the content of the cockpit voice recordings.

A draft report is about to be released, but they said that that report will not publish important details . The final report now is said to be published within a year - but they have already said that in that report they too will refuse to publish any information that could accuse anyone.

Dear Dutch Safety Board - may I suggest you better skip those reports alltogether and instead use the paper for it to produce some rolls of toilet paper, branded Anal Royal, maybe? :up:

Moscow's reaction came promptly, accusing the Dutch of trying to disguise the way in which events unfolded, and claiming that Russian defence ministry possesses radar data from Russian airspace control showing Ukrainian combat airplanes in close vicinity to the Malaysian airplane.

Only one thing is clear. The West would love to use any smoking gun there is to discredit Russia. That it refuses to do so with the shooting down of MH17, cannot be explained with diplomatic hesitation or concerns to spill oil into the fire - the fire already is there, obviously. Sometimes the easiest explanation is most likely the true one. And the easiest explanation is that all information they have shows that it was not the Russians or separatists. Which narrows the number of suspects to just one of originally three.

:03: True ..
however it depends who does it. We are the good, and the brave, forever, amen.

The German government formally answered a request by the party "Die Linke" and said that the German government knows of no information that would allow to safely conclude on the use of surface-to-air missiles in the shooting incident that brought down MH17. Regarding the data of two NATO AWACS planes over Romania and Poland, the German government officially replied that at the time the Malaysian plane was shot down it had left the radar detection range of the two AWACS planes since 30 minutes. On the request to inform parliament about foreign intelligence data and American satellite data, the German government refused to give any answer, citing secrecy demands.

German language:
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/flug-...-a-990288.html