Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine

[Oberon]

There's only so far they can go before they're cutting off their nose to spite their face, it's already have an effect on the German economy.
Honestly, the EU is running out of effective sanctions.

[ikalugin]

I do not think that supplying NATO style arms to the Ukraine would help it, as there are only 3 months to the Winter, a time completely inadequate for the armed forces to adapt towards a new system of weapons. That said deliveries of old Soviet style weapons (such as T72A tanks) from NATO states are already under way but they do not help much.

In general I do not think there is anything anyone could do to help the Ukranian armed forces short of providing entire ready combat formations, which I doupt would happen any time soon.

About WW3 scenarios - the usage of nuclear weapons is only likely when there is a threat of en mass invasion against Russia or it's close allies (such as Belorussia), ie the kind that would threaten the physical existance of Russia or it's critical allies.

RSR has been mentioned here, and the chemical weapons topic. The chemical weapons use was unlikely, as it decreases operational level tempo of the offense. The usage of the nuclear weapons (pre Ogarkov) would have been immidiate and en mass, down to the destruction of individual company sized strong points.

For the further readings I suggest reading about Zapad77 (pre Ogarkov exercise, but the shift towards conventional warfare already has began) and "The Red Army" by Ralph Peters, as RSR is horrible/bad a describing conventional WW3 in the Germany.

[Catfish]

Sometimes, when i look at the leaders of nations, i think i am surrounded by lunatics.

France and Germany are the driving force of Europe, and its economy. France is ruining itself with M. Hollande, but no one seems to care.

Still those two countries are the driving force of a unified Europe, that Mr. Cameron in London sure would like to revert.

For all i care let England finally leave the EU, they have always hindered, breaked, delayed and sabotaged. They do not want a Europe. They ignore that they are economically dependent, and they do not see that the rest of the region is a bit concerned about how they behave. But wth let them GO.

We could already have a common european defence system, exceeding this so-called Weimar triangle consisting of France, Poland and Germany, but unfortunately Britain is only aligned with the USA.

It is a bit short-sighted to blame the lack of a decent plan for the Ukraine crisis or others, on the continental Europe, when the biggest accuser on its isle has done all he could to undemine and destroy any constructive build-up since decades.


And have you all missed to see what this ukrainian Jazenjuk was about?
He had no legitimation at all when he asked for an ukrainian entry, into the NATO. It was the worst hypocrisy of the West, to support just of all him !

Jaszenuk is a man of the US secret service, in a way the CIA in person. There is so much targeted desinformation, unfortunately being parroted in the german media. All anchormen are members of the "Transatlantikbruecke" with their "young leaders", in bed with the US of course.
There is never a hint that the ukrainian regime was being led by the USA all the time.


Civilian flight MH 17 was shot down by an ukrainian pilot, but it did not help Russia.
http://my.firedoglake.com/ohiogringo...-flight-mh-17/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/...ound-shot.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Fir...40731-170.html
http://www.anderweltonline.com/wisse...alaysian-mh17/

From one of the links:
"If this is true, and it may well be, it would seem that the fascistic government in Kiev, installed by a coup backed by both Washington and Berlin, was so desperate for military support from the West that it murdered an airliner full of innocent neutrals in order to paint the Russians as really, Really BAD PEOPLE. It doesn’t really matter whose idea it was or, at this point, even if it was a mistake. That’s how the whole incident has been spun.
Well, one thing’s for sure. The current regime in Kiev really, really doesn’t deserve my, your, or anyone else’s support."


What should Putin do ? He is basically in a defensive position, no joke.

Also Russia should be regarded as a whole, not only its european part.
Putin's planned Eurasian unification could have been a competition to the US, but it was initially planned to politically consolidate Asia. When Afghanistan falls to the Taliban, this uprise can easily spark similar protests in Usbekistan, Tshadchikistan and the other former soviet republics.

Russia does not want to be elbowed out of Europe because of the Ukraine, which was exactly what we/the west promised them, after 1989.
Only that we broke our promise

And, b.t.w., the Ukraine is no real nation. The outline of the Ukraine has been created on a drawing table in 1917, by the german general staff.
Sharp tongues say the Ukraine was a german idea, to weaken Russia. And it will not forget that, not even if the CIA installs itself personally, in Kiew.


Also b.t.w.: No evidence for russian interference in the Ukraine:
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrich...n-die-ukraine/

But just of all western war mongers and hawks are at it, again.

[Oberon]

I also recommend Red Army, good book. I also recommend the 'Effect' trilogy, 'Red Effect', 'Blue Effect' and 'Black Effect' although I think the ending was a bit weak. Also 'Chieftains' (probably the better one of them all tbh), Team Yankee and The Third World War: An Untold Story (Team Yankee is based on the timeline established in An Untold Story, which I think again, has a pretty poor ending).

 

Too many of the Red Storm Rising-esque novels have a tendency to end it with the Soviet Union falling apart, so the Politburo is couped while the Warsaw Pact rebels against Moscow. Red Army is nice in that it flips the coin and has the FDR capitulate before nuclear weapons are used, but again I think that it would have likely have gone more in the way of Chieftains in which the book ends rather abruptly when a Scud missile detonates a nuclear weapon over the titular tank and its crew.
Likewise in the 'Effect' series, despite both sides having deployed battlefield nuclear weapons, the story still ends with the Warsaw Pact rebelling at the thought of nuclear warfare and the whole war grinding to a halt as a coup over throws the Soviet leadership. Personally I would have ended it with a full escalation and nuclear exchange...but I guess that would have been too depressing for the readers...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Sometimes, when i look at the leaders of nations, i think i am surrounded by lunatics.

France and Germany are the driving force of Europe, and its economy. France is ruining itself with M. Hollande, but no one seems to care.

Still those two countries are the driving force of a unified Europe, that Mr. Cameron in London sure would like to revert.

For all i care let England finally leave the EU, they have always hindered, breaked, delayed and sabotaged. They do not want a Europe. They ignore that they are economically dependent, and they do not see that the rest of the region is a bit concerned about how they behave. But wth let them GO.

We could already have a common european defence system, exceeding this so-called Weimar triangle consisting of France, Poland and Germany, but unfortunately Britain is only aligned with the USA.

It is a bit short-sighted to blame the lack of a decent plan for the Ukraine crisis or others, on the continental Europe, when the biggest accuser on its isle has done all he could to undemine and destroy any constructive build-up since decades.

Different to the state of the "obrigkeitshörigen" Germans and the centralist imperial French, the Anglosaxon culture has had a very strong libertarian impulse in its civilization, somethign that in Germany we never had. And when I see what a sovijet-style mammoth the eU is turning up to be now and how their poliy brings up in arms the Ezuropean peope against each other over fiscla and economic issues and when consideirng my often repeated statement that the EU and "Europe" are mutually exclusive to each other, I would also applaud the Britains if they leave the EU - but for totally different reasons than you, and with plenty of sympathy and a bit of envy.

[Catfish]

@Oberon^ I think you paint a picture of the cold war Russia, that was not anything like it is described in those books.

After 1989 the truth surfaced: Russia would never have attacked the West, so no Fulda gap and no other scenario. Indeed they were anxious about a western attack all the time. If you read US reports boasting about breaking russian territorial waters with their nukes all the time, they had a reason to be afraid.
Even their Alfas were there to attack a western invasion force, they had not enough endurance.
They could not keep up with the arms race, and their military hardware was mainly scrap. They have been in the defensive all along. Bitter to hear, especially for the western arms industry.

What picture is this industry painting now, about the evil Russians ?
And, what is more, why do they hate Russia so badly. Could it be the NATO desperately seeks a justification for its existence?
"Nothing personal, you are no commies anymore, but we HAVE to kill someone"?


@Skybird This is not about the EU. The EU surely is not what it could (and should) be, but to to parrot british paranoid right-wingers has only medieval merit. I also think even most of the most british right-wings will loathe anyone calling them "libertarian". I'm afraid you read too much of Ayn Rand without challenging her ideas. A notion that certainly is typical, for germans.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Catfish

@Oberon^ I think you paint a picture of the cold war Russia, that was not anything like it is described in those books.

After 1989 the truth surfaced: Russia would never have attacked the West, so no Fulda gap and no other scenario.

The Soviet Union only went into a purely defensive mindset from the mid 1980s. Before then it was a case of pre-emptively engaging the enemy, if aggressive moves were detected from NATO which looked like the beginnings of a NATO attack on the Warsaw Pact then the Pact would have invaded West Germany to engage the enemy on their own soil. After 1984/85 the plan changed into fighting a defensive war across Eastern Germany.
But yes, a deliberate Soviet attack was completely unlikely, however an accidental one entirely possible, there were a couple of times from the 1950s to the 1990s where NATO and the Warsaw Pact almost came to blows by accident.
When one looks at the books I mentioned though, aside from the 'Effect' series all of them were written before the Berlin wall came down so they can be forgiven for presuming that the Soviets would attack first, just as the Soviets thought NATO would attack first. It was a game that neither side wanted to play and yet neither of them knew this, and so they both had to presume that the other would attack at a sign of weakness.
I have little doubt that we're heading back to that sort of mindset in the near future, and for many it will be a welcome relief to go back to an enemy that has a uniform (even if they remove the insignia frequently...) and operates proper military equipment instead of blowing up markets with suicide vests.

Honestly though, NATO would justify its existence even if the Russians were all choir boys and nuns, there's always someone or something somewhere that can be used as a reason for war, because there's always someone out there who is going to hate the US and/or Europe, be it in the Middle East, Africa or the Arctic. Failing that I guess Europe probably would have torn itself apart again, it's long overdue for it.

Still, it's better than all of the EU nations trying to challenge Russian military spending by themselves and bankrupting themselves in the process, at least this way there's some co-ordination...which is about the only thing that Europe can agree on these days.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

@Skybird This is not about the EU. The EU surely is not what it could (and should) be, but to to parrot british paranoid right-wingers has only medieval merit. I also think even most of the most british right-wings will loathe anyone calling them "libertarian". I'm afraid you read too much of Ayn Rand without challenging her ideas. A notion that certainly is typical, for germans.

Actually I am basing less on Rand'S books than you seem to assume. The only one I really care for, is Atlas Shrugged. Her non-fictional writings I never thoroughly examined, nor do I plan to. Ayn Rand for me means: Atlas, and maybe Fountainhead, nothing else. Save me the cultists coming after her, I don't care for that.

And whats more, liberal tradition in the UK bases already in let say the 17th century. The great scottish moral philosophers, and economic front thinkers amongst them. I would not label Ayn Rand as a foundign figure of liberalism/libertarianism, but John Locke is to be named, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Jean Baptiste Say, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Gustav Le Bon, and close to our present finally Ludwig von Mises, Hayek, maybe also Röpke and Willgerodt, and in our imminent present: Murray Rothbard, in a suporting role Hans-Herrmann Hoppe and then there is the German grand voice of liberalism, Roland Baader, unfortunately already dead.

And you are also wrong when saying this is not about the EU. The EUrocrats themselves claim time and again that they represent "Europe" and the European vision. But Europe alway shas implied the plural, an d a cooperating europe I only want to imagine and see as a liberl, free Europe not tyrannised by a monopolised central governing authority that copies the Soviet mechanism of governmental power and administration. But the EU show stunning parallels to the USSR already, and its reality-disconnected "elites" obviously act and behave by a feudal, aristocratic self-understanding. The EU is a free Europe'S worst enemy, because the EU's vision of Europe destroys people's personal freedom and liberty, leads them into dependency from EU paternalism, and as we see with the Euro expropriates the people to growing amounts and not decreases but increases the conflicts between different regions in Europe.

I am confident that this engineering experiment in Europe will collapse sooner or later, and will collapse in flames, and when that happens, I will not move even my small finger to defend this EU-Europe, for by all criteria by which I judge it it is worth to fall. Assuming that fall will not mean conquest from the outside by another foreign power, may it be Russia, may it be Islam, , the EU's collapse one day will be remembered as "liberation day". You - and me anyway - maybe will not live to see it, but it will happen. The EU will collapse by its own tumor-ridden body and immense fat.

Either it is liberty, or it is not liberty. The EU is liberty NOT, but it's destroyer - silently, underhandedly.

I recommend you the many books by Roland Baader. There is no more eloquent German libertarian (and Austrian economist as well). You will hate him. "Totgedacht" and "Kreide für den Wolf" are good starters. "Geldsozialismus" also is an angry, full broadside in book form.

Some quotes from his homepage:

Den Wesenskern des Klassischen Liberalismus trifft nicht der Satz „Ohne Herren keine Knechte“, sondern die alte Weisheit “Ohne Knechte keine Herren“. — Roland Baader

Liberalismus ist keine Religion, keine Weltanschauung, keine Sonderinteressen-Partei. Liberalismus ist einfach die Lehre von der friedlichen Entwicklung der Menschen in einer freien Gesellschaft. — Roland Baader

Das größte Unglück in der Menschheitsgeschichte? Das Staatsmonopol für das Geldangebot. Alle anderen Desaster sind Folgen davon. — Roland Baader

Wer von Politik vernünftige Entscheidungen erwartet, hat nicht begriffen, dass der Wille zur Macht stärker ist als jede Vernunft. — Roland Baader

Wer die Sicherheit der Freiheit vorzieht, wird immer in der Unfreiheit landen – und damit in der schlimmsten Unsicherheit, die dem Menschen widerfahren kann. — Roland Baader

Die politische Kaste muss ihre Existenzberechtigung beweisen, indem sie etwas macht. Weil aber alles, was sie macht, alles viel schlimmer macht, muss sie ständig Reformen machen, das heißt, sie muss etwas machen, weil sie etwas gemacht hat. Sie müsste nichts machen, wenn sie nichts gemacht hätte. Wenn man nur wüsste, was man machen kann, damit sie nichts mehr macht. — Roland Baader

And of course this, known in German as "Mein Traum"

Ich träume von einem vollbesetzten Bundestag (wohl nur bei Abstimmung über Diäten-Erhöhung möglich). Plötzlich erhebt sich einer der Abgeordneten, allen anderen als aufrechtes Mannsbild bekannt, und tritt ans Mikrofon. Lange schaut er schweigend ins Hohe Haus, bis gespannte Stille eingetreten ist. Dann sagt er:

"Meine Damen und Herren: Ich bin ein glühender Anhänger des demokratischen Rechtsstaats; ich bekenne mich zur freiheitlichen, individualistischen und christlichen Kultur, Tradition und Zivilisation des Abendlandes und der freien westlichen Welt. Und genau aus diesem ernsten Grund sage ich allen hier versammelten Volksvertretern, allen Parteien, Politikern und Regierungsmitgliedern: Ich brauche Euere Subventionen und Transferzahlungen nicht; ich will nicht Euer Kinder-, Mutterschafts- und Sterbegeld, nicht Eure tausend Almosen und milden Gaben, die Ihr mir vorher aus der Tasche gezogen habt – und mir und meinen Kindern noch in fünfzig Jahren aus der Tasche ziehen werdet. Ich brauche keine subventionierte Butter, kein Quoten-Rindfleisch und keine preisgarantierte Milch, keine EG-genormten Planwirtschafts-Erbsen und keine ministergelisteten Medikamente; ich brauche keinen Schwerbeschädigten-Ausweis für meine Plattfüße und keinen Almosen-Freibetrag für meine pflegebedürftige Großmutter, auch keine Kilometerpauschale und keinen Kantinen-Essensbon über eine Markdreißig. All' Euere Wahlfang-Pfennige und -Scheine könnt Ihr Euch an den Hut stecken. Aber: Laßt mich dafür auch in Frieden. Ich bin nicht Euer Buchhalter, Statistiker und Belegsammler, der die Hälfte seiner Lebenszeit damit zubringt, Euere Schnüffel-Bürokratie zu befriedigen, der von einem Paragraphen-Knäuel zum anderen taumelt und sich wie eine gehetzte Ratte durch alle Kanalwindungen Euerer kranken Steuergehirne windet. Schickt Euer Millionenheer von Faulärschen und parasitären Umverteilern nach Hause, Euere Vor- und Nachdenker moderner Wegelagerei und Strauchdiebeskunst, Euere Bataillone von Steuerfilz-Produzenten, Labyrinth-Pfadfindern und Paragraphen-Desperados, Euere Funktionärs-Brigaden von Verordnungs-Guerilleros und Stempelfuchsern, all' die nutzlosen Formularzähler und Arbeitsverhinderungs-Fürsten. Laßt mich einen festen, eindeutigen und ein-für-alle-mal fixierten Steuersatz zahlen, und bezahlt damit eine angemessene Verteidigungs-Armee und ein verläßliches Rechtswesen, aber haltet Euch ansonsten heraus aus meinem Leben. Dies ist mein Leben; ich habe nur eines, und dieses eine soll mir gehören. Ich bin niemandes Sklave, niemandes Kriecher und niemandes Liebediener. Ich bin ein freier Mann, der für sein Schicksal selbst und allein verantwortlich ist, der sich in die Gemeinschaft einfügt und die Rechte anderer genauso respektiert wie er seinen eigenen Pflichten nachkommt, der aber keine selbsternannten Ammen und scheinheilige Gute Onkels, keine ausbeuterischen Wohltäter und von mir bezahlte Paradiesverkünder braucht. Was ich brauche, das sind: Freunde, Familie und rechtschaffene Christenmenschen, in guten und in schlechten Zeiten; und ich bin Freund, Familienglied und Christ, auch dann, wenn es anderen schlecht geht; aber dazu brauche ich keine Funktionäre und Schmarotzer, keine bezahlten Schergen und staatsversorgte Wohltäter. Dazu brauch ich nur die mir Nahestehenden und den Herrgott. Hier stehe ich. Gott helfe mir! Ich kann nicht anders!“

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Sometimes, when i look at the leaders of nations, i think i am surrounded by lunatics.



There is never a hint that the ukrainian regime was being led by the USA all the time.


Civilian flight MH 17 was shot down by an ukrainian pilot, but it did not help Russia.
http://my.firedoglake.com/ohiogringo...-flight-mh-17/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/...ound-shot.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Fir...40731-170.html
http://www.anderweltonline.com/wisse...alaysian-mh17/

From one of the links:
"If this is true, and it may well be, it would seem that the fascistic government in Kiev, installed by a coup backed by both Washington and Berlin, was so desperate for military support from the West that it murdered an airliner full of innocent neutrals in order to paint the Russians as really, Really BAD PEOPLE. It doesn’t really matter whose idea it was or, at this point, even if it was a mistake. That’s how the whole incident has been spun.
Well, one thing’s for sure. The current regime in Kiev really, really doesn’t deserve my, your, or anyone else’s support."

But just of all western war mongers and hawks are at it, again.

Wait, what? So if some Joe somewhere blogs something, it becomes a real, factual news article? I didn't know it was that easy.

[Catfish]

I am saying you should not believe the stuff your are fed via certain media, i do not know the truth but this is worth thinking about:

" ... report dated Aug 3, headlined “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts”, Associated Press reporter Robert Parry said “some US intelligence sources had concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame”."
US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft

Another analysis pointing in that direction (bullet entry and exit holes from several sides in the cockpit area indicating two jets firing) has been done by malaysian flight experts examining parts of the wreck, and this new revelation was posted on GlobalResearch, an independent research and media organisation. A Mr. Parry and a retired german pilot who visited the crash site and took photos said basically the same. If those photos are a fraud - well ok.

And Kievs' tower tapes are "suddenly missing".
Make of that what you will. All is not really sure, but i sincerely doubt what especially our media say about it.


"Of course it’s all Russia’s fault for having created the conditions.." ??
Again.. what about Jazenjuk ?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Wait, what? So if some Joe somewhere blogs something, it becomes a real, factual news article? I didn't know it was that easy.

Maybe focus less on the messenger and more on the content of the message - what you put into question above, could be said about the mainstream media as well who hang on the drip of both "anti-terror" legislation and needing to remain good relations to the political establishment, if they still want to get invited to press events and high callibre "interview" partners, and so on. Not to mention laws before and after 9/11 that in principle are partially criminalising investigative journalism and research to some degree.

I said it before, and I do not mean it as a joke, never did, but bloody serious: the most important job of intelligence agencies is to deceive our own public and to make sure the main media all march in lockstep. The difference between CNN and FOX that you may believe to perceive - is the difference between lipstick and mascara.

BTW, I linked the German pilot's observations that Catfish refers to in another thread (relinked below), plus a video by an official OSCE observer send to the crash site. Counter what they say, if you can. You can also see a high-res photo of cockpit wreckage there, and if you take some time you can see that many of the media expert's claims about shrapnels cannot be right. Only the exit openings vary widely in size and geometry - the apparent entry openings all are in the same tiny size range and of comparable geometry. Today they claim on the media that both types of openings are wildly mixed, that there were various shrapnels entering and exiting, and that this would prove the use of a warhead with shrapnels. That cannot be the explanation. Trust your own eyes, man, don't trust paid media warriors and establishment propagandists and politicians having an agenda of blaming Russia at all costs. That OSCE observer and that pilot - there is no hysteria in their statements, but they speak with sober reason and self-restraint - sensationalism you will seek in vein.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=136

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...postcount=1259

Note that even veterans of your own American intel community question the administration's handling of the evidence issue!

[MH]

the exit openings vary widely in size and geometry - the apparent entry openings all are in the same tiny size range and of comparable geometry

Exactly how it should be.
We are not talking about some home made warhead here right?
Also the two plane theory shooting at the cockpit makes no sense at all.
We have also the one about air to air missile and then two planes shooting the cockpit...more nonsense it seems.

Wait, what? So if some Joe somewhere blogs something, it becomes a real, factual news article? I didn't know it was that easy.

As long as it involves cover ups and CIA in it why not.....

[Jimbuna]

So the EU have given Russia a week to pull out of the Ukraine or further sanctions will ensue

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29002125

I don't know how Putin can sleep at night thinking of the potential consequences

Putin 'urges talks on statehood for east Ukraine'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29003116

CHECKMATE!!

[ikalugin]

Ukraine is a critical interest of Russia. Pressuring Russia to abandon it using economical measures would not help, it only shows hostile intent, which pressures Russian authorities to take more extreme measures to secure Russian critical national interests.

As to the USSR - the "defensive" posture has been taken in 1988. Previously (70s-80s) USSR was looking into the preemtive attacks, as to avoid the 1941 like disaster. This is why Soviets (pre 1988) were for example expanding their tank divisions into corps, to act as OMGs for the Army level formations.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Exactly how it should be.
We are not talking about some home made warhead here right?
Also the two plane theory shooting at the cockpit makes no sense at all.
We have also the one about air to air missile and then two planes shooting the cockpit...more nonsense it seems.



As long as it involves cover ups and CIA in it why not.....

A fragmentation warhead is not to be compared to a shotgun cartridge filled with 20 tiny bullets all of the same size and with, but the fragmentation pattern and size of fragmentation of the solid warhead cannot be predicted, like in an exploding handgrenaded. At best you have assembled it in such a way that there are wanted rated break points, but even then you have a random generation of unpredictability to which degree each fragment follows that wanted breaking line, or is shorter or larger.

Huge variety in entry openings thus speaks for a fragmentation warhead exploding outside, less variety speaks for individual projectiles.

The huge variety speaking for randomly formed fragments you see in the exit openings.

Conclusion: projectiles entered the cockpit from the outside. In the cockpit stuff exploded. Fragments from the blast existed the cockpit.

Also, a fragmentation warhead exploding should have showered more parts of the aircraft with shrapnels and fragments, not just the cockpit. And how is it that there are shrapnels from TWO sides entering the cockpit - because on both sides of the cockpit they said the metal walls shows entry openings (I do not mean the two sides of one sheet of metal, but the walls of the cockpit, the left wall and the right wall). Thea also said that the rest of the plane'S framework does in no way show a comparable amount of destruction from outside force. With a cannon you can aim at certain subsections of a plane, like for example the cockpit. With a ground-controlled long distance SAM - you cannot, you just aim for a blip on a screen and hope the best.