Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine

[August]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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

Any proof of this?

[kranz]

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

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

You claim so, show me proof.

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

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by kranz

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

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

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

Originally Posted by August

Any proof of this?

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

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

[CCIP]

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

[August]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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

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

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

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

My bad.

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

"Why? To what end?" Aren't those are questions that are only pertinent if it was a conspiracy, which you admit it may not be? I don't claim to have any answers here either but it seems to me that to some folks here no proof is ever going to be good enough. We endlessly quibble over the definition of "is" and meanwhile Russia continues to get away with carving up a neighboring country.

[CCIP]

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

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

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

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

[August]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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

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

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

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

[Oberon]

*puts on waders*

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

The T-72MP:


T-72AM 'Banan'


T-72AG


T-72-120


T-72E


BMT-72


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

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

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

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

[CCIP]

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

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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

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

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

[ikalugin]

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

[CCIP]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kranz]

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

[Bilge_Rat]

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

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

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

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...port-imf-kerry

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

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