Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Caught the headlines on Sky News about half an hour ago, and the guy mentioned a recent attack on a Ukrainian military unit.
"30 Insurgents staged an ambush using rocket propelled grenades and atomic weapons. "
Couldn't help but think the Ukraine Crisis is escalating quickly.
I must admit, I now really like the cut of their jib. It takes balls of plutonium to ambush someone with multiple fusion bombs. Thats what I call MAKING A STATEMENT.
In the words of the Immortal Bard: "DAMN!"
The French government is facing pressure from the U.S. over the sale of two warships to the Russian navy, amid reports that Paris plans to push ahead with the controversial deal.
Despite broader efforts by the U.S. and Europe to isolate Moscow over the intervention and unrest in Ukraine, French President Francois Hollande said he plans to go through with a $1.6 billion deal to build warships for Russia, NPR reported.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius was scheduled Tuesday morning for a meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry in Washington. He could face pressure from the State Department and others trying to tighten sanctions on Russia.
Pentagon spokesman Col. Steven Warren said the U.S. is addressing this with the French government.
"We have expressed our concerns to the French government over this sale, and we will continue to do so," he said, adding that Kerry and Fabius would "discuss the full range of issues regarding Ukraine."
Ironically, one of the Mistral-class warships the French are looking to build for the Russians would be named "The Sevastopol," after the Crimean port. Russia annexed Crimea in March in a move decried as illegitimate by the international community.
The Hollande government already is facing criticism at home over the proposed deal.
According to NPR, parliament member Bruno Le Maire said Hollande "absolutely" should suspend the contract, which was struck three years ago.
"It's the only way to show Vladimir Putin we're serious," he said.
But according to Russian media, Moscow said back in March -- when the French government was weighing whether to go forward with the contract -- that France should return the money if it does not deliver the ships. The ships reportedly would be deployed as part of Russia's Pacific Fleet.
Amid the contract dispute, Russian officials continue to face growing sanctions.
The European Union expanded sanctions on Monday to include several more Russian and separatist Ukrainian leaders. The move came after separatists in eastern Ukraine held a referendum calling for self-rule, which the United States and its allies again described as illegitimate.
The White House threatened increased sanctions on Russia if it tries to "disrupt" elections scheduled for May 25 in Ukraine.
-Shrike- wrote: Well, if the French government has the money, then they either build the ships or give the money back. It really is as simple as that.
The problem for France is that they have signed a contract with Russia and are thus obliged to deliver those ships. If France can't or won't deliver those ships, Russia can sue France for a huge amount of additional money on top of the original price.
-Shrike- wrote: Well, if the French government has the money, then they either build the ships or give the money back. It really is as simple as that.
The problem for France is that they have signed a contract with Russia and are thus obliged to deliver those ships. If France can't or won't deliver those ships, Russia can sue France for a huge amount of additional money on top of the original price.
So what? France can tell Russia to stuff it, or it will break wind in Russia's direction a second time.
-Shrike- wrote: Well, if the French government has the money, then they either build the ships or give the money back. It really is as simple as that.
The problem for France is that they have signed a contract with Russia and are thus obliged to deliver those ships. If France can't or won't deliver those ships, Russia can sue France for a huge amount of additional money on top of the original price.
So what? France can tell Russia to stuff it, or it will break wind in Russia's direction a second time.
With the amount of cheese they consume... O.o might not be the wisest course of action.
-Shrike- wrote: Well, if the French government has the money, then they either build the ships or give the money back. It really is as simple as that.
The problem for France is that they have signed a contract with Russia and are thus obliged to deliver those ships. If France can't or won't deliver those ships, Russia can sue France for a huge amount of additional money on top of the original price.
So what? France can tell Russia to stuff it, or it will break wind in Russia's direction a second time.
That would be a breach of international law and could have serious consequences for the French economy as it would damage the image of France as a reliable trading partner and it would be bad for French-Russian relations and French companies operating in Russia.
-Shrike- wrote: Well, if the French government has the money, then they either build the ships or give the money back. It really is as simple as that.
The problem for France is that they have signed a contract with Russia and are thus obliged to deliver those ships. If France can't or won't deliver those ships, Russia can sue France for a huge amount of additional money on top of the original price.
So what? France can tell Russia to stuff it, or it will break wind in Russia's direction a second time.
That would be a breach of international law and could have serious consequences for the French economy as it would damage the image of France as a reliable trading partner and it would be bad for French-Russian relations and French companies operating in Russia.
nah... happens all the time.
I remember when the F-22 was "talked" about being sold to other NATO countries... then, someone said "nein".
Much hilarity ensured.
EDIT: the distinction is yes, France is under contract. But countries breaking contract isn't all that uncommon.
-Shrike- wrote: Well, if the French government has the money, then they either build the ships or give the money back. It really is as simple as that.
The problem for France is that they have signed a contract with Russia and are thus obliged to deliver those ships. If France can't or won't deliver those ships, Russia can sue France for a huge amount of additional money on top of the original price.
So what? France can tell Russia to stuff it, or it will break wind in Russia's direction a second time.
That would be a breach of international law and could have serious consequences for the French economy as it would damage the image of France as a reliable trading partner and it would be bad for French-Russian relations and French companies operating in Russia.
nah... happens all the time.
I remember when the F-22 was "talked" about being sold to other NATO countries... then, someone said "nein".
Much hilarity ensured.
"Talked about " = / = Sold.
Russia has already bought and paid for the ships, and is awaiting delivery.
-Shrike- wrote: Well, if the French government has the money, then they either build the ships or give the money back. It really is as simple as that.
The problem for France is that they have signed a contract with Russia and are thus obliged to deliver those ships. If France can't or won't deliver those ships, Russia can sue France for a huge amount of additional money on top of the original price.
So what? France can tell Russia to stuff it, or it will break wind in Russia's direction a second time.
That would be a breach of international law and could have serious consequences for the French economy as it would damage the image of France as a reliable trading partner and it would be bad for French-Russian relations and French companies operating in Russia.
I'm sure you mean that seriously, but its pretty funny. Someone defending Russia with...internatonal law. Oh man thats good. Do you do private engagements or just public stand up?
-Shrike- wrote: Well, if the French government has the money, then they either build the ships or give the money back. It really is as simple as that.
The problem for France is that they have signed a contract with Russia and are thus obliged to deliver those ships. If France can't or won't deliver those ships, Russia can sue France for a huge amount of additional money on top of the original price.
So what? France can tell Russia to stuff it, or it will break wind in Russia's direction a second time.
That would be a breach of international law and could have serious consequences for the French economy as it would damage the image of France as a reliable trading partner and it would be bad for French-Russian relations and French companies operating in Russia.
nah... happens all the time.
I remember when the F-22 was "talked" about being sold to other NATO countries... then, someone said "nein".
Much hilarity ensured.
"Talked about " = / = Sold.
Russia has already bought and paid for the ships, and is awaiting delivery.
SO?
Alternatively, I'm sure France has some bored frogmen. Just tell them whale protesters have boarded the ship. French frogmen + vessel = PROFIT!
Alternatively, I'm sure France has some bored frogmen. Just tell them whale protesters have boarded the ship. French frogmen + vessel = PROFIT!
SO the ships by right belong to Russia.
Either deliver the ships, or reimburse Russia.
Otherwise, in future the USA has no right to complain when it buys goods, resources etc from another country only for that country to decide not to deliver.
Why is it that so many American's think its OK to be hypocrites?
1. This has nothing to do with the USA.
2. Thats happened many times.
3. Whats Russia going to do about it?
Now France won't do any such thing. Europeans like to act snooty and say Americans are just out for the buck, but they are epically mercenary and will throw Ukraine under the bus without a second thought.
Thats why we should leave them to their own devices.
Alternatively, I'm sure France has some bored frogmen. Just tell them whale protesters have boarded the ship. French frogmen + vessel = PROFIT!
SO the ships by right belong to Russia.
Either deliver the ships, or reimburse Russia.
Otherwise, in future the USA has no right to complain when it buys goods, resources etc from another country only for that country to decide not to deliver.
Why is it that so many American's think its OK to be hypocrites?
Um... who suggested not reimbursing the other party? o.O
Alternatively, I'm sure France has some bored frogmen. Just tell them whale protesters have boarded the ship. French frogmen + vessel = PROFIT!
SO the ships by right belong to Russia.
Either deliver the ships, or reimburse Russia.
Otherwise, in future the USA has no right to complain when it buys goods, resources etc from another country only for that country to decide not to deliver.
Why is it that so many American's think its OK to be hypocrites?
Um... who suggested not reimbursing the other party? o.O
1. This has nothing to do with the USA. 2. Thats happened many times.
3. Whats Russia going to do about it?
Now France won't do any such thing. Europeans like to act snooty and say Americans are just out for the buck, but they are epically mercenary and will throw Ukraine under the bus without a second thought.
Thats why we should leave them to their own devices.
1. Thats not true, because the US government is trying to stop the sale.
2. Thats a pathetic excuse.
3. Sue.
Feth with Ukraine even more, e.g. raising prices on gas.
End cooperation with NASA - how are you going to get your astronauts into space if Russia says "Feth you, do it yourself".
This is a weird case of Double Think.
US Government: "Stop the Sale!"
American: This has nothing to do with the USA.
1. This has nothing to do with the USA. 2. Thats happened many times.
3. Whats Russia going to do about it?
Now France won't do any such thing. Europeans like to act snooty and say Americans are just out for the buck, but they are epically mercenary and will throw Ukraine under the bus without a second thought.
Thats why we should leave them to their own devices.
Then why is the US Government "pressuring" the French Government to block the sale?
1. This has nothing to do with the USA. 2. Thats happened many times.
3. Whats Russia going to do about it?
Now France won't do any such thing. Europeans like to act snooty and say Americans are just out for the buck, but they are epically mercenary and will throw Ukraine under the bus without a second thought.
Thats why we should leave them to their own devices.
Then why is the US Government "pressuring" the French Government to block the sale?
Er...look at the topic of the thread. Don't worry, have faith in France's greed.
1. This has nothing to do with the USA. 2. Thats happened many times.
3. Whats Russia going to do about it?
Now France won't do any such thing. Europeans like to act snooty and say Americans are just out for the buck, but they are epically mercenary and will throw Ukraine under the bus without a second thought.
Thats why we should leave them to their own devices.
Then why is the US Government "pressuring" the French Government to block the sale?
Er...look at the topic of the thread. Don't worry, have faith in France's greed.
See my edited comment.
It has everything to do with the USA, because the US government is trying to block the sale.
Keep in mind that if it wasn't for the coup (which we supported) there was no way it would have been deemed economical or necessary to construct this pipeline. Whatever it takes to line the pockets of the US oligarchy...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: It has everything to do with the USA, because the US government is trying to block the sale.
Indeed.. And Russia is much more important to the EU than the US government cares to admit. France is 3rd or 4th in the world in arms exports IIRC.. Their economy is in shambles and there is no way their very unpopular president is going to strangle his own economy further just to help Joe Biden get richer.
1. This has nothing to do with the USA. 2. Thats happened many times.
3. Whats Russia going to do about it?
Now France won't do any such thing. Europeans like to act snooty and say Americans are just out for the buck, but they are epically mercenary and will throw Ukraine under the bus without a second thought.
Thats why we should leave them to their own devices.
Then why is the US Government "pressuring" the French Government to block the sale?
Because Frazzled isn't the President.
Admit it, you know A Frazzled administration would be way more interesting.
"In other news, at today's daily Ode to Bacon, President Frazzled accused Canada of looking at him funny, and stated that if it doesn't stop he's going to punch Canada right in the kisser."
Keep in mind that if it wasn't for the coup (which we supported) there was no way it would have been deemed economical or necessary to construct this pipeline. Whatever it takes to line the pockets of the US oligarchy...
erm... I gotta research that... zerohedge isn't a site that I hold high in esteem. But, if true... man... that's changes things.
o.O
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: It has everything to do with the USA, because the US government is trying to block the sale.
Indeed.. And Russia is much more important to the EU than the US government cares to admit. France is 3rd or 4th in the world in arms exports IIRC.. Their economy is in shambles and there is no way their very unpopular president is going to strangle his own economy further just to help Joe Biden get richer.
*shrugs*
Then deliver the damned ships.
We ain't scared... 'cuz... 'Murrica (and friends).
Then why is the US Government "pressuring" the French Government to block the sale?
Because Frazzled isn't the President.
Admit it, you know A Frazzled administration would be way more interesting.
"In other news, at today's daily Ode to Bacon, President Frazzled accused Canada of looking at him funny, and stated that if it doesn't stop he's going to punch Canada right in the kisser."
Keep in mind that if it wasn't for the coup (which we supported) there was no way it would have been deemed economical or necessary to construct this pipeline. Whatever it takes to line the pockets of the US oligarchy...
erm... I gotta research that... zerohedge isn't a site that I hold high in esteem. But, if true... man... that's changes things.
The White House brushed aside questions this week about whether the involvement of Vice President Joe Biden's son in a Ukrainian natural gas company raised ethical issues at a time when the Obama administration is promoting energy diversity in the country, which is also currently mired in a gas-price spat with Moscow.
R. Hunter Biden, an attorney and chairman of the board of the World Food Program USA, was named this week to the board of directors of Burisma Holdings, a private company that has drilled for natural gas in Ukraine since 2002.
"I believe that my assistance in consulting the company on matters of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine," Biden said, according to a statement released by the company.
The announcement comes as Ukraine and the U.S. are looking to decrease Ukraine's reliance on Russian energy amid threats from Moscow to cut Ukraine off if it doesn't pay massive debts. Western countries believe Russia would have less leverage over Ukraine if Europe were less dependent on Russian gas.
Amid the push to make Ukraine less dependent on Moscow, Kyiv is also mired in a conflict with pro-Russian rebels in its eastern region who voted Sunday for wider autonomy. The U.S. has placed sanctions on Russia for its alleged support of the rebels, but the pressure has done little to stop activists in the region from seeking more independence.
In April, Vice President Biden traveled to Kyiv to discuss how the U.S. could help provide technical expertise for expanding domestic production of natural gas.
Asked by a reporter Tuesday whether Hunter Biden's appointment to the company presented a conflict of interest, White House spokesman Jay Carney said it did not.
"Hunter Biden and other members of the Biden family are obviously private citizens, and where they work does not reflect an endorsement by the administration or by the vice president or president," Carney said.
Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Vice President Biden, said he "does not endorse any particular company and has no involvement with this company."
Ukraine-Russia gas spat
Ukraine, which depends on Russia for most of its natural gas, has accused Moscow of hiking natural gas prices as punishment for Kyiv's moving closer to the European Union.
On Tuesday, Russia's state-run natural gas company Gazprom demanded a $1.7 billion prepayment from Ukraine for June gas deliveries, heightening a dispute over price that is pushing the two countries closer to another gas war that could cut supplies.
Ukraine also wants to change the conditions of a 2009 contract that locked Kyiv into buying a set volume, whether it needs it or not, at $485 per 1,000 cubic meters — the highest price paid by any client in Europe.
Moscow dropped the price to $268.50 after then-president Viktor Yanukovych turned his back on a trade and association agreement with the European Union last year, but reinstated the original price after Yanukovych was ousted in February.
Kyiv has so far refused to pay the higher price, saying gas is being used as a political tool by Moscow to punish Ukraine's new leaders for moving closer to the European Union.
As for the involvement in Burisma Holdings, Melanie Sloan, the head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group on government ethics, told Reuters there was no inherent conflict in the younger Biden's job.
"It can't be that because your dad is the vice president, you can't do anything," Sloan said. "The most important thing is for Biden not to be speaking about these issues with his dad, and for them to try and draw the lines."
Keep in mind that if it wasn't for the coup (which we supported) there was no way it would have been deemed economical or necessary to construct this pipeline. Whatever it takes to line the pockets of the US oligarchy...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: It has everything to do with the USA, because the US government is trying to block the sale.
Indeed.. And Russia is much more important to the EU than the US government cares to admit. France is 3rd or 4th in the world in arms exports IIRC.. Their economy is in shambles and there is no way their very unpopular president is going to strangle his own economy further just to help Joe Biden get richer.
France is going to deliver. Unless the US come up with a billion dollar economy package that puts France shipyard workers and feeder manufacturing workers to work. Wait. That sounds unproductive to American workers
There's some precedent for removing the ships. For example, Britain seized Turkey's Reshadieh class battleships prior to the general outbreak of WW1.
It wont happen here though, because it would severely damage France's capacity to to gain warship contracts from foreign powers. What country would want to take the risk of commissioning warships from a power that demonstrates a willingness to take your money and keep the ships whenever a matter of conflicting foreign policy comes up? Better to order from Britain or South Korea and know you'll get what you pay for.
The United Nations expressed concern Wednesday over footage purporting to show Ukrainian troops using a helicopter painted with the organization's colors and insignia.
Russian news website Life News reported that three U.N.-painted Mil Mi-24 combat helicopters and one Mi-8 transport helicopter had been spotted assisting government troops in eastern Ukraine.
So I guess that's one way to get the Cossacks to stop shooting down your helicopters. Imagine if you will what the story would be is separatists shot down "peace keepers".
Needless to say the UN is pissed since they aren't supposed to be there.
I'll be honest. I really really don't care about these guys. if the Russians want them, send Putin a meme with "hey your funeral," and have Obama drink a shot of Russian Vodka via vidphone with Putin in salute.
Wait this article says he's backing off yet:
1) troops still in Crimea
2) tens of thousands of troops still on border with rest of Ukraine despite his statement otherwise.
3) Gazprom just ratcheted up gas costs.
East Ukraine is in Russian hands by October, you heard it here first.
Frazzled wrote: Wait this article says he's backing off yet:
1) troops still in Crimea
2) tens of thousands of troops still on border with rest of Ukraine despite his statement otherwise.
3) Gazprom just ratcheted up gas costs.
East Ukraine is in Russian hands by October, you heard it here first.
Backing down? Putin hasn't been backing down for a second. In fact, he has deployed even more troops at the border for 'military excercise'.
Putin is not as stupid as that article depicts him. He knew that a crisis and threatening war would damage the Russian economy. And seeing that the damage so far hasn't been that serious, it is probably an acceptable risk to him. Capturing strategic Crimea and maybe the wealthy Donbass is worth it in the long term.
Ho-hum. Things are getting interesting over in Ukraine... I really want to see what this guy secretly recorded.
From the BBC.
British journalist Graham Phillips held in Ukraine
8 minutes ago
Russia Today reports that Graham Phillips was detained at a Mariupol check point
A British national has been detained in Ukraine, the Foreign Office has confirmed.
Graham Phillips is a journalist working for Russian TV station Russia Today.
The station said he had been detained in Mariupol, eastern Ukraine, on Tuesday. The National Guard later said it intended to transport him to Kiev.
The Foreign Office said it was "in contact with the Ukrainian authorities" and was ready to provide "consular assistance".
Mr Phillips, 35, who grew up in Nottingham before moving to Scotland, works as a freelance journalist and had been a stringer for Russia Today.
In a statement, the organisation said he had not been in contact with anyone via phone, email or Twitter since 15:20 Moscow time on Tuesday.
It said he had been detained that morning and was believed to have been taken for "interrogation" by the Security Service of Ukraine, known as the SBU.
Ukraine's National Guard confirmed the journalist had been detained and passed to the SBU. It told the BBC he would be transported to Kiev and passed to British embassy officials, after which he should go free.
'Extremely worried'
Russia Today said its repeated attempts to speak to representatives of the Ukrainian security service had been rebuffed.
It appealed to the British consulates in Russia and Ukraine, as well as to the UK Foreign Office, requesting their help with Mr Phillips's release.
Russia Today said he had called to tell them of his detention but they had since lost all contact with him.
The English language TV network claimed a source had told them Mr Phillips would be released if he deleted footage he had recorded near a roadblock.
Alexey Kuznetsov, deputy head of Russia Today's English department, said: "We still cannot get in touch with Graham, we are extremely worried what could happen to him."
On Monday Mr Phillips tweeted about growing calls for him to be arrested and deported from Ukraine.
His last tweet on Tuesday said that he had been "secretly filming" with a senior doctor at a morgue in Mariupol.
According to RT, during his last phone call with the station, Mr Phillips said he had been asked if he was a spy. He also told the station his car had been searched and his laptop confiscated.
The authorities checked his documentation, looked at his reports and clips, and asked him his position on Crimea, RT reported.
'Absolute rubbish'
Meanwhile, MPs in the Russian parliament have expressed outrage following the detention of two Russian journalists.
Marat Saichenko and Oleg Sidyakin, from the pro-Kremlin news channel LifeNews, were detained by soldiers in eastern Ukraine.
They were accused of being armed and involved in "terrorism".
Speaking on Wednesday during his visit to China, President Vladimir Putin described the allegations against the reporters as "nonsense, absolute rubbish".
An online campaign is under way to secure their release - using images of people holding signs declaring "Save Our Guys".
There has been unrest in Ukraine as government forces continue to clash with pro-Russia separatists, who have taken over government buildings in southern and south-eastern parts of the country.
It comes after pro-Kremlin Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in February, following months of street protests.
A revolt in the east of Ukraine gained momentum after Russia annexed the country's mainly ethnic Russian region of Crimea in March.
The problem with Obama is he believes his own propaganda and thinks he can treat the world like he's treated Republicans. He acts like he is the ruler of the world and the response from China, Russia, India, Brazil and now the EU hasn't gone as planned. Europe isn't going to break ties with Russia. France isn't going to stop trading military equipment. Germany isn't happy about being spied on. China isn't happy with how we have accused them of cyber crimes. The world is tired of the holier than thou attitude from our administration and it's starting to cost us. If the situation escalates much more we will have a much bigger problem on our hands.
dereksatkinson wrote: Indeed.. And Russia is much more important to the EU than the US government cares to admit. France is 3rd or 4th in the world in arms exports IIRC.. Their economy is in shambles and there is no way their very unpopular president is going to strangle his own economy further just to help Joe Biden get richer.
I'm sorry, it isn't quite clear from what you wrote but did you say the French economy is in a shambles?
Russia and china have been signing deals left and right, while sino-US relations have continued to tank, ESP in regards to all the us proxies at chinas door...
I hope we all noticed martial law being declared in thailand.
all the protests in the Philippines along the lines of this due to all the US troops over there, I hope we all noticed these too.
There has been a distinct pattern of the US deploying more and more military assets near china and russias borders over the past while, that whole disputed island chain between china and japan hasnt gone away, neither have the US forces deployed there, same with disputed japanese/russian islands to the north.
All this coupled with the withdrawal from the anti ballistic missile treaty, and deploying devices as close as possible to russia, and its almost like someones trying to restart the cold war on purpose, but this time, with more china.
easysauce wrote: All this coupled with the withdrawal from the anti ballistic missile treaty, and deploying devices as close as possible to russia, and its almost like someones trying to restart the cold war on purpose, but this time, with more china.
How do tensions like this affect international plans like the China-US railway in the works?
Frazzled wrote: What troops in the Phillipines? We abandoned the last bases after the volcano. Linkies?
They're finally getting around to protesting Pershing
If it aint Black it aint Jack!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
All this coupled with the withdrawal from the anti ballistic missile treaty, and deploying devices as close as possible to russia, and its almost like someones trying to restart the cold war on purpose, but this time, with more china.
You must have forgotten about that whole Korean War, Vietnam War things...
This thread is so full of spin and misinformation from all sides that I have no idea what is actually going on in the Ukraine. Does it have something to do with FIFA Soccer?
Easy E wrote: This thread is so full of spin and misinformation from all sides that I have no idea what is actually going on in the Ukraine. Does it have something to do with FIFA Soccer?
Don't forget... Darth Vader is running for office. I hear he's pro military too!
Easy E wrote: This thread is so full of spin and misinformation from all sides that I have no idea what is actually going on in the Ukraine. Does it have something to do with FIFA Soccer?
You live in 'Merica, all you're going to hear is "Russia is the evils!". I live in the UK, I get mostly "Russia is bad!" with the occasional "Ukraine did something not very nice...". Obviously, in Russia, the news consists entirely of "Glory to Putin, he who fights against the scum of the West!".
Try Truthloader on Youtube. They seem pretty even handed to me - they're against Russia's annexation of Crimea and interference in East Ukraine, but they've also reported a lot on the fascist elements in the Kiev faction(s). Their overall opinion seems to be that all involved, Russia & the pro Russia separatists, Ukraine, and The West are all up to no good and using dirty tricks. Young Turks too.
Easy E wrote: This thread is so full of spin and misinformation from all sides that I have no idea what is actually going on in the Ukraine. Does it have something to do with FIFA Soccer?
I think we've established:
1. Ukraine probably doesn't border Bolivia.
2. Putin likes to go shirtless an inordinant amount of time considering the temperature zones he hangs around in. An inordinant amount of time.
Easy E wrote: This thread is so full of spin and misinformation from all sides that I have no idea what is actually going on in the Ukraine. Does it have something to do with FIFA Soccer?
No.
tl;dr: Russia militarily invaded another country and annected parts of it, the new government in Ukraine partly consists of fascists and there's a borderline civil war going on with terrorists seizing parts of the country, supported by Russia, whereas the government is supported by the west. Russia does what Putin wants because the EU is dependant on the gas / oil and is afraid of taking any severe actions.
Surprised no one brought this up yet. Apparently armed rebels led by a man calling himself “demon” recently attacked a military checkpoint, killing at least 14 men and wounding 27 others.
A dawn attack on a checkpoint in eastern Ukraine has left at least 14 soldiers dead, in the worst loss of life for government forces to date.
Heavily armed militants attacked the checkpoint in the Volnovakha area, in one of four attacks reported overnight in eastern Ukraine.
It is unclear who attacked the checkpoint, with one Ukrainian officer telling the BBC it was not separatists.
The attacks come just three days before Ukraine's presidential election.
Ukraine's interim Prime Minister, Arseny Yatseniuk, has called for an emergency session of the UN Security Council, saying he has evidence of Russian involvement in the violence.
Russia appears to be withdrawing troops from its border with Ukraine, easing fears of a military intervention like in Crimea in March.
Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in a tweet that Russian troop activity near the Ukraine border might suggest that some Russian forces were preparing to pull back.
Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops near the border to withdraw to their bases earlier this week. Correspondents say removing the troops - estimated to number 40,000 - could help de-escalate the Ukraine crisis.
Ukrainians go to the polls on Sunday to choose a new president but voting in Donetsk and Luhansk has been seriously disrupted by the insurgency there.
The election was called after the last elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, was deposed in February amid mass protests against his pro-Russian policies.
Photographs taken by an Associated Press news agency crew show bodies lying in a field or inside a car outside the village of Blahodatne, which is near the town of Volnovakha.
Three charred armoured infantry vehicles, their turrets blown away by powerful explosions, and several burned lorries could also be seen.
Residents told AP the attackers had used an armoured bank lorry which the unsuspecting Ukrainian soldiers had waved through the checkpoint. The attackers then reportedly shot down the soldiers at point-blank range.
BBC journalists who reached the scene were not allowed to film by Ukrainian soldiers. The BBC's Olga Ivshina found 27 wounded survivors at the central hospital in Volnovakha.
Local people said fighting had erupted at 05:00 local time (02:00 GMT). They said they had heard explosions and gunfire, and some spoke of seeing many wounded later.
The defence ministry blamed the latest attack on "terrorists" - the term commonly used by Ukrainian officials for armed pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk and the neighbouring Luhansk region.
Rebel claim
Speaking on condition of anonymity, an army major who spoke to the survivors of the attack told our correspondent he was sure that the attackers were not Donetsk separatists but "mercenaries".
Donetsk rebel leader Pavel Gubarev went on Facebook to deny that separatist forces had attacked the soldiers.
However, a self-styled rebel commander in a nearby town, Horlivka, told AP that his forces had carried out the assault and had seized weapons.
"We destroyed a checkpoint of the fascist Ukrainian army deployed on the land of the Donetsk Republic,'' said the commander, who wore a balaclava and identified himself by his nom de guerre, Bess ("demon" in Russian).
Separatists have been skirmishing with security forces in Donetsk for weeks but this is the deadliest attack on soldiers to date.
Ukrainian security chief Andriy Parubiy said four attacks had taken place overnight, three of them repelled with loss of life and one - in the Luhansk region - was still going on.
In another development, residents of a village near Sloviansk, a town in Donetsk often seen as the separatists' stronghold, complained of shelling that appeared to come from government positions.
"Why they are hitting us?'' asked Zinaida Patskan, 80, outside her ruined house in Semenovka. "We are civilians!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pictures taken in the aftermath of the attack.
A pro-Russian gunman shows off weapons reportedly seized from the Ukrainian soldiers during the attack
Now I've got little to no knowledge of these things, but what sort of firepower are we talking in order to take on IFVs like that? RPGs or something heavier?
My point was that according to the article, the collection of weapons pictured in the article were not used to carry out the attack, but were in fact seized afterwards.
Damn, I just realised how annoyed all the world's Geography teachers are about now (well those that recognise the annexation). That's a lot of new textbooks and maps they'll have to be ordering. Tsk. think of the little guy Russia!
Ukraine crisis: Battle to control Donetsk airport
2 hours ago
Mark Lowen said rebels seemed to be grouping together to seize control
Ukrainian troops have launched air attacks to regain control of Donetsk airport from pro-Russia rebels.
A fierce gun battle ensued, and smoke can be seen rising from the area.
The fighting comes as the man tipped to become Ukraine's new President, Petro Poroshenko, said he wanted to talk to Russia to end the crisis.
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was "open to dialogue" with Mr Poroshenko but military action against separatists must end.
Mr Poroshenko said he hoped to meet Russian leaders early next month, after a trip to Poland where he will meet the US president and EU leaders.
However, he warned he would take a tough line on armed militiamen.
Petro Poroshenko: "Without Russia it would be much less effective or almost impossible to speak about the security in the whole region"
He said: "Their goal is to turn Donbass [east Ukraine] into Somalia. I will not let anyone do this to our state and I hope that Russia will support my approach."
Meanwhile election observers said Sunday's vote was a genuine one that largely met international standards.
The mission from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) also said it gave the new president "legitimacy" to open a dialogue with separatists in the east.
Welcoming the election as "a major step", the EU said it was looking forward "to further concrete steps on this constructive path, including the use of leverage on armed groups to de-escalate the situation on the ground".
Mr Poroshenko, 48, currently has about 54% of the vote, with 75% of the ballots counted, and would not need a run-off. Former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko is a distant second on 13%.
Media reaction to election
"Has Ukraine been reborn?" asks the Ukrainian edition of Komsomolskaya Pravda. It says the election "will have a special place in the history books". But the paper notes that Crimeans did not vote and the voting in Donbass and Luhansk - formerly Ukraine's "electoral core", proceeded with "great difficulty".
"We have survived," proclaims popular Ukrainian daily Segodnya.
Claims in the Russian media that Ukraine is overrun by extremists and neo-Nazis are ridiculed by some social media commentators. The two right-wing candidates - Dmytro Yarosh and Oleh Tyahnybok - polled less than 2% in total.
Prominent Ukrainian journalist Mustafa Nayyem proclaims an "epic fail" of Russian propaganda. "Vladimir Putin won't sleep tonight," he predicts.
A turning point, or business as usual?
Pro-Russia rebels stormed Sergei Prokofiev Donetsk airport on Monday after it became clear that Mr Poroshenko was heading for outright victory in Ukraine's presidential election.
Fighter jets circled over the airport as attack helicopters fired rockets at the building. There are no confirmed reports of casualties.
Ukraine's interim government is engaged in an offensive in the east to quash the uprising that has left scores dead.
There is hope that the Ukrainian election will lead to a de-escalation of the crisis
Pro-Russian separatists severely disrupted voting there. No polling stations were open in Donetsk city, and across the region.
On Monday, Mr Poroshenko said "the anti-terrorist operation cannot and should not last two or three months".
"It should and will last hours."
Addressing reporters in Moscow, the Russian foreign minister said continuing military operations against the separatists would be a "colossal mistake".
Mr Lavrov said: Russia was "ready for dialogue with Kiev's representatives, with Petro Poroshenko" and EU and US mediation were not needed.
He said: "As our president [Vladimir Putin] has said, we shall treat the results of the expression of will of the Ukrainian people with respect."
Sunday's election came three months after pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovych fled Kiev amid bloody street protests and calls for closer ties with the EU.
Since then, Russia has annexed the Crimean peninsula in southern Ukraine and armed separatists in the eastern provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk have declared independence.
The part in bold worries me... It sounds as if he plans to wipe out the separatists.
Well, the election have been somewhat reassuring. The support of the (Western) Ukrainian people for extremist parties is not as great as I had feared. Now Poroshenko only need to purge the fascist scum from those influential positions. He should also stop the military operation and start dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. Unfortenately, it does not look like he is planning that. That is bad. It means there will be only more bloodshed before the seperatists emerge victorious. Ukraine simply does not have the equipment and manpower neccessary to deal with the seperatists. Poroshenko stating that it should be ended in hours is just him talkin big to make himself look good and in control. The truth is that Kiev is everything except in control.
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, the election have been somewhat reassuring. The support of the (Western) Ukrainian people for extremist parties is not as great as I had feared. Now Poroshenko only need to purge the fascist scum from those influential positions.
He should also stop the military operation and start dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. Unfortenately, it does not look like he is planning that. That is bad. It means there will be only more bloodshed before the seperatists emerge victorious. Ukraine simply does not have the equipment and manpower neccessary to deal with the seperatists. Poroshenko stating that it should be ended in hours is just him talkin big to make himself look good and in control. The truth is that Kiev is everything except in control.
Keep spouting that stuff, Puppetin.
There is NO reason for him to "start dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk". These "pro-Russian separatists" blocked people from voting, and then this morning seized an airport.
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, the election have been somewhat reassuring. The support of the (Western) Ukrainian people for extremist parties is not as great as I had feared. Now Poroshenko only need to purge the fascist scum from those influential positions.
He should also stop the military operation and start dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. Unfortenately, it does not look like he is planning that. That is bad. It means there will be only more bloodshed before the seperatists emerge victorious. Ukraine simply does not have the equipment and manpower neccessary to deal with the seperatists. Poroshenko stating that it should be ended in hours is just him talkin big to make himself look good and in control. The truth is that Kiev is everything except in control.
Keep spouting that stuff, Puppetin.
There is NO reason for him to "start dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk". These "pro-Russian separatists" blocked people from voting, and then this morning seized an airport.
You don't negotiate with that kind of nonsense.
What else do you do? Kill them? I'm glad to see that the election went well, and there are signs of co-operation between Russia and Poroshenko, but he should really be figuring out how to get their support, rather than trying to fight them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There have been far too many deaths in Ukraine already. We don't need any more.
If you have to kill them? Yes. But you do exactly what he is doing. Go in with force. Apprehend who you can. You cannot deal with these types with kid gloves.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Last I heard the rebels prevented people from voting in their federal election.
Also heard something about a Russian air-strike within Ukraine but don't know if that's confirmed.
I thought it was the Kiev government, bombing the separatists.
Unless you're referring to an entirely different incident.
Stop calling it "the Kiev government". That stopped being cute ages ago.
It is the Ukrainian government. Their populace literally just had an election, which resulted in Poroshenko getting elected.
Wasn't aware the election is over and the result announced. Havn't kept up with the news the last couple of days as it was my birthday recently. And as far as I was concerned, "Kiev Government/Regime" was entirely appropriate for an unelected illegitimate government imposed via a coup, opposed by half the country. I don't care if you didn't think the term was "cute".
Does this new President have broad support from across the country, West and East?
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Last I heard the rebels prevented people from voting in their federal election.
Also heard something about a Russian air-strike within Ukraine but don't know if that's confirmed.
I thought it was the Kiev government, bombing the separatists.
Unless you're referring to an entirely different incident.
Stop calling it "the Kiev government". That stopped being cute ages ago.
It is the Ukrainian government. Their populace literally just had an election, which resulted in Poroshenko getting elected.
Wasn't aware the election is over and the result announced. Havn't kept up with the news the last couple of days as it was my birthday recently. And as far as I was concerned, "Kiev Government/Regime" was entirely appropriate for an unelected illegitimate government imposed via a coup, opposed by half the country. I don't care if you didn't think the term was "cute".
Election is over. Early results were in and Poroshenko was elected.
Does this new President have broad support from across the country, West and East?
84% voter turn out, 50ish % early vote count was for Poroshenko with Tymoshenko at something like 14%.
The only places where I am aware that were not able to vote were held in pro-Russian territory where pro-Russian gunmen were keeping the populace from voting.
Given that the east of the country's full of separatists how many of those who don't care for the president actually voted? One view about the east right now put forward by a blogger is that how the situation works is some pro-Russians roll into an impoverished area, stir up the locals a bit, then just throws guns and a stable wage at them so they join the separatist movement. She did point out though that this may wind up blowing up on the guys that're funding the separatist faces however when these fighters go back to the now Russian areas and start stirring up trouble there once all the issues in the West are over with. That and that in Russia Putin's stirred up so much propaganda that he's going to lose face if he doesn't run Ukraine into the ground, youknow with all this talk of revenge against the traitors and all that.
Frankly I can agree with what's been said about the nukes, if the Ukrainians still had them then I'm guessing that the Russians wouldn't have been so flagrant with the whole invasion. Then again how many countries broke their defence treaties with Ukraine because they didn't want to piss off big bag Russia? Sad really, I was planning a trip to the country at some point, with all the crap that's gone down there I suppose that won't be happening for a while.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Last I heard the rebels prevented people from voting in their federal election.
Also heard something about a Russian air-strike within Ukraine but don't know if that's confirmed.
I thought it was the Kiev government, bombing the separatists.
Unless you're referring to an entirely different incident.
Stop calling it "the Kiev government". That stopped being cute ages ago.
It is the Ukrainian government. Their populace literally just had an election, which resulted in Poroshenko getting elected.
Wasn't aware the election is over and the result announced. Havn't kept up with the news the last couple of days as it was my birthday recently. And as far as I was concerned, "Kiev Government/Regime" was entirely appropriate for an unelected illegitimate government imposed via a coup, opposed by half the country. I don't care if you didn't think the term was "cute".
Election is over. Early results were in and Poroshenko was elected.
Does this new President have broad support from across the country, West and East?
84% voter turn out, 50ish % early vote count was for Poroshenko with Tymoshenko at something like 14%.
The only places where I am aware that were not able to vote were held in pro-Russian territory where pro-Russian gunmen were keeping the populace from voting.
Well, the Moscow troops are using their guns to prevent voting because they need to protect their city-state from fascism.
The red bits voted for Poroshenko. The green bit voted for Dobkin.
It's not quite Reagan in 1984, but it's close to that.
It should be remembered though, that whilst Poroshenko is now legitimate, the rest of the Ukrainian Government is not. The elections were simply presidential elections, not general ones. Arseniy Yatsenyuk and the rest of the Kiev revolutionary administration are still holding the reins of government, albeit in concert with Poroshenko's advice/input.
What else do you do? Kill them? I'm glad to see that the election went well, and there are signs of co-operation between Russia and Poroshenko, but he should really be figuring out how to get their support, rather than trying to fight them.
I read an analysis the other day suggesting that by gearing up as if to invade Eastern Ukraine, and then backing down, Putin in effect shifted all debate away from his seizure of the Crimea. The result being, by the time he's now toning down operations in the Ukraine, people have already more or less accepted his occupation of the Crimea as a done thing not even worthy of discussion anymore.
Ketara wrote: It should be remembered though, that whilst Poroshenko is now legitimate, the rest of the Ukrainian Government is not. The elections were simply presidential elections, not general ones. Arseniy Yatsenyuk and the rest of the Kiev revolutionary administration are still holding the reins of government, albeit in concert with Poroshenko's advice/input.
Sure, but this vote can hardly be seen as a rejection of that government. Poroshenko may have chosen his words carefully regarding aligning the Ukraine with the West, but he's a mile away from a pro-Russian candidate. The pro-Russian candidate... well his electoral triumph is the little green bit.
Ketara wrote: It should be remembered though, that whilst Poroshenko is now legitimate, the rest of the Ukrainian Government is not. The elections were simply presidential elections, not general ones. Arseniy Yatsenyuk and the rest of the Kiev revolutionary administration are still holding the reins of government, albeit in concert with Poroshenko's advice/input.
Sure, but this vote can hardly be seen as a rejection of that government. Poroshenko may have chosen his words carefully regarding aligning the Ukraine with the West, but he's a mile away from a pro-Russian candidate. The pro-Russian candidate... well his electoral triumph is the little green bit.
Poroshenko was actually initially a member of Yanukovych's government IIRC. I think he's generally hacked off with the Russians for interfering, and he fell out with Yanukovych when the serious ructions started, but he's not anti-Russian per se.
Jihadin wrote: If those Facists elements agree to go quietly
If they refuse to go quietly, will the Ukrainian Government hunt them down with the same zeal and ferocity with which they're hunting down the eastern "terrorists"?
The situation has gone from bad to worse. There have been over a hundred casualties on both sides in Donyetsk, and the Ukrainian military has started to bomb Donyetsk and Slavyansk indiscriminately. So far they have managed to hit a school, a hospital for children, a policlinic and a kindergarten. So very heroic.
Luckily at least some of the children have been evacuated: http://rt.com/news/162712-slavyansk-children-evacuation-crimea/
Kanluwen wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, the election have been somewhat reassuring. The support of the (Western) Ukrainian people for extremist parties is not as great as I had feared. Now Poroshenko only need to purge the fascist scum from those influential positions.
He should also stop the military operation and start dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. Unfortenately, it does not look like he is planning that. That is bad. It means there will be only more bloodshed before the seperatists emerge victorious. Ukraine simply does not have the equipment and manpower neccessary to deal with the seperatists. Poroshenko stating that it should be ended in hours is just him talkin big to make himself look good and in control. The truth is that Kiev is everything except in control.
Keep spouting that stuff, Puppetin.
There is NO reason for him to "start dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk". These "pro-Russian separatists" blocked people from voting, and then this morning seized an airport.
You don't negotiate with that kind of nonsense.
So what, you just kill them? Civilians and all?
Thank God you are not in charge of any country, Stalin.
Wyrmalla wrote:Sad really, I was planning a trip to the country at some point, with all the crap that's gone down there I suppose that won't be happening for a while.
Don't let it put you of. You should definitely visit Ukraine once it has all calmed down. Even without Crimea, there are still plenty of nice places that are really worth a visit, and the Ukrainian economy could use some tourism. Visiting Crimea would also really be worth your while.
Uh, yes. Anyone who picks up a weapon and is willing to use it against others isn't a civilian, but an armed combattant. Every singe life lost in the east is mostly to blame on the terrorists that continue to seize public buildings and use them as a mean of protection. They are terrorists, nothing more. They said that they do not WANT to reason. They REFUSED to have any talks with any side involved. Yet they continue to seize parts of Ukraine. Terrorists. Kill everyone of them, I couldn't care less. Ask any civilians to leave the involved regions, as lots of them already did. Every civilian loss is a tragedy and it's even worse when seeing the terrorists using them as protection vs. the army.
Uh, yes. Anyone who picks up a weapon and is willing to use it against others isn't a civilian, but an armed combattant. Every singe life lost in the east is mostly to blame on the terrorists that continue to seize public buildings and use them as a mean of protection. They are terrorists, nothing more. They said that they do not WANT to reason. They REFUSED to have any talks with any side involved. Yet they continue to seize parts of Ukraine. Terrorists. Kill everyone of them, I couldn't care less. Ask any civilians to leave the involved regions, as lots of them already did. Every civilian loss is a tragedy and it's even worse when seeing the terrorists using them as protection vs. the army.
Terrorists? That depends on your viewpoint. The seperatists did not start the killing and agression. It is the Ukrainian army which started shooting, shelling cities and it is the Ukrainian army who is terrorising the East. It is the Ukrainian regime that does not want to talk. First, the people in the East were subjected to an illegal coup that brought people into power they had never voted for and with whom they did not agree. They started protesting, and when their protests went unheard, they seized government buildings, as the pro-Maidan protesters had done before. When the regime still did not want to talk, but sent in police forces, they started arming themselves for self-defense, as the pro-Maidan protesters had done before. When the Ukrainian regime still did not take them seriously, they declared independence. I would hardly call that terrorism. By your logic, the current Ukrainian government is also made up of terrorists, and the Americans are also terrorists, for breaking away from British rule People taking up arms against a regime are not immediatly terrorists. Terrorists are the kind of people that try to reach their goals by attacking the civilian population and spreading fear. The Ukrainian army is closer to that than the seperatists are.
Every single life lost in the East is to blame on the Ukrainian government and their insistence to solve the issue with violence. The seperatists have already indicated they would like to talk with the Ukrainian government, if only they stop their terrorist operations against the people of the East. The Ukrainian government on the other hand, is the one who constantly refuses to talk to the seperatists, so you are wrong there.
Please be more careful when quoting posts. I did NOT say that. Quite the contrary.
@Iron_Captain: Uhm...did you catch up to the events a few weeks ago? They outright refused to take part in any sort of discussion when asked to both by the government and Russia. Refusing to use diplomacy. Occupying public buildings. Shooting at legitimate forces.
I'd disagree that "every single life" falls under hyperbole, it's far too specific. "Pretty much every life" would be hyperbole, "every single life" is making an accusation.
Sigvatr wrote: @Iron_Captain: Uhm...did you catch up to the events a few weeks ago? They outright refused to take part in any sort of discussion when asked to both by the government and Russia. Refusing to use diplomacy. Occupying public buildings. Shooting at legitimate forces.
Yep, they're terrorist scum.
Again, by your strange definition of terrorists the Ukrainian government itself is made up of terrorists.
The seperatists only refuse to talk with the Ukrainian regime as long as it continues its murderous military operation, while the Ukrainian government does not want to talk at all, unless the seperatists surrender first. You should get your facts straight.
I'd disagree that "every single life" falls under hyperbole, it's far too specific. "Pretty much every life" would be hyperbole, "every single life" is making an accusation.
hy·per·bo·le [hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA
noun Rhetoric .
1.
obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2.
an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
Since 'every single life' is quite obviously an exaggeration, it is an obvious hyperbole. 'Pretty much every life' would be a bad hyperbole since it exaggerates too little and might thus get taken literally. The purpose of hyperbole is to emphasise and get a point across, not to get taken literally.
Also, last time I was there, Crimea was not in the East, and Russia 'rolling into Crimea' happened before the current crisis in the East.
Sigvatr wrote: Please be more careful when quoting posts. I did NOT say that. Quite the contrary.
@Iron_Captain: Uhm...did you catch up to the events a few weeks ago? They outright refused to take part in any sort of discussion when asked to both by the government and Russia. Refusing to use diplomacy. Occupying public buildings. Shooting at legitimate forces.
Yep, they're terrorist scum.
Hey don't blame me, I just clicked the quote button on AlmightyWalrus's post. Are you sure it wasn't him who messed up the quotes?
Ketara wrote: Poroshenko was actually initially a member of Yanukovych's government IIRC. I think he's generally hacked off with the Russians for interfering, and he fell out with Yanukovych when the serious ructions started, but he's not anti-Russian per se.
As I understand the two actually rose to power through the 90s as natural allies, embroiled in the same financial scandals. But Poroshenko was always of an openly pro-Western bent, and returned to politics pretty much just to press the case for moving towards Europe.
He didn't play the issue up massively in this campaign (as I understand it), but it's hard to see his election as anything but a rejection of Russian interference. I mean, there was a pro-Russian candidate, and he got thumped.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Fair enough then. I'm at least satisfied that this new President is legitimate and democratically elected.
Lets hope he can clean up the rest of the Coup imposed government and kick out the fascist elements.
That's a pretty fanciful interpretation of events, to be honest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Terrorists? That depends on your viewpoint. The seperatists did not start the killing and agression. It is the Ukrainian army which started shooting, shelling cities and it is the Ukrainian army who is terrorising the East. It is the Ukrainian regime that does not want to talk. First, the people in the East were subjected to an illegal coup that brought people into power they had never voted for and with whom they did not agree. They started protesting, and when their protests went unheard, they seized government buildings, as the pro-Maidan protesters had done before. When the regime still did not want to talk, but sent in police forces, they started arming themselves for self-defense, as the pro-Maidan protesters had done before. When the Ukrainian regime still did not take them seriously, they declared independence. I would hardly call that terrorism. By your logic, the current Ukrainian government is also made up of terrorists, and the Americans are also terrorists, for breaking away from British rule
Except in the case of the American Revolution, the move from peaceful, dialogue driven efforts of towards reform, towards military efforts aimed at securely their own state took decades.
Whereas in the Ukraine its moved from unrest in the capital to armed groups overtaking government buildings in a matter of weeks, days even.
I mean, fething think about it. If I rang the leader of my country tomorrow, and he wasn't available to talk to me right there are then, and so I and my mates cracked out the assault rifles and started taking over government buildings... what in the hell do you think would happen? The government response would be immediate, and rather brutal.
It really staggers me how you just don't get that.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Fair enough then. I'm at least satisfied that this new President is legitimate and democratically elected.
Lets hope he can clean up the rest of the Coup imposed government and kick out the fascist elements.
That's a pretty fanciful interpretation of events, to be honest.
Fanciful? Bollocks.
I've acknowledged that this new President was elected in a legitimate democratic election with broad support across the entire country including the east, barring the places where the Separatist Militant groups have seized power and prevented voting.
Its established fact that the new government was imposed via a Coup which ousted the previous legitimate and elected President.
Its also established fact that Far Right Fascist groups (Svoboda etc) were involved in the Coup, were involved in some of the worst violence during the riots and clashes with the Police, and have had members appointed to senior government positions in the new Coalition government.
This is NOT an interpretation of anything, its just a statement of fact, and I expressed my desire for the new President to clean up the government by kicking out the Fascist elements. For once I'm agreeing with you (that the new President is the legitimate Ukrainian leader), and you call it "a fanciful interpretation" FFS.
Iron_Captain wrote: The situation has gone from bad to worse. There have been over a hundred casualties on both sides in Donyetsk, and the Ukrainian military has started to bomb Donyetsk and Slavyansk indiscriminately. So far they have managed to hit a school, a hospital for children, a policlinic and a kindergarten. So very heroic.
Luckily at least some of the children have been evacuated: http://rt.com/news/162712-slavyansk-children-evacuation-crimea/
Kanluwen wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, the election have been somewhat reassuring. The support of the (Western) Ukrainian people for extremist parties is not as great as I had feared. Now Poroshenko only need to purge the fascist scum from those influential positions.
He should also stop the military operation and start dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. Unfortenately, it does not look like he is planning that. That is bad. It means there will be only more bloodshed before the seperatists emerge victorious. Ukraine simply does not have the equipment and manpower neccessary to deal with the seperatists. Poroshenko stating that it should be ended in hours is just him talkin big to make himself look good and in control. The truth is that Kiev is everything except in control.
Keep spouting that stuff, Puppetin.
There is NO reason for him to "start dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk". These "pro-Russian separatists" blocked people from voting, and then this morning seized an airport.
You don't negotiate with that kind of nonsense.
So what, you just kill them? Civilians and all?
Thank God you are not in charge of any country, Stalin.
Wyrmalla wrote:Sad really, I was planning a trip to the country at some point, with all the crap that's gone down there I suppose that won't be happening for a while.
Don't let it put you of. You should definitely visit Ukraine once it has all calmed down. Even without Crimea, there are still plenty of nice places that are really worth a visit, and the Ukrainian economy could use some tourism. Visiting Crimea would also really be worth your while.
Iron_Captain wrote: Terrorists? That depends on your viewpoint. The seperatists did not start the killing and agression. It is the Ukrainian army which started shooting, shelling cities and it is the Ukrainian army who is terrorising the East. It is the Ukrainian regime that does not want to talk. First, the people in the East were subjected to an illegal coup that brought people into power they had never voted for and with whom they did not agree. They started protesting, and when their protests went unheard, they seized government buildings, as the pro-Maidan protesters had done before. When the regime still did not want to talk, but sent in police forces, they started arming themselves for self-defense, as the pro-Maidan protesters had done before. When the Ukrainian regime still did not take them seriously, they declared independence. I would hardly call that terrorism. By your logic, the current Ukrainian government is also made up of terrorists, and the Americans are also terrorists, for breaking away from British rule
Except in the case of the American Revolution, the move from peaceful, dialogue driven efforts of towards reform, towards military efforts aimed at securely their own state took decades.
Whereas in the Ukraine its moved from unrest in the capital to armed groups overtaking government buildings in a matter of weeks, days even.
I mean, fething think about it. If I rang the leader of my country tomorrow, and he wasn't available to talk to me right there are then, and so I and my mates cracked out the assault rifles and started taking over government buildings... what in the hell do you think would happen? The government response would be immediate, and rather brutal.
It really staggers me how you just don't get that.
Eastern Europe works rather different. Occupying government buildings is far from an ucommon way of protesting. The assault rifles only came out after the Ukrainian military was sent in, the seperatists in the East were only armed with clubs and bars at first.
But no, I do disagree with their way of protesting. I think they should have given it more time. But in their defense, the pro-Maidan protesters did exactly the same thing earlier, and I did not hear you complain about that. The anti-Maidan protesters are just giving them a taste of their own medicine. The difference is that Yanukovich was not so tyrannical as to send in the army, whereas this new regime did so almost immediatly. That says more than enough about who the 'bad guys' are.
Eastern Europe works rather different. Occupying government buildings is far from an ucommon way of protesting. The assault rifles only came out after the Ukrainian military was sent in, the seperatists in the East were only armed with clubs and bars at first.
But no, I do disagree with their way of protesting. I think they should have given it more time. But in their defense, the pro-Maidan protesters did exactly the same thing earlier, and I did not hear you complain about that. The anti-Maidan protesters are just giving them a taste of their own medicine. The difference is that Yanukovich was not so tyrannical as to send in the army, whereas this new regime did so almost immediatly. That says more than enough about who the 'bad guys' are.
Did Yanukovich have NATO tanks rolling into western Ukraine to "protect X nationality"?
You wrote 'coup imposed government' to describe an interim government that is administering the country until proper elections are held.
Calling it fanciful was being kind.
Iron_Captain wrote: Eastern Europe works rather different. Occupying government buildings is far from an ucommon way of protesting. The assault rifles only came out after the Ukrainian military was sent in, the seperatists in the East were only armed with clubs and bars at first.
They could have taken those buildings with nothing but the power of song, because when the actual legal owners of the buildings turned up to take them back, they set about defending that property with rifles.
Government used guns to take back government property. What in the feth did you think was going to happen? In what country on Earth would you think things would resolve any other way?
But no, I do disagree with their way of protesting. I think they should have given it more time. But in their defense, the pro-Maidan protesters did exactly the same thing earlier, and I did not hear you complain about that. The anti-Maidan protesters are just giving them a taste of their own medicine. The difference is that Yanukovich was not so tyrannical as to send in the army, whereas this new regime did so almost immediatly. That says more than enough about who the 'bad guys' are.
A basic reality of life is there's really no such thing as pre-emptive protection of civil liberties. When you suspect someone is going to breach your civil liberties down the track, as some ethnically Russian Ukrainians felt, then if you act first and start capturing government buildings, then you're actually just an donkey-cave who breaking the law.
You have to actually wait for your civil liberties to be violated before resistance can be justified.
They didn't wait, and so they have no case at all.
Iron_Captain wrote: Terrorists? That depends on your viewpoint. The seperatists did not start the killing and agression. It is the Ukrainian army which started shooting, shelling cities and it is the Ukrainian army who is terrorising the East. It is the Ukrainian regime that does not want to talk. First, the people in the East were subjected to an illegal coup that brought people into power they had never voted for and with whom they did not agree. They started protesting, and when their protests went unheard, they seized government buildings, as the pro-Maidan protesters had done before. When the regime still did not want to talk, but sent in police forces, they started arming themselves for self-defense, as the pro-Maidan protesters had done before. When the Ukrainian regime still did not take them seriously, they declared independence. I would hardly call that terrorism. By your logic, the current Ukrainian government is also made up of terrorists, and the Americans are also terrorists, for breaking away from British rule
Except in the case of the American Revolution, the move from peaceful, dialogue driven efforts of towards reform, towards military efforts aimed at securely their own state took decades.
Whereas in the Ukraine its moved from unrest in the capital to armed groups overtaking government buildings in a matter of weeks, days even.
I mean, fething think about it. If I rang the leader of my country tomorrow, and he wasn't available to talk to me right there are then, and so I and my mates cracked out the assault rifles and started taking over government buildings... what in the hell do you think would happen? The government response would be immediate, and rather brutal.
It really staggers me how you just don't get that.
Eastern Europe works rather different. Occupying government buildings is far from an ucommon way of protesting. The assault rifles only came out after the Ukrainian military was sent in, the seperatists in the East were only armed with clubs and bars at first.
But no, I do disagree with their way of protesting. I think they should have given it more time. But in their defense, the pro-Maidan protesters did exactly the same thing earlier, and I did not hear you complain about that. The anti-Maidan protesters are just giving them a taste of their own medicine. The difference is that Yanukovich was not so tyrannical as to send in the army, whereas this new regime did so almost immediatly. That says more than enough about who the 'bad guys' are.
They like to be called the commie version of Hitler there? Wow.
OSCE: ROCKETS FROM PLANE HIT LUHANSK ADMINISTRATION YESTERDAY
OSCE SAYS NUMBER OF CASUALTIES FROM LUHANSK ROCKETS IS UNCLEAR
OSCE SAYS LUHANSK ASSESSMENT BASED ON `LIMITED OBSERVATION'
OSCE COMMENTS IN WEBSITE STATEMENT ON LUHANSK
So yeah.. they used an airstrike and it missed the intended target and killed some civilians. Right after the elections, their president doesn't even try diplomacy.
So yeah.. they used an airstrike and it missed the intended target and killed some civilians. Right after the elections, their president doesn't even try diplomacy.
You know the part where the separatists said they'd refuse to talk?
So yeah.. they used an airstrike and it missed the intended target and killed some civilians. Right after the elections, their president doesn't even try diplomacy.
You know the part where the separatists said they'd refuse to talk?
So you bomb them less than a week after taking office? yeah, that will win over the hearts and mind of the people towards the new government.
See.. in normal circumstances, you'd see the newly elected government offer an olive branch to the separatists. Maybe ask the EU and Russia to help by holding 3-4 part talks. To suggest that diplomacy has been exhausted is just plain ridiculous.
Serious question here: do the Russia supporters here,
A) honestly think there are no Russian military in Ukraine agitating the situation or
B) there are but that is ok. They have a legitimate reason to do so. They're excercising force projection or something along those lines.
In case there's still any doubt, here's a snippet from a longer article by the BBC.
'Surgeon killed'
Investigations are continuing into an air attack on the rebel-held regional administrative building in Luhansk on Monday afternoon. Rebels have accused the Ukrainian air force of killing eight civilians in the attack, and graphic video of bodies at the scene has been posted on websites.
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe said that, based on available evidence, "these strikes were the result of non-guided rockets shot from an aircraft. The number of casualties is unknown".
Ukraine's interim President, Olexandr Turchynov, said in a statement on Tuesday that the northern part of Donetsk region had been "fully cleared" of separatists and the military had started blocking the border with Russia in the north and east of Luhansk region.
Government forces took the town of Krasnyi Lyman, north-east of Sloviansk, after heavy fighting.
A hospital was damaged by an air attack during the fighting and a surgeon killed by shrapnel, the hospital told Ukraine's Segodnya newspaper. Three patients were also wounded, it said. Photos of damage to the hospital were published by Segodnya.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: A) honestly think there are no Russian military in Ukraine agitating the situation or
This is exactly what the Rebels including Putin and Russia’s foreign minister (Sergey V. Lavrov I believe,) have so far claimed through this whole debacle.
Fun fact. During the Crimea uprising, Putin also denied any involvement of Russian soldiers in Crimea. We now know his words were nothing but blatant lies.
Whether anyone involved in this sincerely believe these “claims,” is anyone’s guess really.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: A) honestly think there are no Russian military in Ukraine agitating the situation or
This is exactly what the Rebels including Putin and Russia’s foreign minister (Sergey V. Lavrov I believe,) have so far claimed through this whole debacle.
Fun fact. During the Crimea uprising, Putin also denied any involvement of Russian soldiers in Crimea. We now know his words were nothing but blatant lies.
Whether anyone involved in this sincerely believe these “claims,” is anyone’s guess really.
And until anyone actually finds any conclusive proof of Russian involvement, surely they are innocent until proven guilty? You can't simply claim something and expect it to be taken as truth.
Fun fact. Politicians lie. British politicians lie, American politicians lie, Russian politicians lie. It's practically their job.
Is Putin coming forth and openly admitting to have the Russian army intervene in Crimea, something which he had fervently denied beforehand, enough evidence of Russia’s involvement for you?
I’ll grant you this tho, despite all the signs pointing toward Russian involvement, no one has of yet managed to capture the Russian bear with its paw down the honey jar with regards to the troubles in East Ukraine. Btw it’s only a matter time before we do so : )
Is Putin coming forth and openly admitting to have the Russian army intervene in Crimea, something which he had fervently denied beforehand, enough evidence of Russia’s involvement for you?
I’ll grant you this tho, despite all the signs pointing toward Russian involvement, no one has of yet managed to capture the Russian bear with its paw down the honey jar with regards to the troubles in East Ukraine. Btw it’s only a matter time before we do so : )
Crimea was essentially a very slick move by Putin, he moved his troops in to a predominantly ethnic Russian area, one which had Russian naval assets, the local populace supported this, and he annexed the place. Eastern Ukraine, by contrast, he has shown no serious intent of annexing the separatist-held regions, and the separatist movement is not as popular as it was in Crimea. I mean, he's even moved most of his troops away from the border. There certainly isn't as much Russian involvement in Luhansk and Donetsk as there was in Crimea.
Something else to bear in mind is that Crimea could legally have up to 20,000 (IIRC) Russian troops stationed at the naval base there, as part of the Sevastopol lease. Ergo, it would be easy to prove that there were Russian soldiers in Crimea, they were already there, and in significant numbers. Eastern Ukraine, by contrast, has no such agreement, so any Russian soldiers would have had to move in there in the last few months. It's quite likely that there are some Russians amongst the separatists, but they will be few and far between; if they don't want to be found, I don't think they will be.
Figure four more months eastern Ukraine will slide into Putin pocket. Something going to trigger a "WTF" moment for Putin to try another "humanitarian moment".
Jihadin wrote: Figure four more months eastern Ukraine will slide into Putin pocket. Something going to trigger a "WTF" moment for Putin to try another "humanitarian moment".
A) honestly think there are no Russian military in Ukraine agitating the situation or
B) there are but that is ok. They have a legitimate reason to do so. They're excercising force projection or something along those lines.
I think you are using the term "Russian supporters" a little too loosely. I don't support Russia. I am critical of the foreign policy of my own nation and view what Russia is doing over there as a reaction to our efforts to destabilize the region. The Cronyism is so blatantly obvious too. One of the largest nat gas companies in Ukraine hired Joe Biden's son on as a director of the company only a couple weeks ago. It's so obvious it makes me ill.. I hate the fact we are spending my money to destabilize a foreign government just so some well connect asshat can line his pockets.
To answer the question though...
I think the Russian government is doing exactly the same thing the US government is doing. Providing tactical and financial assistance. I do not believe we have active russian military personnel in Eastern Ukraine at the moment. Things are way too disorganized for this to be a military op..
Now.. I do think there are Russians there. Quite a few Cossacks have mobilized from neighboring countries and descended on Eastern Ukraine to help keep the peace and they recognized the secession as legitimate. Some of those Cossacks are likely from Russia. If you don't know who or what a Cossack is, then you will have a very hard time understanding the region. People are very willing to cross borders and risk their lives helping people because they had some family living there 200 years ago.
So yeah.. they used an airstrike and it missed the intended target and killed some civilians. Right after the elections, their president doesn't even try diplomacy.
You know the part where the separatists said they'd refuse to talk?
So you bomb them less than a week after taking office? yeah, that will win over the hearts and mind of the people towards the new government.
They're holed up in government buildings with military-grade weapons and have already said they don't want to negotiate. What's he supposed to do, bore them to death?
Jihadin wrote: Maybe not do a typical air strike in a populated area? Is not the US getting hammered on other threads for doing the same even in general?
Jihadin wrote: Maybe not do a typical air strike in a populated area? Is not the US getting hammered on other threads for doing the same even in general?
General consensus seems to be option A. People don't think there are Russian military in Ukraine. What if we found out there was though? Some Russian operators or special forces? Does that make a difference or does it not matter?
Jihadin wrote: Jebus we were so wrong sending in Seal Team Six to get OBL in Pakistan
What if they have a Spetnatz group in Eastern Ukraine protecting the Motherland from those that want a Fatherland eh
I guess that's you way of saying it's fine with you. What if Russia launched a full invasion of Eastern Ukraine to protect Russian speakers there which leads to annexation?
Jihadin wrote: As I mention before on this thread Putin can have my permission to roll into Eastern Ukraine if Eastern Ukraine turns into a Bosnian/Kosovo situation
That I can agree with, it's just that it hasn't, and hadn't on Crimea either.
You wrote 'coup imposed government' to describe an interim government that is administering the country until proper elections are held.
Calling it fanciful was being kind.
Ok, I get it. You prefer to speak in euphemisms. The fact remains however that the current "interim" government was imposed via a revolution, coup, whatever.
A) honestly think there are no Russian military in Ukraine agitating the situation or
B) there are but that is ok. They have a legitimate reason to do so. They're excercising force projection or something along those lines.
Who the feth says I'm a Russia supporter? I don't want to take ANY fething side here. Like with Syria, I see two equally violent, equally bloodstained, equally extremist sides fighting it out for political control. You scoff at us who express doubt over the Ukrainian Government's actions and dismiss us as "Russa supporters". But you are cheering on a bloodthirsty revolutionary government thats ordering indiscriminate airstrikes and sending in the Military. For all his faults, Yanukovych never did that.
Why I think Walrus that the new President be careful on how he goes about slapping his country back together. He has to force them back to the table to talk. Military action does not work so...water...electricity...cable..internet..hint..make the people work for him in Eastern Ukraine
Jihadin wrote: As I mention before on this thread Putin can have my permission to roll into Eastern Ukraine if Eastern Ukraine turns into a Bosnian/Kosovo situation
Don't really get that Analogy. What about a Russia Chechnya situation?
You wrote 'coup imposed government' to describe an interim government that is administering the country until proper elections are held.
Calling it fanciful was being kind.
Ok, I get it. You prefer to speak in euphemisms. The fact remains however that the current "interim" government was imposed via a revolution, coup, whatever.
A) honestly think there are no Russian military in Ukraine agitating the situation or
B) there are but that is ok. They have a legitimate reason to do so. They're excercising force projection or something along those lines.
Who the feth says I'm a Russia supporter? I don't want to take ANY fething side here. Like with Syria, I see two equally violent, equally bloodstained, equally extremist sides fighting it out for political control. You scoff at us who express doubt over the Ukrainian Government's actions and dismiss us as "Russa supporters". But you are cheering on a bloodthirsty revolutionary government thats ordering indiscriminate airstrikes and sending in the Military. For all his faults, Yanukovych never did that.
Ya, no one said you were anything so you don't have to scream I am not a Russia supporter if you ain't.
dereksatkinson wrote: So yeah.. they used an airstrike and it missed the intended target and killed some civilians. Right after the elections, their president doesn't even try diplomacy.
Yeah, as I've explained to you before, please stop using zerohedge, they are worse than useless because you will be stupider for having read it.
Anyhow, the OSCE report wasn't linked on the zerohedge site, because once again it's a junk site, but here is the actual quote;
"In Luhansk the situation remained volatile. On 2 June, shortly after 15:00 hrs, rockets hit the occupied regional administration building. Based on the SMM’s limited observation these strikes were the result of non-guided rockets shot from an aircraft. The number of casualties is unknown."
At which point your conclusions start sounding pretty unfounded.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: And until anyone actually finds any conclusive proof of Russian involvement, surely they are innocent until proven guilty? You can't simply claim something and expect it to be taken as truth.
Fun fact. Politicians lie. British politicians lie, American politicians lie, Russian politicians lie. It's practically their job.
Innocent until proven guilty is an essential component of criminal courts. As a means of assessing involvement in on-going military affairs it makes no sense. There is no trial in which to prove guilt.
Instead you go with what the most likely scenario is, and in this case that's pretty damn obvious. Because what we have is militants who are armed with serious heavy weaponry such as guided AA missiles, which they've acquired in the last couple of months.
So we can conclude;
1) They built it themselves, out of old playstations and soup cans.
2) They managed to acquire many millions in funds and black market weapon contacts in the space of a few months.
3) The Russians are funneling weapons to the seperatists.
I'm gonna go with option 3, personally.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: Something else to bear in mind is that Crimea could legally have up to 20,000 (IIRC) Russian troops stationed at the naval base there, as part of the Sevastopol lease. Ergo, it would be easy to prove that there were Russian soldiers in Crimea, they were already there, and in significant numbers. Eastern Ukraine, by contrast, has no such agreement, so any Russian soldiers would have had to move in there in the last few months. It's quite likely that there are some Russians amongst the separatists, but they will be few and far between; if they don't want to be found, I don't think they will be.
It doesn't need Russian troops, just Russian arms (or more likely third party arms supplied via Russian money).
No different to Iranian supplies in the hands of Iraqi resistance fighting Americans, or American supplies in the hands of Afghani troops fighting Russians.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dereksatkinson wrote: One of the largest nat gas companies in Ukraine hired Joe Biden's son on as a director of the company only a couple weeks ago. It's so obvious it makes me ill.
This is just such a silly complaint, led of course by your favourite junk site zerohedge.
I mean, what in the hell do you think a company with major holdings in Crimea going to do when the Russians annex the region? Their options are to just hope that this time, for the first time, Russia will respect the rule of law and let the current owners of exploration rights keep control of those rights, or they can look to align themselves with the other big dog and add some heavy political weight to their efforts to protect their exploration rights.
The idea that it somehow proves the US destabilised the region is bonkers.
I think the Russian government is doing exactly the same thing the US government is doing. Providing tactical and financial assistance. I do not believe we have active russian military personnel in Eastern Ukraine at the moment. Things are way too disorganized for this to be a military op.
The difference being, of course, that this time the Russian involvement is destabilising the regime and leading to violence, while the US is the stabilising force.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Ok, I get it. You prefer to speak in euphemisms. The fact remains however that the current "interim" government was imposed via a revolution, coup, whatever.
No, I like to describe things as they actually are, and think it is important that others try to do the same. It helps people think sensibly.
And in the wake of the collapse of a government, of course you get an interim government that isn't elected. That's how it works, that's how it is always going to work, and that is the only way it can work. Trying to make it out that there's some big deal with a temporary government holding power while regular elections are scheduled is just silly.
dereksatkinson wrote: So yeah.. they used an airstrike and it missed the intended target and killed some civilians. Right after the elections, their president doesn't even try diplomacy.
Yeah, as I've explained to you before, please stop using zerohedge, they are worse than useless because you will be stupider for having read it.
Anyhow, the OSCE report wasn't linked on the zerohedge site, because once again it's a junk site, but here is the actual quote;
"In Luhansk the situation remained volatile. On 2 June, shortly after 15:00 hrs, rockets hit the occupied regional administration building. Based on the SMM’s limited observation these strikes were the result of non-guided rockets shot from an aircraft. The number of casualties is unknown."
At which point your conclusions start sounding pretty unfounded.
Did you read the section of the article from the BBC I posted? It also hit a hospital. I'm not sure what conclusions you think are unfounded, but it's established fact that the airstrike had some collateral damage, and civilians were killed.
-Shrike- wrote: And until anyone actually finds any conclusive proof of Russian involvement, surely they are innocent until proven guilty? You can't simply claim something and expect it to be taken as truth.
Fun fact. Politicians lie. British politicians lie, American politicians lie, Russian politicians lie. It's practically their job.
Innocent until proven guilty is an essential component of criminal courts. As a means of assessing involvement in on-going military affairs it makes no sense. There is no trial in which to prove guilt.
Instead you go with what the most likely scenario is, and in this case that's pretty damn obvious. Because what we have is militants who are armed with serious heavy weaponry such as guided AA missiles, which they've acquired in the last couple of months.
So we can conclude;
1) They built it themselves, out of old playstations and soup cans.
2) They managed to acquire many millions in funds and black market weapon contacts in the space of a few months.
3) The Russians are funneling weapons to the seperatists.
I'm gonna go with option 3, personally.
Personally, I don't remember seeing any reports of guided missiles, but I'll let that fly. Did you forget that the militants raided several military bases and took a lot of military equipment?
-Shrike- wrote: Something else to bear in mind is that Crimea could legally have up to 20,000 (IIRC) Russian troops stationed at the naval base there, as part of the Sevastopol lease. Ergo, it would be easy to prove that there were Russian soldiers in Crimea, they were already there, and in significant numbers. Eastern Ukraine, by contrast, has no such agreement, so any Russian soldiers would have had to move in there in the last few months. It's quite likely that there are some Russians amongst the separatists, but they will be few and far between; if they don't want to be found, I don't think they will be.
It doesn't need Russian troops, just Russian arms (or more likely third party arms supplied via Russian money).
No different to Iranian supplies in the hands of Iraqi resistance fighting Americans, or American supplies in the hands of Afghani troops fighting Russians.
Or like American supplies in the hands of Ukrainian troops.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Ok, I get it. You prefer to speak in euphemisms. The fact remains however that the current "interim" government was imposed via a revolution, coup, whatever.
No, I like to describe things as they actually are, and think it is important that others try to do the same. It helps people think sensibly.
And in the wake of the collapse of a government, of course you get an interim government that isn't elected. That's how it works, that's how it is always going to work, and that is the only way it can work. Trying to make it out that there's some big deal with a temporary government holding power while regular elections are scheduled is just silly.
Yes, and by describing things as they actually are, it's obvious that the interim government came to power through a violent revolution.
OSCE: ROCKETS FROM PLANE HIT LUHANSK ADMINISTRATION YESTERDAY
OSCE SAYS NUMBER OF CASUALTIES FROM LUHANSK ROCKETS IS UNCLEAR
OSCE SAYS LUHANSK ASSESSMENT BASED ON `LIMITED OBSERVATION'
OSCE COMMENTS IN WEBSITE STATEMENT ON LUHANSK
So yeah.. they used an airstrike and it missed the intended target and killed some civilians. Right after the elections, their president doesn't even try diplomacy.
Once you're into "rebels" and "government forces" territory, I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised. The rebels are shooting down helicopters, storming buildings, killing Ukrainian troops. I get that we should all give peace a chance, but come on.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Ok, I get it. You prefer to speak in euphemisms. The fact remains however that the current "interim" government was imposed via a revolution, coup, whatever.
No, I like to describe things as they actually are, and think it is important that others try to do the same. It helps people think sensibly.
And in the wake of the collapse of a government, of course you get an interim government that isn't elected. That's how it works, that's how it is always going to work, and that is the only way it can work. Trying to make it out that there's some big deal with a temporary government holding power while regular elections are scheduled is just silly.
Right. And as such, I will describe the current interim government as a revolution imposed government, because that is what it is. That is how it came about. To do otherwise IS a euphemism. Call it whatever you like, but the current government was installed via a revolution and until it has been ratified via elections, it will remain accurate to describe it as such.
I have stopped describing the President as such, because he was elected through an (apparently) fair and open election in which most of the country participated and voted for him.
OSCE: ROCKETS FROM PLANE HIT LUHANSK ADMINISTRATION YESTERDAY
OSCE SAYS NUMBER OF CASUALTIES FROM LUHANSK ROCKETS IS UNCLEAR
OSCE SAYS LUHANSK ASSESSMENT BASED ON `LIMITED OBSERVATION'
OSCE COMMENTS IN WEBSITE STATEMENT ON LUHANSK
So yeah.. they used an airstrike and it missed the intended target and killed some civilians. Right after the elections, their president doesn't even try diplomacy.
Once you're into "rebels" and "government forces" territory, I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised. The rebels are shooting down helicopters, storming buildings, killing Ukrainian troops. I get that we should all give peace a chance, but come on.
The Army was sent in to kill them. Wtf did you expect them to do? Not fight back?
Seaward wrote: Once you're into "rebels" and "government forces" territory, I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised. The rebels are shooting down helicopters, storming buildings, killing Ukrainian troops. I get that we should all give peace a chance, but come on.
So airstrike a densely populated area? lol
The reason why Donetsk declare independence is because of the fear of ethnic cleansing. We've seen ample evidence that is exactly what the western half is intending.
dereksatkinson wrote: The reason why Donetsk declare independence is because of the fear of ethnic cleansing. We've seen ample evidence that is exactly what the western half is intending.
I am sure you've got a few reliable sources for that claim; I'd be interested to read about it.
Did you read the section of the article from the BBC I posted? It also hit a hospital. I'm not sure what conclusions you think are unfounded, but it's established fact that the airstrike had some collateral damage, and civilians were killed.
The hospital was positioned in an aggressive manner.
dereksatkinson wrote: The reason why Donetsk declare independence is because of the fear of ethnic cleansing. We've seen ample evidence that is exactly what the western half is intending.
I am sure you've got a few reliable sources for that claim; I'd be interested to read about it.
Like I said earlier in this thread, this crisis is descending into a sectarian/ethnic conflict.
One side hijacked the government via a revolution to overthrow a President favoured by the other side; whilst anti-Russian far right fascist groups looted military armouries, and had members appointed to positions in the new government.
The other side wasn't having that, so they also looted military armouries, seized power in their local areas; may or may not have received aid from Russia; and announced their opposition to the new revolutionary government.
Both sides are at fault, neither side wants to negotiate.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:The Army was sent in to kill them. Wtf did you expect them to do? Not fight back?
Sure. I suspect the army wouldn't be trying to kill them if they ceased armed rebellion. Just a hunch, mind.
An armed rebellion which would never have occurred if another (partially?) armed rebellion had not overthrown the previous government, installed a revolutionary government and taken control over the Army. Which too, is "just a hunch".
A) honestly think there are no Russian military in Ukraine agitating the situation or B) there are but that is ok. They have a legitimate reason to do so. They're excercising force projection or something along those lines.
Of course there is no Russian military in Ukraine. If that had been the case, the Ukrainian troops would not have nearly been as able to mess around as they do now. There may be a few advisors, and there is likely to be a number of cossacks, but no huge Russian armies like the Kievan government seems to think there are.
Instead you go with what the most likely scenario is, and in this case that's pretty damn obvious. Because what we have is militants who are armed with serious heavy weaponry such as guided AA missiles, which they've acquired in the last couple of months.
So we can conclude; 1) They built it themselves, out of old playstations and soup cans. 2) They managed to acquire many millions in funds and black market weapon contacts in the space of a few months. 3) The Russians are funneling weapons to the seperatists.
I'm gonna go with option 3, personally.
You are forgetting that many of the seperatists in the East are defected Ukrainian army soldiers and Crimeans who plundered the Ukrainian military bases there.
I think the Russian government is doing exactly the same thing the US government is doing. Providing tactical and financial assistance. I do not believe we have active russian military personnel in Eastern Ukraine at the moment. Things are way too disorganized for this to be a military op.
The difference being, of course, that this time the Russian involvement is destabilising the regime and leading to violence, while the US is the stabilising force.
That depends entirely on your point of view. Claiming that the US supplying the Ukrainian military does not need lead to violence is rather funny. US involvement will lead only to more violence, as the Ukrainian army will become more able to fight the seperatists. It will likely also lead to Russia supplying more things to the seperatists and only destabilise the region further.
sebster wrote: And in the wake of the collapse of a government, of course you get an interim government that isn't elected. That's how it works, that's how it is always going to work, and that is the only way it can work. Trying to make it out that there's some big deal with a temporary government holding power while regular elections are scheduled is just silly.
The thing here is that the previous government did not fall in a legal way. They were ousted by a coup led by the opposition, who then took over as the interim government. Interim governments normally also have reduced power, which is not the case here, and interim governments normally also do not start military operations against their own people. There is nothing wrong with interim governments in general, but there is a lot wrong with this particular one.
dereksatkinson wrote: The reason why Donetsk declare independence is because of the fear of ethnic cleansing. We've seen ample evidence that is exactly what the western half is intending.
I am sure you've got a few reliable sources for that claim; I'd be interested to read about it.
As if the helicopters and airstrikes weren't enough evidence..
Is that all the "ample evidence"? Ramblings of a former political prisoner who lost the election by quite a margin and regrettable collateral damage? I am not convinced.
In the aftermath of the Second World War, the Balkan states of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia became part of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia. After the death of longtime Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito in 1980, growing nationalism among the different Yugoslav republics threatened to split their union apart. This process intensified after the mid-1980s with the rise of the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, who helped foment discontent between Serbians in Bosnia and Croatia and their Croatian, Bosniak and Albanian neighbors. In 1991, Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia declared their independence; during the war in Croatia that followed, the Serb-dominated Yugoslav army supported Serbian separatists there in their brutal clashes with Croatian forces.
One individual in a position of power can escalate a situation.
Iron_Captain wrote: That depends entirely on your point of view. Claiming that the US supplying the Ukrainian military does not need lead to violence is rather funny.
As you seem to know, could you tell me what we're supplying them with? All those AK-74s we make? SU-25s? Those weird striped undershirts?
Iron_Captain wrote: That depends entirely on your point of view. Claiming that the US supplying the Ukrainian military does not need lead to violence is rather funny.
As you seem to know, could you tell me what we're supplying them with? All those AK-74s we make? SU-25s? Those weird striped undershirts?
I thought Obama just pledged another $3 million in military equipment for Ukraine?
-Shrike- wrote: Did you read the section of the article from the BBC I posted? It also hit a hospital. I'm not sure what conclusions you think are unfounded, but it's established fact that the airstrike had some collateral damage, and civilians were killed.
And...?
Your claim is that they're no longer trying diplomacy... because they used an airstrike to attempt to relieve the siege of some troops
Personally, I don't remember seeing any reports of guided missiles, but I'll let that fly. Did you forget that the militants raided several military bases and took a lot of military equipment?
Are you, honest to God, hand on your heart, claiming that you honestly believe that it is plausible that the rebels are maintaining their fight purely with weapons taken from Ukrainian depots? Because holy gak that's incredible.
Or like American supplies in the hands of Ukrainian troops.
Personally I'm not in favour of the US arming Ukrainian troops, but that's just because giving weapons to a kleptocracy has such a terrible rate of return.
But that point aside, you're still ignoring the basic difference in the aims and effect of Russian equipment supplies compared to US equipment supplies.
Yes, and by describing things as they actually are, it's obvious that the interim government came to power through a violent revolution.
Duh. And then, because we've now all agreed that reality is important, we need to recognise that government in a temporary government, purely a caretaker government until all positions have been democratically decided. Which makes any nonsense about it being an illegitimate government utterly silly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Right. And as such, I will describe the current interim government as a revolution imposed government, because that is what it is. That is how it came about. To do otherwise IS a euphemism.
Yeah, and if you'd written something along the lines "note the rest of the government is still the interim government installed after the revolution and we are still waiting on proper elections for the rest of government" then you would have made a sensible point.
Instead you wrote this;
"Lets hope he can clean up the rest of the Coup imposed government and kick out the fascist elements."
Do you see the difference?
The Army was sent in to kill them. Wtf did you expect them to do? Not fight back?
I expect them to fight. The weirdness is coming from people on this forum who seem to have ended up concluding that occupying government buildings by force is reasonable, but government military action to retake those buildings is terrible.
-Shrike- wrote: Did you read the section of the article from the BBC I posted? It also hit a hospital. I'm not sure what conclusions you think are unfounded, but it's established fact that the airstrike had some collateral damage, and civilians were killed.
And...?
Your claim is that they're no longer trying diplomacy... because they used an airstrike to attempt to relieve the siege of some troops
What on earth are you talking about? It's also obvious that neither side wants to try diplomacy at the moment.
Personally, I don't remember seeing any reports of guided missiles, but I'll let that fly. Did you forget that the militants raided several military bases and took a lot of military equipment?
Are you, honest to God, hand on your heart, claiming that you honestly believe that it is plausible that the rebels are maintaining their fight purely with weapons taken from Ukrainian depots? Because holy gak that's incredible.
I don't discount that possibility. Given that they have access to the Crimean armouries, and they have taken a metric gak tonne of weapons and vehicles from the Ukrainian military, it's possible.
Or like American supplies in the hands of Ukrainian troops.
Personally I'm not in favour of the US arming Ukrainian troops, but that's just because giving weapons to a kleptocracy has such a terrible rate of return.
But that point aside, you're still ignoring the basic difference in the aims and effect of Russian equipment supplies compared to US equipment supplies.
Assuming you believe that the vast majority of the militants weapons come from Russia. You still haven't provided any evidence of that.
Yes, and by describing things as they actually are, it's obvious that the interim government came to power through a violent revolution.
Duh. And then, because we've now all agreed that reality is important, we need to recognise that government in a temporary government, purely a caretaker government until all positions have been democratically decided. Which makes any nonsense about it being an illegitimate government utterly silly.
Yes, it's an interim government which is currently waging war against it's own people. I can't see any reason why people might not like it. EDIT: And when people don't want to listen to a government they don't like, branding it as illegitimate is the easiest option.
sebster wrote: Your claim is that they're no longer trying diplomacy... because they used an airstrike to attempt to relieve the siege of some troops
Uhh.. what troops were under siege in this town? Ground troops were not there.
sebster wrote: I expect them to fight. The weirdness is coming from people on this forum who seem to have ended up concluding that occupying government buildings by force is reasonable, but government military action to retake those buildings is terrible.
Wtf..
Let me get this straight...
Ukraine's government was overthrown. The western half of the country liked that idea. The eastern half of the country didn't. So the East breaks away and the West uses military force to prevent them from leaving.
Why should the east be forced to submit to the West? They have no more legitimacy than the government the west overthrew.
Usually when that happens there's a big 'ole civil war to determine if the separatists separate. Winner is retroactively declared right. Seems people in the east want a war. Just don't complain if they get one.
loki old fart wrote: There is people on this site, who seem to believe that during war/ civil unrest, anything is acceptable. If they truly believe that they have my pity.
Spoiler:
I think this baby would disagree.
Collateral damage is always a bad thing, but its going to be an unavoidable part of any conflict.
People say its "acceptable" only for lack of a better word. Its unavoidable, thus condemning something simply because it happened, and will always happen, is rather silly. Condemn those who go out of their way to cause it or show utter disregard for collateral.
Ultimately, innocent blood is the price of whatever these people are fighting for. Its their decision on if its worth it or not.
Guys, I've watched this thread from the beginning, and I can tell you that I am thoroughly interested in what both sides have to say. I would like to say that my view is rather ambivalent, but some members of this discussion are thundering the so-called unquestionable truth, that it makes me quite sad, really.
To start this, I'd like to start talking a bit about myself. I'm 17 and currently live in Northern Ireland (for 8 years now). I was originally born in Kishinev, Moldova and come from a family of simple decent folk, my parent- one a language teacher another a botanist and my grandparents used to be leaders of one of the big agricultural organisation in the Criuleni district- known as a Kolhoz. They are the nicest and most hardworking pair of 70-year olds that I know (Interesting fact- my grandpa won a prize for being one of the first to install solar panels in Moldova). Anyway, I would like to say that I, in heart am quite humanitarian and caring when it comes to other people. When I first heard of the west and that I'd be going there, I had such amazing expectations. WOW- high tech gadgets, upper-class education, friendly people. By the years, most people were friendly enough, but my view of the west started tarnishing after several incidents of racist verbal abuse, subtle forms of racism at work and in the classroom- such as race related jokes. Everything was a bit sour for a couple of years and after listing about the wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Egypt and the unnecessary bloodshed carried there, I would like to say that my heart cried with indignation when I've heard that the noble civilized America and some of her allies still waged war- in an age of innovation like this?!
Anyway, here in my house at Armagh, I have a satellite installed in and I watch these news channels- BBC, iTV, CNN, Channel 4, Pervii Canal, Rossya 24 and a German one that I'm not sure of the name (I can speak Romanian, Russian and German fluently- currently learning French.). Now I would like to say that (watching the news very frequently from January, the efforts made by the West to destabilize the situation, by imposing economic sancions on Russia, which never started this conflict or was involved in this conflict at first. I'd like to raise a few point about this situation that I feel are important.
1) Crimea was never invaded by Russia as many people claim. The Russians had a military and naval base there on contract, and had every right to stay where they were. To invade a country is to bring in your army and forcibly take or do something. The Russians didn't do that and there's plenty of evidence to support this, even for the local election. So many people say that the Crimean elections was held at the point of the Russian Kalashnikov, but those are plain lies, because I have seen at least 14 different videos showing how Crimeans happily come into the balloting stations to vote for whomever. No militants of any kind were inside or outside the building. The only guards that were seen were those guarding the checkpoints going into sevastopol, SO that no Right-Wing activists tried to target the balloting stations.
2)Remember Odessa on the 2nd of May? Perhaps not so much. BBC and CNN said a few words on the day I remember -clashes between right-sector and separatist groups. AND that's about all that they've talked about it. The real story gentlemen is that in that commerce building was initially occupied by about 120 or so activists who wanted to make petitions for the Kiev Government. How was that answered? A ring of a few hundred right-sector fanatics stormed the building and pushed all those activist right in- and I'll tell you, those people inside were NOT terrorists but simple, common folk like me, discussing the future of their city. 44 innocent people were killed that day, echoing an event of WW2 at Hatini, when Badera- right-sector "hero and champion" burned 137 people alive" in an old fortress. Numerous videos have been seen showing teenagers of my age, pouring ethanol and napalm into bottles for molotovs. Aged men have been seen Wearing blue and yellow armbands shooting anyone clinging on the ledges and trying to come down on makeshift ropes. Yous in the West probably never heard of this and think that I'm ling, but watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PVMDUU_UXY and look at 4:10 and you will clearly see my point. 44 innocent people died that day, and BBC and the CNN could have at least hold some condolences for the families of the deceased. The people in Lugansk, Donetsk and Sevastopol did- but who cares right? They're "terrorist scum".
3) Also about the "terrorist scum" afore mentioned so interestingly by someone. The people guarding Donbass now are -as the BBC also described them- scared nervous people who fear for what's to come next. The truth is, that these people are not separatists or terrorist- they are old retired military folk, or simple citizens who had no choice but to take up arms and defend their republic. Most are armed with old hunting rilfles and shotguns, and those silly stripy undershirts that you mentioned earlier- mad of somewhat horsehair? are just simple apparel worn in the eastern countries. I have and sometimes wear one (they are very cozy- which is why they use them in the navy also- my granduncle served in the navy for 50 years in Vladivostok and gave me mine), but one thing these men are- is brave. One account just yesterday shows a man (formerly an accountant, picking up arms because his best friend was shot dead by overpassing aircraft fire from the Ukrainian army. Also lately in the news, the Ukraininan army has started employing one of the heaviest classes of mortar- Tulipan, I believe- which are meant to be used in case of a nuclear strike! Against what- old done men defending barricades and the 9,418,034 (probably slightly less now0 civilian population who Doesn't agree with what the government is saying. 120 and more deaths have been confirmed and shown with clear video evidence of the dead (lying on the road to Kramatorsk airport- courtesy of right-sector snipers) and the dead and dying in the hospitals of Lughansk and Donetsk which are bombed daily. Did you hear of this?! The civilians are scared and hiding in basements- the children are crying for their dead fathers and mothers who are what- collateral damage?! If someone killed my parents- no offence- I will demand justice, and by the God above, they will be judged for the wicked things these Ukrainian troops do. Now I agree the defenders have caused some deaths on the ukranian side- but they only killed soldiers in defense of themselves and they weren't half as many casualties caused by the Ukranian Arm- sorry "National Guard" as if they guarded their own nation. If you think what the defenders are doing is wrong- the I hope I'll never have to fight in a war on your side- for you either have to be craven not to defend your country or
I'm just a simple man. I support no side, but I tell you this- start paying attention to what's really happening- innocent mean, women and children are dying- for legally proclaiming themselves a separate republic! If you westerners wanted to destabilize the situation and stop the bloodshed, the Western powers should tell the bloodthirsters in KIev to stop this "clensing" operation. This is not even war. This is plain genocide. I'm sick of the political differences, the backstabbing and propaganda war. All I want of our governments is one thing- to stop this massacre in a time as civilized as this- and the everyone would gain from it!
Phosis T'Kar Jr wrote: Guys, I've watched this thread from the beginning, and I can tell you that I am thoroughly interested in what both sides have to say. I would like to say that my view is rather ambivalent...
....If you westerners wanted to destabilize the situation and stop the bloodshed, the Western powers should tell the bloodthirsters in KIev to stop this "clensing" operation. This is not even war. This is plain genocide.
Not seeing much that's ambivalent or even handed about that post. The phrase, 'noble civilized America' amused me though.
I'm just pointing out some wrongdoings. I prefer the side that doesn't want trouble and as much as you might not believe it, Russia is trying to do that- Lavror and Putin sending quite a number of requests to both the EU and Kiev government to stop the violence
Phosis T'Kar Jr wrote: Guys, I've watched this thread from the beginning, and I can tell you that I am thoroughly interested in what both sides have to say. I would like to say that my view is rather ambivalent...
....If you westerners wanted to destabilize the situation and stop the bloodshed, the Western powers should tell the bloodthirsters in KIev to stop this "clensing" operation. This is not even war. This is plain genocide.
Not seeing much that's ambivalent or even handed about that post. The phrase, 'noble civilized America' amused me though.
Phosis T'Kar Jr wrote: Guys, I've watched this thread from the beginning, and I can tell you that I am thoroughly interested in what both sides have to say. I would like to say that my view is rather ambivalent...
....If you westerners wanted to destabilize the situation and stop the bloodshed, the Western powers should tell the bloodthirsters in KIev to stop this "clensing" operation. This is not even war. This is plain genocide.
Not seeing much that's ambivalent or even handed about that post. The phrase, 'noble civilized America' amused me though.
Phosis T'Kar Jr wrote: Guys, I've watched this thread from the beginning, and I can tell you that I am thoroughly interested in what both sides have to say. I would like to say that my view is rather ambivalent...
....If you westerners wanted to destabilize the situation and stop the bloodshed, the Western powers should tell the bloodthirsters in KIev to stop this "clensing" operation. This is not even war. This is plain genocide.
Not seeing much that's ambivalent or even handed about that post. The phrase, 'noble civilized America' amused me though.
Me too. America is not noble, nor civilised.
But we're fething awesome.
Barbarism and awesomeness are not mutually exclusive.
Iron_Captain wrote: That depends entirely on your point of view. Claiming that the US supplying the Ukrainian military does not need lead to violence is rather funny.
As you seem to know, could you tell me what we're supplying them with? All those AK-74s we make? SU-25s? Those weird striped undershirts?
Most importantly, the US supplies food for the Ukrainian military, as Ukraine can't even feed its own soldiers. It also supplies helmets and body armour and other non-lethal stuff. Also, don't insult the telnyaskha. Telnyaskha is manliest of all manly clothing.
The Army was sent in to kill them. Wtf did you expect them to do? Not fight back?
I expect them to fight. The weirdness is coming from people on this forum who seem to have ended up concluding that occupying government buildings by force is reasonable, but government military action to retake those buildings is terrible.
No, the weirdness is the excessive use of violence by the Ukrainian military. Normally, when government buildings are occupied by angry protesters, the government tries to negotiate. Immediatly sending in the army and bombing civilian targets and pretty much starting a civil war is not something that a democratic government is supposed to do. Using so much violence against anti-government protesters is something that fits more with Stalin or other authoritarian regimes. I find it weird that you can not understand this. I take it that you are also a staunch supporter of Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Khadaffi? They also loved to use violence against protesters...
Iron_Captain wrote: That depends entirely on your point of view. Claiming that the US supplying the Ukrainian military does not need lead to violence is rather funny.
As you seem to know, could you tell me what we're supplying them with? All those AK-74s we make? SU-25s? Those weird striped undershirts?
Most importantly, the US supplies food for the Ukrainian military, as Ukraine can't even feed its own soldiers. It also supplies helmets and body armour and other non-lethal stuff.
Also, don't insult the telnyaskha. Telnyaskha is manliest of all manly clothing.
The Army was sent in to kill them. Wtf did you expect them to do? Not fight back?
I expect them to fight. The weirdness is coming from people on this forum who seem to have ended up concluding that occupying government buildings by force is reasonable, but government military action to retake those buildings is terrible.
No, the weirdness is the excessive use of violence by the Ukrainian military. Normally, when government buildings are occupied by angry protesters, the government tries to negotiate. Immediatly sending in the army and bombing civilian targets and pretty much starting a civil war is not something that a democratic government is supposed to do. Using so much violence against anti-government protesters is something that fits more with Stalin or other authoritarian regimes. I find it weird that you can not understand this.
I take it that you are also a staunch supporter of Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Khadaffi? They also loved to use violence against protesters...
I'm fully expecting Whembly to come in and explain the difference between an angry mob of protesters and armed insurgents (never forget!).
Iron_Captain wrote: That depends entirely on your point of view. Claiming that the US supplying the Ukrainian military does not need lead to violence is rather funny.
As you seem to know, could you tell me what we're supplying them with? All those AK-74s we make? SU-25s? Those weird striped undershirts?
Most importantly, the US supplies food for the Ukrainian military, as Ukraine can't even feed its own soldiers. It also supplies helmets and body armour and other non-lethal stuff.
Also, don't insult the telnyaskha. Telnyaskha is manliest of all manly clothing.
The Army was sent in to kill them. Wtf did you expect them to do? Not fight back?
I expect them to fight. The weirdness is coming from people on this forum who seem to have ended up concluding that occupying government buildings by force is reasonable, but government military action to retake those buildings is terrible.
No, the weirdness is the excessive use of violence by the Ukrainian military. Normally, when government buildings are occupied by angry protesters, the government tries to negotiate. Immediatly sending in the army and bombing civilian targets and pretty much starting a civil war is not something that a democratic government is supposed to do. Using so much violence against anti-government protesters is something that fits more with Stalin or other authoritarian regimes. I find it weird that you can not understand this.
I take it that you are also a staunch supporter of Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Khadaffi? They also loved to use violence against protesters...
I'm fully expecting Whembly to come in and explain the difference between an angry mob of protesters and armed insurgents (never forget!).
Iron_Captain wrote: That depends entirely on your point of view. Claiming that the US supplying the Ukrainian military does not need lead to violence is rather funny.
As you seem to know, could you tell me what we're supplying them with? All those AK-74s we make? SU-25s? Those weird striped undershirts?
Most importantly, the US supplies food for the Ukrainian military, as Ukraine can't even feed its own soldiers. It also supplies helmets and body armour and other non-lethal stuff.
Also, don't insult the telnyaskha. Telnyaskha is manliest of all manly clothing.
The Army was sent in to kill them. Wtf did you expect them to do? Not fight back?
I expect them to fight. The weirdness is coming from people on this forum who seem to have ended up concluding that occupying government buildings by force is reasonable, but government military action to retake those buildings is terrible.
No, the weirdness is the excessive use of violence by the Ukrainian military. Normally, when government buildings are occupied by angry protesters, the government tries to negotiate. Immediatly sending in the army and bombing civilian targets and pretty much starting a civil war is not something that a democratic government is supposed to do. Using so much violence against anti-government protesters is something that fits more with Stalin or other authoritarian regimes. I find it weird that you can not understand this.
I take it that you are also a staunch supporter of Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Khadaffi? They also loved to use violence against protesters...
I'm fully expecting Whembly to come in and explain the difference between an angry mob of protesters and armed insurgents (never forget!).
Both sides have both.
The difference between angry protesters and armed insurgents is very small. All it takes is a gun.
And the protesters did not arm themselves until the military was sent in.
No, the weirdness is the excessive use of violence by the Ukrainian military. Normally, when government buildings are occupied by angry protesters, the government tries to negotiate.
Which is exactly what happened. The terrorists who seized governmental buildings refused to negotiate with either side and refused to join a discussion with all involved parties.
Taking military actions to either force them to surrender or kill all of them is totally legit as they have proven themselves to be terrorists and thus lose all protection they had.
No, the weirdness is the excessive use of violence by the Ukrainian military. Normally, when government buildings are occupied by angry protesters, the government tries to negotiate.
Which is exactly what happened. The terrorists who seized governmental buildings refused to negotiate with either side and refused to join a discussion with all involved parties.
Taking military actions to either force them to surrender or kill all of them is totally legit as they have proven themselves to be terrorists and thus lose all protection they had.
Again, the government did not even attempt to negotiate with the seperatists. It sent in the military straight away. Please get your facts and your definition of 'terrorist' straight.
Iron_Captain wrote: Again, the government did not even attempt to negotiate with the seperatists.
Again, the terrorists did not even attempt to negotiate with the other parties. Get your facts straight.
They said "We want Russia!" and denied every single attempt by either side to get into contact for negotiations. Including taking neutral observers hostage. But alas, terrorists be terrorists.
Negotiations have been offered and denied on multiple occasions (offered by all involved parties!) while they kept seizing governmental buildings and attacking their forces.
Diplomacy has failed, now root them out with an iron fist.
Iron_Captain wrote: Again, the government did not even attempt to negotiate with the seperatists.
Again, the terrorists did not even attempt to negotiate with the other parties. Get your facts straight.
They said "We want Russia!" and denied every single attempt by either side to get into contact for negotiations. Including taking neutral observers hostage. But alas, terrorists be terrorists.
Negotiations have been offered and denied on multiple occasions (offered by all involved parties!) while they kept seizing governmental buildings and attacking their forces.
Diplomacy has failed, now root them out with an iron fist.
'They said "We want Russia!" That is incorrect. Most protesters did not want to join Russia at all, but just more autonomy.
And so far, the seperatists (unlike the military) have not been terrorising the local population, (which for a majority also consists of seperatists btw) so calling them terrorists is ridiculous.
''Negotiations have been offered and denied on multiple occasions'' Please point me to where the Ukrainian government offered to negotiate with the seperatists, as I seem to have forgotten
Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet interviewed the Russian envoy Sergej Markov, I've included a translation (made by myself, meaning any translation errors are all my fault):
Svenska Dagbladet wrote:
Putin's man warns about Swedish "Rusophobia"
Sergej Markov, Putin's personal envoy, considers Sweden to be one of the most Rusophobic in Europe. He warns that a World War could be the result if Russia is pushed into a corner.
-Five, six countries are at the forefront of European Rusophobia: Sweden, Poland, the Baltic countries, and Finland. In the cases of Sweden and Poland this hatred of Russia can be explained with old great-power-complexes, in the case of Lithuania and Estonia it's a case of politics. The Rusophobia in Finland, on the other hand, is incomprehensible, seeing as Finland's benefitted from the increase in trade with Russia. Everything points to Sweden and the Baltic nations having influenced Finland, says Sergej Markov, Putin's doverennoje litso.
The title means he [Markov] is the Russian president's personal envoy and represents him [Putin] in public.
Markov is a political scientist and heads his own think-tank, Institute for political research. He is also a member of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, and a known hawk whose ideas are close to Putin's. And he has the president's ear.
-Vladimir Putin and I meet between one and three times a month. I became his personal envoy during the run-up to the 2012 presidential election. Back then we met every week. After the election he [Putin] announced that I had his continued confidence, says Markov.
SvD interviews Markov at Hotel Kosmos in Moscow, where he is opening a seminar for media directors of the region. During his entire opening speech the microphone is malfunctioning. Markov speaks for 40 minutes without the audience hearing a thing. No one dares say anything.
When SvD asks Markov about the deterioration of security policy in Europe he gets upset and almost snarls:
Enough with Russia being treated as inferior! The view of Russians in Europe today is the same as that regarding Jews in times past. Your goal is to destroy Russia. But you will not succeed. Napoleon tried, Hitler tried, without success. You'll destroy Europe instead.
How does this hatred of Russia manifest?
For example the monstrous lies about Ukraine. The claim that Porosjenko was elected in free and fair elections. It's like claiming Bashar al-Assad was democratically elected.
Russia supports al-Assad.
We support those who show understanding for ethnic minorities. The minorities in Syria, the Christians, the Alawites, the Circassians, pray to God that al-Assad remains president. In Ukraine people are killed because they want to elect their own governors and stick to their right to speak their native Russian language. Why does Europe refuse to see this? People were being murdered in Odessa, but your Western media doesn't report on that. Despite the culprit being obvious.
Markov warns for the consequences of cornering Russia.
-Antisemitism started the Second World War, Rusophobia could start a Third. The major problem is that NATO is trying to create artificial conflicts. NATO is no longer needed, it has lost its right to exist and is as a result looking for new purposes. NATO is de facto an American organisation. The American military budget is bigger than the rest of the world combined! The US is arming itself at an alarming rate and is also creating private armies of mercenaries that no one controls, like Blackwater. These developments are extremely dangerous.
What is going to happen in Ukraine?
The most likely solution is the Bosnian scenario. That is, an ethnicity-based federation. Eastern Ukraine becomes the federation of Novorossija, including Donetsk, Luhansk, Charkiv, Odessa, Dnipropetrovsk, and Zaporozjie.
But the separatists only control two of those cities
The others will join their struggle sooner or later. They can't accept the Ukranian nationalists either. In Russia we have to hold back a large stream of volunteers that want to go to Ukraine to protect their brethren. The pressure on Russia to intervene is steadily mounting, 70 percent of the Russian people want Russia to intervene in eastern Ukraine. But Putin doesn't want to. He wants a federation.
There's a number of Russian volunteers in Donbass. Apparently you didn't manage to hold them back
Many more have been stopped at the border.
The separatists are seemingly receiving military aid from Russia
Have you seen how out-of-date their missiles are? Russia has the best anti-air systems in the world. The Rebels are using 1970's weapons. But if the Kiev government doesn't stop using violence against their own people, we will be forced to aid the rebels - with both hardware and men.
Two spontaneous thoughts:
1. People being murdered in Odessa? I'm pretty sure they would've pushed that harder if they could back it up.
2. US defense expenditure greater than the rest of the world combined? Hardly.
I also think it's rather interesting that he can't see any reason the last 100 years for Finland to fear the Bear. There are still Karelians alive who remember.
Iron_Captain wrote: Again, the government did not even attempt to negotiate with the seperatists.
Again, the terrorists did not even attempt to negotiate with the other parties. Get your facts straight.
They said "We want Russia!" and denied every single attempt by either side to get into contact for negotiations. Including taking neutral observers hostage. But alas, terrorists be terrorists.
Negotiations have been offered and denied on multiple occasions (offered by all involved parties!) while they kept seizing governmental buildings and attacking their forces.
Diplomacy has failed, now root them out with an iron fist.
You appear to be suggesting that it is acceptable for the Ukrainian government to kill every militant. Do you have any idea how many people that is?
As a related point, killing so many people will (it already has) result in unarmed civilian casualties. What do you consider an acceptable ratio of armed militant deaths to civilian deaths?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: (Interesting article) I also think it's rather interesting that he can't see any reason the last 100 years for Finland to fear the Bear. There are still Karelians alive who remember.
Finland one of the most russophobic countries? Hardly. Finland is actually one of the countries where I have barely encountered any russophobia. Relations between Finland and Russia have mostly been good, and most Russians have a very positive opinion of Finland. There is a lot of cooperation between Finland and Russia, and Finns and Russians have a lot of interaction with each other. Sure, the Finns have reasons to be mad at Russia, and the Russians have reasons to be mad at the Finns (*cough* Leningrad *cough*), but since the end of the continuation war, things have been fine. I do not think there are many Finns who can still get worked up about Karelia. After all, Finland thanks its independence to Russia. Russia conquered Finland from the Swedes, and after 108 years in the Russian Empire, in which the Finns were treated well (unlike the Poles for example, who have a genuine reason to be mad at the Russians), and were granted independence by the Bolsheviks after the Finns expressed their desire to be independent. Without Russia, Finland might still have been a part of Sweden today...
If Finland, Poland and other countries still bitter about The Soviet Union's (undoubted) crimes during WW2 have the right to still bear a grudge against modern Russia and continue that hostility and enmity today, then by that logic most of Europe (and especially Russia) still have the right to bear a grudge against Germany because...you know,the Nazis.
If Finland, Poland and other countries still bitter about The Soviet Union's (undoubted) crimes during WW2 have the right to still bear a grudge against modern Russia and continue that hostility and enmity today, then by that logic most of Europe (and especially Russia) still have the right to bear a grudge against Germany because...you know,the Nazis.
But of course, Modern Germany =/= Nazi Germany.
But Germany changed much more radically than Russia. The Bundesrepublik is virtually unrecognizable from the the Third Reich, whereas the Russian Federation, especially under Putin, is much closer to its Soviet roots.
Aside from that, Russia has a very, very long history of militarism, nationalism and conquest, and to be honest, the Russian Federation does not seem to be very different in that regard. The 'All belongs to Mother Russia' mentality is still very much present, while in Germany, 'Drang nach Osten' and 'Lebensraum' ire almost considered obscenities. They even deleted the first stanza from their anthem.
Now of course you can't blame Soviet actions on present-day Russia, but the Poles and other former subject peoples still have a valid reasons to be wary of the Russians.
I may love Russia, yet that does not mean I am completely blind to its faults.
The missile strikes were in support of fighting for border positions in the outskirts of the city.
It's also obvious that neither side wants to try diplomacy at the moment.
Exactly what diplomacy is the Ukraine supposed to be attempting? They are dealing with people with no list of demands, who are seizing government buildings through force of arms. It absolutely fething staggers me that anyone on Earth would argue the response ought to be asking the attackers what they would like.
I don't discount that possibility. Given that they have access to the Crimean armouries, and they have taken a metric gak tonne of weapons and vehicles from the Ukrainian military, it's possible.
When insurgents rely on pilfered guns, it looks like the Algerian insurgency, or the Malayan Emergency. Lots of low level operations, almost entirely small arms and not even that much. Where larger operations occur they rely on large numbers, but even then sustained fighting is impossible.
That's not what is happening in the Ukraine. There we are seeing very well equipped troops, who've undertaken quite a lot of fighting and showing no sign of supply shortages. You just cannot sustain that kind of fighting by stealing stuff off the other side.
Assuming you believe that the vast majority of the militants weapons come from Russia. You still haven't provided any evidence of that.
I explained why it is quite obvious, because the alternative is that the insurgents have managed to find a black market supplier in a matter of months and the funds to pay them, or they're making the weapons out of cans and lackey bands, or it's just stuff they've nicked off the Ukrainians. As all those options are silly, we're left with the reality that Russia is supporting the insurgents.
Yes, it's an interim government which is currently waging war against it's own people. I can't see any reason why people might not like it.
If the question were why people might not like the government, you might have a point.
EDIT: And when people don't want to listen to a government they don't like, branding it as illegitimate is the easiest option.
Who cares if its easy? It's nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dereksatkinson wrote: Uhh.. what troops were under siege in this town? Ground troops were not there.
The fighting in the outskirts of the city...
Wtf..
Let me get this straight...
Ukraine's government was overthrown. The western half of the country liked that idea. The eastern half of the country didn't.
It's also obvious that neither side wants to try diplomacy at the moment.
Exactly what diplomacy is the Ukraine supposed to be attempting? They are dealing with people with no list of demands, who are seizing government buildings through force of arms. It absolutely fething staggers me that anyone on Earth would argue the response ought to be asking the attackers what they would like.
Suggesting the seperatists have no list of demands is hilariously incorrect. If they have no demands, than why did they take to the streets?
It saddens me that you embrace violence so fervently like this. If you can avoid violence by having a good conversation and making compromises, than how can that be anything but good?
You should always, always try diplomacy first. If that fails, than you can still resort to barbaric violence.
A question for you: Did you also support Yanukovich's crackdown on the armed protesters occupying government buildings?
I don't discount that possibility. Given that they have access to the Crimean armouries, and they have taken a metric gak tonne of weapons and vehicles from the Ukrainian military, it's possible.
When insurgents rely on pilfered guns, it looks like the Algerian insurgency, or the Malayan Emergency. Lots of low level operations, almost entirely small arms and not even that much. Where larger operations occur they rely on large numbers, but even then sustained fighting is impossible.
That's not what is happening in the Ukraine. There we are seeing very well equipped troops, who've undertaken quite a lot of fighting and showing no sign of supply shortages. You just cannot sustain that kind of fighting by stealing stuff off the other side.
Assuming you believe that the vast majority of the militants weapons come from Russia. You still haven't provided any evidence of that.
I explained why it is quite obvious, because the alternative is that the insurgents have managed to find a black market supplier in a matter of months and the funds to pay them, or they're making the weapons out of cans and lackey bands, or it's just stuff they've nicked off the Ukrainians. As all those options are silly, we're left with the reality that Russia is supporting the insurgents.
You have absolutely no idea as to the huge stockpiles in the Crimean armouries. As a result of the Cold War, Ukraine has a huge stockpile of weaponry. Crimea alone contains enough guns to supply entire armies, and the insurgents also captured several bases in the East. There is no need for them to have gotten anything from Russia or the Black Market.
Yes, it's an interim government which is currently waging war against it's own people. I can't see any reason why people might not like it.
If the question were why people might not like the government, you might have a point.
EDIT: And when people don't want to listen to a government they don't like, branding it as illegitimate is the easiest option.
Who cares if its easy? It's nonsense.
So you think the original uprising against Yanukovich was also nonsense? And the one against Assad? And Ghadaffi? And the founding of the US was also nonsense?
Ukraine's government was overthrown. The western half of the country liked that idea. The eastern half of the country didn't.
Yeah, look at that sharply divided electorate.
Yes indeed. This is the relevant picture you are looking for. Poroshenko was not part of the original government, nor of the coup-imposed interim government. The original government was very popular in the East, but not in the West. It is the reverse with the interim government.
Iron_Captain wrote: No, the weirdness is the excessive use of violence by the Ukrainian military. Normally, when government buildings are occupied by angry protesters, the government tries to negotiate. Immediatly sending in the army and bombing civilian targets and pretty much starting a civil war is not something that a democratic government is supposed to do. Using so much violence against anti-government protesters is something that fits more with Stalin or other authoritarian regimes. I find it weird that you can not understand this.
I take it that you are also a staunch supporter of Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Khadaffi? They also loved to use violence against protesters...
If you want to protest and petition the government, then you march in the streets. If you want to force government out then you take over government buildings armed with military weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: It saddens me that you embrace violence so fervently like this. If you can avoid violence by having a good conversation and making compromises, than how can that be anything but good?
You should always, always try diplomacy first. If that fails, than you can still resort to barbaric violence.
A question for you: Did you also support Yanukovich's crackdown on the armed protesters occupying government buildings?
I didn't make a false show of moral outrage, like some people here. Because I understand how government works. If you use force to break the laws of government, the government responds with force. Pretending to be outraged when that happens is fundamentally false.
You have absolutely no idea as to the huge stockpiles in the Crimean armouries. As a result of the Cold War, Ukraine has a huge stockpile of weaponry. Crimea alone contains enough guns to supply entire armies, and the insurgents also captured several bases in the East. There is no need for them to have gotten anything from Russia or the Black Market.
Oh, so the guns aren't being supplied by Russia. They're being supplied out of stores in Crimea, which just so happens to be under Russian control. That's totally different. Good point there. Well done.
Poroshenko was not part of the original government, nor of the coup-imposed interim government. The original government was very popular in the East, but not in the West. It is the reverse with the interim government.
At this point you're asking people to believe that the situation is desperate enough to justify taking over government buildings and seperate from the rest of the country, but not desperate enough for a majority of people in the East to vote for a different president.
Iron_Captain wrote: No, the weirdness is the excessive use of violence by the Ukrainian military. Normally, when government buildings are occupied by angry protesters, the government tries to negotiate. Immediatly sending in the army and bombing civilian targets and pretty much starting a civil war is not something that a democratic government is supposed to do. Using so much violence against anti-government protesters is something that fits more with Stalin or other authoritarian regimes. I find it weird that you can not understand this.
I take it that you are also a staunch supporter of Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Khadaffi? They also loved to use violence against protesters...
If you want to protest and petition the government, then you march in the streets. If you want to force government out then you take over government buildings armed with military weapons.
Everytime I'm reading Iron_Captain's posts I wonder if that is how our international posters are feeling everytime they read "hurr durr 'MURICA" posts about our military operations...
d-usa wrote: Everytime I'm reading Iron_Captain's posts I wonder if that is how our international posters are feeling everytime they read "hurr durr 'MURICA" posts about our military operations...
d-usa wrote: Everytime I'm reading Iron_Captain's posts I wonder if that is how our international posters are feeling everytime they read "hurr durr 'MURICA" posts about our military operations...
d-usa wrote: Everytime I'm reading Iron_Captain's posts I wonder if that is how our international posters are feeling everytime they read "hurr durr 'MURICA" posts about our military operations...
To answer this: Yes.
When we are a superpower invading other countries, Snrub and I will take up the flag with some quality 'straya posts. Can't wait until that happens.
I'll believe it when I see it. Their interior minister (I think I've got the right person) doesn't have a great track record with providing reliable information.
Sending in just 3 is few enough for there to be doubt and enough to maybe test the waters.
And why would they need to test the waters? If there were indeed three Russian tanks there, it is more likely just a show of force to remind the Ukrainians of their presence. Just like Russian bombers flying over Western Europe every now and then.
d-usa wrote: Everytime I'm reading Iron_Captain's posts I wonder if that is how our international posters are feeling everytime they read "hurr durr 'MURICA" posts about our military operations...
Than you must have never seen a true Russian nationalist I guess? Trust me, in Russia I get accused of being 'unpatriotic' :{
Pfft. Random allegations and rumours everywhere, by the look of that BBC article. Tanks? Incendiary bombs?
Wasn't there some British journalist who went around Gaza back in 2007 (or something around that time)? We need to send someone like him to Donetsk; it's the only way we'll get any reliable news about Ukraine.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Would it really change anyone's outlook here if Russia sent in three tanks?
Apparently not. I mean, if people were posting 'oh well if this is true then it changes everything I've been saying, but I'll wait to see if its true'... but we don't even get that.
In other news, Russia has just admitted that it is sending aid to the rebels, though it says it is purely humanitarian aid. Meanwhile rebels who've received that aid are thanking Russia for military equipment - namely combat helmets.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Would it really change anyone's outlook here if Russia sent in three tanks?
Apparently not. I mean, if people were posting 'oh well if this is true then it changes everything I've been saying, but I'll wait to see if its true'... but we don't even get that.
In other news, Russia has just admitted that it is sending aid to the rebels, though it says it is purely humanitarian aid. Meanwhile rebels who've received that aid are thanking Russia for military equipment - namely combat helmets.
Well I guess you could argue that helmets are humanitarian aid, it'll help keep them alive.
They could have been intended for use as bicycle helmets, but the Russians just had more combat helmets left over so they sent them. That's humanitarian...ish
d-usa wrote: Everytime I'm reading Iron_Captain's posts I wonder if that is how our international posters are feeling everytime they read "hurr durr 'MURICA" posts about our military operations...
To answer this: Yes.
\
Hell yes. Now you know how it feels d-usa , tell the others to stop it.
I've never done it I witness it once. Heard about it quite a few times. If one does not want to "pop a squat" to drop a "deuce" being no outer cardboard wrapper for an MRE handy to park on or a metal folding chair to pull out. Also the fear of it be a exploding "deuce". A helmet and trash bag is the next best thing
Jihadin wrote: If one does not want to "pop a squat" to drop a "deuce" being no outer cardboard wrapper for an MRE handy to park on or a metal folding chair to pull out. Also the fear of it be a exploding "deuce".
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Would it really change anyone's outlook here if Russia sent in three tanks?
Apparently not. I mean, if people were posting 'oh well if this is true then it changes everything I've been saying, but I'll wait to see if its true'... but we don't even get that.
In other news, Russia has just admitted that it is sending aid to the rebels, though it says it is purely humanitarian aid. Meanwhile rebels who've received that aid are thanking Russia for military equipment - namely combat helmets.
Well, on the flip side, would it change anyone's outlook here if the government used incendiary bombs in Eastern Ukraine?
Anyway, I'll gladly admit I was wrong about the tanks in Donetsk, but I'll also point out that they're an older model of Ukrainian tank, so I'll refuse to draw any conclusions until we have more evidence.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Would it really change anyone's outlook here if Russia sent in three tanks?
Apparently not. I mean, if people were posting 'oh well if this is true then it changes everything I've been saying, but I'll wait to see if its true'... but we don't even get that.
In other news, Russia has just admitted that it is sending aid to the rebels, though it says it is purely humanitarian aid. Meanwhile rebels who've received that aid are thanking Russia for military equipment - namely combat helmets.
Well I guess you could argue that helmets are humanitarian aid, it'll help keep them alive.
Ugh. Should have hit the quote button. Was replying to this
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I've never done it I witness it once. Heard about it quite a few times. If one does not want to "pop a squat" to drop a "deuce" being no outer cardboard wrapper for an MRE handy to park on or a metal folding chair to pull out. Also the fear of it be a exploding "deuce". A helmet and trash bag is the next best thing
The Ukraine is'nt a nation, it never was, it was created by the Lenin as a administrative district of the Soviet Union. I feel sorry for the those who have thrown their lot in with the EU, they've been put to sleep with golden promises and when they awake all they had will be gone. Yea Putins a thug, but he's an honest thug as opposed to the snakes that are pulling the strings of the pro EU forces.
And they are right in that. What Ironclad said about Ukraine only being created by Lenin is not correct. Time for history lesson Ukraine (historically called Little Russia), already existed as a division of the Russian Empire, and the origins of Ukraine are even older. The Ukrainian people (historically called Ruthenians) are as old as the Russians and Belarussians, as all three groups are descended from the Rus' people. The Russians are the part of the Rus' who after the collapse of Kievan Rus' came under control of the independent Russian city states who were ultimately united by Moscow. The Belarussias are the part of the Rus' that became part of Lithuania. The Ukrainians are the part of the Rus' that came under Polish control. The Ukrainian state has its roots in the Cossack uprisings against the Poles in the 17th century. Those uprisings saw the creation of a de-facto independent Ukrainian state, but as the Ukrainians were in the end defeated by the Poles, they turned to the Muscovite Tsar for help. The Tsar defeated the Poles and Ukrainian lands east of the Dnieper were given to Muscovy. This is the beginning of the East-West split in Ukraine itself, where the East has been heavily russified, whereas the West has been heavily polonised. In the next war, the Western Ukrainian cossacks sided with Poland and Sweden against Russia. Russia won the war however and most of the Ukraine was now annexed, ending Ukrainian autonomy. At the end of the 18th century, the Crimean Khanate was conquered by Russia, and the area was resettled by Russians. After the fall of the Russian Empire, Poland re-annexed Western Ukraine, but it was swiftly re-conquered again by the Bolsheviks. In the end Poland managed to retain the westernmost regions of Ukraine (Galicia and Volhynia.) These areas were returned to Ukraine after WW2, and this is the first time the entire Ukraine was unified at the same time. Nationalist elements in Galicia however tried to gain independence from both Polish and Soviet rule after the German invasion (these are the infamous Banderites). Of course, the Soviet Union won the War, and the Banderites were brutally dealt with. This is the origin of the millitant russophobia in the Westernmost Ukraine. After the fall of the USSR, the Ukrainian government declared independence. In 2004, the pro-Eastern Yanukovich was elected, which did not sit well with people in the West. After the mass protests of the Orange Revolution, Yanukovich was forced to resign in favour of the pro-Western Yuschenko and Tymoshenko. In 2010, Yanukovich was elected again, and after signing an agreement with Russia instead of the EU, the people in the pro-Westerners started a revolution again. This time however, the pro-Russian part of the Ukraine refused to accept it and the Russians on Crimea seceded while the Eastern Ukrainians started a revolution of their own. Thus we arrive at present events.
Unless you are posting from the past, this is incorrect.
Both are correct. Ukraine literally means borderlands, so you can either say 'the borderlands', or 'borderlands' depending on your own preference. Just like you can say 'the Welsh Marches' or just 'Welsh Marches'. The present-day dispute in usage of Ukraine in English is mainly political, whereby 'the Ukraine' for some reason is made out to be 'pro-Russian', imperialistic or denigrating to Ukrainians. The article is also rather funny for mentioning that Russians refer to Ukraine as 'the Ukraine'. The Russian language does not have articles, so the word 'the' does not even exists in Russian. Saying 'the Ukraine' is actually not possible in Russian.
Iron_Captain wrote: 'the Ukraine' for some reason is made out to be 'pro-Russian', imperialistic or denigrating to Ukrainians.
Perhaps because it robs Ukraine of legitimacy as a nation by the inclusion of that article? Which given Ironcald Warlord's posting in this thread seems intentional on his part, and I would imagine is also intentional for those of the pro-Russian mindset that would like to see Ukraine reclaimed by Russia. Ukraine is a sovereign state, not a territory in the Soviet Union.
Anyway, what happened to Ketara? He seems to have checked out of the thread. Usually has periodic astute analyses to contribute.
I'm more or less keeping on top of the situation as it evolves, but nothing particularly major has happened that I've felt to be worth chipping in over. My current estimation is that unless Putin starts throwing in some serious supplies behind the Donetsk people's Republic, it'll go under within the next month or two.
As things stand, Poroshenko seems to have succeeded in rallying a good chunk of the countries military behind him as a democratically elected leader, and bar the most Eastern regions, the rest of the country has fallen into line as well. His punitive military actions in the East have stirred up considerable resentment however, which will most likely come back to bite him in the arse. A lot rides on how much public support the Donetsk group can rally. If the public support melts away, no amount of supplies can help them win, but if all these airstrikes harden public opinion, Poroshenko has no chance of retaking total control of the region. There'll be IED's and ambushes hitting his forces every time they turn around even if they do retake the towns.
If public support collapses, Putin will stretch it out long enough to gain political/economic concessions from Poroshenko. If not, he'll push for the Donetsk People's Republic to be set up as a satellite state.
Iron_Captain wrote: 'the Ukraine' for some reason is made out to be 'pro-Russian', imperialistic or denigrating to Ukrainians.
Perhaps because it robs Ukraine of legitimacy as a nation by the inclusion of that article? Which given Ironcald Warlord's posting in this thread seems intentional on his part, and I would imagine is also intentional for those of the pro-Russian mindset that would like to see Ukraine reclaimed by Russia. Ukraine is a sovereign state, not a territory in the Soviet Union.
On my part that was not deliberate, I simply thought it was the correct way as I was ignorant to the literal meaning of "the Ukraine". So my use of it was entirely unconscious. I certainly don't think that Ukraine is not a legitimate country.
Anyway, if Ukraine means "Borderlands" and Ukrainians get offended when people refer to it as "the Borderlands", then maybe they should have picked a more appropriate name when they became independent. "The Ukraine" is simply an outdated grammatical throw back.
And nor am I pro-Russian. If anything I'm anti-EU, I perceive the Ukraine crisis as a power struggle between East (Russia) and West (EU and by extension, the USA).
. Those uprisings saw the creation of a de-facto independent Ukrainian state, but as the Ukrainians were in the end defeated by the Poles, they turned to the Muscovite Tsar for help. The Tsar defeated the Poles and Ukrainian lands east of the Dnieper were given to Muscovy. This is the beginning of the East-West split in Ukraine itself, where the East has been heavily russified, whereas the West has been heavily polonised.
In the next war, the Western Ukrainian cossacks sided with Poland and Sweden against Russia. Russia won the war however and most of the Ukraine was now annexed, ending Ukrainian autonomy.
Yea well member of the Native American movement seized Alcatraz briefly, Key West also fancies itself an independent state. Also what your talking about are feudal empires, that doesn't give modern legitimacy unless you believe that the English King has claims to French land.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
On my part that was not deliberate, I simply thought it was the correct way as I was ignorant to the literal meaning of "the Ukraine". So my use of it was entirely unconscious. I certainly don't think that Ukraine is not a legitimate country.
And nor am I pro-Russian. If anything I'm anti-EU, I perceive the Ukraine crisis as a power struggle between East (Russia) and West (EU and by extension, the USA).
Its like you read my thoughts, I agree you don't have to like Putins regime to oppose the brigandry being committed by the Western Powers.
Ukraine crisis: Military plane shot down in Luhansk.
Pro-Russian rebels have shot down a military transport plane in eastern Ukraine, reportedly killing 49 Ukrainian service personnel.
Ukraine's defence ministry said the Il-76 transport plane crashed after coming under anti-aircraft fire over Luhansk.
In a statement it said "terrorists" had "cynically and treacherously" fired on the aircraft.
The plane was carrying troops and military equipment and was about to land at the city's airport.
It is thought to be the biggest loss of life suffered by government forces in a single incident since Kiev began an operation to try to defeat the insurgency in east Ukraine.
1
Filename
BBC News - Ukraine crisis Military plane shot down in Luhan.pdf
I wasn't aware that opening fire was an act to which the word 'cynical' applied. I mean, were they all muttering things like, 'This damn war', and 'We all have to go sometime..' as they did it?
At least one Ukrainian armored vehicle crossed the Russian border with Ukraine Friday
overnight and stopped in the Rostov Region, according to Russia’s Security Service. The
military abandoned the vehicle and returned to Ukraine.
For more on the Ukrainian crisis read RT’s live updates
The Ukrainian armored vehicle stopped in near the village of Millerovo, said the head of the press department of the Federal Security
Service (FSB) in Rostov Region, Vasily Malaev.
In response to the incident, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that the “illegal act” will not promote a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
The ministry has also demanded an end to “provocations” on the border, which are making dialogue between the two countries much
more difficult. The ministry directed a note of protest to Kiev on Friday.
There are also reports that there was not one, but two armored vehicles. A source from the FSB told LifeNews Channel that two armored
vehicles crossed the Russian border.
Initially just one APC entered Russian territory, however it broke down, LifeNews was told. It was discovered by the Border Service,
however, Russia’s troops failed to take the Ukrainian military personnel captive as another armored vehicle came to the rescue from
Ukraine’s Lugansk Region.
After that the Ukrainian troops fled the territory, returning to Ukraine, leaving the dsabled vehicle behind in Russia.
In response to the incident, the Ukrainian Border Service said that the military was surrounded by self-defense forces so they were forced
to cross the Russian border to reach new locations of their units, NTV TV channel reported. Border authorities also assured that all 26
border officers returned to Ukraine via another checkpoint.
Unless you are posting from the past, this is incorrect.
True.. but the problem is, when something has entered the accepted parlance of language then that's the way it is. Same reason that most people say Nike (without the 'ee' at the end) or English speakers say Porsche as a single syllable.
I don't think I've ever heard just 'Ukraine' when people have been talking about it, other than in the news (and even then, only part of the time).
It would make sense for the Ukrainian military to be attempting to seal the border, intercept weapons shipments, and try and gather photographic proof that the Russians are indeed supplying the DPR.
Unfortunately, being caught at it just about guarantees a harsh Russian response. AKA, doubling the weapons supply to the DPR, or covering their side in troops and opening fire on any Ukrainian units that cross over. Risky stuff.
Kiev does not care about civilians in eastern Ukraine, and people have to flee their homes amid daily bombings, Ukrainian refugees told RT at a temporary camp in Russia’s Rostov. It comes amid Kiev’s “lies” about humanitarian corridors, they said.
Thousands of eastern Ukrainians are flowing into Russia amid the ongoing Kiev military operation, in which the cities occupied by anti-government activists are being shelled and bombarded with heavy artillery and incendiary bombs. Even in large regional centers like Lugansk, people no longer feel safe, as cases of Ukrainian jets launching missiles at central city buildings in broad daylight have been reported.
While many men and elderly people of eastern Ukraine are unwilling to leave their native land, women with children are flocking to Russia’s cities and regions to stay with relatives or friends. Those who have neither are heading for refugee camps in Rostov.
The Russian Foreign Minister on Friday held a phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrey Deshchitsa, in which he reminded Kiev of its responsibility for handling the humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine.
Ketara
It would make sense for the Ukrainian military to be attempting to seal the border
“Lavrov particularly stressed the importance of providing humanitarian aid to the residents of southeastern Ukraine, the creation of appropriate conditions for a safe passage of refugees to the territory of the Russian Federation,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Ukraine is looking more and more like Syria every day. I wonder how many inaccurate air strikes it'll take until Western leaders begin muttering about "killing your own people".
Iron_Captain wrote: 'the Ukraine' for some reason is made out to be 'pro-Russian', imperialistic or denigrating to Ukrainians.
Perhaps because it robs Ukraine of legitimacy as a nation by the inclusion of that article? Which given Ironcald Warlord's posting in this thread seems intentional on his part, and I would imagine is also intentional for those of the pro-Russian mindset that would like to see Ukraine reclaimed by Russia. Ukraine is a sovereign state, not a territory in the Soviet Union.
I wonder how people got that idea. How is saying 'the Ukraine' pro-Russian? Especially considering it is not even possible to say 'the Ukraine' in Russian. How does an article rob Ukraine of its legitimacy? Is the Netherlands or any other country that has an article in English also robbed of its legitimacy? It is rather ridiculous really, it is just how the English language works.
. Those uprisings saw the creation of a de-facto independent Ukrainian state, but as the Ukrainians were in the end defeated by the Poles, they turned to the Muscovite Tsar for help. The Tsar defeated the Poles and Ukrainian lands east of the Dnieper were given to Muscovy. This is the beginning of the East-West split in Ukraine itself, where the East has been heavily russified, whereas the West has been heavily polonised. In the next war, the Western Ukrainian cossacks sided with Poland and Sweden against Russia. Russia won the war however and most of the Ukraine was now annexed, ending Ukrainian autonomy.
Yea well member of the Native American movement seized Alcatraz briefly, Key West also fancies itself an independent state. Also what your talking about are feudal empires, that doesn't give modern legitimacy unless you believe that the English King has claims to French land.
Feudal empires? No, not at all. Feudalism is a Western European thing, it never existed in Eastern Europe. Also, this is after the Middle Ages and the abolishment of feudalism. The states involved here are the direct predecessors of the respective modern nations. And as long as the people believe it, a formerly existing historical state is all the legitimacy they need. It really can't be compared to the examples you name, this independent Ukrainian state existed for more than a hundred years. History, sometimes even if it is centuries old already is still a very important factor in modern politics, especially in Eastern Europe.
loki old fart wrote: At least one Ukrainian armored vehicle crossed the Russian border with Ukraine Friday
overnight and stopped in the Rostov Region, according to Russia’s Security Service. The
military abandoned the vehicle and returned to Ukraine.
For more on the Ukrainian crisis read RT’s live updates
The Ukrainian armored vehicle stopped in near the village of Millerovo, said the head of the press department of the Federal Security
Service (FSB) in Rostov Region, Vasily Malaev.
In response to the incident, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that the “illegal act” will not promote a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
The ministry has also demanded an end to “provocations” on the border, which are making dialogue between the two countries much
more difficult. The ministry directed a note of protest to Kiev on Friday.
There are also reports that there was not one, but two armored vehicles. A source from the FSB told LifeNews Channel that two armored
vehicles crossed the Russian border.
Initially just one APC entered Russian territory, however it broke down, LifeNews was told. It was discovered by the Border Service,
however, Russia’s troops failed to take the Ukrainian military personnel captive as another armored vehicle came to the rescue from
Ukraine’s Lugansk Region.
After that the Ukrainian troops fled the territory, returning to Ukraine, leaving the dsabled vehicle behind in Russia.
In response to the incident, the Ukrainian Border Service said that the military was surrounded by self-defense forces so they were forced
to cross the Russian border to reach new locations of their units, NTV TV channel reported. Border authorities also assured that all 26
border officers returned to Ukraine via another checkpoint.
People keep talking about how "biased Western media" is, trying to turn this whole thing into an anti-Russian witch hunt...and then quoting RT to back that up.
Kanluwen wrote: And yet, the people who think that this is a "Russia clearly is being provoked" situation keep quoting RT as though it is some kind of gospel.
Do you actually understand what RT is? Citing it as a media source is laughable.
Kanluwen wrote: And yet, the people who think that this is a "Russia clearly is being provoked" situation keep quoting RT as though it is some kind of gospel.
Do you actually understand what RT is? Citing it as a media source is laughable.
No, it's a media source, unless you're using a different definition to me.
Anyway, given the quality of some of the American "news", you shouldn't throw stones. People in glass houses and all that.
Kanluwen wrote: And yet, the people who think that this is a "Russia clearly is being provoked" situation keep quoting RT as though it is some kind of gospel.
Do you actually understand what RT is? Citing it as a media source is laughable.
No, it's a media source, unless you're using a different definition to me.
Yeah, I use the definition of "impartial and actually reporting upon events without censorship".
Anyway, given the quality of some of the American "news", you shouldn't throw stones. People in glass houses and all that.
Who said anything about American "news" outlets being good? The majority are awful.
Kanluwen wrote: And yet, the people who think that this is a "Russia clearly is being provoked" situation keep quoting RT as though it is some kind of gospel.
Do you actually understand what RT is? Citing it as a media source is laughable.
No, it's a media source, unless you're using a different definition to me.
Yeah, I use the definition of "impartial and actually reporting upon events without censorship".
Err... no, that's adding the word 'impartial'. A media source is something which provides information, i.e. media. In any case, the vast majority of media sources are blatantly biased, so I'd be interested to know which of them fit your criteria.
Anyway, given the quality of some of the American "news", you shouldn't throw stones. People in glass houses and all that.
Who said anything about American "news" outlets being good? The majority are awful.
If you're going to complain about RT, which is biased heavily towards Russia, why don't you complain about CNN or Fox, which are heavily biased towards America?
If the situation goes down hill when one side no long cares and considers everything a target. Then Putin will roll in since the West has to cross western Ukraine to get there
Anyway, given the quality of some of the American "news", you shouldn't throw stones. People in glass houses and all that.
Who said anything about American "news" outlets being good? The majority are awful.
If you're going to complain about RT, which is biased heavily towards Russia, why don't you complain about CNN or Fox, which are heavily biased towards America?
User 1: *Links to a news article*
User 2: 'That website is terrible and not impartial in the slightest'.
User 1: 'Yeah, Well your country has news websites that suck too!'
User 2: 'Yeah, and I think they suck as well. What does that have to do with anything?'
User 1: 'Well if you're gonna complain about the one I linked to, why aren't you complaining about those as well!?'
The answer is because nobody linked to them. If you link to a bad source, firing back that the other person's opinion is invalid because they live in a country with bad news networks that they are not currently criticising (despite them not having had any articles linked to) is terrible logic.
Note that I'm not of the opinion that RT is completely useless (just 98% of the time), but you're being a bit tangential there Shrike. In all fairness, Kanluwen could have taken the time to dismiss why he thought that article was bad, but discounting his opinion just because he lives in the same country as Fox News is a bit naff.
Anyway, given the quality of some of the American "news", you shouldn't throw stones. People in glass houses and all that.
Who said anything about American "news" outlets being good? The majority are awful.
If you're going to complain about RT, which is biased heavily towards Russia, why don't you complain about CNN or Fox, which are heavily biased towards America?
User 1: *Links to a news article*
User 2: 'That website is terrible and not impartial in the slightest'.
User 1: 'Yeah, Well your country has news websites that suck too!'
User 2: 'Yeah, and I think they suck as well. What does that have to do with anything?'
User 1: 'Well if you're gonna complain about the one I linked to, why aren't you complaining about those as well!?'
The answer is because nobody linked to them. If you link to a bad source, firing back that the other person's opinion is invalid because they live in a country with bad news networks that they are not currently criticising (despite them not having had any articles linked to) is terrible logic.
Note that I'm not of the opinion that RT is completely useless (just 98% of the time), but you're being a bit tangential there Shrike. In all fairness, Kanluwen could have taken the time to dismiss why he thought that article was bad, but discounting his opinion just because he lives in the same country as Fox News is a bit naff.
If you think that something that was linked is incorrect say so. countering someones point of view with RT sucks so your point of view sucks. Is not a valid argument.
If you can find a site, that everyone agrees is truthful, then link it.
You shouldn't disregard information or a story simply because the source is known to be biased. Rather, you should look to secondary sources and see if they confirm the original story.
It may well be the case that RT will report on incidents that portrays the Ukrainian government in a negative light (air strikes causing collateral damage, pro Kiev fascists burning separatist protesters to death, armed pro Kiev militant groups breaking a ceasefire by attacking a separatist checkpoint etc), whereas Western media sources will initially ignore such stories, and/or seek to downplay the incidents or bury them on page 40+, between other stories etc.
If you think that something that was linked is incorrect say so. countering someones point of view with RT sucks so your point of view sucks. Is not a valid argument.
If you can find a site, that everyone agrees is truthful, then link it.
Sure, it's not the best counter-argument. But responding with, 'Well, news organisations in the country you happen to live in suck so so does your opinion!' isn't exactly going one better, y'know? Quite the opposite if anything. At least Kanluwen's point does have some truth/weight to it (namely in that most of what RT posts IS rubbish). Discounting his opinion because he lives in the same country as Fox News has no truth/weight to it whatsoever.
EDIT
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You shouldn't disregard information or a story simply because the source is known to be biased. Rather, you should look to secondary sources and see if they confirm the original story.
It may well be the case that RT will report on incidents that portrays the Ukrainian government in a negative light (air strikes causing collateral damage, pro Kiev fascists burning separatist protesters to death, armed pro Kiev militant groups breaking a ceasefire by attacking a separatist checkpoint etc), whereas Western media sources will initially ignore such stories, and/or seek to downplay the incidents or bury them on page 40+, between other stories etc.
And vice versa, no doubt.
I agree. I linked a story from RT earlier on in this thread that I couldn't find on a Western site. I agree that Kan's point could have been better expressed.
That still doesn't make your counter to his comment any less daft, which was why I pointed it out.
Well what do international sources like Reuters say? Have they picked up on the story and confirmed it?
Edit...my counter? Do you,mean when I said "nobody is claiming that RT is impartial?" I don't see what's daft about that. Kan was making a sarcastic remark about people complaining that western media is biased, then "taking RT's word as gospel". The latter part is what I was disputing - IIRC even Iron Captain has acknowledged that RT is a biased source and he's the most "pro Russian" poster here. But the difference between IC and Kan is that IC doesn't ignore RT outright, which is what Kan seems to be suggesting.
You've not confusing me with the guy who said "well Fox news and CNN are blatantly biased ergo glass houses" are you?
Anyway, given the quality of some of the American "news", you shouldn't throw stones. People in glass houses and all that.
Who said anything about American "news" outlets being good? The majority are awful.
If you're going to complain about RT, which is biased heavily towards Russia, why don't you complain about CNN or Fox, which are heavily biased towards America?
User 1: *Links to a news article*
User 2: 'That website is terrible and not impartial in the slightest'.
User 1: 'Yeah, Well your country has news websites that suck too!'
User 2: 'Yeah, and I think they suck as well. What does that have to do with anything?'
User 1: 'Well if you're gonna complain about the one I linked to, why aren't you complaining about those as well!?'
Just to clear things up, I've never linked to RT in this thread, just the BBC. I just get annoyed when we have links to both RT and CNN (or equivalent), and people just dismiss one of them because they're biased.
The answer is because nobody linked to them. If you link to a bad source, firing back that the other person's opinion is invalid because they live in a country with bad news networks that they are not currently criticising (despite them not having had any articles linked to) is terrible logic.
Note that I'm not of the opinion that RT is completely useless (just 98% of the time), but you're being a bit tangential there Shrike. In all fairness, Kanluwen could have taken the time to dismiss why he thought that article was bad, but discounting his opinion just because he lives in the same country as Fox News is a bit naff.
Having checked his contributions to this thread, I hereby apologise for this comment. It was made in error, I had thought Kan had previously linked to CNN and Fox. Clearly, I had him confused with someone else.
You've not confusing me with the guy who said "well Fox news and CNN are blatantly biased ergo glass houses" are you?
....I totally was there. My apologies.
Shrike wrote:Having checked his contributions to this thread, I hereby apologise for this comment. It was made in error, I had thought Kan had previously linked to CNN and Fox. Clearly, I had him confused with someone else.
loki old fart wrote: Kiev does not care about civilians in eastern Ukraine, and people have to flee their homes amid daily bombings, Ukrainian refugees told RT at a temporary camp in Russia’s Rostov. It comes amid Kiev’s “lies” about humanitarian corridors, they said.
Thousands of eastern Ukrainians are flowing into Russia amid the ongoing Kiev military operation, in which the cities occupied by anti-government activists are being shelled and bombarded with heavy artillery and incendiary bombs. Even in large regional centers like Lugansk, people no longer feel safe, as cases of Ukrainian jets launching missiles at central city buildings in broad daylight have been reported.
While many men and elderly people of eastern Ukraine are unwilling to leave their native land, women with children are flocking to Russia’s cities and regions to stay with relatives or friends. Those who have neither are heading for refugee camps in Rostov.
The Russian Foreign Minister on Friday held a phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrey Deshchitsa, in which he reminded Kiev of its responsibility for handling the humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine.
I want to know how this woman managed to steal my cat
Anyway, given the quality of some of the American "news", you shouldn't throw stones. People in glass houses and all that.
Who said anything about American "news" outlets being good? The majority are awful.
If you're going to complain about RT, which is biased heavily towards Russia, why don't you complain about CNN or Fox, which are heavily biased towards America?
User 1: *Links to a news article*
User 2: 'That website is terrible and not impartial in the slightest'.
User 1: 'Yeah, Well your country has news websites that suck too!'
User 2: 'Yeah, and I think they suck as well. What does that have to do with anything?'
User 1: 'Well if you're gonna complain about the one I linked to, why aren't you complaining about those as well!?'
Just to clear things up, I've never linked to RT in this thread, just the BBC. I just get annoyed when we have links to both RT and CNN (or equivalent), and people just dismiss one of them because they're biased.
CNN and equivalents are trash--but guess what?
They're also not funded by the government. That is why I dismiss RT, which is a rebranded "Russia Today".
The answer is because nobody linked to them. If you link to a bad source, firing back that the other person's opinion is invalid because they live in a country with bad news networks that they are not currently criticising (despite them not having had any articles linked to) is terrible logic.
Note that I'm not of the opinion that RT is completely useless (just 98% of the time), but you're being a bit tangential there Shrike. In all fairness, Kanluwen could have taken the time to dismiss why he thought that article was bad, but discounting his opinion just because he lives in the same country as Fox News is a bit naff.
Having checked his contributions to this thread, I hereby apologise for this comment. It was made in error, I had thought Kan had previously linked to CNN and Fox. Clearly, I had him confused with someone else.
It's fine, but again bear in mind--there is a significant difference between crummy journalism (CNN and Fox) and being funded pretty heavily by a government that essentially uses you as PR.
loki old fart wrote: Kiev does not care about civilians in eastern Ukraine, and people have to flee their homes amid daily bombings, Ukrainian refugees told RT at a temporary camp in Russia’s Rostov. It comes amid Kiev’s “lies” about humanitarian corridors, they said.
Thousands of eastern Ukrainians are flowing into Russia amid the ongoing Kiev military operation, in which the cities occupied by anti-government activists are being shelled and bombarded with heavy artillery and incendiary bombs. Even in large regional centers like Lugansk, people no longer feel safe, as cases of Ukrainian jets launching missiles at central city buildings in broad daylight have been reported.
While many men and elderly people of eastern Ukraine are unwilling to leave their native land, women with children are flocking to Russia’s cities and regions to stay with relatives or friends. Those who have neither are heading for refugee camps in Rostov.
The Russian Foreign Minister on Friday held a phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrey Deshchitsa, in which he reminded Kiev of its responsibility for handling the humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine.
I want to know how this woman managed to steal my cat
Eat it fast. Very fast. Hind leg has three good bites of protein. Spitted out it looks like a rabbit but think of it as a RABBIT. Your stomach will over ride the brain
loki old fart wrote: If you think that something that was linked is incorrect say so. countering someones point of view with RT sucks so your point of view sucks. Is not a valid argument.
How many of your own posts doing that exact thing with Fox News would you like me to link for you before you rethink that statement?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: What cat? I see nothing but emergency rations.
It looks juicy.
I wonder how hard that lady can punch?
Ah. Memories. Of the woods and the cold and having to eat small mammalian eyeballs.
Kanluwen wrote: And yet, the people who think that this is a "Russia clearly is being provoked" situation keep quoting RT as though it is some kind of gospel.
Do you actually understand what RT is? Citing it as a media source is laughable.
No, it's a media source, unless you're using a different definition to me.
Yeah, I use the definition of "impartial and actually reporting upon events without censorship".
So, does that mean that impartial news agencies are more than just a myth? Have you actually found one? If you did, please share this holy grail with me, as I have been searching all my life, yet found none
In regards to RT, it is the most impartial of the state-owned medias, and the Russian media that is not state-owned usually does not have articles in English. I could link to Komsomolskaya Pravda, which has a good news site, but it is all in Russian. But if you'd really rather not see state-owned media, I would be happy to link to Pravda in the future. Like it or not, but Pravda does represent a very popular opinion in Russia. Here is a fine example:
The "Orange Revolution" was a total flop and the first American attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of Ukraine. Yushchenko was voted out, and Timoshenko ended up in prison, where she belongs. Never mind, that didn't discourage the Americans.
According to that slag, that dreg of humanity, Victoria Nuland, 5 billion dollars was poured into Ukraine in order to make a second attempt.
The second attempt was only successful because of the use of neo-Nazi fascist stormtroopers with no moral compass, no humanity, willing to kill man, woman, child, elderly. This violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government was clearly done by the US government. They are so smug and arrogant, they no longer try to hide their role.
Every time some trash from the US arrives in Kiev: McCain, Kerry, Nuland, etc. another mass killing incident happens. They are silent about these killings because not only do they approve of them, they are ordering them.
No one in Russia is fooled by what is happening. It is obvious the target of the Americans is Russia, not just Ukraine. They have committed an act of war against Russia. Having built up a fifth column in both Ukraine and Russia, they now feel confident that their plan of total global domination can be put into place.
I predicted back during the attack on Yugoslavia and the Serbs, that the ultimate target of the Americans and NATO is Russia. They want to effect regime change, like they have in countless other countries, steal the resources, break up the country into controllable little statelets and rule the entire continent of Eurasia.
It is time to put a halt to US imperialism. It is time to crack down on all fifth columnists. It is time to break through the information barrier where the west and the US are able to cover up their crimes and keep their victims silent. If decent people find out what they are up to, they have no choice but to raise their voices and demand the murders stop and demand the fascists in Kiev be punished as the war criminals they are.
The US, and especially President Obama and his henchmen, are living in another universe where up is down, white is black, war is peace. To hear them speak is to hear whispers from an insane asylum, as somehow they justify to themselves all of the innocent blood they have on their hands, as though they shall never be called to account.
Kanluwen wrote: And yet, the people who think that this is a "Russia clearly is being provoked" situation keep quoting RT as though it is some kind of gospel.
Do you actually understand what RT is? Citing it as a media source is laughable.
No, it's a media source, unless you're using a different definition to me.
Yeah, I use the definition of "impartial and actually reporting upon events without censorship".
So, does that mean that impartial news agencies are more than just a myth? Have you actually found one? If you did, please share this holy grail with me, as I have been searching all my life, yet found none
BBC is pretty impartial when it comes to reporting the news. Do they likely have some biases when it comes to some stories?
Sure. But pretending that just because there are biases from the reporters/networks so widely prevalent that it makes state run media on the same freaking level takes mental gymnastics so impressive that you could win a gold medal at the Olympics.
In regards to RT, it is the most impartial of the state-owned medias, and the Russian media that is not state-owned usually does not have articles in English. I could link to Komsomolskaya Pravda, which has a good news site, but it is all in Russian.
But if you'd really rather not see state-owned media, I would be happy to link to Pravda in the future. Like it or not, but Pravda does represent a very popular opinion in Russia.
And it's well known to be a mouthpiece for the state, which is why RT exists. It's a trendy rebranding of "Russia Today" which was also a mouthpiece--but now that it's just called "RT" and has networks localized for certain regions(i.e. "RT America"," RT Actualidad", and "Rusiya Al-Yuam") there is an air of "impartiality" that gets floated for the network by people like yourself.
In regards to RT, it is the most impartial of the state-owned medias, and the Russian media that is not state-owned usually does not have articles in English.
And this is why we're not taking you seriously. Yes, I'm sure the BBC has flaws and all, but ranking RT above the BBC in journalistic integrity is a farce.
In regards to RT, it is the most impartial of the state-owned medias, and the Russian media that is not state-owned usually does not have articles in English.
And this is why we're not taking you seriously. Yes, I'm sure the BBC has flaws and all, but ranking RT above the BBC in journalistic integrity is a farce.
And when you can't seemingly realise he was talking about Russian state-owned media, it becomes hard to take you seriously.
In regards to RT, it is the most impartial of the state-owned medias, and the Russian media that is not state-owned usually does not have articles in English.
And this is why we're not taking you seriously. Yes, I'm sure the BBC has flaws and all, but ranking RT above the BBC in journalistic integrity is a farce.
I was only talking about Russian media, and thus with the above statement I only took the Russian state medias in consideration. Please do not jump to conclusions that quickly. However, I am not quite sure why you'd rate the British state media above the Russian state media. Please explain to me why it is a farce. RT is no less a valid source than any other state media.
MrDwhitey wrote: Frankly, someone using RT as their main source is a greater sin than making that mistake.
Please do not assume RT is my only source. It is not. I also watch the NOS (Dutch state media) and BBC, as well as a number of Dutch and Russian non-state media sites and newspapers. I just happpen to link to RT because I have a snazzy little RT app for Firefox that allows very quick access to interesting articles and because RT is the most impartial Russian news site that does English articles.
In regards to RT, it is the most impartial of the state-owned medias, and the Russian media that is not state-owned usually does not have articles in English.
And this is why we're not taking you seriously. Yes, I'm sure the BBC has flaws and all, but ranking RT above the BBC in journalistic integrity is a farce.
I was only talking about Russian media, and thus with the above statement I only took the Russian state medias in consideration. Please do not jump to conclusions that quickly. However, I am not quite sure why you'd rate the British state media above the Russian state media. Please explain to me why it is a farce. RT is no less a valid source than any other state media.
State media=controlled by the state=/=gets public funding. Just look at NPR in the US, it gets public funidng in the form of grant, but it still gives critical journalism. You can also look at the CBC. The BBC is regarded world-wide as a valid news source.
However, I am not quite sure why you'd rate the British state media above the Russian state media. Please explain to me why it is a farce. RT is no less a valid source than any other state media.
Because the BBC doesn't have a history of being a propaganda mouthpiece for the British government?
However, I am not quite sure why you'd rate the British state media above the Russian state media. Please explain to me why it is a farce. RT is no less a valid source than any other state media.
Because the BBC doesn't have a history of being a propaganda mouthpiece for the British government?
Please do not assume RT is my only source. It is not. I also watch the NOS (Dutch state media) and BBC, as well as a number of Dutch and Russian non-state media sites and newspapers.
I just happpen to link to RT because I have a snazzy little RT app for Firefox that allows very quick access to interesting articles and because RT is the most impartial Russian news site that does English articles.
However, I am not quite sure why you'd rate the British state media above the Russian state media. Please explain to me why it is a farce. RT is no less a valid source than any other state media.
Because the BBC doesn't have a history of being a propaganda mouthpiece for the British government?
Yeah it's not like the BBC lies or covers up things, I mean they didn't cover up for jimmy saville did they . Oh wait.....
However, I am not quite sure why you'd rate the British state media above the Russian state media. Please explain to me why it is a farce. RT is no less a valid source than any other state media.
Because the BBC doesn't have a history of being a propaganda mouthpiece for the British government?
Yeah it's not like the BBC lies or covers up things, I mean they didn't cover up for jimmy saville did they . Oh wait.....
However, I am not quite sure why you'd rate the British state media above the Russian state media. Please explain to me why it is a farce. RT is no less a valid source than any other state media.
Because the BBC doesn't have a history of being a propaganda mouthpiece for the British government?
Neither has RT.
In fact, RT is much more critical of Russian leaders than most Russian-language media.
But really, both stations are used for propaganda. All media is used for propaganda, and state media even more so than others. Why would the British government have its own media station if not for propaganda? Sure, they will appear critical at times in order to maintain an air of impartiality and remain believable, but in the end they still broadcast the views of the British government. Just read the articles on the Ukraine crisis. They are far from impartial, constantly portraying the Ukrainian government in a positive light, while leaving out a lot of important information that would make the seperatists look better.
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
