Frazzled wrote: Frankly we should have ended NATO at that point.
That would make Europe defenseless against the Soviet Union 2.0
Europe can afford to be completely defenseless against the Soviet Union 2.0, because a Soviet Union 2.0 does not exist. You do not have to defend yourself from imaginary threats. There will also never be a Soviet Union 2.0. Time only moves forward and can not be turned back. The Soviet Union is gone now, and it will always be gone.
Frazzled wrote: Frankly we should have ended NATO at that point.
That would make Europe defenseless against the Soviet Union 2.0
Europe can afford to be completely defenseless against the Soviet Union 2.0, because a Soviet Union 2.0 does not exist. You do not have to defend yourself from imaginary threats. There will also never be a Soviet Union 2.0. Time only moves forward and can not be turned back. The Soviet Union is gone now, and it will always be gone.
Europe can afford to be completely defenseless against the Soviet Union 2.0, because a Soviet Union 2.0 does not exist
Much like Russian troops in the Ukraine. (Never mind they're still wearing their unit insignias for some reason, or driving our their brand spanking new Russian tanks that their commanders allowed them to drive away 'on vacation' in total defiance of regulations.)
Edit: Putin is now demanding that the Ukraine order it's troops in Debaltseve to surrender to the Rebels and withdraw.
Europe can afford to be completely defenseless against the Soviet Union 2.0, because a Soviet Union 2.0 does not exist
Much like Russian troops in the Ukraine. (Never mind they're still wearing their unit insignias for some reason, or driving our their brand spanking new Russian tanks that their commanders allowed them to drive away 'on vacation' in total defiance of regulations.)
Edit: Putin is now demanding that the Ukraine order it's troops in Debaltseve to surrender to the Rebels and withdraw.
Being as they're surrounded, that's not a bad idea. And let the ceasefire begin.
Being as they're surrounded, that's not a bad idea. And let the ceasefire begin.
Minor detail, under the terms of the cease fire, the rebels are technically supposed to withdraw from that area (IIRC) it being on the 'Ukraine' side of the line under the ceasefire. Rather than, you know, continue to surround and attack it. They've also supposedly attacked 130 other locations off and on since the beginning of the cease fire.
Being as they're surrounded, that's not a bad idea. And let the ceasefire begin.
Minor detail, under the terms of the cease fire, the rebels are technically supposed to withdraw from that area (IIRC) it being on the 'Ukraine' side of the line under the ceasefire. Rather than, you know, continue to surround and attack it. They've also supposedly attacked 130 other locations off and on since the beginning of the cease fire.
FYI: continuing to attack is not a 'cease fire'.
The ceasefire hasn't really taken effect, because nobody's stopped firing.
Redcruisair wrote: No, I’m agreeing with Malus on the fact that Mr. Putin desires to erect a new Soviet Union.
I'm pretty sure Putin has made it a known secret that the Soviet Union collapsing was a complete tragedy in his eyes. He wants it back and the majority of the "Russian Racial Minorities" in the rest of the Eastern Bloc are his to rescue from their other Slavic overlords. His tactics and purpose isn't all that different than the Anschluss, Sudetenland Occupation the eventual Czech annexation and Memelland Annexation by the Germans prior to WWII, just a different part of Europe. Sham elections, thuggery, threats of invasion, open and armed rebellion by "oppressed racial minorities" and a host of other hallmarks are all too obvious for those with eyes.
There's even a border strife much like the Selisian Uprisings of 1919-1921 based on racial and ethnic ties.
Why the hell does history have to keep repeating itself?
More like people who don't know history, dont listen to those who do know history.... So what ends up happening is the people who know/study history say, "fine... you dont wanna listen? Fine, see if I care, I'm going to go back to reading my book on the finer dimensions of button manufacturing in 14th Century India"
Being as they're surrounded, that's not a bad idea. And let the ceasefire begin.
Minor detail, under the terms of the cease fire, the rebels are technically supposed to withdraw from that area (IIRC) it being on the 'Ukraine' side of the line under the ceasefire. Rather than, you know, continue to surround and attack it. They've also supposedly attacked 130 other locations off and on since the beginning of the cease fire.
FYI: continuing to attack is not a 'cease fire'.
Under the terms of the ceasefire rebels and Ukrainian army don't have to withdraw all forces, just heavy machinery (as I understand tanks and artillery). So even if they would - Ukrainian forces in Debaltsevo will continue to be surrounded and will try to get out. Also as DPR will try to prevent them. In Minsk Putin offered to discuss Debaltsevo situation, but Poroshenko says hat everything is good and there are no some thousand encircled warriors. And how encircled forces at Debaltsevo should withdraw heavy machinery from encircled Debaltsevo? From the first minute after signing this ceasefire it was clear that it will not work there.
By the way, you sad about 130 cases of violation from DPR, don't you wonna say about violations from Ukrainian forces too?
I'm really sorry about my bad English, I tried to avoid this topic, but it was too hard.
Well, you haven’t really disagreed with anything I’ve said so far. It’s more like you disagreed with some imaginary opinion no one here on this site made.
Under the terms of the ceasefire rebels and Ukrainian army don't have to withdraw all forces, just heavy machinery (as I understand tanks and artillery). So even if they would - Ukrainian forces in Debaltsevo will continue to be surrounded and will try to get out. Also as DPR will try to prevent them. In Minsk Putin offered to discuss Debaltsevo situation, but Poroshenko says hat everything is good and there are no some thousand encircled warriors. And how encircled forces at Debaltsevo should withdraw heavy machinery from encircled Debaltsevo? From the first minute after signing this ceasefire it was clear that it will not work there.
Both sides were to withdraw heavy weapons in a buffer zone around the front, which neither has done. The part that made it work there was the clause that says both sides will withdraw to their Sept 2014 positions. So far, pretty much no one has paid attention to that one. Supposedly the rebels offered a withdrawal corridor, but then promptly captured the government forces that tried to use it.
Well, you haven’t really disagreed with anything I’ve said so far. It’s more like you disagreed with some imaginary opinion no one here on this site made.
So… let me get this straight. I agree with Malus that Putin clearly wishes for a new Soviet Union and according to you, that statement somehow contradicts with what I said about me not considering the CURRENT Russia to be a threat comparable to that of the FORMER Soviet Union? You’re really reaching far here shadow captain.
Do yourself a favor and stop this little one-man crusade you have going on here. Things are starting to get really embarrassing with you.
Both sides were to withdraw heavy weapons in a buffer zone around the front, which neither has done. The part that made it work there was the clause that says both sides will withdraw to their Sept 2014 positions. So far, pretty much no one has paid attention to that one. Supposedly the rebels offered a withdrawal corridor, but then promptly captured the government forces that tried to use it.
For yesterday, DPR goverment has officially declared that there was no negotiations on the corridor. Don't know about today.
By other hand, Ukrainian officials continue to declare that there is no encirclement so nobody needs no corridor.
Where from information? Who counted?
I'm sorry, it's hard to read all 130 pages, but was there a discussion of the daily shelling of Donetsk by Ukrainian forces during the previous truce (september-december 2014)? Or only rebels violated than too?
I'm sorry, it's hard to read all 130 pages, but was there a discussion of the daily shelling of Donetsk by Ukrainian forces during the previous truce (september-december 2014)? Or only rebels violated than too?
That is called "moving the goalposts" and is considered a pretty big no-no when you are interested in a civilized discussion.
Seems fair enough to me. I'd like to hear the opinion of somebody who lives there.
It would make a nice change, from the media fed bovine scatterings, regurgitated here.
Redcruisair wrote: No, I’m agreeing with Malus on the fact that Mr. Putin desires to erect a new Soviet Union.
I'm pretty sure Putin has made it a known secret that the Soviet Union collapsing was a complete tragedy in his eyes. He wants it back and the majority of the "Russian Racial Minorities" in the rest of the Eastern Bloc are his to rescue from their other Slavic overlords. His tactics and purpose isn't all that different than the Anschluss, Sudetenland Occupation the eventual Czech annexation and Memelland Annexation by the Germans prior to WWII, just a different part of Europe. Sham elections, thuggery, threats of invasion, open and armed rebellion by "oppressed racial minorities" and a host of other hallmarks are all too obvious for those with eyes.
There's even a border strife much like the Selisian Uprisings of 1919-1921 based on racial and ethnic ties.
Why the hell does history have to keep repeating itself?
Why not? Hey if the plan works twice, its tradition.
PhantomViper wrote: That is called "moving the goalposts" and is considered a pretty big no-no when you are interested in a civilized discussion.
I really don't want to look like a bully, and I am sorry if it looks so.
But it feels to me that it is the same situation as last autumn. Almost every day Ukrainian artillery fired at city Donetsk and Gorlovka, almost every day died civilians, there was billions videos and reports in internet, but whole world was silent. And the funny thing: Kiev always say that rebels in all these cases are shooting to themselves. Like masochists...
loki old fart wrote: Seems fair enough to me. I'd like to hear the opinion of somebody who lives there.
It would make a nice change, from the media fed bovine scatterings, regurgitated here.
Unfortunately all we are going to hear from him is regurgitated russian propaganda :(
loki old fart wrote: Seems fair enough to me. I'd like to hear the opinion of somebody who lives there.
It would make a nice change, from the media fed bovine scatterings, regurgitated here.
Unfortunately all we are going to hear from him is regurgitated russian propaganda :(
Yes, great idea! Let's dismiss things I disagree with as Russian propaganda! I have news for you. Everything in the world is propaganda. It is just a matter of which side's propaganda you choose to believe in. Alternatively, you could go there yourself and try to seperate fact from fiction, but unless you do that, all you have is propaganda.
Also, people who say Putin wants the Soviet Union back are ignorant. Putin does not want the Soviet Union back, no Russian in his right mind wants to. Even Zyuganov, leader of KPRF wants a new "Soviet Russia" not the old Soviet Union. Putin as never said anything about wanting to back to Soviet Union. He called Fall of Soviet Union a great tragedy, because it was. All of society broke down, look at the facts.
loki old fart wrote: Seems fair enough to me. I'd like to hear the opinion of somebody who lives there.
It would make a nice change, from the media fed bovine scatterings, regurgitated here.
Unfortunately all we are going to hear from him is regurgitated russian propaganda :(
Yes, great idea! Let's dismiss things I disagree with as Russian propaganda! I have news for you. Everything in the world is propaganda. It is just a matter of which side's propaganda you choose to believe in. Alternatively, you could go there yourself and try to seperate fact from fiction, but unless you do that, all you have is propaganda.
Also, people who say Putin wants the Soviet Union back are ignorant. Putin does not want the Soviet Union back, no Russian in his right mind wants to. Even Zyuganov, leader of KPRF wants a new "Soviet Russia" not the old Soviet Union. Putin as never said anything about wanting to back to Soviet Union. He called Fall of Soviet Union a great tragedy, because it was. All of society broke down, look at the facts.
So clarify. Does Putin want all of Ukraine or half of it?
If half, isn't he getting to that point now?
If whole, finish it already.
I don't see why whole personally. Wouldn't he want a buffer between Greater Russia (TM) and the West? Isn't Western Ukraine substanaitlaly more pro-Western, and would create conflict, maybe even another [u]ongoing guerilla war for him (is that 2 or 3 now?)?
Putin wants at least as much of Ukraine as needed to reach around and secure passage to Crimea so that it can be reached across land. The constant lies about not supplying the rebels are tiresome, it's clear what's going on.
KiloFiX wrote: What I want to know is, we're the folks that were pushing for a peace agreement (aside from Russia) really that idealistic to think it would work?
This wasn't a peace agreement, it was just a cease fire.
And no, no one really thought that it would actually work, on every single press conference about it the fragility of the agreement was emphasized.
But until someone puts some actual boots on the ground to oversee a future cease fire (something that Putin will never agree to), this whole "he said, she bombed" will just keep going on.
So the rest of the world will just have to deal with this war for another year or two until the Russian economy finishes its collapse, and maybe then something can be salvaged from whatever is left of Ukraine.
KiloFiX wrote: What I want to know is, we're the folks that were pushing for a peace agreement (aside from Russia) really that idealistic to think it would work?
This wasn't a peace agreement, it was just a cease fire.
And no, no one really thought that it would actually work, on every single press conference about it the fragility of the agreement was emphasized.
But until someone puts some actual boots on the ground to oversee a future cease fire (something that Putin will never agree to), this whole "he said, she bombed" will just keep going on.
So the rest of the world will just have to deal with this war for another year or two until the Russian economy finishes its collapse, and maybe then something can be salvaged from whatever is left of Ukraine.
True. The UN can't send in a peace keeping force without an invitation from the host country and NATO nations aren't going to send in troops that would have to combat what are effectively Russian troops and set off an actual shooting war with Russia. I don't think the lack of desire from NATO to confront Russia directly with armed force in the Ukraine stems from Russia possessing nuclear weapons I think it has more to do with a general reluctance to get involved in a long, complicated conflict and eventual rebuilding/peace process. The EU doesn't want to get embroiled in a large scale multinational conflict in their backyard and the US doesn't want to do the majority of the work and bear a majority of the cost of fighting another conflict halfway across the world.
KiloFiX wrote: What I want to know is, we're the folks that were pushing for a peace agreement (aside from Russia) really that idealistic to think it would work?
This wasn't a peace agreement, it was just a cease fire.
And no, no one really thought that it would actually work, on every single press conference about it the fragility of the agreement was emphasized.
But until someone puts some actual boots on the ground to oversee a future cease fire (something that Putin will never agree to), this whole "he said, she bombed" will just keep going on.
So the rest of the world will just have to deal with this war for another year or two until the Russian economy finishes its collapse, and maybe then something can be salvaged from whatever is left of Ukraine.
Ahem
The resolution was submitted to the UNSC by Russia on February 13, a day after the Minsk deal was agreed on. It is aimed at endorsing and executing the Minsk agreements. The document also expresses concern over the continuing violence in eastern Ukraine, and stresses the importance of resolving the conflict peacefully.
Churkin urged the warring parties in Ukraine to create proper security conditions for the OSCE monitoring mission in the conflict zone and Debaltsevo, in particular.
“It is because of the continued shelling of cities, that the Minsk Agreement of September did not last as originally planned. Indeed, the OSCE observers should work including in the area of Debaltsevo, but in order to do so, they must be provided with security. We all have to remember that these are unarmed people, although in armored vehicles, but still without certain security conditions, it is difficult to expect that they will be able to effectively control something there,” said Churkin.
loki old fart wrote: Seems fair enough to me. I'd like to hear the opinion of somebody who lives there.
It would make a nice change, from the media fed bovine scatterings, regurgitated here.
Unfortunately all we are going to hear from him is regurgitated russian propaganda :(
Yes, great idea! Let's dismiss things I disagree with as Russian propaganda! I have news for you. Everything in the world is propaganda. It is just a matter of which side's propaganda you choose to believe in. Alternatively, you could go there yourself and try to seperate fact from fiction, but unless you do that, all you have is propaganda.
Also, people who say Putin wants the Soviet Union back are ignorant. Putin does not want the Soviet Union back, no Russian in his right mind wants to. Even Zyuganov, leader of KPRF wants a new "Soviet Russia" not the old Soviet Union. Putin as never said anything about wanting to back to Soviet Union. He called Fall of Soviet Union a great tragedy, because it was. All of society broke down, look at the facts.
So clarify. Does Putin want all of Ukraine or half of it?
If half, isn't he getting to that point now?
If whole, finish it already.
I don't see why whole personally. Wouldn't he want a buffer between Greater Russia (TM) and the West? Isn't Western Ukraine substanaitlaly more pro-Western, and would create conflict, maybe even another [u]ongoing guerilla war for him (is that 2 or 3 now?)?
Putin wants to annex nothing of Ukraine. He wanted Crimea, which is strategically valuable. The rest of the Ukraine has nothing that Putin wants. Russia has enough natural resources of its own, and Ukrainian heavy industry is outdated and badly in need of expensive renovations. Annexations are expensive. Why would Putin want to annex a lot of worthless territory that is going to cost ridiculously huge amounts of money to patch up and integrate in Russia? The annexation of Crimea alone is already a strain on the Russian economy, let alone the annexation of the whole Donbass! Why would he spend such unimaginable sums of money to connect Crimea to the Russian mainland when it is so much cheaper to just build a bridge over the narrow strait of Kerch? It would even be more feasible to keep Crimea supplied by ship like Kaliningrad.
loki old fart wrote: Seems fair enough to me. I'd like to hear the opinion of somebody who lives there.
It would make a nice change, from the media fed bovine scatterings, regurgitated here.
Unfortunately all we are going to hear from him is regurgitated russian propaganda :(
Yes, great idea! Let's dismiss things I disagree with as Russian propaganda! I have news for you. Everything in the world is propaganda. It is just a matter of which side's propaganda you choose to believe in. Alternatively, you could go there yourself and try to seperate fact from fiction, but unless you do that, all you have is propaganda.
Also, people who say Putin wants the Soviet Union back are ignorant. Putin does not want the Soviet Union back, no Russian in his right mind wants to. Even Zyuganov, leader of KPRF wants a new "Soviet Russia" not the old Soviet Union. Putin as never said anything about wanting to back to Soviet Union. He called Fall of Soviet Union a great tragedy, because it was. All of society broke down, look at the facts.
So clarify. Does Putin want all of Ukraine or half of it?
If half, isn't he getting to that point now?
If whole, finish it already.
I don't see why whole personally. Wouldn't he want a buffer between Greater Russia (TM) and the West? Isn't Western Ukraine substanaitlaly more pro-Western, and would create conflict, maybe even another [u]ongoing guerilla war for him (is that 2 or 3 now?)?
Putin wants to annex nothing of Ukraine. He wanted Crimea, which is strategically valuable. The rest of the Ukraine has nothing that Putin wants. Russia has enough natural resources of its own, and Ukrainian heavy industry is outdated and badly in need of expensive renovations. Annexations are expensive. Why would Putin want to annex a lot of worthless territory that is going to cost ridiculously huge amounts of money to patch up and integrate in Russia? The annexation of Crimea alone is already a strain on the Russian economy, let alone the annexation of the whole Donbass! Why would he spend such unimaginable sums of money to connect Crimea to the Russian mainland when it is so much cheaper to just build a bridge over the narrow strait of Kerch? It would even be more feasible to keep Crimea supplied by ship like Kaliningrad.
loki old fart wrote: Seems fair enough to me. I'd like to hear the opinion of somebody who lives there.
It would make a nice change, from the media fed bovine scatterings, regurgitated here.
Unfortunately all we are going to hear from him is regurgitated russian propaganda :(
Yes, great idea! Let's dismiss things I disagree with as Russian propaganda! I have news for you. Everything in the world is propaganda. It is just a matter of which side's propaganda you choose to believe in. Alternatively, you could go there yourself and try to seperate fact from fiction, but unless you do that, all you have is propaganda.
Also, people who say Putin wants the Soviet Union back are ignorant. Putin does not want the Soviet Union back, no Russian in his right mind wants to. Even Zyuganov, leader of KPRF wants a new "Soviet Russia" not the old Soviet Union. Putin as never said anything about wanting to back to Soviet Union. He called Fall of Soviet Union a great tragedy, because it was. All of society broke down, look at the facts.
So clarify. Does Putin want all of Ukraine or half of it?
If half, isn't he getting to that point now?
If whole, finish it already.
I don't see why whole personally. Wouldn't he want a buffer between Greater Russia (TM) and the West? Isn't Western Ukraine substanaitlaly more pro-Western, and would create conflict, maybe even another [u]ongoing guerilla war for him (is that 2 or 3 now?)?
Putin wants to annex nothing of Ukraine. He wanted Crimea, which is strategically valuable. The rest of the Ukraine has nothing that Putin wants. Russia has enough natural resources of its own, and Ukrainian heavy industry is outdated and badly in need of expensive renovations. Annexations are expensive. Why would Putin want to annex a lot of worthless territory that is going to cost ridiculously huge amounts of money to patch up and integrate in Russia? The annexation of Crimea alone is already a strain on the Russian economy, let alone the annexation of the whole Donbass! Why would he spend such unimaginable sums of money to connect Crimea to the Russian mainland when it is so much cheaper to just build a bridge over the narrow strait of Kerch? It would even be more feasible to keep Crimea supplied by ship like Kaliningrad.
Putin wants to annex nothing of Ukraine. He wanted Crimea, which is strategically valuable. The rest of the Ukraine has nothing that Putin wants. Russia has enough natural resources of its own, and Ukrainian heavy industry is outdated and badly in need of expensive renovations. Annexations are expensive. Why would Putin want to annex a lot of worthless territory that is going to cost ridiculously huge amounts of money to patch up and integrate in Russia? The annexation of Crimea alone is already a strain on the Russian economy, let alone the annexation of the whole Donbass! Why would he spend such unimaginable sums of money to connect Crimea to the Russian mainland when it is so much cheaper to just build a bridge over the narrow strait of Kerch? It would even be more feasible to keep Crimea supplied by ship like Kaliningrad.
You are clearly in error as there are Russian troops in East Ukraine.
loki old fart wrote: Seems fair enough to me. I'd like to hear the opinion of somebody who lives there.
It would make a nice change, from the media fed bovine scatterings, regurgitated here.
Unfortunately all we are going to hear from him is regurgitated russian propaganda :(
Yes, great idea! Let's dismiss things I disagree with as Russian propaganda! I have news for you. Everything in the world is propaganda. It is just a matter of which side's propaganda you choose to believe in. Alternatively, you could go there yourself and try to seperate fact from fiction, but unless you do that, all you have is propaganda.
Also, people who say Putin wants the Soviet Union back are ignorant. Putin does not want the Soviet Union back, no Russian in his right mind wants to. Even Zyuganov, leader of KPRF wants a new "Soviet Russia" not the old Soviet Union. Putin as never said anything about wanting to back to Soviet Union. He called Fall of Soviet Union a great tragedy, because it was. All of society broke down, look at the facts.
So clarify. Does Putin want all of Ukraine or half of it?
If half, isn't he getting to that point now?
If whole, finish it already.
I don't see why whole personally. Wouldn't he want a buffer between Greater Russia (TM) and the West? Isn't Western Ukraine substanaitlaly more pro-Western, and would create conflict, maybe even another [u]ongoing guerilla war for him (is that 2 or 3 now?)?
Putin wants to annex nothing of Ukraine. He wanted Crimea, which is strategically valuable. The rest of the Ukraine has nothing that Putin wants. Russia has enough natural resources of its own, and Ukrainian heavy industry is outdated and badly in need of expensive renovations. Annexations are expensive. Why would Putin want to annex a lot of worthless territory that is going to cost ridiculously huge amounts of money to patch up and integrate in Russia? The annexation of Crimea alone is already a strain on the Russian economy, let alone the annexation of the whole Donbass! Why would he spend such unimaginable sums of money to connect Crimea to the Russian mainland when it is so much cheaper to just build a bridge over the narrow strait of Kerch? It would even be more feasible to keep Crimea supplied by ship like Kaliningrad.
Crimea isUkraine... right?
Well, it was.
Oh... I thought it was still in dispute.
So we still giving Russia/Putin a pass on this? (we as in the International Community).
loki old fart wrote: Seems fair enough to me. I'd like to hear the opinion of somebody who lives there.
It would make a nice change, from the media fed bovine scatterings, regurgitated here.
Unfortunately all we are going to hear from him is regurgitated russian propaganda :(
Yes, great idea! Let's dismiss things I disagree with as Russian propaganda! I have news for you. Everything in the world is propaganda. It is just a matter of which side's propaganda you choose to believe in. Alternatively, you could go there yourself and try to seperate fact from fiction, but unless you do that, all you have is propaganda.
Also, people who say Putin wants the Soviet Union back are ignorant. Putin does not want the Soviet Union back, no Russian in his right mind wants to. Even Zyuganov, leader of KPRF wants a new "Soviet Russia" not the old Soviet Union. Putin as never said anything about wanting to back to Soviet Union. He called Fall of Soviet Union a great tragedy, because it was. All of society broke down, look at the facts.
So clarify. Does Putin want all of Ukraine or half of it?
If half, isn't he getting to that point now?
If whole, finish it already.
I don't see why whole personally. Wouldn't he want a buffer between Greater Russia (TM) and the West? Isn't Western Ukraine substanaitlaly more pro-Western, and would create conflict, maybe even another [u]ongoing guerilla war for him (is that 2 or 3 now?)?
Putin wants to annex nothing of Ukraine. He wanted Crimea, which is strategically valuable. The rest of the Ukraine has nothing that Putin wants. Russia has enough natural resources of its own, and Ukrainian heavy industry is outdated and badly in need of expensive renovations. Annexations are expensive. Why would Putin want to annex a lot of worthless territory that is going to cost ridiculously huge amounts of money to patch up and integrate in Russia? The annexation of Crimea alone is already a strain on the Russian economy, let alone the annexation of the whole Donbass! Why would he spend such unimaginable sums of money to connect Crimea to the Russian mainland when it is so much cheaper to just build a bridge over the narrow strait of Kerch? It would even be more feasible to keep Crimea supplied by ship like Kaliningrad.
Crimea isUkraine... right?
Well, it was.
Oh... I thought it was still in dispute.
So we still giving Russia/Putin a pass on this? (we as in the International Community).
*shrug*
I hadn't paid too much attention.
Well aside from economic sanctions I don't see anyone suggesting or doing anything more direct. People are fighting and killing each other in the Ukraine and I don't any other nation is concerned enough to send in troops and take responsibilty for effecting a cease fire and moderating a solution to the conflict.
No one wants to start a major war by directly opposing Russian forces. Despite all the aggression from their side, Russia/Putin is paranoid enough to take it as a direct attack if any other country starts supporting Ukraine. How far Putin will be allowed to go before he is directly opposed is anyone's guess. Maybe he'll want the Baltic states next. Will he be allowed to 'encourage' their annexation in a similar manner?
So we still giving Russia/Putin a pass on this? (we as in the International Community).
*shrug*
I hadn't paid too much attention.
Crimea is a very clear de facto part of Russia. De jure? Well, that depends on whose laws you go by. The international community is going to stay divided as it always is. Some countries will eventually recognise Crimea as part of Russia, others won't.
For yesterday, DPR goverment has officially declared that there was no negotiations on the corridor. Don't know about today.
By other hand, Ukrainian officials continue to declare that there is no encirclement so nobody needs no corridor.
Well, as of today, either there was no encirclement or the Ukrainian troops broke through and withdrew toward government lines. 300 men were captured in the withdrawal according to DPR, Kiev admits that some were captured but did not specify a number.
Where from information? Who counted?
I'm sorry, it's hard to read all 130 pages, but was there a discussion of the daily shelling of Donetsk by Ukrainian forces during the previous truce (september-december 2014)? Or only rebels violated than too?
No, this was just looking at the current truce. I'd have to look them up as to what exactly they were, was mentioned by OSCE SMM. We're aware that the previous truce was followed by no one.
Iron_Captain wrote: Crimea is a very clear de facto part of Russia. De jure? Well, that depends on whose laws you go by. The international community is going to stay divided as it always is. Some countries will eventually recognise Crimea as part of Russia, others won't.
Odds are any of them signatory to the Geneva Conventions probably won't, officially. De facto, again, is a possibility.. A good deal of it will probably hinge on Russia's behavior and conditions inside Crimea. If they continue to deteriorate, then you're looking at a less likely scenario, as the possibility of a revolt/insugency goes up the longer conditions remain poor.
KiloFiX wrote: What I want to know is, we're the folks that were pushing for a peace agreement (aside from Russia) really that idealistic to think it would work?
This wasn't a peace agreement, it was just a cease fire.
And no, no one really thought that it would actually work, on every single press conference about it the fragility of the agreement was emphasized.
But until someone puts some actual boots on the ground to oversee a future cease fire (something that Putin will never agree to), this whole "he said, she bombed" will just keep going on.
So the rest of the world will just have to deal with this war for another year or two until the Russian economy finishes its collapse, and maybe then something can be salvaged from whatever is left of Ukraine.
Putin wants to annex nothing of Ukraine. He wanted Crimea, which is strategically valuable. The rest of the Ukraine has nothing that Putin wants. Russia has enough natural resources of its own, and Ukrainian heavy industry is outdated and badly in need of expensive renovations. Annexations are expensive. Why would Putin want to annex a lot of worthless territory that is going to cost ridiculously huge amounts of money to patch up and integrate in Russia? The annexation of Crimea alone is already a strain on the Russian economy, let alone the annexation of the whole Donbass! Why would he spend such unimaginable sums of money to connect Crimea to the Russian mainland when it is so much cheaper to just build a bridge over the narrow strait of Kerch? It would even be more feasible to keep Crimea supplied by ship like Kaliningrad.
You are clearly in error as there are Russian troops in East Ukraine.
Not really, I doubt Putin wants to annex more of Ukraine, but he doesn't wants Ukraine to join NATO, so he probably wants to keep Ukraine occupied in a long war.
Iron_Captain wrote: Crimea is a very clear de facto part of Russia. De jure? Well, that depends on whose laws you go by. The international community is going to stay divided as it always is. Some countries will eventually recognise Crimea as part of Russia, others won't.
Odds are any of them signatory to the Geneva Conventions probably won't, officially. De facto, again, is a possibility.. A good deal of it will probably hinge on Russia's behavior and conditions inside Crimea. If they continue to deteriorate, then you're looking at a less likely scenario, as the possibility of a revolt/insugency goes up the longer conditions remain poor.
The problem here is where Crimea can go? They will never return to Ukraine, but an independent Crimea seems unlikely.
Well, at least that sort of justifies the unholy amount of money that we spend on the damn planes.
And it also makes for some pretty decent photo ops!
Spoiler:
So what? Russia has done it almost non stop ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. And I'm sure we reciprocate on occasion. The headline "Russian bombers seen off the Cornwall coast" is just sensationalism. They're in international airspace, so they're doing nothing illegal.
Its saber rattling yes, but its nothing new.
I remember hearing news reports of this kind a decade ago, when relations with Russia were fantastic by comparison to today.
A comment by Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday.
Then there’s that story about Russian ‘Bear’ bomber planes, described in one headline as having flown ‘over Bournemouth’. They didn’t. In fact, though readers might easily have formed a different impression, they didn’t enter UK airspace. The phrase ‘the English Channel’ was used in descriptions of their flight route, but ‘the Channel ‘ would be more correct. They stayed clearly outside UK territorial waters and airspace. Flights of this kind happen about three or four times a month, and were taking place long before the current confrontation in Ukraine. I followed up the story by talking to informed defence sources, and the only new thing about the most recent flight was that it came right round the West of the British isles and eastwards along the Channel, rather than ( as more usually) towards the north-eastern coast of our islands.
The Russians do behave badly on these flights, by not using their ‘Identify Friend or Foe’ transponders and always have, but the risk to civil aircraft is very small. Civil air traffic control immediately picks them up and reports their position, speed, height and course to other traffic in plenty of time to avoid danger of collisions. Western aircraft do not behave in this fashion on the edges of Russian airspace (though western submarines certainly *used* to make forays very close to the Russian naval bases on the Kola peninsula, I do not know if they still do) . But we have recently begun to station troops, and hold exercises, quite close to the Russian border. Russia, having long ago (peacefully) ceded the Warsaw Pact countries and the Baltic States to Western control, cannot respond in the same way. The Warsaw Pact is gone and they cannot move troops around it to make a point. Perhaps these flights by these ancient aircraft are a substitute.
In the light of these notes, the tone of much that is broadcast and written seems to me to be overblown. I do wish my trade would learn from Iraq, and try harder not to promote an atmosphere in which people are scared out of being reasonable.
So what? Russia has done it almost non stop ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. And I'm sure we reciprocate on occasion. The headline "Russian bombers seen off the Cornwall coast" is just sensationalism. They're in international airspace, so they're doing nothing illegal.
Its saber rattling yes, but its nothing new.
I remember hearing news reports of this kind a decade ago, when relations with Russia were fantastic by comparison to today.
Nope, sorry. Russia stopped doing it in 1992 and only resumed the practice in 2007 and what we have now is a significant escalation of the number of sorties.
They are in international airspace, true, if they weren't then probably they would have been shot down, since sending armed aircraft into another country's airspace is, you know, an act of war.
The problem is that this sabre rattling doesn't accomplish anything, no one has any more respect for Russia's military might just because Putin sends his 50 year old relics on sight seeing tours to the oceans around the world but a possible misunderstanding or fuckup in one of these encounters between Russian bombers and western fighters and you'll have yet another escalation of tensions between Russia and the West...
All of it so that Putin can pretend that he is back in the Cold War...
So what? Russia has done it almost non stop ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. And I'm sure we reciprocate on occasion. The headline "Russian bombers seen off the Cornwall coast" is just sensationalism. They're in international airspace, so they're doing nothing illegal.
Its saber rattling yes, but its nothing new.
I remember hearing news reports of this kind a decade ago, when relations with Russia were fantastic by comparison to today.
Nope, sorry. Russia stopped doing it in 1992 and only resumed the practice in 2007 and what we have now is a significant escalation of the number of sorties.
They are in international airspace, true, if they weren't then probably they would have been shot down, since sending armed aircraft into another country's airspace is, you know, an act of war.
The problem is that this sabre rattling doesn't accomplish anything, no one has any more respect for Russia's military might just because Putin sends his 50 year old relics on sight seeing tours to the oceans around the world but a possible misunderstanding or fuckup in one of these encounters between Russian bombers and western fighters and you'll have yet another escalation of tensions between Russia and the West...
All of it so that Putin can pretend that he is back in the Cold War...
As opposed to the West...who pretend that the Cold War never ended?
Anyway, my point is that all these headlines about "Russian bombers over British cities!" are just misleading sensationalism. They're nothing new, they predate the Ukraine crisis.
Well, at least that sort of justifies the unholy amount of money that we spend on the damn planes.
And it also makes for some pretty decent photo ops!
Spoiler:
Yes it does
Bah video ninja'd
The russions got more out of that fly by. We got to see the same old bomber. They got to view modern fighter, and usual weapons load out.
Plus reaction times.
So what? Russia has done it almost non stop ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. And I'm sure we reciprocate on occasion. The headline "Russian bombers seen off the Cornwall coast" is just sensationalism. They're in international airspace, so they're doing nothing illegal.
Its saber rattling yes, but its nothing new.
I remember hearing news reports of this kind a decade ago, when relations with Russia were fantastic by comparison to today.
Nope, sorry. Russia stopped doing it in 1992 and only resumed the practice in 2007 and what we have now is a significant escalation of the number of sorties.
They are in international airspace, true, if they weren't then probably they would have been shot down, since sending armed aircraft into another country's airspace is, you know, an act of war.
The problem is that this sabre rattling doesn't accomplish anything, no one has any more respect for Russia's military might just because Putin sends his 50 year old relics on sight seeing tours to the oceans around the world but a possible misunderstanding or fuckup in one of these encounters between Russian bombers and western fighters and you'll have yet another escalation of tensions between Russia and the West...
All of it so that Putin can pretend that he is back in the Cold War...
As opposed to the West...who pretend that the Cold War never ended?
Anyway, my point is that all these headlines about "Russian bombers over British cities!" are just misleading sensationalism. They're nothing new, they predate the Ukraine crisis.
Why do you hate yourself so much? I mean you in another thread you just said the UK was no better than ISIL. Thats patently idiotic on its face.
After months of denying having a hand in the Ukrainian coupe, US President Barack Obama admitted playing power broker for the “transition.” This probably falls short of America’s actual involvement.
Washington was investing heavily in Ukraine long before the Maidan protests started in Kiev in 2013. According to Victoria Nuland, the State Department’s top diplomat for Europe, since 1991 America has poured $5 billion of taxpayers’ money into what she called assisting Ukrainians in building “democratic skills and institutions.”
Some of the money went into sponsoring various NGOs, political parties and media outlets. For instance, Hromadske.tv, an internet-based television channel created in summer 2013, received a grant of some $50,000 from the US embassy. The channel provided full-time coverage of the Maidan protests and gave a platform to various opposition figures.
Such funding is a well-known tool of the American government. Washington describes it as promoting a positive change and denies accusations that it gives money to get leverage to pursue its own goals in targeted countries. But in Ukraine US officials played a far more prominent role than simply funding local players.
Later in February, a leaked phone conversation, notable for Nuland’s unprintable expletive at her frustration with the EU, revealed the pair discussing who should lead the new Ukrainian government (Arseny Yatsenyuk, incidentally, the current PM) and who should not be in it (Vitaly Klitchko, currently mayor of Kiev).
So what? Russia has done it almost non stop ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. And I'm sure we reciprocate on occasion. The headline "Russian bombers seen off the Cornwall coast" is just sensationalism. They're in international airspace, so they're doing nothing illegal.
Its saber rattling yes, but its nothing new.
I remember hearing news reports of this kind a decade ago, when relations with Russia were fantastic by comparison to today.
Nope, sorry. Russia stopped doing it in 1992 and only resumed the practice in 2007 and what we have now is a significant escalation of the number of sorties.
They are in international airspace, true, if they weren't then probably they would have been shot down, since sending armed aircraft into another country's airspace is, you know, an act of war.
The problem is that this sabre rattling doesn't accomplish anything, no one has any more respect for Russia's military might just because Putin sends his 50 year old relics on sight seeing tours to the oceans around the world but a possible misunderstanding or fuckup in one of these encounters between Russian bombers and western fighters and you'll have yet another escalation of tensions between Russia and the West...
All of it so that Putin can pretend that he is back in the Cold War...
As opposed to the West...who pretend that the Cold War never ended?
Anyway, my point is that all these headlines about "Russian bombers over British cities!" are just misleading sensationalism. They're nothing new, they predate the Ukraine crisis.
Why do you hate yourself so much? I mean you in another thread you just said the UK was no better than ISIL. Thats patently idiotic on its face.
I'm not the Prime Minister of Great Britain.
And quite frankly you can feth off back to the ISIS thread. If you want to argue with me about ISIS, do it there.
Now you're just being impolite. But thats ok, I've learned children don't have manners any more.
If you think the West still thinks its the Cold War:
Where are the tanks at the Brandenberg Gate?
Why are you not drafted in Her Majesty's Army?
Why are you not practicing bomb shelter drills?
Frazzled wrote: And if Georgia and Ukraine had been in it they'd be whole countries.
No. They would not have existed anymore. You know Russia will never and could never allow such a thing. And Russia is too powerful to be ignored. Russia does not like being ignored. Russia likes to be feared and have a huge empty buffer zone around itself so that it can feel safe. If Russia does not feel safe it will do crazy stuff. You don't want someone with the power to destroy the entire world doing crazy stuff. Trying to expand NATO to Georgia and especially Ukraine would equal a declaration of war from NATO to Russia. Putin already said in the past he would go to war if NATO tried to get into Ukraine.
Some in the West never believed the collapse of Communism made a difference – to them, post-Soviet Russia was just another incarnation of the West’s adversary, the Soviet Union. One of those sceptics was Anthony Lake, national security adviser in Bill Clinton’s first administration, who said that Boris Yeltsin's government was made up of people who were “basically communists who had changed their suits from red to blue”.
The Cold War never ended for many, both in the West and in Russia. Things did change of course, many people also wanted relations to be better and as seen from those trade agreements, they were improved. But the Cold War mentality never did dissapear. For that it is still too recent.
If Ukraine wants to join NATO why should Russia be allowed to stop them? They don't respect any of their neighbours sovereignty or being able to make their own decisions about their future. Putin and his ilk are paranoid control freaks that want all their neighbours under their thumb like in the good ol' days, the thugs and bullies of Europe.
Frazzled wrote: And if Georgia and Ukraine had been in it they'd be whole countries.
No. They would not have existed anymore. You know Russia will never and could never allow such a thing. And Russia is too powerful to be ignored.
Russia does not like being ignored. Russia likes to be feared and have a huge empty buffer zone around itself so that it can feel safe. If Russia does not feel safe it will do crazy stuff. You don't want someone with the power to destroy the entire world doing crazy stuff.
Trying to expand NATO to Georgia and especially Ukraine would equal a declaration of war from NATO to Russia. Putin already said in the past he would go to war if NATO tried to get into Ukraine.
Some in the West never believed the collapse of Communism made a difference – to them, post-Soviet Russia was just another incarnation of the West’s adversary, the Soviet Union. One of those sceptics was Anthony Lake, national security adviser in Bill Clinton’s first administration, who said that Boris Yeltsin's government was made up of people who were “basically communists who had changed their suits from red to blue”.
The Cold War never ended for many, both in the West and in Russia. Things did change of course, many people also wanted relations to be better and as seen from those trade agreements, they were improved. But the Cold War mentality never did dissapear. For that it is still too recent.
Frazzled wrote: And if Georgia and Ukraine had been in it they'd be whole countries.
No. They would not have existed anymore. You know Russia will never and could never allow such a thing. And Russia is too powerful to be ignored. .
Incorrect. An attack on a NATO member would lead to nuke war. Thats policy and its pretty automatic. Thats why there's never been a WWIII.
Exactly. And guess who has the most nukes? That is why those countries would not have existed anymore. In the past 50 years, human civilisation has come very, very close to (almost) total annihilation several times already. I fear this is only going to get worse. he Russians are mad enough to do extreme things when countered. They know they can't win, but they are too stubborn and proud to back down. Putin is the kind of person that would rather destroy everything than to ever admit defeat. That is why appeasement is so important in this conflict. Escalation can not be afforded when states armed with nuclear weapons are involved.
Howard A Treesong wrote: If Ukraine wants to join NATO why should Russia be allowed to stop them? They don't respect any of their neighbours sovereignty or being able to make their own decisions about their future. Putin and his ilk are paranoid control freaks that want all their neighbours under their thumb like in the good ol' days, the thugs and bullies of Europe.
Because of realpolitik. Russia is a great power. It does not need to respect anyone because it is strong. Russia has lots of (nuclear) weapons and that is why other nations can't do anything but try to isolate Russia (which is an impossible task with Russia) and draw up some more sanctions. When Russia bullies its neighbours, the West can bark but not bite. That is how power politics work. It is the same thing with the US bullying (and at times, bombing) lots of smaller countries into submission. Other countries bark about that, but they can't do anything because the US is too strong.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The solution is to screw Russia into the ground through economic sanctions. The Ruble has dropped a fair bit in value already.
Russians are a fairly tough and resilient people, as has been proven over the course of many wars that make sanctions look like a pouty kid in the corner. I honestly think that trying to kick each other in the balls will go no where positive.
Howard A Treesong wrote: If Ukraine wants to join NATO why should Russia be allowed to stop them? They don't respect any of their neighbours sovereignty or being able to make their own decisions about their future. Putin and his ilk are paranoid control freaks that want all their neighbours under their thumb like in the good ol' days, the thugs and bullies of Europe.
Maybe you should say "If somebody in NATO headquarter want to drag in Ukraine in NATO for bullying RF"? Because the population is interested in NATO as well as in Euro-assotiation.
NATO was created to defend so called democratic and free states of Europe and North America from devilish communists, so called "Red threat". 1991 USSR and Warsaw Pact disappeared, but NATO still here. Why? I think it is simple. You say that Putin is freaky, devilish, paranoid, ill man who wants to create USSR 2.0 . Most of Russia's (and not only Russia's) population supports him, so we have more than 100 million of freaky, devilish, paranoid, ill people. We all have to do something with this crazy mob and here old-good NATO comes to help us!
As for the end of the Cold War, I think that Mr.McCain doesn't even knows that Soviet Union collapsed and now it's not communist Russia.
We expanded NATO eastwards right up to Russia's borders, in spite of assurances given to Russia at the fall of the Soviet Union.
I didn't realise that we forced countries to join NATO. I think it says a lot for Russias status as a "great power" if all of those countries they used to support militarily wanted to join NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Obviously these countries don't believe that Russia will support them and think NATO is the better option. That's hardly our fault.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The solution is to screw Russia into the ground through economic sanctions. The Ruble has dropped a fair bit in value already.
Russians are a fairly tough and resilient people, as has been proven over the course of many wars that make sanctions look like a pouty kid in the corner. I honestly think that trying to kick each other in the balls will go no where positive.
But in those days they weren't accustomed to a western style of living. They didn't know that they couldn't afford luxury goods because of their weak economy, as they didn't have access to them. Russia can say what it wants about the "corrupt west", it's people still aren't willingly going to drive a Lada over a BMW, or use some Russian built knock-off rather than a genuine iPhone.
Perestroika killed the Soviet Union by allowing the people to see how the other half lived. Putin can't take that away, no matter how much he spins his propaganda in an attempt to.
Yup it has.
Europe's bankrupt.
UK is bankrupt.
USA has been bankrupt since 1971.
We've all been spending monopoly money.
BMW stands for bring more water, series 3 bmw fuel pumps, header tanks splitting, water pump bearings. I could go on, but I cant be bothered.
Lada plugs and points, distributor cap, and a cam belt. When the belt went didn't even bend a valve.
Frazzled wrote: Incorrect. An attack on a NATO member would lead to nuke war. Thats policy and its pretty automatic.
Thats why there's never been a WWIII.
Not with Obama as President. Obama would do everything he could to stop retaliation. I doubt this administration would even honor our agreements with Taiwan were China ever to invade.
Tyran wrote: Ukraine is screwed, no one really cares about them with the exception of Russia.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The solution is to screw Russia into the ground through economic sanctions. The Ruble has dropped a fair bit in value already.
Russians are a fairly tough and resilient people, as has been proven over the course of many wars that make sanctions look like a pouty kid in the corner. I honestly think that trying to kick each other in the balls will go no where positive.
But in those days they weren't accustomed to a western style of living. They didn't know that they couldn't afford luxury goods because of their weak economy, as they didn't have access to them. Russia can say what it wants about the "corrupt west", it's people still aren't willingly going to drive a Lada over a BMW, or use some Russian built knock-off rather than a genuine iPhone.
Perestroika killed the Soviet Union by allowing the people to see how the other half lived. Putin can't take that away, no matter how much he spins his propaganda in an attempt to.
Consumerism, it has some good uses.
Are you seriously pretending that in the Soviet Union, people didn't know anything about the West? No one believed the official propaganda. People knew living standards in the West were higher. But you do not understand Russia very well. The 90's have shown that the Western way of doing things does not work in Russia. Because of adopting Western methods, in the past few decades, Russia has survived a complete societal collapse and absolute poverty. A few little sanctions are nothing compared to that. A little economical hardship will only increase nationalism.
In the past 50 years, human civilisation has come very, very close to (almost) total annihilation several times already. I fear this is only going to get worse. he Russians are mad enough to do extreme things when countered. They know they can't win, but they are too stubborn and proud to back down.
They've backed down before, else none of us would be here, and roaches would have taken their rightful place as masters of the planet.
In the past 50 years, human civilisation has come very, very close to (almost) total annihilation several times already. I fear this is only going to get worse. he Russians are mad enough to do extreme things when countered. They know they can't win, but they are too stubborn and proud to back down.
They've backed down before, else none of us would be here, and roaches would have taken their rightful place as masters of the planet.
Sounds like the Fallout series. Humanoid Roach-people?
I watched a news report this morning, and the Russian Rebels have Cossacks on their side! I thought the Cossacks were long gone, but these guys have traded in their horses for armoured cars, and some of them still use the old maxim machine guns and anti tank rifles the Red Army had in WW2.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I watched a news report this morning, and the Russian Rebels have Cossacks on their side! I thought the Cossacks were long gone, but these guys have traded in their horses for armoured cars, and some of them still use the old maxim machine guns and anti tank rifles the Red Army had in WW2.
Where have you been the past year. Cossacks have been all over the news in this war.
The Cossacks have never been gone. They were persecuted in Soviet times but they have existed continuously since the Middle Ages. Putin restored much of their historical rights.
But they would never trade in their horses!
Crimean Cossacks played a large role in taking over Crimea for Russia, and lots of Cossacks are fighting in Eastern Ukraine.
All this talk of Cossacks makes me want to watch Dr Zhivago
I admit, for some parts of Russia/Ukraine, a horse is probably the best mode of transport, but there are times when you need to swap your trusty steed for a armoured car.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Iron_Captain, can you give us a sense of how people in Russia actually feel about this?
Are people across Russia excited, or is it only really important to people living in the border regions?
About Cossacks you mean? There is lots of different opinions about them. It is very different from region to region of course. Cossacks mostly live in Southern Russia (Don, Kuban and Terek are the largest Hosts). There are also Cossacks in Crimea and Siberia.
In general, ethnic Russians in border regions tend to like the Cossacks, they are a part of Russian history and cultural heritage, they protect ethnic Russians from their enemies and they keep order.
Some people are concerned though, they fear that the Cossacks are used by the government to take down dissidents without getting its own hands dirty. Some also think it is a bad idea to let Cossacks handle law enforcement again because they have quite 'traditional' ideas about crime and punishment (Nagaika!) and when someone goes wrong, who is responsible?
They are also often bad news for other (non-Russian) peoples, especially Tatars and Chechens. Cossacks are very nationalistic and some are quite racist, so they sometimes target other ethnicities. Combined with their authority in law enforcement that can cause a lot of trouble. In Crimea there were often tensions between the Cossacks and the Tatars, and now with the Russian takeover that the Cossacks have become so powerful, the Tatars are getting the worst of it. I have heard of people dissapeared and houses of Tatars burned down. A lot of Crimean Tatars have left because of that.
It is pretty much conflicting opinions. Lots of people are excited about Cossacks, others are concerned or even frightened.
This video does a good job of showing the two sides:
Iron_Captain wrote: Because of adopting Western methods, in the past few decades, Russia has survived a complete societal collapse and absolute poverty. A few little sanctions are nothing compared to that. A little economical hardship will only increase nationalism.
I think you'll find that it's the part where the government is completely corrupt that's failing, not the Western methods. If the goal was to actually implement Western-style governance that would happen, it's just that that wasn't in the interest of those who stood to gain from the corruption.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia has lots of (nuclear) weapons and that is why other nations can't do anything but try to isolate Russia (which is an impossible task with Russia) and draw up some more sanctions.
Most of Russia's nukes were made in the Ukraine. As far as I know, those facilities are still under Kiev's control, and still functional. Retooling was estimated to require three months, about a year ago. Assuming they decide that NATO is NOT coming to help, how long do you think it is before an eastern Ukrainian city is a glowing crater?
Assuming that is that everything that's been said about Kiev is true. Nazis are not known for being 'good losers'.
Russia deploying next-gen Nebo-M radar complexes to counter NATO threat http://rt.com/news/233959-russia-deploys-nebo-radars/ Russia has begun deploying the next generation of Nebo-M anti-missile radar facility systems as part of a responsive measure to a threat stemming from NATO anti-ballistic missile systems in Eastern Europe.
“The mobile multi-range programmable Nebo-M complex is capable of performing the tasks of providing information on small-sized aerodynamic and hypersonic targets in a difficult jamming background, as well as providing information for anti-missile weapon systems,” said colonel Aleksey Zolotuhin, a spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry’s press service.
The development and deployment of next-gen anti-missile systems featuring Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) technology is a top priority for the Russian Defense Ministry, as US anti-ballistic missile system are springing up in Romania, Turkey, Poland, and even in Spain.
The new Nebo-M 3-D radar system features a programmable multi-band design. The complex includes central data fusion and command post module as well as three radars, all deployed on separate high-mobility 8 x 8 24-ton vehicles. According to Aviatioweek, radars feed data to the command post using high-speed narrow-beam digital data links in the microwave band.
The radar is designed to automatically detect and track airborne targets such as ballistic missiles, stealth aircraft, or drones, as well as hypersonic targets. In the circular scan mode the complex is able to track up to 200 aerodynamic targets at a distance and at altitudes of up to 600 kilometers. In sector scan mode, Nebo-M can track to 20 ballistic targets at ranges of up to 1,800 kilometers and at an altitude of up to 1,200 kilometers.
In October, the Russian Defense Ministry unveiled plans to build several new anti-missile radars in order to cover the entire territory of Russia by 2020. Moscow also announced that an early warning radar station in the western Kaliningrad Region would be put on full combat duty by the year’s end.
If that's their plan, 2020 will probably be a bit late to get it up over Russia. I suspect that getting it up over the eastern Ukraine will be an even lower priority. Besides, being able to track an ICBM and shoot it down are two different things.
There have been ADA systems seen in pro-Russian rebel held parts of the Ukraine that are pretty decent ADA systems (such as SA-22/Pantsir-S1, some Strela-10 systems with Russian markings for example) used by the Russian Army.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia has lots of (nuclear) weapons and that is why other nations can't do anything but try to isolate Russia (which is an impossible task with Russia) and draw up some more sanctions.
Most of Russia's nukes were made in the Ukraine. As far as I know, those facilities are still under Kiev's control, and still functional. Retooling was estimated to require three months, about a year ago. Assuming they decide that NATO is NOT coming to help, how long do you think it is before an eastern Ukrainian city is a glowing crater?
Assuming that is that everything that's been said about Kiev is true. Nazis are not known for being 'good losers'.
There is a huge list of reasons why Kiev would decide not to nuke Donetsk or Luhansk, but one of those is that Putin is not a good loser either. If Kiev nukes Donetsk, it might just be entirely possible that the seperatists will suddenly "find" a nuke that Russia "lost". It won't be long then for Kiev is also a glowing crater. Nobody wants that kind of escalation. Ukraine will not produce nukes, even if it actually was able to. Ukraine's military nuclear infrastucture was dismantled after they decided to give everything back to Russia. They lack the ability to produce nukes, missiles and launch platforms. It would take far more than 3 months, because industry for those last 2 will have to be built from scratch. It was nothing more than bluff from Ukraine.
Either way, nukes most definitely won't solve anything. Only negotiation and compromise can reach solutions.
If that's their plan, 2020 will probably be a bit late to get it up over Russia. I suspect that getting it up over the eastern Ukraine will be an even lower priority. Besides, being able to track an ICBM and shoot it down are two different things.
If they're talking about it. It's as good as in place. It's the stuff they don,t talk about, that matters.
Iron_Captain wrote: Ukraine's military nuclear infrastucture was dismantled after they decided to give everything back to Russia. They lack the ability to produce nukes, missiles and launch platforms. It would take far more than 3 months, because industry for those last 2 will have to be built from scratch..
One.
You don't need missiles or launch platforms, when your target is either very close, or has a large, mostly porous boarder. You just need a big enough truck and someone crazy enough to drive it. (and let's face it, suicidally brave idiots are something that the Azov battalion DOES have.)
Two
It's not hard to restore 'dismantled' nuclear infrastructure in the form of missile silos. In the US, civilians do it. Minus the nukes, of course. Further, many of their 'conventional' long range ballistic missiles also come in 'thermonuclear' flavors if you replace the warheads. Which the Ukrainians invented. Any facility that can produce bombs can be re-tooled to produce nuclear bombs, as long as you're just looking at casings, etc.
Hell, if you want to get fancy, most former soviet states have Bear. If you can convince Russian ground control you belong there, you might be a long way inside Russia before anyone twigs that you're not supposed to be there.
Three
Do you think their cover story of a nuke going off in eastern Ukraine wouldn't be 'Russia gives nuke to Rebels, accident destroys city!' Best part would be that when the IAEA investigators came around, the isotope proportions from the enrichment process would point back to Moscow.
Four
While the President of the Ukraine has rejected the idea, his defense minister is very open to it, according to an interview last year.
If they're talking about it. It's as good as in place.
Or it does not actually exist yet. And, as I said, they say they can track an ICBM. Great, we could do that in the 1950's. What they haven't said is anything about actually being able to shoot one down, particularly if it's loaded with MIRV.
Ukraine had a lot of nukes when they became independent but later signed non proliferation treaties and dismantled to become a non-nuclear state. They were assured by Russia and other signatories that their sovereignty and boarders would be respected.
So much for opting out of having MAD capability. And people ask why we maintain trident.
loki old fart wrote: Russia deploying next-gen Nebo-M radar complexes to counter NATO threat http://rt.com/news/233959-russia-deploys-nebo-radars/ Russia has begun deploying the next generation of Nebo-M anti-missile radar facility systems as part of a responsive measure to a threat stemming from NATO anti-ballistic missile systems in Eastern Europe.
“The mobile multi-range programmable Nebo-M complex is capable of performing the tasks of providing information on small-sized aerodynamic and hypersonic targets in a difficult jamming background, as well as providing information for anti-missile weapon systems,” said colonel Aleksey Zolotuhin, a spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry’s press service.
The development and deployment of next-gen anti-missile systems featuring Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) technology is a top priority for the Russian Defense Ministry, as US anti-ballistic missile system are springing up in Romania, Turkey, Poland, and even in Spain.
The new Nebo-M 3-D radar system features a programmable multi-band design. The complex includes central data fusion and command post module as well as three radars, all deployed on separate high-mobility 8 x 8 24-ton vehicles. According to Aviatioweek, radars feed data to the command post using high-speed narrow-beam digital data links in the microwave band.
The radar is designed to automatically detect and track airborne targets such as ballistic missiles, stealth aircraft, or drones, as well as hypersonic targets. In the circular scan mode the complex is able to track up to 200 aerodynamic targets at a distance and at altitudes of up to 600 kilometers. In sector scan mode, Nebo-M can track to 20 ballistic targets at ranges of up to 1,800 kilometers and at an altitude of up to 1,200 kilometers.
In October, the Russian Defense Ministry unveiled plans to build several new anti-missile radars in order to cover the entire territory of Russia by 2020. Moscow also announced that an early warning radar station in the western Kaliningrad Region would be put on full combat duty by the year’s end.
Hi tech toys aside, I'm reading that separatists have launched 41 separate attacks in the last 24 hours.
Ukrainian military officials have reported that Russian-backed militants continue shelling Ukrainian army positions and residential areas in the conflict zone in east Ukraine despite the 12 February Minsk ceasefire. They said that over the past day, insurgent forces launched 41 attacks, including 16 with artillery and mortars, five with multiple rocket systems and four with tanks.
The heaviest shelling was recorded in the Donetsk area. Russian-backed militants launched tank, Grad rocket, artillery and mortar attacks on towns in the vicinity including Opytne, Avdiivka, Vodyane and Pisky.
Oh, and if you want ot know how Russia got it's troops in the Ukraine without having long columns of marching men involved, Kommerisant is running some interesting interviews with Russian troops in the Ukraine who were involved in the assault on Debaltseve.
Among the evidence presented against Sadovnyk was a photograph. Prosecutors say it shows him near Kiev’s Independence Square on Feb. 20, wearing a mask and holding a rifle with two hands, his fingers clearly visible.
The problem: Sadovnyk doesn’t have two hands. His right hand, his wife told Reuters, was blown off by a grenade in a training accident six years ago. As prosecutors introduced the image at a hearing in April, said Yuliya Sadovnyk, her husband removed a glove and displayed his stump to the courtroom.
Later in February, a leaked phone conversation, notable for Nuland’s unprintable expletive at her frustration with the EU, revealed the pair discussing who should lead the new Ukrainian government (Arseny Yatsenyuk, incidentally, the current PM) and who should not be in it (Vitaly Klitchko, currently mayor of Kiev).
Obviously not confirmed yet since the article was only released today, but rather damning if it turns out to be true. For some reason it feels too perfect, too blatant to be the entire truth, but that's only a hunch on my part.
New York Times wrote:MOSCOW — The Kremlin was advised to annex Crimea and a large swath of southeastern Ukraine weeks before the Ukrainian government fell, a Russian newspaper reported on Wednesday, citing what it said was a memo that was presumably presented to the presidential administration.
Russia has long contended that it acted without premeditation in Crimea, and was only seeking to protect Russian speakers who it said were under threat of attack, and to stave off what it suspected was an attempt by NATO to move its forces into the region.
But a report in Novaya Gazeta, one of the few independent voices still publishing in Russia, said that well before the Ukrainian government fell in February 2014, the memo the newspaper had obtained advised the Kremlin to adopt the policy it has since pursued in Ukraine. The memo appears to have been drafted under the auspices of a conservative oligarch later suspected of funding the separatists, the report said.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
A shelled pipeline burned near town last week. Russian gas must go through Ukrainian pipelines to reach other European customers.
Russia Heightens Dispute With Ukraine Over Natural Gas FEB. 24, 2015
Pro-Russian rebels were greeted in Donetsk on Monday during a rally to celebrate their recent victory over the Ukrainian Army in Debaltseve.
Ukraine Rebels Celebrate Their Taking of DebaltseveFEB. 23, 2015
Ukrainian forces continued to face attack despite a cease-fire deal, and bombs appeared to target pro-government ceremonies and parades.
New Violence Belies Talk of Peace in UkraineFEB. 22, 2015
Residents of the war-torn town of Debaltseve gathered on Friday for a food giveaway outside a damaged supermarket.
Ukraine Town Eases Back Into Life After Deadly Week of FightingFEB. 20, 2015
Soldiers who were evacuated from Debaltseve drank at a pizzeria in Artemivsk. Other soldiers commandeered taxis and shot up an expensive restaurant.
Retreating Soldiers Bring Echoes of War’s Chaos to a Ukrainian Town FEB. 19, 2015
The memo lays out what it says is the inevitable disintegration of Ukraine and suggests a series of logistical steps that Russia should take to make sure it remains in control of the situation, steps not far off from what actually occurred.
Continue reading the main story
Ukraine Crisis in Maps
The latest updates to the current visual survey of the continuing dispute, with maps and satellite imagery showing rebel and military movement.
As early as Feb. 4, 2014, well before President Viktor F. Yanukovych resigned, on Feb. 21, the memo predicted his overthrow and suggested that Russia use the European Union’s own rules on autonomous areas to try to bind both Crimea and eastern Ukraine to Russia.
Dimtry S. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, suggested that the memo was a hoax. “It seems like a fake,” he said.
“I don’t know whether this document exists at all, I don’t know who might be the author, but for sure the document has nothing to do with the Kremlin,” Mr. Peskov said. The authenticity of the document could not be independently verified.
The memo proposes a detailed strategy, one that the Kremlin seems to have largely followed, though it does not seem eager to annex large areas of southeastern Ukraine, as the memo urges.
With Ukraine likely to break into two — a European-aligned west and a pro-Russian east combined with Crimea — Moscow had to act quickly, the report said, particularly given that the Yanukovych government could soon fall.
Russia should take advantage of the “centrifugal forces” tearing the country apart in order to merge the east with the rest of Russia, the memo said. “The dominant regions for the application of force should be Crimea and the Kharkiv region,” it said, particularly given that strong groups there endorsed the idea of joining Russia.
Novaya Gazeta said that a conservative Russian oligarch, Konstantin V. Malofeev, could have been the mastermind behind the document. The newspaper quoted Mr. Malofeev’s communications team as denying any involvement by him.
The report said that oligarchs in Ukraine, who are not tempered by bureaucracy as much as their Russian counterparts, had lost control of the demonstrations in the central square in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, known as the Maidan. It said the commanders in the square were “presumably controlled not by the groups of oligarchs, but to a great extent by Polish and British secret services.”
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
Russia has since switched tactics, blaming the United States for the protests.
The memo was also dismissive of the Ukrainian leader’s chances of bringing the situation under control.
“President Yanukovych is not a very charismatic person,” it said. “He is afraid to give up the presidential post and at the same time is prepared to trade the security officers for guarantees of keeping the post and of immunity after resignation.”
Moscow should abandon the Ukrainian leader, the report suggested. “There is no sense in further Russian political, diplomatic, financial or media support for the regime,” it said.
The report emerged as the cease-fire in southeastern Ukraine seemed to be taking hold.
In Kiev, the military said that for a second night in a row cease-fire violations had “significantly decreased,” and that the previous 24 hours had been the quietest since the Feb. 12 signing of a cease-fire in Minsk, Belarus.
Continue reading the main story
Recent Comments
L.J. Martin
23 minutes ago
Whether the annexation of Crimea was premeditated, and, given the Kremlin's gift for intrigue and deniability, we'll probably never know for...
Johan Van Moerzeke
23 minutes ago
It’s important to recall why, and how, the U.S. has been supporting Ukraine militarily, and to place the narrow question of lethal...
Ilya Shlyakhter
50 minutes ago
Left unclear is the status of this memo: was this just one of many policy recommendations/analyses? U.S. conservative think tanks produce...
See All Comments
Write a comment
Donetsk, Luhansk and the Mariupol area experienced no shooting, it said. In the past 24 hours, separatist forces have fired mortar rounds or other shells just 15 times and light weapons four times, the Ukrainian military said.
Yet concerns about the strength of the truce remained, with the Ukrainian military spokesman saying it could not move to the next stage — the withdrawal of heavy weapons — as long as the separatists continued fighting.
“For now, there is still no order on the withdrawal of weapons, as the fighters have not yet fulfilled the first point of the Minsk agreement, to cease-fire,” said Andriy Lysenko, the military spokesman.
The unease was also reflected elsewhere, with France, which helped negotiate the cease-fire, threatening new sanctions if fighting erupted around the strategic southern Ukrainian port of Mariupol.
“The problem today is particularly around Mariupol,” the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, told France Info radio. “We’ve told the Russians clearly that if there was a separatist attack in the direction of Mariupol, things would change completely, including in terms of sanctions.”
The comments came after the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine met in Paris on Tuesday but made little progress in solidifying the agreement known as Minsk II. Violations on the ground would mean that Europe would again raise the question of sanctions, Mr. Fabius said.
Rebel forces said that they had already begun withdrawing heavy weapons, including 100 howitzers pulled back from the front during the first day of operations on Tuesday. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe issued a statement saying it could not confirm withdrawals from either side because it did not have a thorough accounting of the weapons there before the cease-fire.
But the rebel forces said the organization would soon be able to monitor the withdrawal.
There has been a kind of unspoken contest in Ukraine about whether the economic situation or the low-grade war was the worst news, and the economy seemed to edge out the conflict on Wednesday.
With the Ukrainian currency falling precipitously against the dollar, the central bank on Wednesday banned banks from buying foreign currency for the rest of this week, Reuters reported.
So, according to Russia Today, Russia has taken over Gas pumping duties in the Ukraine after the Ukrainian Gov't stopped piping gas to the east..
Russia will cut off gas supplies to Ukraine if Kiev fails to pay in “three or four days,” President Vladimir Putin said, adding that this "will create a problem" for gas transit to Europe.
“Gazprom has been fully complying with its obligations under the Ukraine gas supply contract and will continue doing that,” Putin told reporters after talks with the president of Cyprus on Wednesday. “The advance payment for gas supply made by the Ukrainian side will be in place for another three to four days. If there is no further prepayment, Gazprom will suspend supplies under the contract and its supplement. Of course, this could create a certain problem for [gas] transit to Europe to our European partners.”
However, Putin expressed the hope that it would not come to that, stressing that “it depends on the financial discipline of our Ukrainian partners.”
He noted that Russia’s ministers and the CEO of Gazprom have “actively” reminded Ukraine of the looming deadline.
On Tuesday, Gazprom's CEO Aleksey Miller reminded Ukraine’s state-owned Naftogaz of the gas prepayment. Miller said that Ukraine had not paid for March deliveries and warned that Kiev was risking an early termination of the advance settlement and a supply cutoff.
"It takes about two days to get payment from Naftogaz deposited to a Gazprom account. That's why a delivery to Ukraine of 114 million cubic meters will lead to a complete termination of Russian gas supplies as early as in two days, which creates serious risks for the transit to Europe,” Miller said.
Putin said that Gazprom had breached no contract terms of gas supplies to border points to eastern parts of Ukraine.
"It has become known to us that Kiev suspended gas supplies [to Lugansk and Donetsk regions] referring to the alleged damage to gas pipelines," Putin said.
"At the same time, Gazprom is fulfilling the contract signed back in 2009 and an addendum to it made in October last year. In full compliance with this contract, it supplies gas to Ukraine under advance payments made for the volumes, which Ukraine needs."
Putin indicated that these contracts also stipulated border points. "Gazprom is not breaching any provisions," he added.
"As for the damage to the gas pipeline, I don't know for certain, but I know that these regions are home to about 4.5 million people. Just imagine that these people may be left without gas supply during the winter period. In addition to the hunger, there as is already stated by the OSCE and the humanitarian disaster, just imagine these people may also be left without gas supply," Putin said.
He accused some Ukrainian officials of failing to understand the humanitarian issues in Ukraine’s eastern regions.
Ukraine’s state-owned Naftogaz suspended gas supplies to eastern regions on February 19, citing damage to a pipeline. Under the gas deal between Moscow and Kiev, Gazprom promptly launched gas supplies to Ukraine’s southeast through border gas metering stations supplying 12 million cubic meters a day.
Kiev said it restored the damage in several hours and restarted gas supplies. Naztogas has refused to pay Gazprom for the gas supplied to eastern regions from February 19. The same day, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev ordered the country’s energy minister and the head of Gazprom to prepare proposals on fuel deliveries to Ukraine’s southeast regions.
Naftogaz has also accused Russia of breaking the agreement to deliver 114 million of cubic meters of natural gas to Ukraine by delivering only 47 million cubic meters.
Well, at least he's providing the gas to those that really need it. Right? And not making idle threats to Europe. Right?
Despite the Ukraine crisis and increasing tensions with Russia, most Nato members are doing little to reverse the decline in their defence spending.
The promises and rhetoric that they will meet the threat is not matched by reality.
New research by Ian Kearns and Denitsa Raynova of the European Leadership Network (ELN) found that six countries, including two of the biggest defence spenders in Europe, the UK and Germany, will cut defence expenditure in 2015.
Defence spending in France, the other big spender in Europe, will remain static.
The report examined the defence expenditure of 14 members of the alliance to see whether they were living up to recent promises made at the Nato summit in south Wales when David Cameron urged members to boost their defence spending.
Allies currently meeting the Nato guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so.
Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
This means that in 2015-16 the UK is on course to spend its lowest percentage of GDP on defence in any of the last 25 years”
European Leadership Network
Few countries have met this target so at the Nato summit last September the commitment was watered down, with the less ambitious goal that those countries that were not meeting the target should "halt any decline in defence expenditure" .
ELN research predicts that in 2015 only one of the 14 nations examined, Estonia, will meet the 2% target. While expenditure will increase in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway and Romania, none of these will meet the target.
The UK, Germany, Italy, Canada, Hungary and Bulgaria will cut their defence spending.
Britain currently just meets the 2% target, but the government is committed only to continuing that target until the end of this Parliament.
Examining current expenditure plans, the ELN concludes that defence spending in the UK will fall from its current level of 2.07% of GDP (£36.4bn) to 1.88% (£35.5bn) in 2015-16.
These figures are in line with earlier research carried out by the Royal United Services Institute which projected that UK defence spending could fall to about 1.7% of GDP by the end of the decade.
The ELN concludes that with other department spending such as health and international development ring-fenced, it will be hard to change this trajectory.
The report says: "This means that in 2015-16 the UK is on course to spend its lowest percentage of GDP on defence in any of the last 25 years."
The impact of recent defence cuts has already been felt in Britain and Germany.
Small crumb of comfort
Without any of its own maritime patrol aircraft, the UK recently had to request the help of Nato allies to search for suspected Russian submarines off the west coast of Scotland. In Germany there have been reports of serious malfunctions in military equipment.
The ELN report warns that if spending trends continue, this will "seriously undermine basic defence capability".
Europe's failure to pay its way in Nato is seriously worrying the US, which already provides 75% of all Nato defence expenditure (the US spends 3.8% of its GDP on defence).
The small crumb of comfort is that those countries that feel most threatened by Russia's recent actions in the Ukraine are upping their game.
Estonia will meet the 2% target this year, while Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are significantly increasing their defence spending. But the problem is that these countries are relatively minor military powers in Europe.
The big players like the UK, Germany and France are either cutting or freezing their spending.
A separate report by Ian Brzezinski for the Atlantic Council says there is also an "exercise gap" between Russia and Nato. Since 2013 Russia has conducted at least six military exercises involving 65,000-160,000 troops.
'Not all about size'
In contrast, Nato held fewer exercises involving fewer personnel. The largest of these, named Steadfast Jazz, involved 6,000 military personnel of which half were headquarter staff.
Nato officials insist size is not the only measure of commitment, but capability too. Russia is seeking to reverse years of underinvestment in its military.
So what should Nato countries be doing to bridge this divide in spending and flexing of military muscle?
The ELN research concludes that European Nato countries will have to work together more to arrest the decline, with burden-sharing becoming a necessity not a choice.
The report concludes: "It is clear that none of the Nato countries examined have the funding or the domestic support to fully modernise their militaries... more defence co-operation among allies is the only realistic way forward."
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: "With the second largest defence budget in Nato and the largest in Europe, the government is committed to spending 2% of GDP on defence. Decisions on spending after the financial year 2015-16 will be determined in the next spending review.
"Over the next decade we are committed to spending £163bn on equipment and equipment support to keep Britain safe. That includes new strike fighters, more surveillance aircraft, hunter-killer submarines, two aircraft carriers and the most advanced armoured vehicles."
TBH Putin immediately condemned the shooting. While he would certainly have motive, so would a bunch of other Russian politicians and politics-related people.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: TBH Putin immediately condemned the shooting. While he would certainly have motive, so would a bunch of other Russian politicians and politics-related people.
Actually the article said that the Kremlin says Putin has condemned it, he hasn't made a public statement to that effect in person. If someone shot dead one of the senior members of an opposition party in the UK you can be sure that David Cameron would be on the news saying it for himself.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: TBH Putin immediately condemned the shooting. While he would certainly have motive, so would a bunch of other Russian politicians and politics-related people.
Actually the article said that the Kremlin says Putin has condemned it, he hasn't made a public statement to that effect in person. If someone shot dead one of the senior members of an opposition party in the UK you can be sure that David Cameron would be on the news saying it for himself.
Swedish media is quoting Putin's press spokesman as delivering the condemnation, and I'm feeling pretty certain that Putin keeps him on a fairly tight leash on something like this.
That is not to say that it is impossible (or even unlikely) that Putin, or someone allied to him, is behind this.
I had expected people here would blame Putin. Putin had little reason to want Nemtsov dead. He was not an influential politician. His party only has a single seat in one of Russia's many regional parliaments. Having him killed would be much more risky than rewarding for Putin.
The West just seems to think Putin is behind everything, but blaming Putin for this is as stupid as blaming Ukraine for this would be. Please people, wake up. Not everything in Russia is about Putin, and Putin does not control everything in Russia, nor even all elements of the FSB, much less the military. Nemtsov was a man with many enemies.
It is ironic though he was killed right next to the Kremlin. Also, the car probably used in the murder was from Ingushetia. That could be a hint. He would not be the first person killed for poking his nose too much in the Caucasus.
Yes I had thought when Putin wanted someone killed his calling card was having the guy glow afterwards. Putin's just lost some serious credibility with all the other Bond Villains over how tame this all is. :(
Wyrmalla wrote: Yes I had thought when Putin wanted someone killed his calling card was having the guy glow afterwards. Putin's just lost some serious credibility with all the other Bond Villains over how tame this all is. :(
However it isn't the first critic that has died in a drive-by shooting.
And hey, if a drive-by is good enough for SPECTRE when they want to kill Bond and his wife then I imagine it's good enough for Putin.
Some years ago laws were passed in Russia that legalised the state to execute people abroad, anyone they describe as 'extreme' but that covers a wide span, it could be anyone judged to be a threat.
On the other hand their security services seem so corrupt with links to the Mafia or have people with their own agenda that these murders could be carried out by anyone. There are quite a few reports of journalists that have ended up dead, or dissidents and those that have left Russia and spoken out against the government, that have ended up dead. Among the more famous cases, who killed Georgi Markov? No one has been found. Who killed Litvinenko? Russia won't extradite witnesses. Who tried to kill Viktor Yushchenko and left him disfigured? Russia refuses to extradite suspects in these cases. If they're not state sponsored killings they still don't want them investigated.
Iron_Captain wrote: I had expected people here would blame Putin.
Putin had little reason to want Nemtsov dead. He was not an influential politician. His party only has a single seat in one of Russia's many regional parliaments. Having him killed would be much more risky than rewarding for Putin.
The West just seems to think Putin is behind everything, but blaming Putin for this is as stupid as blaming Ukraine for this would be. Please people, wake up. Not everything in Russia is about Putin, and Putin does not control everything in Russia, nor even all elements of the FSB, much less the military. Nemtsov was a man with many enemies.
It is ironic though he was killed right next to the Kremlin.
Also, the car probably used in the murder was from Ingushetia. That could be a hint. He would not be the first person killed for poking his nose too much in the Caucasus.
Who do you think his potential enemies might be then, other than Putin? Who else might want him dead?
I'm genuinely curious, not sarky btw. I'm always interested to hear your Russian perspective. Keeps this thread from being an echo chamber.
It could easily have been one of Putin's political allies acting without Putin's knowlege, or some ultranationalist who hate anyone who oppose the Ukraine war involvement, it's just that Putin's enemies have a tendency to end up dead, with the murderer never being found.
Iron_Captain wrote: I had expected people here would blame Putin. Putin had little reason to want Nemtsov dead. He was not an influential politician. His party only has a single seat in one of Russia's many regional parliaments. Having him killed would be much more risky than rewarding for Putin.
The West just seems to think Putin is behind everything, but blaming Putin for this is as stupid as blaming Ukraine for this would be. Please people, wake up. Not everything in Russia is about Putin, and Putin does not control everything in Russia, nor even all elements of the FSB, much less the military. Nemtsov was a man with many enemies.
It is ironic though he was killed right next to the Kremlin. Also, the car probably used in the murder was from Ingushetia. That could be a hint. He would not be the first person killed for poking his nose too much in the Caucasus.
Who do you think his potential enemies might be then, other than Putin? Who else might want him dead?
I'm genuinely curious, not sarky btw. I'm always interested to hear your Russian perspective. Keeps this thread from being an echo chamber.
He was a controversial politician, so he had many enemies. I have absolutely no ideo who is behind this, but some suspects could be: -The FSB. The secret services are probably unhappy about Nemtsov's nosing around in Ukraine and his anti-Putin and anti-silovik stance. They could have ordered the assassination, either with or without Putin's approval. -Someone in the military. If the reports about him proving Russian military presence in Ukraine were to be correct, this would not sit well with the people in charge of the operation. Soon after the murder, all of Nemtsov's documents were seized as part of the investigation. Probably would tie in with the secret services mentioned above. -Criminals. Like most Russian politicians, especially those from the 90s, Nemtsov almost certainly had dealings with the Mafia. He may have pissed off his 'businesspartners'. -Local officials or businessmen. Nemtsov was active in investigating corruption. He could have uncovered something that someone really did not want uncovered. Many who investigate corruption have been killed in Russia. -The government of Ingushetia. The car used by the murderers was from Ingushetia. Nemtsov may have been investigating human rights abuse in the Caucasus, thus making him a target. He would not be the first. Anna Politovskaya was also killed after nosing around in Chechnya too much (likely on orders of Kadyrov) -Radical nationalists. Someone could have gotten so pissed at Nemtsov's pro-West, "anti-Russian" or anti-Putin activities, that he decided to put a stop to it. -Nashi or other putinists. Nashi has attacked Nemtsov and others who oppose Putin before. Maybe someone decided to step it up a bit? -Ukrainian seperatists. Again in connection with his investigation in Ukraine.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It could easily have been one of Putin's political allies acting without Putin's knowlege, or some ultranationalist who hate anyone who oppose the Ukraine war involvement, it's just that Putin's enemies have a tendency to end up dead, with the murderer never being found.
Exactly. Putin may be behind it or not, but either way the Russian government has little interest in finding the murderer.
'little interest in finding the murderer'? Really? Because if a prominent opposition MP was murdered in a drive by in the UK, it would almost certainly be in David Cameron's best interest to state that he would find those responsible and bring them to justice. Just as it should be a high priority for Mr.Putin and his party. Even if it's a whitewash directed by the man himself, at least he would be seen to be doing something. I'm holding fire on putting the blame on Mr.Putin, but it would not surprise me in the least if it was found to be a Mafia hit or a random killing and thus the culprits are never found.
Everything will be done to punish those behind ‘vile’ murder of Nemtsov - Putin
Russian President Vladimir Putin has promised that everything will be done to punish those responsible for the organization and execution of the murder of opposition politician, Boris Nemtsov.
“Everything will be done for the organizers and executors of this vile and cynical murder to receive the punishment they deserve," the statement on the Russian President’s official website said.
Boris Nemtsov, a veteran opposition figure in Russia, was gunned down in a drive-by attack in central Moscow overnight Friday.
The murder, which happened just away from the Kremlin, triggered worldwide condemnation and calls to bring the killers to justice.
Previously, Putin expressed his condolences to Nemtsov’s mother and said that he shared her grief.
"Please, accept my deepest condolences on this irreparable loss. I sincerely share your grief,” a telegram by the President, posted on the Kremlin’s website, said.
Boris Nemtsov "left his mark in the history of Russia – in its political and public life. He occupied on important positions in the difficult transition period of our country. He stated his point of views in an honest and straight forward manner and always defended his stance,” Putin stressed.
Investigators are doing their best to solve the murder of the opposition politician, said Vladimir Markin, spokesman for the Investigative Committee. Previously, he said that the investigators are looking into five possible motives behind Nemtsov’s assassination.
According to Markin, the politician’s murder could have been a provocation to destabilize the political situation in Russia. It could have also been linked to the threats Nemtsov received over his stance on Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris or the current war in Ukraine. The politician’s business activities and a possible assault related to his personal life are also being looked into.
Irina Khakamada, an opposition figure who was Nemtsov's ally in the SPS party (Union of Right Forces), called the murder a "provocation" aimed at destabilizing Russia.
"It is definitely not beneficial to Putin and it is aimed at destabilizing everything to tatters," she said.
...acts encroaching on the authority of Ukraine, public vilification, abuse of Ukraine, and / or cynical, disrespectful attitude and rejection of individual structural elements of the system of public administration (its relevant authorities) and the state in general... imprisonment for up to 3 years
...acts encroaching on the authority of Ukraine, public vilification, abuse of Ukraine, and / or cynical, disrespectful attitude and rejection of individual structural elements of the system of public administration (its relevant authorities) and the state in general... imprisonment for up to 3 years
I can hardly believe my eyes. Those are the kind of laws that belong in a fascist state, not Ukraine. Let us hope parliament is smart enough not to let them come into force.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Don't worry, the fact that it is clearly against Ukrainian interests to do something that silly proves that it's Russian provocateurs behind it.
Am I doing this right?
yea about right.
But I must say it falls in with some other proclamations recently.
It is ironic though he was killed right next to the Kremlin.
To me, this is the big thing. Either security around there has become far too lax, or, more likely, there was involvement by security services at some level. Whether or not Putin is directly involved (my guess would be "no" precisely because Putin would probably not want to create a Martyr from a relatively minor annoyance), this does not reflect well on him.
...acts encroaching on the authority of Ukraine, public vilification, abuse of Ukraine, and / or cynical, disrespectful attitude and rejection of individual structural elements of the system of public administration (its relevant authorities) and the state in general... imprisonment for up to 3 years
Sadly, that's not actually too bad. In the US the Sedition Acts that have been passed and later found unconstitutional have been far worse.
Nemtzov was murdered at night 28.02, mourning/protest march was morning 01.03, next day. There was many people in T-shirt, big banners with a nice print of Nemtsov etc. Someone needs to develop a design, print and distribute it in one day. Knowing how everything is done here - it is very quickly, amazing. I really respect such specialists.
The most prominent is photo of Ukrainian deputy with an inscription in the Ukrainian language:
Spoiler:
Label means "Heroes do not die." This is the slogan from the Ukrainian Maidan.
Asadjud wrote: Nemtzov was murdered at night 28.02, mourning/protest march was morning 01.03, next day. There was many people in T-shirt, big banners with a nice print of Nemtsov etc. Someone needs to develop a design, print and distribute it in one day. Knowing how everything is done here - it is very quickly, amazing. I really respect such specialists.
The most prominent is photo of Ukrainian deputy with an inscription in the Ukrainian language:
Spoiler:
Label means "Heroes do not die." This is the slogan from the Ukrainian Maidan.
Is that your way of saying , "they knew before hand" ?
Asadjud wrote: Nemtzov was murdered at night 28.02, mourning/protest march was morning 01.03, next day. There was many people in T-shirt, big banners with a nice print of Nemtsov etc. Someone needs to develop a design, print and distribute it in one day. Knowing how everything is done here - it is very quickly, amazing. I really respect such specialists.
The most prominent is photo of Ukrainian deputy with an inscription in the Ukrainian language:
Spoiler:
Label means "Heroes do not die." This is the slogan from the Ukrainian Maidan.
He was murdered on the night of the 27th, not the 28th, more than 24 hours before the beginning of the march.
If you are so determined in spreading Russian propaganda, at least get your facts straight.
Also, the picture that you are showing is from Alexey Goncharenko, a Ukrainian MP, what's so strange about an Ukrainian MP having a shirt made with his own slogan in it?
He was murdered on the night of the 27th, not the 28th, more than 24 hours before the beginning of the march.
If you are so determined in spreading Russian propaganda, at least get your facts straight.
Also, the picture that you are showing is from Alexey Goncharenko, a Ukrainian MP, what's so strange about an Ukrainian MP having a shirt made with his own slogan in it?
Ok, he was murdered at night from 27 to 28 at 23:40, does It greatly change what I said? Do you always call russian propaganda everything what does not coincide with your opinion?
I find it strange that all this was done in just one day.
2 KiloFiX Ukraine as always divided in half: some people (mostly in the west) blame Putin, also this is the point of view or Kiev propaganda, some people (mostly) in the east believe that this is a provocation against Putin. Just as always. About russians ask someone from Russia.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Definitely european country
Ok, he was murdered at night from 27 to 28 at 23:40, does It greatly change what I said? Do you always call russian propaganda everything what does not coincide with your opinion?
I find it strange that all this was done in just one day.
Actually, yes.
Twenty people could have that set up, in one work day, if they already have the right contacts. Granted, that does not count the people at the tshirt printer and sign printshops, but since it's a basic photo and slogan, you're looking at 4 hours work to produce thousands of copies if it's a modern digital setup.
You just take the photo and slogan into Photoshop, and divide up the CMYK channels and you're ready to print. One guy could do the design work for the whole thing in about an hour with the right tools
Recently in russian social network VKontakte video appeared in which people with hidden faces and with altered voices take responsibility for the murder of Nemtsov. It is not surprising that they represent themselves as fighters from Novorosia, squad "Rusich". Sadly, I haven't found yet this video in english. Also this is just repost, because original video was posted via VK video service, not youtube.
Spoiler:
We, guerrillas of Novorossia squad Rusich, issue the following statement: on the eve of anti-Russian march 01.03 despite the venality of the Moscow authorities allowed to carry out this demonic event, we, military council of Novorossia, ruled to execute judgment against the pro-American traitor Nemtsov, who all his life sold our country and our people. Bastard supported Bandera chasteners, which killed our people in the Donbass. This is our first demonstrative action. If traitors to Russian do not come to their senses and stop their anti-national activities, we will punish them too.
This is my translation
Doesn't surprise me with how things are going in Russia now. It is almost impossible to listen to Russian tv without hearing things about 'traitors', 'fashists', 'foreign agents', '5th column' and 'enemies of the people'.
Also, I think your translation was great. Altough I would have probably translated karatel here as something like 'death squads' and prodazhnost as corruption, because I have no idea what chasteners or venality means. You are probably better at it than me.
A really strange thing: No one in the Western media seems to have noticed this video. Probably too busy blaming 'the KGB'. Isn't it funny that almost every assasination in the West is done by someone operating alone or with a small group while assasinations in Russia are always done by 'the KGB'? Even if the video can't be confirmed you would think they at least pick up on it.
The squad Rusich themselves deny it was them and say the video was a provocation by Azov batallion. Their commander seems to be a horrible psycopath though http://lifenews.ru/news/150712
Rusich is a group of Russian volunteers fighting for the seperatists, Azov is a a volunteer batallion of the Ukrainian government. Both are neonazi groups. Rusich seems to be a pretty small group, I had not heard much of them before this. Batallion Azov is very well known and pretty controversial. You can find plenty of information in English about them
Russian border guards have recorded mining of two road bridges across Chongarsky strait that separates the Crimean peninsula and the peninsula Chongar in Ukraine, said Wednesday the spokesman of the Russian FSB border management in the Republic of Crimea -INTERFAX
I want to add that in Mariupol all bridges are also mined. Today I passed 3 mined bridges, including the main bridge near the metallurgical plant Azovstal. There is no point to mine bridges in the city center, but it's a good occasion for provocation.
I recall tragedy in Volnovakha, when 12 people died. Officials almost immediately declared that the tragedy occurred due to bombardment of separatist's Grad, but most likely there antipersonnel mine exploded.
The explosion of these objects will not help defend the city. Finally destroy the economy of the city of half a million people? To finish one of the last industrial centers of the country?
Asadjud wrote: The explosion of these objects will not help defend the city. Finally destroy the economy of the city of half a million people? To finish one of the last industrial centers of the country?
In a pure military sense, the economy is pretty low on the list of priorities. And blowing up bridges DOES have strategic and defensive value, against certain forms of military action. AKA, infantry and armor.
You are discussing an abstract bridge in an abstract place. Look at the map. Destroying bridges in Mariupol will not impede any military or supply movement for separatist, will not help defend city from attack (I doubt that a direct attack will generally be), but for city it will be just like a terrorist attack.
BaronIveagh wrote: I'd hate to see the anti personnel mine that's going to seriously damage a bridge that big.
It's strictly to make people into mincemeat if they try and cross.
I think you're missing the point
Asadjud is saying they're mining everything, without reason. And when innocent people get blown up, they blame the separatists.
And as an explosive foot note
Car blast in Kharkov weeks after fatal rally bombing Two people have been injured by a blast that destroyed a car in Kharkov, a government-controlled city in eastern Ukraine. The incident happened just weeks after the authorities announced heightened security in response to a fatal bombing at a rally.
The car, a white Volkswagen mini-van, was heavily damaged, pictures from the scene indicated.
The local emergencies services said the two injured in the incident have been taken to hospital.
The car belongs to Andrey Yangolenko, a commander of a local pro-government volunteer battalion, his brother Segey, who commands another battalion in Kharkov, told Interfax Ukraine. Andrey and his wife were injured in the blast, he said.
Sergey Yangolenko added that the assailants used magnetic mines in the car bombing. One of the explosives didn’t detonate and was later found by Kharkov police.
The blast comes weeks after a bombing attack on a pro-government march in Kharkov, which killed three people, including a police officer.
Less than an hour after the bombing Kiev blamed the attack on “Russia-trained terrorists.” An aide to Interior Minister Arseny Avakov, Anton Gerashchenko accused the group called ‘Kharkov partisans’ of the deed. The group denied having a hand in it and accused the authorities of staging a provocation.
Another version voiced by radical Ukrainian politician Oleg Lyashko pointed to the city’s Mayor Gennady Kernes, who is reportedly engaged in fierce confrontation with Avakov.
Kernes denied the accusation.
The mayor himself is being prosecuted on allegations of unlawful detention and intimidation, charges unrelated to the blast. Kernes said he didn’t believe he would be tried fairly and accused his political enemies of persecution.
Kharkov has witnessed a number of explosions over the past few months, although the February 22 bombing of the rally was the first that resulted in fatalities. Previously offices and vehicles were targeted in a series of nighttime attacks, which caused some property damage.
Regarding the Nemtsov murder, two suspects are now officially charged:
Two people have been officially charged at Moscow's Basmanny district court in connection with the murder of Boris Nemtsov, a prominent opposition figure, who was gunned down last week. Three others are suspected of having a hand in the crime.
The charged are Zaur Dadaev and Anzor Gubashev, who were identified as suspects in the killing of Nemtsov after their detention on Saturday.
The prosecutors asked the court to arrest the duo by April 28, the current deadline for the investigation, saying that otherwise they may flee or interfere with the investigation.
It wasn’t immediately clear what exactly Dadaev and Gubashev were charged with, although earlier media reports indicated the duo are suspected of carrying out the hit.
“The suspects denied their ties to the crime, but we have evidence of their guilt. It includes forensic evidence and eyewitness accounts,” an investigator told the court.
The other individuals, who may have had a hand in the crime, are Gubashev’s brother Shagit and two identified as Ramzat Bakhaev and Tamerlan Eskerkhanov. The request for their arrest is being reviewed separately by another judge.
Nemtsov was killed by a gunman a few meters from the Moscow Kremlin, triggering a flurry of condemnations and calls for a swift investigation. The assassination happened two days ahead of an opposition rally, which Nemtsov helped to organize.
While political motive is considered the most likely in the killing, the investigators said they were considering other scenarios, including a business or personal conflict. Likely political motives behind the killing according to the investigators include a provocation aimed at destabilizing the situation in Russia, possibly by Ukrainian radicals, and revenge by Islamists for Nemtsov’s support of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo following an extremist attack.
Also, the West keeps mentioning that Nemtsov somehow had evidence of Russian involvement in Ukraine, even though the only sources for that information are the Ukrainian president and a opposition party member?
Oppositionist Boris Nemtsov, who was shot dead near the Kremlin a week ago, was finalizing a report on the role of Russian troops in the Ukrainian war, but kept most of the work in his head and avoided discussion, fearing wiretapping, said assistant to Nemtsov, who worked with him on the report.
...
We were ready to write. We could write it in a day, because it was all in his head - said Olga Shorina, assistant of Nemtsov.
Yeah, ultimately its not a good idea. Sure, carry it in your head in case all the physical copies are destroyed, but also ensure some written copies exist.
I mean, the internet exists. Once its out, its out.
If the guy knew he was at risk of assassination, why the hell didn't he take steps to ensure the information's release in the event of his untimely demise?
5 suspects arrested over Nemtsov murder, 1 'confessed' - court Moscow's Basmanny district court has arrested five people in connection with the murder of Boris Nemtsov, a prominent opposition figure, who was gunned down last week.
Two judges are reviewing the charges against the five people brought before the court by the prosecutors on Sunday.
Two of them are Zaur Dadaev and Anzor Gubashev, who were identified as key suspects in the killing of Nemtsov after their detention on Saturday.
The prosecutors asked the court to arrest the duo by April 28, the current deadline for the investigation, saying that otherwise they may flee or interfere with the investigation.
According to the judge, who ordered Dadaev’s arrest as requested by the prosecution, he confessed his involvement to the police. The accused didn’t comment on this during the court session.
Gubashev pleaded not guilty to the crimes he is charged with.
The other individuals, who may have had a hand in the crime, are Gubashev’s brother Shagit and two identified as Ramzat Bakhaev and Tamerlan Eskerkhanov. The request for their arrest has been reviewed separately by another judge.
“The suspects denied their ties to the crime, but we have evidence of their guilt. It includes forensic evidence and eyewitness accounts,”an investigator told the court.
The trio denied their involvement, with Eskerkhanov claiming to have an alibi. But the judge ordered their arrests as well.
Eskerkhanov and Bakhaev have been remanded until May 8 and Shagit Gubashev - until May 7.
The sixth suspect, Beslan Shavanov, 30, reportedly committed suicide on March 7, when police came to his apartment in Chechnya’s capital Grozny. The man, according to LifeNews channel, had barricaded himself in the apartment.
“In response to the police’s demand he surrender, he [the suspect] threw a hand grenade [at police forces],” a law enforcement source told the news channel. Shavanov then detonated another grenade, killing himself.
The President of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, commented on the arrest of the five suspects on his Instagram account on May 8. He specifically spoke about Dadaev, saying he knew him “as a patriot of Russia” who used to serve as deputy regiment commander in one of the Chechen Republic’s interior ministry units.
Kadyrov has ordered a “thorough investigation” of Dadaev’s retirement from the unit, saying that he “does not understand true reasons and motives” behind his decision.
However, the Chechen leader noted that the suspect, as a deep believer, had been “shocked” by the Charlie Hebdo scandal and all the “comments in support of printing the cartoons.”
Kadyrov has also confirmed Shavanov “died during attempts to detain him”.
Nemtsov was killed by a gunman a few meters from the Moscow Kremlin, triggering a flurry of condemnations and calls for a swift investigation. The assassination happened two days ahead of an opposition rally, which Nemtsov helped to organize.
Moscow (AFP) - President Vladimir Putin has revealed the moment he says he gave the secret order for Russia's annexation of Crimea and described how Russian troops were ready to fight to rescue Ukraine's deposed, pro-Moscow president.
In a trailer shown Sunday for an upcoming documentary on state-run Rossiya-1 television called "Homeward bound", Putin openly discusses Moscow's controversial grabbing of Crimea a year ago.
Putin recounts an all-night meeting with security services chiefs to discuss how to extricate deposed president Viktor Yanukovych, who had fled a pro-Western street revolt in the Ukrainian capital Kiev.
"We ended at about seven in the morning," Putin says. "When we were parting, I said to my colleagues: we must start working on returning Crimea to Russia."
Four days after that February 2014 meeting, unidentified soldiers took over the local parliament in Crimea and deputies hurriedly voted in a new government. The Ukrainian province was then formally annexed by Moscow on March 18, triggering international condemnation.
The military operation was initially kept secret and despite the increasingly obvious actions of unmarked Russian forces on the ground, Moscow insisted that only locals were involved in the upheaval. Later, the Kremlin conceded that it had been behind the power grab.
In the trailer for the documentary, Putin also claims that Russia's military was ready to fight its way into the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk to get Yanukovych, a heavily corrupted but loyal figure who favoured keeping Ukraine in Russia's sphere of influence.
"He would have been killed," Putin said. "We got ready to get him right out of Donetsk by land, by sea or by air," he said. "Heavy machineguns were mounted there to avoid talking too much."
Yanukovych later resurfaced in the southern Russian city of Rostov and has not been back to Ukraine.
More than 6,000 people have since been killed in fighting between Ukraine's government forces and heavily armed separatist militias based in Donetsk and backed -- according to Western governments -- by Russia, although Moscow denies this.
Rossiya-1 did not say when the full documentary would be aired.
We'll see what other facts come to light. The way in which this killing was carried out is not typical of Islamic extremists, who lie their involvement to be widely known - and typically self announced. In fact it seems closer in MO to Anna Politkovskaya's murder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya#Murder.2C_investigation_and_trial
Nice video which reminds that civil war is most terrible war because it divides friends, families, coworkers etc. Every man, old and young, is involved in this sh*t everywhere: at work, at home, at feast, not just combatants.
It is absolutely clear that there can be no civil war without outer support of both sides, especially so close to main world powers. We can talk for a long time about geopolitics, stick to different views, but remember that all our judgments are based on information from the media to whom we trust, we see what they show us. And much of the information does not go beyond Russian and Ukrainian language resources.
Here for many people there was two type of wars: WW2 which we remember well, but it ended 70 years ago, and constant war in Africa and Arabia. Here people bought iPhones, drove shiny cars and even played plastic orks, but the change was strong. No one could ever imagine that such will happen here in the heart of Europe.
No matter how this war will end, hatred between eastern and western Ukraine will live on for generations.
True. Whatever the side you are on, this whole war is so sad. It makes me cry. Some friends I have known since kindergarten don't want to talk to me anymore because some of my family fights for the seperatists.
I still have trouble believing it, especially since I have not been to Ukraine anymore since the war started. If you had told me when I left in 2013 that everything would be torn apart by war within a year, I would have laughed. It all seems so unrealistic.
Ukraine will never be the same anymore, nor will Crimea.
It is a bitter, bloody struggle for sure. Worse thing is It still doesn't seem to be getting any better. I'm not even sure we've even reached rock bottom yet.
It's always a concern when you have a high profile assassination in which the culprits are almost immediately caught and confess. It's just too convenient especially in respect of countries with Russia's record. It just looks like a whitewash. Even if they are guilty it undermines the case if you had to torture people as is being alleged.
It's always a concern when you have a high profile assassination in which the culprits are almost immediately caught and confess. It's just too convenient especially in respect of countries with Russia's record. It just looks like a whitewash. Even if they are guilty it undermines the case if you had to torture people as is being alleged.
They probably did. Even assuming that he's clean, Putin is probably pushing the police HARD to find someone to blame NOW. If not, any patsy will do. Either way, the officers doing the actual investigating are probably wearing the brown pants. They're gonna try and save thier own assess by whatever means necessary..
It's always a concern when you have a high profile assassination in which the culprits are almost immediately caught and confess. It's just too convenient especially in respect of countries with Russia's record. It just looks like a whitewash. Even if they are guilty it undermines the case if you had to torture people as is being alleged.
They probably did. Even assuming that he's clean, Putin is probably pushing the police HARD to find someone to blame NOW. If not, any patsy will do. Either way, the officers doing the actual investigating are probably wearing the brown pants. They're gonna try and save thier own assess by whatever means necessary..
You don't think he was under surveillance, as an opposition leader, and that's how the police caught all these people,
He was being photographed for months, and so was anybody around him
The photo, published by Russian tabloid newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets (MK), shows two men, one of them allegedly the prime suspect Zaur Dadaev, sitting in a silver-colored ZAZ Chance. The car is one of the three police suspect the killers used on the day of Nemtsov’s murder, February 27. According to the tabloid, the photo was taken several days prior to the murder. The car is reported to have been bought in September 2014 from a woman in the Moscow Region. It was spotted near Nemtsov’s house in downtown Moscow a while later in the autumn, according to MK.
Nemtsov was reportedly being followed by the killers on the day of the shooting. According to police the killers changed between three cars during the day, LifeNews reported. Earlier Friday evening, Nemtsov gave an interview to Echo Moskvy radio and was followed from there to the murder scene.
The question that needs to be asked, with all this surveillance. Why nobody tried to save him.
Why do you need to coerce confessions from people when you have all this forensic evidence they claim? It seems they're more interested in sweeping this away fast than they are in justice.
It's always a concern when you have a high profile assassination in which the culprits are almost immediately caught and confess. It's just too convenient especially in respect of countries with Russia's record. It just looks like a whitewash. Even if they are guilty it undermines the case if you had to torture people as is being alleged.
They probably did. Even assuming that he's clean, Putin is probably pushing the police HARD to find someone to blame NOW. If not, any patsy will do. Either way, the officers doing the actual investigating are probably wearing the brown pants. They're gonna try and save thier own assess by whatever means necessary..
You don't think he was under surveillance, as an opposition leader, and that's how the police caught all these people,
He was being photographed for months, and so was anybody around him.
Of course that was what happened, that is also why the "cops" needed to torture the "suspects" to get a confession. Because that is just something that you do when you have photographic evidence of someone's involvement in a crime.
Andrei Babushkin, who visited Mr Dadayev on Tuesday, says he saw "numerous wounds" on his body, suggesting he had been tortured.
The suspect said he only confessed so a friend arrested with him would be freed, Mr Babushkin said.
So there is no way a criminal and assassin could have gotten wounded in any other way! He must have been tortured! Yet another great unbiased article from the BBC. Of course other countries would never torture their terrorism suspects to get confessions...
Iron_Captain wrote: So there is no way a criminal and assassin could have gotten wounded in any other way! He must have been tortured!
Yet another great unbiased article from the BBC.
Of course other countries would never torture their terrorism suspects to get confessions...
For the love of all that is cute and cuddly, will you stop it with the bleedin' Whataboutism already? We've only pointed out why it's a fallacy about 95 bajillion times already!
Further, isn't the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights an official Russian agency? The [ur=http://eng.state.kremlin.ru/council/18/newsl]Kremlin[/url] web page sure seems to suggest that to be the case. The BBC's interviewed a member of said council, said member stated that he believed there were wounds that suggested torture. How is that biased?
Iron_Captain wrote: Of course other countries would never torture their terrorism suspects to get confessions...
#whataboutery
Still true.
But completely irrelevant to the question at hand. We're not discussing Guantanamo Bay, whether the US has tortured anyone or not has no bearing on whether Russia has or not.
Iron_Captain wrote: Of course other countries would never torture their terrorism suspects to get confessions...
#whataboutery
Still true.
But completely irrelevant to the question at hand. We're not discussing Guantanamo Bay, whether the US has tortured anyone or not has no bearing on whether Russia has or not.
Irrelevent to the question at hand? Maybe. I did not think it was irrelevant at all. In any case, there are hundreds of irrelevant comments in this thread, nothing requires you to respond to them.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Further, isn't the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights an official Russian agency? The Kremlin web page sure seems to suggest that to be the case. The BBC's interviewed a member of said council, said member stated that he believed there were wounds that suggested torture. How is that biased?
Yes, the Human Rights Council gives advice to the Russian president. That does not mean statements by individual members of that council have anything to do with the Russian government. It is just a random guy who works for the government and says the terrorist told him he had been tortured and also showed him injuries. He believes that could mean the terrorist has been tortured and calls on an independent party to investigate that. That is everything what happened. And what does the BBC report? NEMTSOV MURDER: DADAYEV CONFESSION FORCED! I call that biased. It should have been more like this: Nemtsov murder suspect may have been tortured. That is unbiased.
Iron_Captain wrote: Of course other countries would never torture their terrorism suspects to get confessions...
#whataboutery
Still true.
But completely irrelevant to the question at hand. We're not discussing Guantanamo Bay, whether the US has tortured anyone or not has no bearing on whether Russia has or not.
Irrelevent to the question at hand? Maybe. I did not think it was irrelevant at all. In any case, there are hundreds of irrelevant comments in this thread, nothing requires you to respond to them.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Further, isn't the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights an official Russian agency? The Kremlin web page sure seems to suggest that to be the case. The BBC's interviewed a member of said council, said member stated that he believed there were wounds that suggested torture. How is that biased?
Yes, the Human Rights Council gives advice to the Russian president. That does not mean statements by individual members of that council have anything to do with the Russian government. It is just a random guy who works for the government and says the terrorist told him he had been tortured and also showed him injuries. He believes that could mean the terrorist has been tortured and calls on an independent party to investigate that. That is everything what happened. And what does the BBC report? NEMTSOV MURDER: DADAYEV CONFESSION FORCED!
I call that biased. It should have been more like this: Nemtsov murder suspect may have been tortured. That is unbiased.
You'll note they said "forced", not forced. Quotation marks mean that someone is being quoted. Shocking how that works.
Well, Putin got to show off in an interview earlier, announcing that he had ordered Russia's nuclear weapons to combat readiness as part of their takeover of Crimea.
Yes, that's right, he was ready to start World War three over Crimea.
One must now ask the question, if the people of Crimea had opposed Putin's annexation of their country, if they would have been on the receiving end of those nukes.
Well, Putin got to show off in an interview earlier, announcing that he had ordered Russia's nuclear weapons to combat readiness as part of their takeover of Crimea.
Yes, that's right, he was ready to start World War three over Crimea.
One must now ask the question, if the people of Crimea had opposed Putin's annexation of their country, if they would have been on the receiving end of those nukes.
Not in a million years. Putin wants Crimea for its strategic location and ports. Nuking it would be pointless and make the area useless for what he wants out of it. Especially not when he can easily take it by force.
Not in a million years. Putin wants Crimea for its strategic location and ports. Nuking it would be pointless and make the area useless for what he wants out of it. Especially not when he can easily take it by force.
The US could have taken Japan by force too, but it was easier to force a surrender by nuking two cities. Heck, he could have launched a low yield and not even damaged more than a few square blocks and still forced a capitulation.
You don't order your nukes to stand by to launch without a reason.
And, bluntly, no, you can do a direct hit on a city and have it livable again within a few years. Particularly if you're not overly concerned about long life spans.
Not in a million years. Putin wants Crimea for its strategic location and ports. Nuking it would be pointless and make the area useless for what he wants out of it. Especially not when he can easily take it by force.
The US could have taken Japan by force too, but it was easier to force a surrender by nuking two cities. Heck, he could have launched a low yield and not even damaged more than a few square blocks and still forced a capitulation.
You don't order your nukes to stand by to launch without a reason.
And, bluntly, no, you can do a direct hit on a city and have it livable again within a few years. Particularly if you're not overly concerned about long life spans.
The expected US loses for taking Japan would have been massive. Russia would have it easier.
Putin wasn't going to nuke Crimea, it wasn't necessary. But he would have used them if necessary against any possible western military response.
Yeah, Russia would have lost a couple hundred to maybe a couple thousand men taking Crimea at most.
The invasion of Japan was estimated to, by very conservative estimates, cause between 500 thousand and a million allied casualties in the first two months. The 90 day planned invasion of Kyushu island alone was estimated to be 456 thousand casualties, going up to 1.2 million if it took twice as long.
Well, Putin got to show off in an interview earlier, announcing that he had ordered Russia's nuclear weapons to combat readiness as part of their takeover of Crimea.
Yes, that's right, he was ready to start World War three over Crimea.
One must now ask the question, if the people of Crimea had opposed Putin's annexation of their country, if they would have been on the receiving end of those nukes.
Not in a million years. Putin wants Crimea for its strategic location and ports. Nuking it would be pointless and make the area useless for what he wants out of it. Especially not when he can easily take it by force.
Putin did not want all of Crimea, that was just a bonus. What he really wanted was Sevastopol and the naval base there. But I do not think he would have nuked Crimea even if they had resisted. Nuking the place would not have been good for his approval ratings and is much harder to cover up than using the naval infantry from Sevastopol to "restore order".
Putin did not want all of Crimea, that was just a bonus. What he really wanted was Sevastopol and the naval base there. But I do not think he would have nuked Crimea even if they had resisted. Nuking the place would not have been good for his approval ratings and is much harder to cover up than using the naval infantry from Sevastopol to "restore order".
According ot the man himself, he ordered nuclear weapons made ready for immediate use. So, what was he gonna use them on then?
The US? (WW3)
Western Europe? (Again, WW3.)
The Ukraine? (Aside from the fallout in Russia [in more ways than one] seems a bit overkill)
Crimea? Again, overkill, but remember that any actual resistance would have easily overwhelmed the initial Russian troop presence there. Threatening them with nuclear weapons if they didn't yield would be an alternate way to bring the issue to a rapid conclusion. (One way or the other).
Tyran wrote: Aren't Russian nuclear weapons always ready for immediate use? you know, MAD and all that.
If it's anything like the U.S., branches have different readiness levels, depending on what's going on. Probably something like the DEFCON system. Of course, this is Russia we're talking about, so 'maximum readiness' might translate to 'bust out the duct tape'.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, Russia would have lost a couple hundred to maybe a couple thousand men taking Crimea at most.
The invasion of Japan was estimated to, by very conservative estimates, cause between 500 thousand and a million allied casualties in the first two months. The 90 day planned invasion of Kyushu island alone was estimated to be 456 thousand casualties, going up to 1.2 million if it took twice as long.
Not taking into account civilian casualties or the ridiculous number dying from radiation poisoning years later (they either didn't know the full effects of nuclear weapons or thought they were acceptable. The tactics were to use them like conventional artillery, marching the troops in immediately after the nukes went off). So many Purple Hearts were made for Operation Downfall that they're still being awarded new today.
Putin would have to be insane to even consider using nukes at all. Unless someone's marching on Moscow then I doubt it would be anywhere near the table. Start launching those things and you set a president that anyone can do the same and their use will start cropping up all over. Of all the times since WWII people have considered using the things that's the reason why they've never been deployed again (we could have lived in a world without a communist China had it not been pointed out to the Americans that the Russians also happened to have nukes...).
We weren't ever going to use nukes in response to what Russia did in Ukraine so does Putin think he needs to get his ready? Is this just another bit of fearmongering to show his own population that he's a strong leader that means business, or is he genuinely paranoid about a strike from abroad?
Not in a million years. Putin wants Crimea for its strategic location and ports. Nuking it would be pointless and make the area useless for what he wants out of it. Especially not when he can easily take it by force.
The US could have taken Japan by force too, but it was easier to force a surrender by nuking two cities. Heck, he could have launched a low yield and not even damaged more than a few square blocks and still forced a capitulation.
You don't order your nukes to stand by to launch without a reason.
And, bluntly, no, you can do a direct hit on a city and have it livable again within a few years. Particularly if you're not overly concerned about long life spans.
The expected US loses for taking Japan would have been massive. Russia would have it easier.
Putin wasn't going to nuke Crimea, it wasn't necessary. But he would have used them if necessary against any possible western military response.
To be fair, in hindsight, the realistic losses for a US invasion of Japan likely would have been relatively light as Japan was out of fuel (a single US carrier group's fuel usage for 1 month was more than all of Japan's national reserves), out of critical supplies for war materiel, had huge numbers of troops stuck overseas, would soon have been starving, and the entire industrial and transportation network was largely already smashed
If someone had an idea, just for a moment, that Russia wanted to use nukes against Crimea - he absolutely has no understanding what's going on here. You have no need to nuke somebody, who is waiting for you with hope and love.
Bringing an army in standby mode was absolutely adequate action in those circumstances, who knew how will behave some countries. You always have to be ready. And during this interview Putin said many times that standby mode was entered in case of external attack. Defending, not attacking.
And if somebody doesn't know, in every nuclear country part of their nukes are always in standby mode, ensuring nuclear parity.
Not in a million years. Putin wants Crimea for its strategic location and ports. Nuking it would be pointless and make the area useless for what he wants out of it. Especially not when he can easily take it by force.
The US could have taken Japan by force too, but it was easier to force a surrender by nuking two cities. Heck, he could have launched a low yield and not even damaged more than a few square blocks and still forced a capitulation.
You don't order your nukes to stand by to launch without a reason.
And, bluntly, no, you can do a direct hit on a city and have it livable again within a few years. Particularly if you're not overly concerned about long life spans.
The expected US loses for taking Japan would have been massive. Russia would have it easier.
Putin wasn't going to nuke Crimea, it wasn't necessary. But he would have used them if necessary against any possible western military response.
To be fair, in hindsight, the realistic losses for a US invasion of Japan likely would have been relatively light as Japan was out of fuel (a single US carrier group's fuel usage for 1 month was more than all of Japan's national reserves), out of critical supplies for war materiel, had huge numbers of troops stuck overseas, would soon have been starving, and the entire industrial and transportation network was largely already smashed
Fourteen million casualties was one estimate, not taking into account the aftermath... That was under the assumption that the Japanese wouldn't surrender after the first found of nukes (ie more bombings after the first two). Given that they were training children to fight with bamboo spears and handing out bomb vests like sweets the Americans perhaps thought they were being conservative in their response.
Not in a million years. Putin wants Crimea for its strategic location and ports. Nuking it would be pointless and make the area useless for what he wants out of it. Especially not when he can easily take it by force.
The US could have taken Japan by force too, but it was easier to force a surrender by nuking two cities. Heck, he could have launched a low yield and not even damaged more than a few square blocks and still forced a capitulation.
You don't order your nukes to stand by to launch without a reason.
And, bluntly, no, you can do a direct hit on a city and have it livable again within a few years. Particularly if you're not overly concerned about long life spans.
The expected US loses for taking Japan would have been massive. Russia would have it easier.
Putin wasn't going to nuke Crimea, it wasn't necessary. But he would have used them if necessary against any possible western military response.
To be fair, in hindsight, the realistic losses for a US invasion of Japan likely would have been relatively light as Japan was out of fuel (a single US carrier group's fuel usage for 1 month was more than all of Japan's national reserves), out of critical supplies for war materiel, had huge numbers of troops stuck overseas, would soon have been starving, and the entire industrial and transportation network was largely already smashed
Fourteen million casualties was one estimate, not taking into account the aftermath... That was under the assumption that the Japanese wouldn't surrender after the first found of nukes (ie more bombings after the first two). Given that they were training children to fight with bamboo spears and handing out bomb vests like sweets the Americans perhaps thought they were being conservative in their response.
This. The Japanese government had their population convinced every US soldier was a raping, murdering psychopath whose sole function in life was to torture as many Japanese as humanly possible. Throw that sort of motivation on top of the fact that they would have been fighting for their homes and they had the makings for a Grade A cluster-feth on their hands. Our troops would have had to worry about grenades being thrown from every window and door, spears behind every bush, and traps every few feet. It would have been a meat-grinder. On top of that, commanders would have had to start worrying about unit discipline; that sort of situation would have bread hate like a wildfire, and some of our troops would have started taking that out on the civilian population, which would have started a cycle of violence that would have spiraled real quick. The A-bombs were probably humane when compared to the gak-hole and invasion would have turned Japan into.
The sad thing was a lot of the time Japanese soldiers wanted to surrender, they weren't allowed to.
"by the final years of the war against Japan, a truly vicious cycle had developed in which the Japanese reluctance to surrender had meshed horrifically with Allied disinterest in taking prisoners."
MrDwhitey wrote: The sad thing was a lot of the time Japanese soldiers wanted to surrender, they weren't allowed to.
"by the final years of the war against Japan, a truly vicious cycle had developed in which the Japanese reluctance to surrender had meshed horrifically with Allied disinterest in taking prisoners."
Really bad gak goes down in wars.
That scene in the Pacific where a Japanese soldier exits a bunker, unarmed, and the American soldier holds his fire only for another soldier to gun the guy down comes to mind (saying something like, "so what? It was just a Jap"). Rather that whole series and its predecessor really. Its glazed over, but its hardly like the victors in any war are nearly quite as clean as history remembers them (what's the adage? When the Allies come to town expect them to steal anything and everything. That's a given, but its the Americans that you have to worry about. They know what they can pawn back home and won't waste their time on anything else). Humans are A-holes, its just flags that separate who's right and wrong some times. =P
MrDwhitey wrote: The sad thing was a lot of the time Japanese soldiers wanted to surrender, they weren't allowed to.
"by the final years of the war against Japan, a truly vicious cycle had developed in which the Japanese reluctance to surrender had meshed horrifically with Allied disinterest in taking prisoners."
Really bad gak goes down in wars.
That scene in the Pacific where a Japanese soldier exits a bunker, unarmed, and the American soldier holds his fire only for another soldier to gun the guy down comes to mind (saying something like, "so what? It was just a Jap"). Rather that whole series and its predecessor really. Its glazed over, but its hardly like the victors in any war are nearly quite as clean as history remembers them (what's the adage? When the Allies come to town expect them to steal anything and everything. That's a given, but its the Americans that you have to worry about. They know what they can pawn back home and won't waste their time on anything else). Humans are A-holes, its just flags that separate who's right and wrong some times. =P
Asadjud wrote: If someone had an idea, just for a moment, that Russia wanted to use nukes against Crimea - he absolutely has no understanding what's going on here. You have no need to nuke somebody, who is waiting for you with hope and love..
Except Putin didn't actually know that when he made these calls. He started issuing orders the moment that the former government was clearly on his way out, by his own admission. As far as he knew, the Ukrainian military might have made a fight for it, or that his advisors were wrong about Crimea's interest. They've been wrong before.
Putin is not dumb, he has plans A, b, C, D, and so on.
Nuclear parity in this case is a hilarious excuse. By treaty, Ukraine, and by extension Crimea, were not only nuke free, but members of the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Without a full NATO membership, the odds of NATO members launching nukes in defense of Crimea/Ukraine is laughable, and even with full membership is remote.
Yup, nukes are a no-win situation for the person who uses them first.
Russia, the US, China, etc... none of these countries will use a Nuke unless another does so first.
The people who will be first to use a nuclear weapon would be a terrorist organization or a rogue state like North Korea who have nothing left to lose or fear from a counter strike. Terrorists getting a bomb and setting it off is significantly more likely though. It is possible though for a terrorist bomb to initiate a nuclear war through mistaken origin of the bomb and/or another country trying to take advantage of the chaos.
Yesterday In Konstantinovka city Ukrainian APC knocked down to death 6 year old child with mother. As usual our military remain unpunished so people started riot, military opened fire,
the "party" is still going on now.
Third truce may be the shortest.
Also yesterday in Mariupol there was 3 road accidents with Ukrainian military. Drunk military on armored cars are so nice... And again and again and again they are innocent. And who has the opposite view - he is the Kremlin agent
Except Putin didn't actually know that when he made these calls.
Putin actually knew that. It was crystal clear to everyone familiar with Crimea. It was crystal clear for me 5 years ago when I first went to Crimea for vacation. People can joke as they want about 93% , but in fact Crimeans approve reunion with Russia absolutely.
How could respond Ukrainian military - yes, this is hard question, and of course Putin had alternative plans. But the Ukrainian army reacted so as one must react after 23 years of devastation.
UPD: some protesters will be charged with aiding terrorists article - said deputy chief of police in the Donetsk region Ilya Kiva on Radio "Vesti".
So unexpected...
MrDwhitey wrote: The sad thing was a lot of the time Japanese soldiers wanted to surrender, they weren't allowed to.
"by the final years of the war against Japan, a truly vicious cycle had developed in which the Japanese reluctance to surrender had meshed horrifically with Allied disinterest in taking prisoners."
Really bad gak goes down in wars.
That scene in the Pacific where a Japanese soldier exits a bunker, unarmed, and the American soldier holds his fire only for another soldier to gun the guy down comes to mind (saying something like, "so what? It was just a Jap"). Rather that whole series and its predecessor really. Its glazed over, but its hardly like the victors in any war are nearly quite as clean as history remembers them (what's the adage? When the Allies come to town expect them to steal anything and everything. That's a given, but its the Americans that you have to worry about. They know what they can pawn back home and won't waste their time on anything else). Humans are A-holes, its just flags that separate who's right and wrong some times. =P
It was more than callousness. US soldiers had learned from experience that Japanese soldiers "surrendering" usually had bombs on them, or were right in front of another soldier who was going to come out shooting/going BOOM.
The video doesn't actually show anyone getting run over by a BMP. I don't doubt that it could have happened (I'd even agree that it's likely it did), but that video isn't evidence of anything other than an angry man kicking in the window of a car.
EDIT: Wow, that blog makes Fox News look fair and balanced. Masquerading as a news source without even bothering to even attempt to hide their bias is rather despicable, and makes me question the legitimacy of anything they post.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The video doesn't actually show anyone getting run over by a BMP. I don't doubt that it could have happened (I'd even agree that it's likely it did), but that video isn't evidence of anything other than an angry man kicking in the window of a car.
The baby carriage or whatever it was did not really look run over by an armored vehicle. It was way too intact/not flat enough. Could be the angle, but I don't see a turret and the doors look more like those on an MTLB, not a BMP (though getting run over by either would constitute having a bad day). 14 or so tons is a lot of weight.
So, if I will add some link to BBC or CNN or something like that - my post will be true, if not - this is a lie. And if in western news some event is not mentioned - this does not happened.
People, you have no way to check my posts or posts from your news. Have some criticism. Most of news are going without any photo- or videofacts, and just adding a BBC stamp means nothing, so you have just to believe it.
And what did you expect? Someone filmed the moment of death? I can find some video with dead little girl on a street with local post-soviet decorations, will it look truthful to you? How can you determine the truth it or not?
The baby carriage or whatever it was did not really look run over by an armored vehicle. It was way too intact/not flat enough. Could be the angle, but I don't see a turret and the doors look more like those on an MTLB, not a BMP (though getting run over by either would constitute having a bad day). 14 or so tons is a lot of weight.
In accident suffered two children. One is dead, another one is luckily not even injured. Maybe shoved baby carriage belongs to second one.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The video doesn't actually show anyone getting run over by a BMP. I don't doubt that it could have happened (I'd even agree that it's likely it did), but that video isn't evidence of anything other than an angry man kicking in the window of a car.
EDIT: Wow, that blog makes Fox News look fair and balanced. Masquerading as a news source without even bothering to even attempt to hide their bias is rather despicable, and makes me question the legitimacy of anything they post.
Did you even see the video? It shows a MT-LB vehicle crashed at the side of the road and at least one dead body behind it. The blog is biased, of course it is. All media is biased one way or another, and this blog does not pretend to be otherwise. Take salt with you if you must, but do not disregard a message for its messenger. It is the only kind of place where you will find this information, because pro-Ukrainian and Western media are also heavily biased and will not report on this kind of incident.
Here you can see it better. If this is not enough proof for you, than the problem is with you. We have a crashed APC, dead people, blood, a lot of witnesses and an angry crowd. I would say that is plenty of evidence for saying that means that the APC ran over some people. Or maybe you are just so biased that you can't see reality anymore? For how could the glorious infallible and totally not-fascist Ukrainian Army ever make any mistakes in its operation against terrorists and the evil Russian hordes and their monstrous dicator?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The video doesn't actually show anyone getting run over by a BMP. I don't doubt that it could have happened (I'd even agree that it's likely it did), but that video isn't evidence of anything other than an angry man kicking in the window of a car.
The baby carriage or whatever it was did not really look run over by an armored vehicle. It was way too intact/not flat enough. Could be the angle, but I don't see a turret and the doors look more like those on an MTLB, not a BMP (though getting run over by either would constitute having a bad day). 14 or so tons is a lot of weight.
The vehicle was an MT-LB, not BMP. The carriage itself was not run over, only the mother pushing it and her older daughter. The child died on the spot, and the mother later in hospital. The baby was not injured afaik.
Tyran wrote: The problem here is that neither the Russian, Ukrainian or Western news can be considered reliable as all of them are going to have considerable bias.
Trying to make the BBC, CNN or, in this case, even RT equivalent to a page that classifies the piece of news as being about "war crimes" and speculatiing that this is due to the people dead being considered "subhuman" is a farce. If we consider what we know, which is that all evidenve points to an 8-ish year old child's dead due to being run over by a BNP, there's really not much else we can say yet. We don't know if it was on purpose, we don't know if it was an accident. Calling it a "warcrime" is premature and blatantly an attack on the blog's political enemies.
Yes, everyone has a bias, but there's degrees of insanity as well. Leaving out reporting on stories is potentially bad (even then there's no way in hell this could be reliably confirmed), outright propaganda is another thing.
Here you can see it better. If this is not enough proof for you, than the problem is with you. We have a crashed APC, dead people, blood, a lot of witnesses and an angry crowd. I would say that is plenty of evidence for saying that means that the APC ran over some people. Or maybe you are just so biased that you can't see reality anymore? For how could the glorious infallible and totally not-fascist Ukrainian Army ever make any mistakes in its operation against terrorists and the evil Russian hordes and their monstrous dicator?
You'll note that I said that I agree that it's likely that said incident happened, but that the previous video you linked provided little evidence in itself. But please, do attack me for being biased while setting up a strawman so you can bash Ukraine some more. I've never claimed that there aren't some rather unpleasant people (to say the least) involved in the Ukranian side, so I'd be much obliged if you stopped pretending I did. Just for future reference, this:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the other hand, the opposition is partially neo-nazis as well. There's some rather unsavory types on both sides.
is my first post in this thread, the 11th post in the thread in total.
Iron_Captain wrote: Did you even see the video? It shows a MT-LB vehicle crashed at the side of the road and at least one dead body behind it.
The blog is biased, of course it is. All media is biased one way or another, and this blog does not pretend to be otherwise. Take salt with you if you must, but do not disregard a message for its messenger. It is the only kind of place where you will find this information, because pro-Ukrainian and Western media are also heavily biased and will not report on this kind of incident.
Here you can see it better. If this is not enough proof for you, than the problem is with you. We have a crashed APC, dead people, blood, a lot of witnesses and an angry crowd. I would say that is plenty of evidence for saying that means that the APC ran over some people. Or maybe you are just so biased that you can't see reality anymore? For how could the glorious infallible and totally not-fascist Ukrainian Army ever make any mistakes in its operation against terrorists and the evil Russian hordes and their monstrous dicator?
You do realize that the only thing that that video proves is that an APC had an accident and probably killed those two people as a result of that accident? Because if it was on purpose then why is the APC still there, crashed?
Saying that it "ran over some people" is just another example of you guys spreading propaganda.
You do realize that the only thing that that video proves is that an APC had an accident and probably killed those two people as a result of that accident? Because if it was on purpose then why is the APC still there, crashed?
Saying that it "ran over some people" is just another example of you guys spreading propaganda.
With such logic you can say that people in Kiev at 2014 came to the Maidan because they felt lonely and set fires because they felt cold. It's just a solipsism.
You do realize that the only thing that that video proves is that an APC had an accident and probably killed those two people as a result of that accident? Because if it was on purpose then why is the APC still there, crashed?
Saying that it "ran over some people" is just another example of you guys spreading propaganda.
With such logic you can say that people in Kiev at 2014 came to the Maidan because they felt lonely and set fires because they felt cold. It's just a solipsism.
So your theory is that the Ukrainian army threw away an AFV just to purposely run over a mother and her two children?
So your theory is that the Ukrainian army threw away an AFV just to purposely run over a mother and her two children?
I said that Ukrainian APC runned over mother and children, people died and riot started in that city. Than I added that road accidents with Ukrainian military are common here, drivers often are drunk.
Don't know where you found that theory. Or my english is so terrible, or you had read something wrong.
You do realize that the only thing that that video proves is that an APC had an accident and probably killed those two people as a result of that accident? Because if it was on purpose then why is the APC still there, crashed?
Saying that it "ran over some people" is just another example of you guys spreading propaganda.
With such logic you can say that people in Kiev at 2014 came to the Maidan because they felt lonely and set fires because they felt cold. It's just a solipsism.
So your theory is that the Ukrainian army threw away an AFV just to purposely run over a mother and her two children?
It's an APC not a car. They'll just reverse it. look at the scratch, and drive on.
You do realize that the only thing that that video proves is that an APC had an accident and probably killed those two people as a result of that accident? Because if it was on purpose then why is the APC still there, crashed?
Saying that it "ran over some people" is just another example of you guys spreading propaganda.
With such logic you can say that people in Kiev at 2014 came to the Maidan because they felt lonely and set fires because they felt cold. It's just a solipsism.
So your theory is that the Ukrainian army threw away an AFV just to purposely run over a mother and her two children?
It's an APC not a car. They'll just reverse it. look at the scratch, and drive on.
Who will reverse what?
Unless I'm mistaken, the video begins with the AFV crew running away in a civilian car so as not to be linched by the crowd, then the video cuts to a shot of the AFV with what appear to be its hatches open, left behind...
I would say that they have very big odds of coming back to find that AFV burned down to a husk.
So your theory is that the Ukrainian army threw away an AFV just to purposely run over a mother and her two children?
I said that Ukrainian APC runned over mother and children, people died and riot started in that city. Than I added that road accidents with Ukrainian military are common here, drivers often are drunk.
Don't know where you found that theory. Or my english is so terrible, or you had read something wrong.
No, my apologies, you actually only said that and you are right, people have every right to be angry about those things and those responsible should be charged and trialled for those crimes.
It was the link to that blog that Iron_Captain posted that started throwing around the accusations that it was somehow on purpose.
Here you can see it better. If this is not enough proof for you, than the problem is with you. We have a crashed APC, dead people, blood, a lot of witnesses and an angry crowd. I would say that is plenty of evidence for saying that means that the APC ran over some people. Or maybe you are just so biased that you can't see reality anymore? For how could the glorious infallible and totally not-fascist Ukrainian Army ever make any mistakes in its operation against terrorists and the evil Russian hordes and their monstrous dicator?
You'll note that I said that I agree that it's likely that said incident happened, but that the previous video you linked provided little evidence in itself. But please, do attack me for being biased while setting up a strawman so you can bash Ukraine some more. I've never claimed that there aren't some rather unpleasant people (to say the least) involved in the Ukranian side, so I'd be much obliged if you stopped pretending I did. Just for future reference, this:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the other hand, the opposition is partially neo-nazis as well. There's some rather unsavory types on both sides.
is my first post in this thread, the 11th post in the thread in total.
I understood your comment incorrectly. I am sorry.
For some reason I missed this part:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:I don't doubt that it could have happened (I'd even agree that it's likely it did)
and thought you did not believe someone was ran over despite the fact that this is easily deductable from the video I posted. And the part about you being biased was not aimed at you per se (in fact, you seem to be one of the most reasonable people in this thread), but rather at the kind of people in general (in both Ukraine and the West) that seem to believe the Ukrainian Army are some kind of incorruptible heroes and never report on the many mistakes they make and crimes they commit (not to mention the inconvenient fact that they are mostly fighting their own citizens, rather than the Russian Army). You just presented a convenient opportunity to attack that.
Iron_Captain wrote: The vehicle was an MT-LB, not BMP. The carriage itself was not run over, only the mother pushing it and her older daughter. The child died on the spot, and the mother later in hospital. The baby was not injured afaik.
I'm just going by what little we can see in the video, but...
Ok, this is how I see it. He's going down the street coming up on a mild turn, at normal road speeds. He goes to turn, and the right side final drive breaks under stress for some reason. It spins him slightly the wrong way, because you gain power on the opposite side. So he tries to reverse it to try and stop the vehicle's spin and fight inertia. That's why we see the ground chewed up more on one side between where it stopped and the road. He only had power to the left hand side.
I don't know for sure, I'd want to see a breathalyzer test, but frankly, this looks like a simple mechanical failure.
When EU leaders meet for a summit in Brussels later this week they will have to confront serious divisions on whether and when to extend sanctions, imposed on key sectors of the Russian economy in response to the Kremlin's actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
But amidst talk of unresolved splits on sanctions, there does seem to be broad agreement on a separate but related issue: the need to challenge what a draft version of the summit's conclusions calls "Russia's ongoing disinformation campaigns".
The EU's foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, will be given the task of preparing an action plan (Brussels loves those) on strategic communication in support of media freedom. It should be ready by June.
The EU and its member states have been concerned for some time about Russian propaganda, and about the fact that the counter-argument coming from the EU often seems to be poorly focused and unconvincing.
There is a variety of proposals about how to respond better.
Latvia has floated the idea of an EU-funded Russian-language TV station. A panel of experts looking into that possibility is due to report next month.
And efforts are already under way in the Baltics to provide better programming for channels aimed at Russian-speaking audiences within the EU.
"The key," said one official, "is to have good content and to share it well."
But there are also broader issues at stake.
A paper produced earlier this year by four countries - Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania and the UK - notes that Russia is "rapidly increasing its disinformation and propaganda campaign".
The aim, according to the paper, is "to discredit EU narratives, erode support for legitimate governments… and undermine the concept of free independent, pluralistic media".
It suggests four broad areas on which any response should focus:
The EU should raise awareness of the dangers of disinformation and the importance of a proper response. This could include further cooperation with Nato on strategic communications
The EU should tell the truth and deconstruct propaganda pro-actively. Clear objectives should be set for EU communications in its eastern neighbourhood
Credible alternatives should be provided to audiences who rely on Russia's state-controlled media. The capacity of existing credible Russian media outlets should be strengthened
Greater attention should be paid to the violation of broadcasting rules. EU media regulators need to cooperate more effectively
It is, in other words, no quick fix. Instead, it is the blueprint for a long-term strategy.
Russia will always have some success in trying to sow political divisions among the EU's 28 member states. That will remain fertile ground, because there will always be a variety of views.
But the debate about propaganda and disinformation, and the need to respond, adds to the feeling that the current dispute with Russia will not be over quickly, and that the EU is preparing for the long haul.
Iron_Captain wrote: The vehicle was an MT-LB, not BMP. The carriage itself was not run over, only the mother pushing it and her older daughter. The child died on the spot, and the mother later in hospital. The baby was not injured afaik.
I'm just going by what little we can see in the video, but...
Ok, this is how I see it. He's going down the street coming up on a mild turn, at normal road speeds. He goes to turn, and the right side final drive breaks under stress for some reason. It spins him slightly the wrong way, because you gain power on the opposite side. So he tries to reverse it to try and stop the vehicle's spin and fight inertia. That's why we see the ground chewed up more on one side between where it stopped and the road. He only had power to the left hand side.
I don't know for sure, I'd want to see a breathalyzer test, but frankly, this looks like a simple mechanical failure.
It does look like mechanical failure.
But tensions are high.
And (while I don't have a problem with the personnel escaping to avoid being mobbed) there should still be some sort of accountability by the military as a whole.
Woo, an information war with the Russians. Great. =P
I wonder if the state would actually broadcast any news created in that manner though? They're quick to clamp down on any anti-government grumbling, so having a channel which will spend all its time calling bull on the party line doesn't seem like something which would be agreeable. Then again I don't know if there's already stations in the country which do it already and if they're marginalized or not. It seems a little sad that NATO considers the Russian state media to be so full of crap that it needs to provide a counterpoint. ...Otherwise if a war comes then that's more brainwashed soldiers to fight against them I suppose. Have your popcorn ready for the typical response from the Kremlin.
I've probably linked this thread here before, but for those interest regular images and analysis of the soldiers and equipment being used over there. I ponder now actually how many black people are fighting on the Russian side? I, ah, kind of sort of thought that the nationalists over there didn't put building race relations high on their list of priorities (though I guess both sides have people just fighting for the cause and overlooking who their current allies may be, ie all the yellow sleeves on the Ukrainian side).
Wyrmalla wrote: Woo, an information war with the Russians. Great. =P
I wonder if the state would actually broadcast any news created in that manner though? They're quick to clamp down on any anti-government grumbling, so having a channel which will spend all its time calling bull on the party line doesn't seem like something which would be agreeable. Then again I don't know if there's already stations in the country which do it already and if they're marginalized or not. It seems a little sad that NATO considers the Russian state media to be so full of crap that it needs to provide a counterpoint. ...Otherwise if a war comes then that's more brainwashed soldiers to fight against them I suppose. Have your popcorn ready for the typical response from the Kremlin.
I've probably linked this thread here before, but for those interest regular images and analysis of the soldiers and equipment being used over there. I ponder now actually how many black people are fighting on the Russian side? I, ah, kind of sort of thought that the nationalists over there didn't put building race relations high on their list of priorities (though I guess both sides have people just fighting for the cause and overlooking who their current allies may be, ie all the yellow sleeves on the Ukrainian side).
Yup very interesting. The separatists side
The Ukrainian nationalists side.
Nice guys not offensive at all
Matthew wrote: Rossiya – svyashchennaya nasha derzhava,
Rossiya – lyubimaya nasha strana.
Moguchaya volya, velikaya slava –
Tvoyo dostoyanye na vse vremena!
Matthew wrote: Rossiya – svyashchennaya nasha derzhava,
Rossiya – lyubimaya nasha strana.
Moguchaya volya, velikaya slava –
Tvoyo dostoyanye na vse vremena!
Matthew wrote: Rossiya – svyashchennaya nasha derzhava,
Rossiya – lyubimaya nasha strana.
Moguchaya volya, velikaya slava –
Tvoyo dostoyanye na vse vremena!
Uno mas tequila por favor?
I DON'T KNOW
Russia - svyashchennaya marijuana derzhava
Russia - lyubimaya marijuana strana.
Moguchaya Volyn, Velikaya Slava -
Tvoy started dostoyanye Minutes!
As the mask would say smokin
Me: Dammit, Vladimir, I don't want to Godwin the thread! It's just not Reich... err... Right!
Matthew wrote: Rossiya – svyashchennaya nasha derzhava,
Rossiya – lyubimaya nasha strana.
Moguchaya volya, velikaya slava –
Tvoyo dostoyanye na vse vremena!
For those who don't know:
Sadly, with Putin I think these are the lyrics you're looking for:
Slav'sya, Otechestvo nashe svobodnoye,
Druzhby narodov nadyozhny oplot,
Znamya Sovetskoye, znamya narodnoye
Pust’ ot pobedy k pobede vedyot!
Skvoz’ grozy siyalo nam solntse svobody,
I Lenin veliky nam put’ ozaril,
Nas vyrastil Stalin – na vernost’ narodu,
Na trud i na podvigi nas vdohnovil!
Slav'sya, Otechestvo nashe svobodnoye,
Schast'ya narodov nadyozhy oplot,
Znamya Sovetskoye, znamya narodnoye
Pust’ ot pobedy k pobede vedyot!
My armiyu nashu rastili v srazhen’yah,
Zahvatchikov podlyh s dorogi smetyom!
My v bitvah reshayem sud’bu pokoleniy,
My k slave Otchiznu svoyu povedyom!
Slavsya, Otechyestvo nashe svobodnoye,
Slavy narodov nadyozhny oplot,
Znamya Sovetskoye, znamya narodnoye
Pust’ ot pobedy k pobede vedyot!
Not earlier than USA will bring bloody "democracy" to another country like they did in Iraq or Afghanistan.
As for anti-propaganda activity of EU, it will be just another one propaganda but from another side and paid by the state. And while it is EU propaganda - it will be displayed like a Paladin of Light and Truth fighting with devilish russian chimera.
And when somebody will bring sanctions on Ukraine for disruption of Minsk agreements?
As for anti-propaganda activity of EU, it will be just another one propaganda but from another side and paid by the state. And while it is EU propaganda - it will be displayed like a Paladin of Light and Truth fighting with devilish russian chimera.
Your English isn't very good today, that is not called propaganda, that is called the truth.
Not earlier than USA will bring bloody "democracy" to another country like they did in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I always love it when people complain to me about the US. It's like complaining to a Jew about how bad the Nazis are for having knocked over your trash cans. I just look at them and think to myself 'Buddy, you have NO IDEA'....
Wait for them to conquer someplace and then actually stay, strip the locals of their property, and heard them into camps, all in the name of freedom and democracy. Then you can tell me about American hypocrisy..
Not earlier than USA will bring bloody "democracy" to another country like they did in Iraq or Afghanistan.
. Wait for them to conquer someplace and then actually stay, strip the locals of their property, and heard them into camps, all in the name of freedom and democracy. Then you can tell me about American hypocrisy..
About the point where the Ukraine does so by invading another country.
No that's wasteful. Far better to give them a loan from the IMF, that puts them in so much debt. Their great great grandchildren will be paying it off.. No need for guards.
An EU Army to face Russia
Nigel Farage on Euro army, and Europe starting war in Ukraine.
No that's wasteful. Far better to give them a loan from the IMF, That puts them in so much debt. Their great great grandchildren will be paying it off.. No need for guards.
See, the problem with that was that the loan would never have held up in court, what with the 'Sign here or we shoot you right now' approach to diplomacy at the time. Even if you turned them down, they shot you, and brought in the next guy, and told him to sign. Eventually they'd find someone more concerned with survival than patriotism and they'd sign.
And IMF hardly better than what you English have, you're still paying off some of your war debts from fighting Napoleon... hell, i think the reason you were against us joining the UN was you were worried you'd have to pay up what you still owed us from the American Revolution.
British military personnel have started training members of the Ukrainian army fighting pro-Russian rebels, the BBC has learned.
The 35 trainers are working in the southern city of Mykolaiv and will spend about two months in the country.
They will be training forces engaged in battles in eastern Ukraine in medicine and defensive tactics, and supplying non-lethal equipment.
Russia has criticised the deployment saying it does not "strengthen trust".
The deal was announced by Prime Minister David Cameron last month.
It is the first time a Western nation has conducted a long-term military training programme in Ukraine since its war against pro-Russian rebels began last year.
Ceasefire
A ceasefire took effect on 15 February following an agreement reached in Minsk, Belarus, and has largely held despite sporadic shelling.
The British government is also supplying first aid kits, sleeping bags and night-vision goggles as part of its pledge to provide assistance and more British teams are expected to arrive in Ukraine over the coming weeks.
BBC correspondent Tom Burridge said the deployment of dozens of military instructors was a symbolic move that would not alter the military balance of the war.
Dmitry Pveskov, press secretary to President Putin, told journalists: "A presence of foreign instructors in Ukraine cannot facilitate the settlement of the conflict in this country.
"Of course, it has been stated repeatedly that it does not contribute to the strengthening of trust or relaxation of tension in the conflict zone.
"It can be clearly said that it does not contribute to the settlement."
The United States has already said it is planning to send a battalion to train three Ukrainian battalions.
More than 6,000 people have died since the fighting in Ukraine erupted last April, the UN has estimated, although the organisation believes the real figure could be considerably higher.
And IMF hardly better than what you English have, you're still paying off some of your war debts from fighting Napoleon... hell, i think the reason you were against us joining the UN was you were worried you'd have to pay up what you still owed us from the American Revolution.
And IMF hardly better than what you English have, you're still paying off some of your war debts from fighting Napoleon... hell, i think the reason you were against us joining the UN was you were worried you'd have to pay up what you still owed us from the American Revolution.
Indeed
America's European "Allies" Desert Obama, Join China-led Infrastructure Bank
Spoiler:
It appears the sea of de-dollarization has reached the shores of Europe. With Australia and UK having already moved in the direction of joining the China-led AIIB, The FT reports that France, Germany, and Italy have now all agreed to join the development bank as 'pivot to Asia' appears to be Plan B for Europe. As Greg Sheridan previously noted, "the saga of the China Bank is almost a textbook case of the failure of Obama’s foreign policy," but as The FT concludes, the European decisions represent a significant setback for the Obama administration, which has argued that western countries could have more influence over the workings of the new bank if they stayed together on the outside. As Forbes notes, this leaves Obama with 3 uncomfortable options..
As The FT reports,
France, Germany and Italy have all agreed to follow Britain’s lead and join a China-led international development bank, according to European officials, delivering a blow to US efforts to keep leading western countries out of the new institution.
The decision by the three European governments comes after Britain announced last week that it would join the $50bn Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a potential rival to the Washington-based World Bank.
The European decisions represent a significant setback for the Obama administration, which has argued that western countries could have more influence over the workings of the new bank if they stayed together on the outside and pushed for higher lending standards.
The AIIB, which was formally launched by Chinese President Xi Jinping last year, is one element of a broader Chinese push to create new financial and economic institutions that will increase its international influence. It has become a central issue in the growing contest between China and the US over who will define the economic and trade rules in Asia over the coming decades.
This follows Australia and UK...
Australia, a key US ally in the Asia-Pacific region which had come under pressure from Washington to stay out of the new bank, has also said that it will now rethink that position.
When Britain announced its decision to join the AIIB last week, the Obama administration told the Financial Times that it was part of a broader trend of “constant accommodation” by London of China. British officials were relatively restrained in their criticism of China over its handling of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong last year.
Britain tried to gain “first mover advantage” last week by signing up to the fledgling Chinese-led bank before other G7 members.
Britain hopes to establish itself as the number one destination for Chinese investment and UK officials were unrepentant.
De-dollarization continues... As Simon Black recently concluded, now we can see words are turning into action...
[The Allies] might be too polite to tell the US straight up– “Look, you have $18.1 trillion in official debt, you have $42 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and you’re kind of a dick. I’m dumping you.”
So instead they’re going with the “it’s not you, it’s me” approach.
But to anyone paying attention, it’s pretty obvious where this trend is going.
It won’t be long before other western nations jump on the anti-dollar bandwagon with action and not just words.
loki old fart wrote: Indeed
America's European "Allies" Desert Obama, Join China-led Infrastructure Bank
Spoiler:
It appears the sea of de-dollarization has reached the shores of Europe. With Australia and UK having already moved in the direction of joining the China-led AIIB, The FT reports that France, Germany, and Italy have now all agreed to join the development bank as 'pivot to Asia' appears to be Plan B for Europe. As Greg Sheridan previously noted, "the saga of the China Bank is almost a textbook case of the failure of Obama’s foreign policy," but as The FT concludes, the European decisions represent a significant setback for the Obama administration, which has argued that western countries could have more influence over the workings of the new bank if they stayed together on the outside. As Forbes notes, this leaves Obama with 3 uncomfortable options..
As The FT reports,
France, Germany and Italy have all agreed to follow Britain’s lead and join a China-led international development bank, according to European officials, delivering a blow to US efforts to keep leading western countries out of the new institution.
The decision by the three European governments comes after Britain announced last week that it would join the $50bn Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a potential rival to the Washington-based World Bank.
The European decisions represent a significant setback for the Obama administration, which has argued that western countries could have more influence over the workings of the new bank if they stayed together on the outside and pushed for higher lending standards.
The AIIB, which was formally launched by Chinese President Xi Jinping last year, is one element of a broader Chinese push to create new financial and economic institutions that will increase its international influence. It has become a central issue in the growing contest between China and the US over who will define the economic and trade rules in Asia over the coming decades.
This follows Australia and UK...
Australia, a key US ally in the Asia-Pacific region which had come under pressure from Washington to stay out of the new bank, has also said that it will now rethink that position.
When Britain announced its decision to join the AIIB last week, the Obama administration told the Financial Times that it was part of a broader trend of “constant accommodation” by London of China. British officials were relatively restrained in their criticism of China over its handling of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong last year.
Britain tried to gain “first mover advantage” last week by signing up to the fledgling Chinese-led bank before other G7 members.
Britain hopes to establish itself as the number one destination for Chinese investment and UK officials were unrepentant.
De-dollarization continues... As Simon Black recently concluded, now we can see words are turning into action...
[The Allies] might be too polite to tell the US straight up– “Look, you have $18.1 trillion in official debt, you have $42 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and you’re kind of a dick. I’m dumping you.”
So instead they’re going with the “it’s not you, it’s me” approach.
But to anyone paying attention, it’s pretty obvious where this trend is going.
It won’t be long before other western nations jump on the anti-dollar bandwagon with action and not just words.
loki old fart wrote: Indeed
America's European "Allies" Desert Obama, Join China-led Infrastructure Bank
Spoiler:
It appears the sea of de-dollarization has reached the shores of Europe. With Australia and UK having already moved in the direction of joining the China-led AIIB, The FT reports that France, Germany, and Italy have now all agreed to join the development bank as 'pivot to Asia' appears to be Plan B for Europe. As Greg Sheridan previously noted, "the saga of the China Bank is almost a textbook case of the failure of Obama’s foreign policy," but as The FT concludes, the European decisions represent a significant setback for the Obama administration, which has argued that western countries could have more influence over the workings of the new bank if they stayed together on the outside. As Forbes notes, this leaves Obama with 3 uncomfortable options..
As The FT reports,
France, Germany and Italy have all agreed to follow Britain’s lead and join a China-led international development bank, according to European officials, delivering a blow to US efforts to keep leading western countries out of the new institution.
The decision by the three European governments comes after Britain announced last week that it would join the $50bn Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a potential rival to the Washington-based World Bank.
The European decisions represent a significant setback for the Obama administration, which has argued that western countries could have more influence over the workings of the new bank if they stayed together on the outside and pushed for higher lending standards.
The AIIB, which was formally launched by Chinese President Xi Jinping last year, is one element of a broader Chinese push to create new financial and economic institutions that will increase its international influence. It has become a central issue in the growing contest between China and the US over who will define the economic and trade rules in Asia over the coming decades.
This follows Australia and UK...
Australia, a key US ally in the Asia-Pacific region which had come under pressure from Washington to stay out of the new bank, has also said that it will now rethink that position.
When Britain announced its decision to join the AIIB last week, the Obama administration told the Financial Times that it was part of a broader trend of “constant accommodation” by London of China. British officials were relatively restrained in their criticism of China over its handling of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong last year.
Britain tried to gain “first mover advantage” last week by signing up to the fledgling Chinese-led bank before other G7 members.
Britain hopes to establish itself as the number one destination for Chinese investment and UK officials were unrepentant.
De-dollarization continues... As Simon Black recently concluded, now we can see words are turning into action...
[The Allies] might be too polite to tell the US straight up– “Look, you have $18.1 trillion in official debt, you have $42 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and you’re kind of a dick. I’m dumping you.”
So instead they’re going with the “it’s not you, it’s me” approach.
But to anyone paying attention, it’s pretty obvious where this trend is going.
It won’t be long before other western nations jump on the anti-dollar bandwagon with action and not just words.
Apologies. I am suspicious of people who post articles with no link. It seems strange that you choose to bury the link to the actual article almost at the end. But then again it is published under a pseudonym, Tyler Durden, and has contributions to the site from someone penalized for insider trading.
As for anti-propaganda activity of EU, it will be just another one propaganda but from another side and paid by the state. And while it is EU propaganda - it will be displayed like a Paladin of Light and Truth fighting with devilish russian chimera.
Your English isn't very good today, that is not called propaganda, that is called the truth.
As for anti-propaganda activity of EU, it will be just another one propaganda but from another side and paid by the state. And while it is EU propaganda - it will be displayed like a Paladin of Light and Truth fighting with devilish russian chimera.
Your English isn't very good today, that is not called propaganda, that is called the truth.
As for anti-propaganda activity of EU, it will be just another one propaganda but from another side and paid by the state. And while it is EU propaganda - it will be displayed like a Paladin of Light and Truth fighting with devilish russian chimera.
Your English isn't very good today, that is not called propaganda, that is called the truth.
As for anti-propaganda activity of EU, it will be just another one propaganda but from another side and paid by the state. And while it is EU propaganda - it will be displayed like a Paladin of Light and Truth fighting with devilish russian chimera.
Your English isn't very good today, that is not called propaganda, that is called the truth.
As for anti-propaganda activity of EU, it will be just another one propaganda but from another side and paid by the state. And while it is EU propaganda - it will be displayed like a Paladin of Light and Truth fighting with devilish russian chimera.
Your English isn't very good today, that is not called propaganda, that is called the truth.
Said every propagandist ever.
I know you are but what am I?
Bought and paid for or sheep. ???
I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me from some people that are in this thread spreading Putin's propaganda. Either that or you're looking in a mirror. Your choice really.
Well, one can only work with the raw material that one is given. I can't exactly make a fillet mignon when all that I have to work with is a cut of round.
When EU leaders meet for a summit in Brussels later this week they will have to confront serious divisions on whether and when to extend sanctions, imposed on key sectors of the Russian economy in response to the Kremlin's actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
But amidst talk of unresolved splits on sanctions, there does seem to be broad agreement on a separate but related issue: the need to challenge what a draft version of the summit's conclusions calls "Russia's ongoing disinformation campaigns".
The EU's foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, will be given the task of preparing an action plan (Brussels loves those) on strategic communication in support of media freedom. It should be ready by June.
The EU and its member states have been concerned for some time about Russian propaganda, and about the fact that the counter-argument coming from the EU often seems to be poorly focused and unconvincing.
There is a variety of proposals about how to respond better.
Latvia has floated the idea of an EU-funded Russian-language TV station. A panel of experts looking into that possibility is due to report next month.
And efforts are already under way in the Baltics to provide better programming for channels aimed at Russian-speaking audiences within the EU.
"The key," said one official, "is to have good content and to share it well."
But there are also broader issues at stake.
A paper produced earlier this year by four countries - Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania and the UK - notes that Russia is "rapidly increasing its disinformation and propaganda campaign".
The aim, according to the paper, is "to discredit EU narratives, erode support for legitimate governments… and undermine the concept of free independent, pluralistic media".
It suggests four broad areas on which any response should focus:
The EU should raise awareness of the dangers of disinformation and the importance of a proper response. This could include further cooperation with Nato on strategic communications
The EU should tell the truth and deconstruct propaganda pro-actively. Clear objectives should be set for EU communications in its eastern neighbourhood
Credible alternatives should be provided to audiences who rely on Russia's state-controlled media. The capacity of existing credible Russian media outlets should be strengthened
Greater attention should be paid to the violation of broadcasting rules. EU media regulators need to cooperate more effectively
It is, in other words, no quick fix. Instead, it is the blueprint for a long-term strategy.
Russia will always have some success in trying to sow political divisions among the EU's 28 member states. That will remain fertile ground, because there will always be a variety of views.
But the debate about propaganda and disinformation, and the need to respond, adds to the feeling that the current dispute with Russia will not be over quickly, and that the EU is preparing for the long haul.
Yes! The EU will counter propaganda with propaganda! More hypocrisy for the hypocrism god! Russian propagandists will have a field day with this. It is sad that instead of working towards mutual understanding and cooperation, the West chooses to wallow in self-righteousness and sow division.
At least they do not seem to have any idea of what to do or how Russia works: "The capacity of existing credible Russian media outlets should be strengthened" European support for those media will only make them less credible to the average Russian.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yes! The EU will counter propaganda with propaganda! More hypocrisy for the hypocrism god! Russian propagandists will have a field day with this. It is sad that instead of working towards mutual understanding and cooperation, the West chooses to wallow in self-righteousness and sow division.
At least they do not seem to have any idea of what to do or how Russia works: "The capacity of existing credible Russian media outlets should be strengthened" European support for those media will only make them less credible to the average Russian.
Yes, if only those Europeans could work towards mutual understanding and cooperation by violating their treaties, invading another country, annexing territory, and being prepared to deploy nuclear weapons.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yes! The EU will counter propaganda with propaganda! More hypocrisy for the hypocrism god! Russian propagandists will have a field day with this. It is sad that instead of working towards mutual understanding and cooperation, the West chooses to wallow in self-righteousness and sow division.
At least they do not seem to have any idea of what to do or how Russia works: "The capacity of existing credible Russian media outlets should be strengthened" European support for those media will only make them less credible to the average Russian.
Yes, if only those Europeans could work towards mutual understanding and cooperation by violating their treaties, invading another country, annexing territory, and being prepared to deploy nuclear weapons.
You don't really get it, do you? It is a vicious circle of escalation. Vicious circles are really bad. The EU should take responsibility and be the one to break it, because Russia clearly is not going to do so.
Iron_Captain wrote: You don't really get it, do you? It is a vicious circle of escalation. Vicious circles are really bad. The EU should take responsibility and be the one to break it, because Russia clearly is not going to do so.
Howard A Treesong wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-threatens-denmark-with-nuclear-weapons-if-it-tries-to-join-nato-defence-shield-10125529.html
Russia encourages Denmark to see which side is buttered.
Why would they threaten Denmark?! Who would supply us with Lego?!
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think that might make them more likely to join. It's a blatant threat, and some protection might be in order.
Sometimes I have to wonder is Putin is really as nuts as he acts sometimes.
He is not nuts. Nuts implies a degree of irrationality that has been absent from his actions thus far
How is threatening another nation with nuclear weapons if they try to defend themselves from those very nuclear weapons not irrational? If Denmark felt the need to defend themselves from Russian missiles, giving them more reason to do so isn't going to make them back down.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How is threatening another nation with nuclear weapons if they try to defend themselves from those very nuclear weapons not irrational? If Denmark felt the need to defend themselves from Russian missiles, giving them more reason to do so isn't going to make them back down.
Because it is a calculated move. He is trying to show the world that the Russian Bear is resurgent. Either Denmark acquiesces to Russia's demands, or Russia can claim that they are still being encircled.
A Ukrainian tank turret guards the entrance to the base of the Donbass Night Wolves motorbike club in Lugansk on March 17, 2015. Members of the club, formed in the then Soviet Union in the late 1980's, and now politically aligned with Russian President Vladimir Putin, have been fighting alongside rebels of the self-proclaimed Lugansk People's Republic (LNR) against Ukrainian troops. Their base, located in a former high school, comes complete with a clubhouse and a collection of vintage vehicles a local museum has asked them to look after.
A Ukrainian tank turret guards the entrance to the base of the Donbass Night Wolves motorbike club in Lugansk on March 17, 2015. Members of the club, formed in the then Soviet Union in the late 1980's, and now politically aligned with Russian President Vladimir Putin, have been fighting alongside rebels of the self-proclaimed Lugansk People's Republic (LNR) against Ukrainian troops. Their base, located in a former high school, comes complete with a clubhouse and a collection of vintage vehicles a local museum has asked them to look after.
Could make for an interesting Season 8 in Sons of Anarchy
In all seriousness though maybe Putin should be the next Bond villain. Multi-millionaire, ex-spy, now world leader, annexing other countries, his rivals just dying, and having a motorcycle gang work for him. The plot almost writes itself.
A Ukrainian tank turret guards the entrance to the base of the Donbass Night Wolves motorbike club in Lugansk on March 17, 2015. Members of the club, formed in the then Soviet Union in the late 1980's, and now politically aligned with Russian President Vladimir Putin, have been fighting alongside rebels of the self-proclaimed Lugansk People's Republic (LNR) against Ukrainian troops. Their base, located in a former high school, comes complete with a clubhouse and a collection of vintage vehicles a local museum has asked them to look after.
Could make for an interesting Season 8 in Sons of Anarchy
In all seriousness though maybe Putin should be the next Bond villain. Multi-millionaire, ex-spy, now world leader, annexing other countries, his rivals just dying, and having a motorcycle gang work for him. The plot almost writes itself.
I have to admit, he does look the part. But a proper villain usually is not greatly loved and admired by his own people.
The Ukrainian government has given the private army of billionaire Dnepropetrovsk governor Igor Kolomoysky a day to lay down their weapons, after they occupied and erected a fence around the headquarters of the national oil company.
“We won’t have armed personal security forces of businessmen and politicians on the streets of our cities. This applies to every single one of them,” Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said on his Facebook page.
“All security forces have 24 hours to comply with the letter of the law.”
President Petro Poroshenko has also dispatched two battalions of the elite National Guard to Dnepropetrovsk, to diffuse “rising tension in the region.”
Iron_Captain wrote: [
I have to admit, he does look the part. But a proper villain usually is not greatly loved and admired by his own people.
Victor Von Doom says hi... and also Vilgax, and Vlad Tepes (aka Dracula) and I'm pretty sure many more characters in both real life and fiction. Villainy after all depends on the pov, some people's heroes are other people's villains.
I have to admit, he does look the part. But a proper villain usually is not greatly loved and admired by his own people.
Yes, because beloved, charismatic leaders have NEVER turned out to be evil donkey-caves.
Yes, Hitler was so beloved by his people that they staged multiple assassination attempts on him...
Hitler could only dream of having approval rates like Putin.
In general, once a charismatic leader starts being an evil donkey-cave, he usually stops being beloved.
I have to admit, he does look the part. But a proper villain usually is not greatly loved and admired by his own people.
I would argue that such isn't necessarily the case at all, being loved and admired by many doesn't disqualify one from being a bad guy. In fact, that's often what makes the bad guy character so interesting.
I have to admit, he does look the part. But a proper villain usually is not greatly loved and admired by his own people.
I would argue that such isn't necessarily the case at all, being loved and admired by many doesn't disqualify one from being a bad guy. In fact, that's often what makes the bad guy character so interesting.
If he is loved and admired, he is not the bad guy, but you would be the bad guy for fighting him. He would only be a bad guy from your limited, biased point of view. The real world does not have bad or good guys. The real world is wonderfully postmodern which only comes in shades of grey.
Spoiler:
Or at least, something that looks like grey from your point of view and assuming something like a 'real' world can in fact exist, but since notions like reality and existing are completely relative, we can not say anything about it. Sorry, I spent too much time looking at postmodern art. Or rather, relative objects that some people choose to label as 'art' and 'postmodern'.
I have an important test about postmodernism coming up, so please excuse my rambling.
