Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, can we maybe get some independent confirmation?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-03/osce-confirms-ukraine-plane-fired-rockets-hit-lugansk-building

Headlines from bloomberg..

OSCE: ROCKETS FROM PLANE HIT LUHANSK ADMINISTRATION YESTERDAY
OSCE SAYS NUMBER OF CASUALTIES FROM LUHANSK ROCKETS IS UNCLEAR
OSCE SAYS LUHANSK ASSESSMENT BASED ON `LIMITED OBSERVATION'
OSCE COMMENTS IN WEBSITE STATEMENT ON LUHANSK



So yeah.. they used an airstrike and it missed the intended target and killed some civilians. Right after the elections, their president doesn't even try diplomacy.

dereksatkinson wrote:

So yeah.. they used an airstrike and it missed the intended target and killed some civilians. Right after the elections, their president doesn't even try diplomacy.

You know the part where the separatists said they'd refuse to talk?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

So yeah.. they used an airstrike and it missed the intended target and killed some civilians. Right after the elections, their president doesn't even try diplomacy.

You know the part where the separatists said they'd refuse to talk?

So you bomb them less than a week after taking office? yeah, that will win over the hearts and mind of the people towards the new government.

See.. in normal circumstances, you'd see the newly elected government offer an olive branch to the separatists. Maybe ask the EU and Russia to help by holding 3-4 part talks. To suggest that diplomacy has been exhausted is just plain ridiculous.

Serious question here: do the Russia supporters here,

A) honestly think there are no Russian military in Ukraine agitating the situation or
B) there are but that is ok. They have a legitimate reason to do so. They're excercising force projection or something along those lines.

In case there's still any doubt, here's a snippet from a longer article by the BBC.

'Surgeon killed'

Investigations are continuing into an air attack on the rebel-held regional administrative building in Luhansk on Monday afternoon. Rebels have accused the Ukrainian air force of killing eight civilians in the attack, and graphic video of bodies at the scene has been posted on websites.

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe said that, based on available evidence, "these strikes were the result of non-guided rockets shot from an aircraft. The number of casualties is unknown".

Ukraine's interim President, Olexandr Turchynov, said in a statement on Tuesday that the northern part of Donetsk region had been "fully cleared" of separatists and the military had started blocking the border with Russia in the north and east of Luhansk region.

Government forces took the town of Krasnyi Lyman, north-east of Sloviansk, after heavy fighting.

A hospital was damaged by an air attack during the fighting and a surgeon killed by shrapnel, the hospital told Ukraine's Segodnya newspaper. Three patients were also wounded, it said. Photos of damage to the hospital were published by Segodnya.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
A) honestly think there are no Russian military in Ukraine agitating the situation or

This is exactly what the Rebels including Putin and Russia’s foreign minister (Sergey V. Lavrov I believe,) have so far claimed through this whole debacle.

Fun fact. During the Crimea uprising, Putin also denied any involvement of Russian soldiers in Crimea. We now know his words were nothing but blatant lies.

Whether anyone involved in this sincerely believe these “claims,” is anyone’s guess really.

 Redcruisair wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
A) honestly think there are no Russian military in Ukraine agitating the situation or

This is exactly what the Rebels including Putin and Russia’s foreign minister (Sergey V. Lavrov I believe,) have so far claimed through this whole debacle.

Fun fact. During the Crimea uprising, Putin also denied any involvement of Russian soldiers in Crimea. We now know his words were nothing but blatant lies.

Whether anyone involved in this sincerely believe these “claims,” is anyone’s guess really.

And until anyone actually finds any conclusive proof of Russian involvement, surely they are innocent until proven guilty? You can't simply claim something and expect it to be taken as truth.

Fun fact. Politicians lie. British politicians lie, American politicians lie, Russian politicians lie. It's practically their job.

 -Shrike- wrote:
Stuff

Is Putin coming forth and openly admitting to have the Russian army intervene in Crimea, something which he had fervently denied beforehand, enough evidence of Russia’s involvement for you?

I’ll grant you this tho, despite all the signs pointing toward Russian involvement, no one has of yet managed to capture the Russian bear with its paw down the honey jar with regards to the troubles in East Ukraine. Btw it’s only a matter time before we do so : )

 Redcruisair wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
Stuff

Is Putin coming forth and openly admitting to have the Russian army intervene in Crimea, something which he had fervently denied beforehand, enough evidence of Russia’s involvement for you?

I’ll grant you this tho, despite all the signs pointing toward Russian involvement, no one has of yet managed to capture the Russian bear with its paw down the honey jar with regards to the troubles in East Ukraine. Btw it’s only a matter time before we do so : )

Crimea was essentially a very slick move by Putin, he moved his troops in to a predominantly ethnic Russian area, one which had Russian naval assets, the local populace supported this, and he annexed the place. Eastern Ukraine, by contrast, he has shown no serious intent of annexing the separatist-held regions, and the separatist movement is not as popular as it was in Crimea. I mean, he's even moved most of his troops away from the border. There certainly isn't as much Russian involvement in Luhansk and Donetsk as there was in Crimea.

Something else to bear in mind is that Crimea could legally have up to 20,000 (IIRC) Russian troops stationed at the naval base there, as part of the Sevastopol lease. Ergo, it would be easy to prove that there were Russian soldiers in Crimea, they were already there, and in significant numbers. Eastern Ukraine, by contrast, has no such agreement, so any Russian soldiers would have had to move in there in the last few months. It's quite likely that there are some Russians amongst the separatists, but they will be few and far between; if they don't want to be found, I don't think they will be.

Figure four more months eastern Ukraine will slide into Putin pocket. Something going to trigger a "WTF" moment for Putin to try another "humanitarian moment".

 Jihadin wrote:
Figure four more months eastern Ukraine will slide into Putin pocket. Something going to trigger a "WTF" moment for Putin to try another "humanitarian moment".

A few more unguided missiles would probably work.

On a orphanage at that

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Serious question here: do the Russia supporters here,

A) honestly think there are no Russian military in Ukraine agitating the situation or
B) there are but that is ok. They have a legitimate reason to do so. They're excercising force projection or something along those lines.

I think you are using the term "Russian supporters" a little too loosely. I don't support Russia. I am critical of the foreign policy of my own nation and view what Russia is doing over there as a reaction to our efforts to destabilize the region. The Cronyism is so blatantly obvious too. One of the largest nat gas companies in Ukraine hired Joe Biden's son on as a director of the company only a couple weeks ago. It's so obvious it makes me ill.. I hate the fact we are spending my money to destabilize a foreign government just so some well connect asshat can line his pockets.

To answer the question though...

I think the Russian government is doing exactly the same thing the US government is doing. Providing tactical and financial assistance. I do not believe we have active russian military personnel in Eastern Ukraine at the moment. Things are way too disorganized for this to be a military op..

Now.. I do think there are Russians there. Quite a few Cossacks have mobilized from neighboring countries and descended on Eastern Ukraine to help keep the peace and they recognized the secession as legitimate. Some of those Cossacks are likely from Russia. If you don't know who or what a Cossack is, then you will have a very hard time understanding the region. People are very willing to cross borders and risk their lives helping people because they had some family living there 200 years ago.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

So yeah.. they used an airstrike and it missed the intended target and killed some civilians. Right after the elections, their president doesn't even try diplomacy.

You know the part where the separatists said they'd refuse to talk?

So you bomb them less than a week after taking office? yeah, that will win over the hearts and mind of the people towards the new government.

They're holed up in government buildings with military-grade weapons and have already said they don't want to negotiate. What's he supposed to do, bore them to death?

Maybe not do a typical air strike in a populated area? Is not the US getting hammered on other threads for doing the same even in general?

 Jihadin wrote:
Maybe not do a typical air strike in a populated area? Is not the US getting hammered on other threads for doing the same even in general?

Nah.. diplomacy failed.. Nuke em

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Maybe not do a typical air strike in a populated area? Is not the US getting hammered on other threads for doing the same even in general?

Nah.. diplomacy failed.. Nuke em

... it's the only way to be sure!




...of the end of civilisation as we know it.

Now we just need to find a Corporal to give the order

General consensus seems to be option A. People don't think there are Russian military in Ukraine. What if we found out there was though? Some Russian operators or special forces? Does that make a difference or does it not matter?

Jebus we were so wrong sending in Seal Team Six to get OBL in Pakistan

What if they have a Spetnatz group in Eastern Ukraine protecting the Motherland from those that want a Fatherland eh

 Jihadin wrote:
Jebus we were so wrong sending in Seal Team Six to get OBL in Pakistan

What if they have a Spetnatz group in Eastern Ukraine protecting the Motherland from those that want a Fatherland eh

Maybe motherland and fatherland should go to marriage guidance.

Motherland gets HALF regardless

 Jihadin wrote:
Jebus we were so wrong sending in Seal Team Six to get OBL in Pakistan

What if they have a Spetnatz group in Eastern Ukraine protecting the Motherland from those that want a Fatherland eh

I guess that's you way of saying it's fine with you. What if Russia launched a full invasion of Eastern Ukraine to protect Russian speakers there which leads to annexation?

As I mention before on this thread Putin can have my permission to roll into Eastern Ukraine if Eastern Ukraine turns into a Bosnian/Kosovo situation

 Jihadin wrote:
As I mention before on this thread Putin can have my permission to roll into Eastern Ukraine if Eastern Ukraine turns into a Bosnian/Kosovo situation

That I can agree with, it's just that it hasn't, and hadn't on Crimea either.

 sebster wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Fanciful? Bollocks.

You wrote 'coup imposed government' to describe an interim government that is administering the country until proper elections are held.

Calling it fanciful was being kind.

Ok, I get it. You prefer to speak in euphemisms. The fact remains however that the current "interim" government was imposed via a revolution, coup, whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Serious question here: do the Russia supporters here,

A) honestly think there are no Russian military in Ukraine agitating the situation or
B) there are but that is ok. They have a legitimate reason to do so. They're excercising force projection or something along those lines.

Who the feth says I'm a Russia supporter? I don't want to take ANY fething side here. Like with Syria, I see two equally violent, equally bloodstained, equally extremist sides fighting it out for political control. You scoff at us who express doubt over the Ukrainian Government's actions and dismiss us as "Russa supporters". But you are cheering on a bloodthirsty revolutionary government thats ordering indiscriminate airstrikes and sending in the Military. For all his faults, Yanukovych never did that.

Why I think Walrus that the new President be careful on how he goes about slapping his country back together. He has to force them back to the table to talk. Military action does not work so...water...electricity...cable..internet..hint..make the people work for him in Eastern Ukraine

 Jihadin wrote:
As I mention before on this thread Putin can have my permission to roll into Eastern Ukraine if Eastern Ukraine turns into a Bosnian/Kosovo situation

Don't really get that Analogy. What about a Russia Chechnya situation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Fanciful? Bollocks.

You wrote 'coup imposed government' to describe an interim government that is administering the country until proper elections are held.

Calling it fanciful was being kind.

Ok, I get it. You prefer to speak in euphemisms. The fact remains however that the current "interim" government was imposed via a revolution, coup, whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Serious question here: do the Russia supporters here,

A) honestly think there are no Russian military in Ukraine agitating the situation or
B) there are but that is ok. They have a legitimate reason to do so. They're excercising force projection or something along those lines.

Who the feth says I'm a Russia supporter? I don't want to take ANY fething side here. Like with Syria, I see two equally violent, equally bloodstained, equally extremist sides fighting it out for political control. You scoff at us who express doubt over the Ukrainian Government's actions and dismiss us as "Russa supporters". But you are cheering on a bloodthirsty revolutionary government thats ordering indiscriminate airstrikes and sending in the Military. For all his faults, Yanukovych never did that.

Ya, no one said you were anything so you don't have to scream I am not a Russia supporter if you ain't.

dereksatkinson wrote:
So yeah.. they used an airstrike and it missed the intended target and killed some civilians. Right after the elections, their president doesn't even try diplomacy.

Yeah, as I've explained to you before, please stop using zerohedge, they are worse than useless because you will be stupider for having read it.

Anyhow, the OSCE report wasn't linked on the zerohedge site, because once again it's a junk site, but here is the actual quote;
"In Luhansk the situation remained volatile. On 2 June, shortly after 15:00 hrs, rockets hit the occupied regional administration building. Based on the SMM’s limited observation these strikes were the result of non-guided rockets shot from an aircraft. The number of casualties is unknown."

At which point your conclusions start sounding pretty unfounded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:
And until anyone actually finds any conclusive proof of Russian involvement, surely they are innocent until proven guilty? You can't simply claim something and expect it to be taken as truth.

Fun fact. Politicians lie. British politicians lie, American politicians lie, Russian politicians lie. It's practically their job.

Innocent until proven guilty is an essential component of criminal courts. As a means of assessing involvement in on-going military affairs it makes no sense. There is no trial in which to prove guilt.

Instead you go with what the most likely scenario is, and in this case that's pretty damn obvious. Because what we have is militants who are armed with serious heavy weaponry such as guided AA missiles, which they've acquired in the last couple of months.

So we can conclude;
1) They built it themselves, out of old playstations and soup cans.
2) They managed to acquire many millions in funds and black market weapon contacts in the space of a few months.
3) The Russians are funneling weapons to the seperatists.

I'm gonna go with option 3, personally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:
Something else to bear in mind is that Crimea could legally have up to 20,000 (IIRC) Russian troops stationed at the naval base there, as part of the Sevastopol lease. Ergo, it would be easy to prove that there were Russian soldiers in Crimea, they were already there, and in significant numbers. Eastern Ukraine, by contrast, has no such agreement, so any Russian soldiers would have had to move in there in the last few months. It's quite likely that there are some Russians amongst the separatists, but they will be few and far between; if they don't want to be found, I don't think they will be.

It doesn't need Russian troops, just Russian arms (or more likely third party arms supplied via Russian money).

No different to Iranian supplies in the hands of Iraqi resistance fighting Americans, or American supplies in the hands of Afghani troops fighting Russians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dereksatkinson wrote:
One of the largest nat gas companies in Ukraine hired Joe Biden's son on as a director of the company only a couple weeks ago. It's so obvious it makes me ill.

This is just such a silly complaint, led of course by your favourite junk site zerohedge.

I mean, what in the hell do you think a company with major holdings in Crimea going to do when the Russians annex the region? Their options are to just hope that this time, for the first time, Russia will respect the rule of law and let the current owners of exploration rights keep control of those rights, or they can look to align themselves with the other big dog and add some heavy political weight to their efforts to protect their exploration rights.

The idea that it somehow proves the US destabilised the region is bonkers.

I think the Russian government is doing exactly the same thing the US government is doing. Providing tactical and financial assistance. I do not believe we have active russian military personnel in Eastern Ukraine at the moment. Things are way too disorganized for this to be a military op.

The difference being, of course, that this time the Russian involvement is destabilising the regime and leading to violence, while the US is the stabilising force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ok, I get it. You prefer to speak in euphemisms. The fact remains however that the current "interim" government was imposed via a revolution, coup, whatever.

No, I like to describe things as they actually are, and think it is important that others try to do the same. It helps people think sensibly.

And in the wake of the collapse of a government, of course you get an interim government that isn't elected. That's how it works, that's how it is always going to work, and that is the only way it can work. Trying to make it out that there's some big deal with a temporary government holding power while regular elections are scheduled is just silly.

I'm probably going to regret replying, but here we go...

 sebster wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
So yeah.. they used an airstrike and it missed the intended target and killed some civilians. Right after the elections, their president doesn't even try diplomacy.

Yeah, as I've explained to you before, please stop using zerohedge, they are worse than useless because you will be stupider for having read it.

Anyhow, the OSCE report wasn't linked on the zerohedge site, because once again it's a junk site, but here is the actual quote;
"In Luhansk the situation remained volatile. On 2 June, shortly after 15:00 hrs, rockets hit the occupied regional administration building. Based on the SMM’s limited observation these strikes were the result of non-guided rockets shot from an aircraft. The number of casualties is unknown."

At which point your conclusions start sounding pretty unfounded.

Did you read the section of the article from the BBC I posted? It also hit a hospital. I'm not sure what conclusions you think are unfounded, but it's established fact that the airstrike had some collateral damage, and civilians were killed.

 -Shrike- wrote:
And until anyone actually finds any conclusive proof of Russian involvement, surely they are innocent until proven guilty? You can't simply claim something and expect it to be taken as truth.

Fun fact. Politicians lie. British politicians lie, American politicians lie, Russian politicians lie. It's practically their job.

Innocent until proven guilty is an essential component of criminal courts. As a means of assessing involvement in on-going military affairs it makes no sense. There is no trial in which to prove guilt.

Instead you go with what the most likely scenario is, and in this case that's pretty damn obvious. Because what we have is militants who are armed with serious heavy weaponry such as guided AA missiles, which they've acquired in the last couple of months.

So we can conclude;
1) They built it themselves, out of old playstations and soup cans.
2) They managed to acquire many millions in funds and black market weapon contacts in the space of a few months.
3) The Russians are funneling weapons to the seperatists.

I'm gonna go with option 3, personally.

Personally, I don't remember seeing any reports of guided missiles, but I'll let that fly. Did you forget that the militants raided several military bases and took a lot of military equipment?

 -Shrike- wrote:
Something else to bear in mind is that Crimea could legally have up to 20,000 (IIRC) Russian troops stationed at the naval base there, as part of the Sevastopol lease. Ergo, it would be easy to prove that there were Russian soldiers in Crimea, they were already there, and in significant numbers. Eastern Ukraine, by contrast, has no such agreement, so any Russian soldiers would have had to move in there in the last few months. It's quite likely that there are some Russians amongst the separatists, but they will be few and far between; if they don't want to be found, I don't think they will be.

It doesn't need Russian troops, just Russian arms (or more likely third party arms supplied via Russian money).

No different to Iranian supplies in the hands of Iraqi resistance fighting Americans, or American supplies in the hands of Afghani troops fighting Russians.

Or like American supplies in the hands of Ukrainian troops.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ok, I get it. You prefer to speak in euphemisms. The fact remains however that the current "interim" government was imposed via a revolution, coup, whatever.

No, I like to describe things as they actually are, and think it is important that others try to do the same. It helps people think sensibly.

And in the wake of the collapse of a government, of course you get an interim government that isn't elected. That's how it works, that's how it is always going to work, and that is the only way it can work. Trying to make it out that there's some big deal with a temporary government holding power while regular elections are scheduled is just silly.

Yes, and by describing things as they actually are, it's obvious that the interim government came to power through a violent revolution.