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.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 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.

Once you're into "rebels" and "government forces" territory, I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised. The rebels are shooting down helicopters, storming buildings, killing Ukrainian troops. I get that we should all give peace a chance, but come on.

 sebster wrote:

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

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

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

Right. And as such, I will describe the current interim government as a revolution imposed government, because that is what it is. That is how it came about. To do otherwise IS a euphemism. Call it whatever you like, but the current government was installed via a revolution and until it has been ratified via elections, it will remain accurate to describe it as such.

I have stopped describing the President as such, because he was elected through an (apparently) fair and open election in which most of the country participated and voted for him.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

 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.

Once you're into "rebels" and "government forces" territory, I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised. The rebels are shooting down helicopters, storming buildings, killing Ukrainian troops. I get that we should all give peace a chance, but come on.

The Army was sent in to kill them. Wtf did you expect them to do? Not fight back?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The Army was sent in to kill them. Wtf did you expect them to do? Not fight back?

What did you expect the army to do?

The separatists have shown NO interest in dialogue, they have shown NO interest in peaceable solutions.

 Seaward wrote:
Once you're into "rebels" and "government forces" territory, I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised. The rebels are shooting down helicopters, storming buildings, killing Ukrainian troops. I get that we should all give peace a chance, but come on.

So airstrike a densely populated area? lol

The reason why Donetsk declare independence is because of the fear of ethnic cleansing. We've seen ample evidence that is exactly what the western half is intending.

dereksatkinson wrote:
The reason why Donetsk declare independence is because of the fear of ethnic cleansing. We've seen ample evidence that is exactly what the western half is intending.

I am sure you've got a few reliable sources for that claim; I'd be interested to read about it.

 -Shrike- wrote:

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

The hospital was positioned in an aggressive manner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Minx wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
The reason why Donetsk declare independence is because of the fear of ethnic cleansing. We've seen ample evidence that is exactly what the western half is intending.

I am sure you've got a few reliable sources for that claim; I'd be interested to read about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RxSzSWbcxo

As if the helicopters and airstrikes weren't enough evidence..

Like I said earlier in this thread, this crisis is descending into a sectarian/ethnic conflict.

One side hijacked the government via a revolution to overthrow a President favoured by the other side; whilst anti-Russian far right fascist groups looted military armouries, and had members appointed to positions in the new government.

The other side wasn't having that, so they also looted military armouries, seized power in their local areas; may or may not have received aid from Russia; and announced their opposition to the new revolutionary government.

Both sides are at fault, neither side wants to negotiate.

They announced their opposition before the new government was fully installed.

I just love seeing revisionist history in the making.

 Kanluwen wrote:
They announced their opposition before the new government was fully installed.

I just love seeing revisionist history in the making.

And I hate to see people cheering on a bloodthirsty regime.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
They announced their opposition before the new government was fully installed.

I just love seeing revisionist history in the making.

And I hate to see people cheering on a bloodthirsty regime.

There you go with that hyperbole again.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:The Army was sent in to kill them. Wtf did you expect them to do? Not fight back?

Sure. I suspect the army wouldn't be trying to kill them if they ceased armed rebellion. Just a hunch, mind.

dereksatkinson wrote:So airstrike a densely populated area? lol

Probably not a lot worth striking in the unpopulated areas.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
They announced their opposition before the new government was fully installed.

I just love seeing revisionist history in the making.

And I hate to see people cheering on a bloodthirsty regime.

There you go with that hyperbole again.

The point is still valid. You're cheering on the Ukrainian government, which is launching airstrikes on its own country.

EDIT: and one of its prominent figureheads expressed the desire to nuke and wipe out ethnic Russians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:The Army was sent in to kill them. Wtf did you expect them to do? Not fight back?

Sure. I suspect the army wouldn't be trying to kill them if they ceased armed rebellion. Just a hunch, mind.

An armed rebellion which would never have occurred if another (partially?) armed rebellion had not overthrown the previous government, installed a revolutionary government and taken control over the Army. Which too, is "just a hunch".

 Kanluwen wrote:
They announced their opposition before the new government was fully installed.

I just love seeing revisionist history in the making.

Might have something to do with the opposition leadership (which just overthrew the government they elected) saying she wanted to nuke them...

 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.

Of course there is no Russian military in Ukraine. If that had been the case, the Ukrainian troops would not have nearly been as able to mess around as they do now. There may be a few advisors, and there is likely to be a number of cossacks, but no huge Russian armies like the Kievan government seems to think there are.

 sebster wrote:

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

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

I'm gonna go with option 3, personally.

You are forgetting that many of the seperatists in the East are defected Ukrainian army soldiers and Crimeans who plundered the Ukrainian military bases there.

 sebster wrote:

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

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

That depends entirely on your point of view. Claiming that the US supplying the Ukrainian military does not need lead to violence is rather funny. US involvement will lead only to more violence, as the Ukrainian army will become more able to fight the seperatists. It will likely also lead to Russia supplying more things to the seperatists and only destabilise the region further.

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

The thing here is that the previous government did not fall in a legal way. They were ousted by a coup led by the opposition, who then took over as the interim government. Interim governments normally also have reduced power, which is not the case here, and interim governments normally also do not start military operations against their own people. There is nothing wrong with interim governments in general, but there is a lot wrong with this particular one.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The Army was sent in to kill them. Wtf did you expect them to do? Not fight back?

What did you expect the army to do?

The separatists have shown NO interest in dialogue, they have shown NO interest in peaceable solutions.

Neither has the government.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Minx wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
The reason why Donetsk declare independence is because of the fear of ethnic cleansing. We've seen ample evidence that is exactly what the western half is intending.

I am sure you've got a few reliable sources for that claim; I'd be interested to read about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RxSzSWbcxo

As if the helicopters and airstrikes weren't enough evidence..

Is that all the "ample evidence"? Ramblings of a former political prisoner who lost the election by quite a margin and regrettable collateral damage? I am not convinced.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, the Balkan states of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia became part of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia. After the death of longtime Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito in 1980, growing nationalism among the different Yugoslav republics threatened to split their union apart. This process intensified after the mid-1980s with the rise of the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, who helped foment discontent between Serbians in Bosnia and Croatia and their Croatian, Bosniak and Albanian neighbors. In 1991, Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia declared their independence; during the war in Croatia that followed, the Serb-dominated Yugoslav army supported Serbian separatists there in their brutal clashes with Croatian forces.

One individual in a position of power can escalate a situation.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That depends entirely on your point of view. Claiming that the US supplying the Ukrainian military does not need lead to violence is rather funny.

As you seem to know, could you tell me what we're supplying them with? All those AK-74s we make? SU-25s? Those weird striped undershirts?

 Seaward wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That depends entirely on your point of view. Claiming that the US supplying the Ukrainian military does not need lead to violence is rather funny.

As you seem to know, could you tell me what we're supplying them with? All those AK-74s we make? SU-25s? Those weird striped undershirts?

I thought Obama just pledged another $3 million in military equipment for Ukraine?

We're supplying our weapons to Ukraine? Javelins, M4's, M1's, MATV's and MRAP's?

 Seaward wrote:
Those weird striped undershirts?

It is the cornerstone of our economy!

 Ahtman wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Those weird striped undershirts?

It is the cornerstone of our economy!

I thought that was underpants? Oh, wait, that's Mormans.

They have the no button ones. Eastern style have the buttons. The ones made out of horse hair

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

And...?

Your claim is that they're no longer trying diplomacy... because they used an airstrike to attempt to relieve the siege of some troops

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

Are you, honest to God, hand on your heart, claiming that you honestly believe that it is plausible that the rebels are maintaining their fight purely with weapons taken from Ukrainian depots? Because holy gak that's incredible.

Or like American supplies in the hands of Ukrainian troops.

Personally I'm not in favour of the US arming Ukrainian troops, but that's just because giving weapons to a kleptocracy has such a terrible rate of return.

But that point aside, you're still ignoring the basic difference in the aims and effect of Russian equipment supplies compared to US equipment supplies.

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

Duh. And then, because we've now all agreed that reality is important, we need to recognise that government in a temporary government, purely a caretaker government until all positions have been democratically decided. Which makes any nonsense about it being an illegitimate government utterly silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Right. And as such, I will describe the current interim government as a revolution imposed government, because that is what it is. That is how it came about. To do otherwise IS a euphemism.

Yeah, and if you'd written something along the lines "note the rest of the government is still the interim government installed after the revolution and we are still waiting on proper elections for the rest of government" then you would have made a sensible point.

Instead you wrote this;
"Lets hope he can clean up the rest of the Coup imposed government and kick out the fascist elements."

Do you see the difference?

The Army was sent in to kill them. Wtf did you expect them to do? Not fight back?

I expect them to fight. The weirdness is coming from people on this forum who seem to have ended up concluding that occupying government buildings by force is reasonable, but government military action to retake those buildings is terrible.

There is people on this site, who seem to believe that during war/ civil unrest, anything is acceptable. If they truly believe that they have my pity.


I think this baby would disagree.

 sebster wrote:

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

And...?

Your claim is that they're no longer trying diplomacy... because they used an airstrike to attempt to relieve the siege of some troops

What on earth are you talking about? It's also obvious that neither side wants to try diplomacy at the moment.

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

Are you, honest to God, hand on your heart, claiming that you honestly believe that it is plausible that the rebels are maintaining their fight purely with weapons taken from Ukrainian depots? Because holy gak that's incredible.

I don't discount that possibility. Given that they have access to the Crimean armouries, and they have taken a metric gak tonne of weapons and vehicles from the Ukrainian military, it's possible.

Or like American supplies in the hands of Ukrainian troops.

Personally I'm not in favour of the US arming Ukrainian troops, but that's just because giving weapons to a kleptocracy has such a terrible rate of return.

But that point aside, you're still ignoring the basic difference in the aims and effect of Russian equipment supplies compared to US equipment supplies.

Assuming you believe that the vast majority of the militants weapons come from Russia. You still haven't provided any evidence of that.

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

Duh. And then, because we've now all agreed that reality is important, we need to recognise that government in a temporary government, purely a caretaker government until all positions have been democratically decided. Which makes any nonsense about it being an illegitimate government utterly silly.

Yes, it's an interim government which is currently waging war against it's own people. I can't see any reason why people might not like it. EDIT: And when people don't want to listen to a government they don't like, branding it as illegitimate is the easiest option.

 sebster wrote:
Your claim is that they're no longer trying diplomacy... because they used an airstrike to attempt to relieve the siege of some troops

Uhh.. what troops were under siege in this town? Ground troops were not there.

 sebster wrote:
I expect them to fight. The weirdness is coming from people on this forum who seem to have ended up concluding that occupying government buildings by force is reasonable, but government military action to retake those buildings is terrible.

Wtf..

Let me get this straight...

Ukraine's government was overthrown. The western half of the country liked that idea. The eastern half of the country didn't. So the East breaks away and the West uses military force to prevent them from leaving.

Why should the east be forced to submit to the West? They have no more legitimacy than the government the west overthrew.

Usually when that happens there's a big 'ole civil war to determine if the separatists separate. Winner is retroactively declared right. Seems people in the east want a war. Just don't complain if they get one.

 loki old fart wrote:
There is people on this site, who seem to believe that during war/ civil unrest, anything is acceptable. If they truly believe that they have my pity.

Spoiler:

I think this baby would disagree.

Collateral damage is always a bad thing, but its going to be an unavoidable part of any conflict.

People say its "acceptable" only for lack of a better word. Its unavoidable, thus condemning something simply because it happened, and will always happen, is rather silly. Condemn those who go out of their way to cause it or show utter disregard for collateral.

Ultimately, innocent blood is the price of whatever these people are fighting for. Its their decision on if its worth it or not.

This picture:

I don't think Putin will be losing any sleep over that.