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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Also, it was Iron Captain's video not mine.

Ignored him a long time ago so I just saw you posting it.

Right, so you ignore people who disagree with you?

Considering that...its what? Just me and Iron Captain dissenting from the Orthodox view in this thread? Ignoring him means you're shutting yourself off to most of the opposing views. Or do you just prefer an echo chamber?

I recall someone saying "It's war". It's a war Ukraine did not choose, but was forced into. It's a war that is only going on because Russia is secretly supporting rebels hiding among civilians.

Right, and we the West are supporting and encouraging the overthrow of governments throughout the world, leaving power vacuums and civil war in the wake. I really don't see why its wrong when Russia does it, but OK when we do it.

This started when west Ukraine overthrew the legitimate elected Government because it didn't like its decisions. Then the east Ukraine tried to do the same and break away from a new revolutionary government that was imposed on it. This War started in Kiev.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Also, it was Iron Captain's video not mine.

Ignored him a long time ago so I just saw you posting it.

Right, so you ignore people who disagree with you?

I haven't ignored you, haven't I? He simply did not add anything to the discussion. Constantly posting RT links and blindly embracing anything Russia does is less useful than my forum view being less cluttered with posts. He still is very young, so hope ain't lost yet.

This started when west Ukraine overthrew the legitimate elected Government because it didn't like its decisions. Then the east Ukraine tried to do the same and break away from a new revolutionary government that was imposed on it. This War started in Kiev.

I'm not sure where you were a few months ago. I'd highly suggest reading up on those events as they differ largely from what the rebels do right now and have been doing up until that point, starting from actual diplomacy compared to a total refusal of diplomatic measures and minor other events, such as shooting down civilian airplanes and having a country invade another breaking international law. Minor differences.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This ain't a simple Black & White case of "Russia = BAD. West & Friends = GOOD" like some people here seem to think. I see a nasty conflict in which both sides are guilty of despicable acts. Yet all we ever hear about in this thread is Russia's crimes.

[MOD EDIT: preview imagine is rather gory. Spoilered now. - Alpharius]

Spoiler:

How the feth can you people side with a government that does this to its own people??

Oh please, do go on, tell me all about it.

You might also want to remember the part where the current president won a majority in the East as well as the West, despite incentives for the Separatists to sabotage the referendum. You also, also might want to remember that, while democratically elected, Yanukovych's term conveniently saw his biggest political opponent sentenced to jail for "abuse of power".

Would I prefer it if Ukraine didn't kill civilians in bombing runs? Absolutely. I don't think anyone of us in this thread wants civilian casualties in any situation (except Frazzled, Dachshundskrieg and all that). However, given the fact that Russia doesn't have an interest in letting the opportunity pass by peacefully, I don't see how they have much choice. Any negotiations would end with Ukraine having to bow to some sort of Russian demands, which would violate the national sovereignty of Ukraine.

Just as a hypothetical question, if there were to be a ceasefire and negotiations, what would be a reasonable deal? If it turns out that the separatists have been in minority, how is Kiev supposed to get them to disarm? They've obviously proven that they don't mind using force to get their way, after all.

Frazz and me awhile back on this goat rope of a thread predicted Putin will pocket Eastern Ukraine in six months....like 90 days left or something

Just to respond to a number of things posted recently:-

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:This ain't a simple Black & White case of "Russia = BAD. West & Friends = GOOD" like some people here seem to think. I see a nasty conflict in which both sides are guilty of despicable acts. Yet all we ever hear about in this thread is Russia's crimes.

Hardly. There have been a number of people jumping on both sides of the debate, and a few people, like myself, who've shifted one way and another as facts have emerged. Playing the persecution card as a trump card doesn't work too well as a result.

The West really isn't all that different to Russia when it comes to stoking up violent conflicts to pursue our agenda's and national interests. We just disguise our motives better and dress it up as liberal interventionism and all that BS.

There's certainly an aspect of realpolitik to everything the West does at the end of the day, but I do believe that a large number of our politicians do tend to have liberal/human rights aspects floating around somewhere in their mind as they make their decisions. Often they do ignore those things when it comes to the crunch, but I think that the fact that they are present makes a difference.

Sigvatr wrote:Secondly: the Russia-supported rebels CHOSE this war, not Ukraine.

Not quite. There was a revolution in Kiev. It wouldn't be the first time a region has broken away in a civil war (America anyone? )
But whether or not that excuses the current behaviour of Russia is another kettle of fish altogether.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Stop taking MH170 out of context, its disingenuous. The reason why the Rebels are shooting down aircraft in the first place is to defend against the Ukraine Government's brutal bombing campaign.

It's true that the rebels are in the middle of a civil war, and so a certain amount of latitude can be given. Casualties happen in war. But again, Russia's actions in the region on the moral spectrum altogether is a different ball game altogether.

This is War. This is what happens to victims in War. To all the people up in arms about Russia supposedly shooting down MH170 and killing all those Western citizens. Well this is what the Ukraine Government is doing to East Ukrainians.

I don't think you can quite just shrug off the deaths of hundreds of foreign nationals not involved as 'OHWELL, WAR!' Our citizens were on that plane, and had no connection to the conflict. Collateral damage is tragic , and does occur. If a plane went down for flying over Northern Iraq right now because it was shot down by ISIL, people would not be going, 'Those poor Sunni rebels, being blamed by the world when they're just defending themselves!' But conversely, it was shot down accidentally by the Kurds, the world would be far more excusing.

Ultimately, you have to look at where the conflict is now, who the players are, and why they are fighting. And right now, it's reasonably clear that Russia is pulling the strings on this one, to unnecessarily extend the conflict for their own gain. It's a conflict that actually no longer needs to happen. And that, my friend, is what makes the shooting down of the airliner a point worth raising.

Iron_Captain wrote:The pro-Russian protesters did not start this war. The pro-Western protesters did when they staged an illegal coup against the democratic government of Ukraine. The illegitimate interim-government did when they sent police, tanks and soldiers against what up to that point had been peaceful protesters. Peacefully occupying a government building is a sign of protest and an attempt to force negotiations, not an official declaration of war as you seem to think.

I would be inclined to agree with Iron_Captain as an initial analysis from some time back, but this conflict has moved on from that initial stage now. They're no longer the Kiev administration, they have become the Ukrainian Government, de jure as well as de facto. You can't quite refer to them in the same light any more.

Sigvatr wrote:It's a war Ukraine did not choose, but was forced into. It's a war that is only going on because Russia is secretly supporting rebels hiding among civilians.

Ukraine was not 'forced into' anything really. The circumstances grew out of civil unrest, which evolved into a revolution, which in turn sparked more civil unrest. So I think your first point is inaccurate. When the Kiev Administration (as it was at the time), started demanding obedience and threatening to kill the Eastern rebels, they were bang out of order, and there was a reason that the Army wouldn't fight.

But that was then. This is now. Poroshenko was legitimately elected. Control has been re-established. The only reason the civil strife continues now, is because Russia wants it to do so. So your second point is more accurate,

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Right, and we the West are supporting and encouraging the overthrow of governments throughout the world, leaving power vacuums and civil war in the wake. I really don't see why its wrong when Russia does it, but OK when we do it.

Countries have different motivations for doing things at different times. Sometimes, they do so the same thing for different reasons. Sometimes not. But you can't just point to events that occurred in the past and say, 'they did the same thing once and didn't get blamed for it!' as justification. Each case must be judged on its own merits and in the light of contemporary affairs.

Almighty Walrus wrote:Would I prefer it if Ukraine didn't kill civilians in bombing runs? Absolutely. I don't think anyone of us in this thread wants civilian casualties in any situation (except Frazzled, Dachshundskrieg and all that). However, given the fact that Russia doesn't have an interest in letting the opportunity pass by peacefully, I don't see how they have much choice. Any negotiations would end with Ukraine having to bow to some sort of Russian demands, which would violate the national sovereignty of Ukraine.

This is where I stand, bar the casual acceptance that acceding to some Russian concerns is somehow inconceivable and infringes upon Ukrainian sovereignty.They ultimately have two choices:-

-They can sit down the Russians, hammer some acceptable terms, and come to an arrangement that takes their neighbours concerns into consideration, and allows them to end the conflict without the loss of further lives.
-They can drive into Eastern Ukraine, root out the rebels forcibly, seal the border, treat the Russians as the new Public Enemy No.1, and cut all ties.

Because of Crimea and the fact that Western Ukrainians heavily dominate the current institution, they're taking Option No.2. I don't think its particularly pragmatic, in either realpolitik terms, or moral ones. Frankly, I think them fools for choosing the road they have because it will severely impact their future circumstances in many negative ways that they could have avoided.

But ultimately? On the moral scale, it's still about thirty points higher than the Russians right now.

 Ketara wrote:
But ultimately? On the moral scale, it's still about thirty points higher than the Russians right now.

We have Crimea

But in all seriousness, I still fail to see how bombing civilians is more moral than sending humanitarian aid convoys. Russia is fuelling the conflict, that is beyond doubt, but it is a conflict that would not even have existed if the Ukrainian government had taken a different path. Surely starting a conflict is even worse than fuelling one?

It depends on why the conflict was started.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
But ultimately? On the moral scale, it's still about thirty points higher than the Russians right now.

We have Crimea

But in all seriousness, I still fail to see how bombing civilians is more moral than sending humanitarian aid convoys. Russia is fuelling the conflict, that is beyond doubt, but it is a conflict that would not even have existed if the Ukrainian government had taken a different path. Surely starting a conflict is even worse than fuelling one?

Because whilst the Ukrainian Government is bombing civilians, the Donetsk rebels are torturing people, and fuelling conflict. And in many cases, a large proportion of the 'Donetsk Rebels' are Russian. Some are cossacks, some are ultra-nationalists, some are soldiers. But whatever their motives for being there, they are foreign nationals. Foreign nationals trying to impose a new rule.

When a foreign power is actively sending its citizens to take up arms in your country, you are entirely justified in rallying the troops to throw them out. It's a question of the responsibilities of a Government. Sure, some civilians may die. But the alternative is abandoning them to live under Russian partisan rule. So you have to look at the bigger picture.

I believe that the alternative (negotiating with Russia) would be both the more humane and practical alternative right now. Russia is next door and not going anywhere. Trying to sever all those economic, political, and cultural ties, whilst at the same time stirring up a lot of ill will amongst your own countrymen would seem to be worse choice to make here. It guarantees a hostile power on your border, short to mid term economic hardship, and potential terrorist groups forming within the country because you shelled their relatives. Simply throwing the army at the problem is short-sighted, and will cause more problems then it solves, even if you succeed.

If the Ukrainian Government was less dominated by Western Ukrainians hellbent on avenging the loss of Crimea, they'd see that sensible option would be to promise Russia whatever it wants for the next year and a half, and get the Donetsk Rebels disbanded. Then, once you've done that, and spent the next two years solidifying your grip on power and legitimacy, you slowly move away from whatever pledges you made to Russia, and towards the EU.

The key to international relations is to identify your long-term goals clearly, and then gear all your short/mid-term objectives towards it (lying, manipulation, and political manoeuvring are all part of the process) . The Ukrainian Government is working on the short term (get these Russians out!), and it's going to come back and bite them severely in the arse. They're quite simply a bunch of amateurs when it comes to the Great Game. Watching them trying to machinate against Putin resembles an arthritic octopus trying to tango with Sammy Davis Jnr.

Technically two days old news now, but whatever:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28901386

http://www.dw.de/lithuanian-diplomat-murdered-in-eastern-ukraine/a-17872768

Lithuania's saying that their honorary consul was kidnapped and murdered in Luhansk.

 Ketara wrote:
....they'd see that sensible option would be to promise Russia whatever it wants for the next year and a half, and get the Donetsk Rebels disbanded.

The problem is that according to Vladamir Putin what Russia wants is a return to the old USSR. At the very least, they want the Eastern Ukraine and it's gas fields to be lining Russia's pockets, not the pockets of the people of the Ukraine. I don't know how many of the rest of you have noticed, but if you break out a map of Ukraine's petrochemical resources and the areas that have miraculously sprouted all sorts of insurgents and revolutionaries, it's an astonishing coincidence.

Perhaps ground containing natural gas just naturally produces a populace with pro Russian sympathies who are absolutely eager to hand over their property to Gazprom and for some reason don't speak Ukrainian, but rather Yugoslavian and Russian dialects?

Baronlveagh, that might not be too far from the truth, it might just be that oil/gas rich regions just cause heightened aggression, y'know, like something in the water? just look at places like Iraq, Iran, and Texas

Isn't the US the top oil and gas producing nation now? That would explain stuff...

chaos0xomega wrote:
Baronlveagh, that might not be too far from the truth, it might just be that oil/gas rich regions just cause heightened aggression, y'know, like something in the water? just look at places like Iraq, Iran, and Texas

I read an interesting article a long while back, wherein the author (who was apparently was a very prominent study-er of people... forgot what the hell theyre called) broke all of humanity down into two basic categories: people of the desert, and people of the forest. The desert people, by necessity have to be more warlike and violent, because they have fewer resources available to them; Whereas the people of the forest tend to be more sedentary, content to work farms/ranches and tend to have less violence directly in them.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


You moralise, and condemn Russia for supposedly shooting down a civilian airliner (when the evidence suggests that it was Ukrainian Rebels who shot it down, not Russians).

But THIS is why the Rebels are operating AA systems, and shooting down aircraft. To fight back, and defend themselves against airstrikes, that seem to be killing as many Ukrainian civilians as Ukrainian Rebels.

Ah yes, those pesky 30,000 foot plus, straight line non course deviating bombing runs. So clever.

 d-usa wrote:
Isn't the US the top oil and gas producing nation now? That would explain stuff...

Yep. But repeating the old "ZEY JUST WANT WAR FOR ZE OILZ" stereotype is much easier than actually thinking

 Bromsy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


You moralise, and condemn Russia for supposedly shooting down a civilian airliner (when the evidence suggests that it was Ukrainian Rebels who shot it down, not Russians).

But THIS is why the Rebels are operating AA systems, and shooting down aircraft. To fight back, and defend themselves against airstrikes, that seem to be killing as many Ukrainian civilians as Ukrainian Rebels.

Ah yes, those pesky 30,000 foot plus, straight line non course deviating bombing runs. So clever.

When the missile systems are operated by poorly trained rebels and insurgents, do you really think they can tell the difference?

MY170 was a case of gross incompetence by combatants who believed they were shooting at a military aircraft.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
....they'd see that sensible option would be to promise Russia whatever it wants for the next year and a half, and get the Donetsk Rebels disbanded.

The problem is that according to Vladamir Putin what Russia wants is a return to the old USSR. At the very least, they want the Eastern Ukraine and it's gas fields to be lining Russia's pockets, not the pockets of the people of the Ukraine. I don't know how many of the rest of you have noticed, but if you break out a map of Ukraine's petrochemical resources and the areas that have miraculously sprouted all sorts of insurgents and revolutionaries, it's an astonishing coincidence.

Perhaps ground containing natural gas just naturally produces a populace with pro Russian sympathies who are absolutely eager to hand over their property to Gazprom and for some reason don't speak Ukrainian, but rather Yugoslavian and Russian dialects?

Eastern Ukraine is rich in resources, that is true. But it is nothing that Russia needs or does not already have. Russia has gas fields that are ten times larger in Siberia. If Russia really would have wanted those resources, they would have done the same thing they did in Crimea. Crimea was an essential area to Russia, Eastern Ukraine is not.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Baronlveagh, that might not be too far from the truth, it might just be that oil/gas rich regions just cause heightened aggression, y'know, like something in the water? just look at places like Iraq, Iran, and Texas

I read an interesting article a long while back, wherein the author (who was apparently was a very prominent study-er of people... forgot what the hell theyre called) broke all of humanity down into two basic categories: people of the desert, and people of the forest. The desert people, by necessity have to be more warlike and violent, because they have fewer resources available to them; Whereas the people of the forest tend to be more sedentary, content to work farms/ranches and tend to have less violence directly in them.

Strange than, that Russia is covered with so much forest.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Eastern Ukraine is rich in resources, that is true. But it is nothing that Russia needs or does not already have. Russia has gas fields that are ten times larger in Siberia. If Russia really would have wanted those resources, they would have done the same thing they did in Crimea. Crimea was an essential area to Russia, Eastern Ukraine is not.

Those Siberian fields which are, IIRC, not really fully developed, require a great deal of maintenance, and do not threaten Russia's near monopoly on natural gas to Europe?

Let's see, create fake rebels, pretend that your armed forces have nothing to do with it, take over a rich resource producing area with them and deport or kill anyone who gets in the way..

This is different from Crimea how?

Speaking of bizarre Ukrainian news....

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28919683#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

Seems it's time to march the prisoners in front of the public to remind them who's in charge. Joe Stalin would be proud. after all, who cares about war crimes these days, am I right?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Eastern Ukraine is rich in resources, that is true. But it is nothing that Russia needs or does not already have. Russia has gas fields that are ten times larger in Siberia. If Russia really would have wanted those resources, they would have done the same thing they did in Crimea. Crimea was an essential area to Russia, Eastern Ukraine is not.

Those Siberian fields which are, IIRC, not really fully developed, require a great deal of maintenance, and do not threaten Russia's near monopoly on natural gas to Europe?

Let's see, create fake rebels, pretend that your armed forces have nothing to do with it, take over a rich resource producing area with them and deport or kill anyone who gets in the way..

This is different from Crimea how?

Speaking of bizarre Ukrainian news....

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28919683#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

Seems it's time to march the prisoners in front of the public to remind them who's in charge. Joe Stalin would be proud. after all, who cares about war crimes these days, am I right?

Like when captured and beaten Police officers were paraded in front of cameras in Kiev.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Eastern Ukraine is rich in resources, that is true. But it is nothing that Russia needs or does not already have. Russia has gas fields that are ten times larger in Siberia. If Russia really would have wanted those resources, they would have done the same thing they did in Crimea. Crimea was an essential area to Russia, Eastern Ukraine is not.

Those Siberian fields which are, IIRC, not really fully developed, require a great deal of maintenance, and do not threaten Russia's near monopoly on natural gas to Europe?

Let's see, create fake rebels, pretend that your armed forces have nothing to do with it, take over a rich resource producing area with them and deport or kill anyone who gets in the way..

This is different from Crimea how?

In Crimea, Russian marines secured airports after which a full-scale Russian army moved in and kicked the Ukrainians out. If they had done the same thing in Eastern Ukraine, it would already have been Western Russia by now. The resources in Eastern Ukraine are insignificant compared to those in Siberia. If Russia really wanted Eastern Ukraine like they wanted Crimea, we would already have seen an invasion by now, covert or not. So far the only thing we have seen are angry Ukrainian rebels, Cossacks and volunteers from Russia (and some from Serbia as well) some of whom may be working for the Russian government, but no evidence of that has been provided yet. Very much unlike Crimea, where it was clear from the start there were Russian marines involved. The masked soldiers in Crimea were mostly armed with modern weapons and equipment from Russia, while the seperatists in Eastern Ukrain do not seem to have anything that the Ukrainian army also does not have.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Speaking of bizarre Ukrainian news....

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28919683#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

Seems it's time to march the prisoners in front of the public to remind them who's in charge. Joe Stalin would be proud. after all, who cares about war crimes these days, am I right?

Parading prisoners around is a war crime?
What is so bizarre about it? The seperatists have lost a lot of territory, and Donetsk and Luhansk are constantly under attack. The seperatists want to show the people (and themselves) that they also have success. Parading captured enemies around is a good way to show your success and thus it is often done in wartime. Another important reason is the symbolism, as today was Ukraine's independence day. It was a mockery of the military parades in Kiev. Don't know what would be so bizarre about it.
'Joe' Stalin would have sent those prisoners to workcamps to never let them out again, if he would not have them executed first. No offense, but comparisons to Stalin (or Hitler for that matter) hardly ever make sense.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

The problem is that according to Vladamir Putin what Russia wants is a return to the old USSR. At the very least, they want the Eastern Ukraine and it's gas fields to be lining Russia's pockets, not the pockets of the people of the Ukraine.

Not quite. Putin wants to know that the only power with a road directly to Moscow isn't directly affiliated with a power likely to join the nascent EU. He also wants a few economic treaties aligned with Russia. Security and &economic concerns in other words. Things that are...negotiable.

Conveniently enough, things that can be forgotten or overwritten in three years time when the governments grip is re-established.

I don't know how many of the rest of you have noticed, but if you break out a map of Ukraine's petrochemical resources and the areas that have miraculously sprouted all sorts of insurgents and revolutionaries, it's an astonishing coincidence.

Iron_Captain, what you miss is that a Ukraine without its manufacturing sector is a highly unstable rump state, from which one of three eventualities will occur:

1. It will collapse allowing Russia to take the rest.
2. It will continue to exist as a weak vassal state and fill the very desirable role of 'buffer' between Russia and Europe
3. It will be propped up by the west indefinitely and thus drain western nations of resources that could be better utilized elsewhere. Further, the loss of eastern Ukraine puts Ukraine further away from both NATO and EU membership which further keeps Ukraine in the 'buffer zone' as they may not like Russia, but the West won't exactly welcome them either.

Its a win/win/win for Russia.

I think #3 is likely regardless of what happens with east Ukraine - Ukraine being dependent on the west.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Iron_Captain, what you miss is that a Ukraine without its manufacturing sector is a highly unstable rump state, from which one of three eventualities will occur:

1. It will collapse allowing Russia to take the rest.
2. It will continue to exist as a weak vassal state and fill the very desirable role of 'buffer' between Russia and Europe
3. It will be propped up by the west indefinitely and thus drain western nations of resources that could be better utilized elsewhere. Further, the loss of eastern Ukraine puts Ukraine further away from both NATO and EU membership which further keeps Ukraine in the 'buffer zone' as they may not like Russia, but the West won't exactly welcome them either.

Its a win/win/win for Russia.

Ukraine is a highly unstable rump state even with the Eastern part attached I mean, they only exist like 1991 and have already been through 3 revolutions and a civil war now.

1. Seems very unlikely, as it would leave no buffer between Russia and the West. And Russia really, really likes buffer states. It would also force those annoying, rebellious Western Ukrainians into Russia, and no one is waiting for that.
2. That is what Ukraine mostly has been until now and what they are likely to remain in the future. Ukraine is too dependent on Russia. After the crisis is over, they will have little choice but to improve relations again. And as long as Ukraine does not become part of EU or NATO, Russia will be happy.
3. The West will probably continue to provide some aid, but it will stop at some point. Ukraine would require an obscene amount of money to get out of its troubles, and in this time of economical recession, Western governments are not likely to waste so much money on an area their voters don't really care about. Russia will like this option less though, as the more Ukraine depends on Russia for everything, the more obedient vassals they will make.

But again, I say: If Russia would have wanted to annex the Eastern Ukraine, they would have already done so by now.
Russia does not need the Eastern Ukraine. There is nothing there Russia needs, and Ukraine has been further destabilised and shown it won't be able to leave Russia. They will continue to play buffer state (what did they expect? Their country is named 'The Border' after all) and remain poor and very far from Nato and EU membership. Russia will be happy while the Ukrainians will be not happy. Yay status quo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just heard that Poroshenko posted on Twitter that he has disbanded the Ukrainian parliament.
Apparently there are going to be early elections.
https://twitter.com/poroshenko/statuses/503976211891367936

Yep. Ukraine doing the brown swirl flush

Is that practical, with an ongoing rebellion & insurgency? How much of the country do the rebels currently control?

Doneskt it seems and territory east of it to the Russian border I think

I'll just leave this here...

https://news.vice.com/article/russian-weapons-convoy-spotted-entering-ukraine-as-poroshenko-dissolves-parliament?utm_source=vicenewsfb

Russian Weapons Convoy Spotted Entering Ukraine as Poroshenko Dissolves Parliament

After weeks of tension, Ukraine seemed to relax when a controversial Russian humanitarian aid convoy finally unloaded its supplies in Luhansk on Saturday. Fearing a surprise, Trojan horse-style attack from Russia, Ukrainian officials had been cagey about letting the more than 200 trucks enter the country, making them wait at the border for over a week. Eventually, the convoy entered Ukraine without permission anyway.

Now there are reports from the Associated Press that a second Russian procession has entered rebel-held Ukraine, this one filled with military weaponry.

AP reporters stated that they witnessed "large convoys of military hardware" travel through the rebel-held town of Krasnodon, and on towards where separatists and Ukrainian troops are fighting, on three evenings between August 19-23.

The Ukrainian government also claimed that about 10 Russian tanks, two armored vehicles, and two trucks had entered the country on Monday, and that a clash with government forces had ensued.

More than 2,000 people have died in eastern Ukraine and at least 344,000 have fled the region since fighting began in the spring, according to UN figures. With ever-increasing casualties, food shortages, and electricity cuts, civilian aid is desperately needed. The humanitarian aid convoy from Russia that arrived in Luhansk on Saturday was reportedly comprised of 1,800 tons of medical supplies and food.

Earlier today, Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko also voted to dissolve parliament and called for early elections on October 26, according to a statement on his website. Poroshenko cited the collapse of Ukraine's coalition government, claimed that pro-rebel MPs remained supporters of former President Viktor Yanukovych, and referred to polls supporting early elections as reasons for the decision.

Poroshenko also claimed the move was legal, citing article 90 of the Ukrainian Constitution, which allows the president to halt operations if a coalition government has lapsed for over a month. According to him, the coalition government had collapsed on July 24.

HAHAHAHA.

Russian paratroopers have been arrested in Ukraine, confirmed by the Kreml. He, I am serious, claims that they crossed the border BY ACCIDENT.

This is hilarious.

Putin's finally lost his mind then.