Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!

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.

**Iron_Captain**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Governments, well, good governments, anyway, are an extension of the will of the people.

The issue is that we have all been here before, gentlemen, and as before, men argue for appeasement and sell their allies to avoid war.
Since when did Ukraine suddenly become an 'ally'?
Also, the amount of godwin in this thread (and Western media) is over 9000.

Considering the whole "neo-Nazis in Kiev" Russian media has/had going on, that's rather rich.

Nah. Russian media is mostly just saying they are fascists, not making dubious comparisons to WW2. That is not to say they don't do it (in fact, Putin himself said the bombardment of Donetsk reminded him of the Leningrad blockade.) but it is less than in Western medias.
Besides that, the presence and important role of neo-Nazis in the protests on Maidan and their subsequent influence in the Ukrainian interim government is something that is well proven and which could even be found in Western media.
In any case, it was not the point I was making.

**Co'tor Shas**

But can we all agree that Russia is being horrible? No?

**BaronIveagh**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Nah. Russian media is mostly just saying they are fascists, not making dubious comparisons to WW2.

Achem, hold that thought.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putin-compares-ukraine-s-advance-in-east-with-nazi-siege/506137.html

Also:

Back in April Russian language media was carrying stories about how the Kiev government was going to set up death camps for Russian speakers in the Eastern Ukraine. Putin himself called the political asylum centers set up my the UN and EU as 'fascist concentration camps' (BTW: Putin either had never seen a picture of one of these places,or had no idea what a concentration camp looks like) .

By the way, which side are the Nazis again?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29001361

**motyak**

Before you call someone on something Baron, read their whole post. He mentioned that Putin thing immediately after the words you quoted.

**BaronIveagh**

motyak wrote:
Before you call someone on something Baron, read their whole post. He mentioned that Putin thing immediately after the words you quoted.

Yes, but it used Nazis instead of fascists. I can dig out others. They've been calling government in Kiev Nazis ever since they were just the protestors in Kiev. But I was in a hurry when posting so just grabbed the first one to come up.

The NY times made a reference to this back in February, particularly the Russian foreign ministry comparing the protestors to the Brown Revolution.

“Had Russia failed to interfere, Crimea would have come under pressure from police forces controlled by radicals and from neo-Nazi militants. Within a month, they would have established their government in Crimea and within one or two years they would have driven out almost all Russians." - Sergey Markov, in an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda

Hmm, like any war, volunteers and mercenaries are comming in from all sides, to all sides.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28951324

**loki old fart**

Ukraine crisis: Russia halts gas supplies to Kiev
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27862849
Ukraine says Russia has cut off all gas supplies, in a major escalation of a dispute between the two nations.

"Gas supplies to Ukraine have been reduced to zero," Ukrainian Energy Minister Yuri Prodan said.

Russia's state-owned gas giant Gazprom said Ukraine had to pay upfront for its gas supplies, after Kiev failed to settle its huge debt.

Gazprom had asked Ukraine's state gas firm Naftogaz to pay $1.95bn (£1.15bn) of the $4.5bn it said it was owed.

It said it would continue to supply gas to Europe, although Gazprom chief Alexei Miller warned there now were "significant" risks for gas transit to the EU via Ukraine.

Ukraine has enough reserves to last until December, according to Naftogaz.

Later, the White House urged Moscow to resume talks with Ukraine, saying an EU proposal that Kiev pay $1bn on Monday and the rest in instalments was a "reasonable compromise".

On Monday, Gazprom said in a statement: "Today, from 10:00 Moscow time [06:00 GMT], Gazprom, according to the existing contract, moved Naftogaz to prepayment for gas supplies.

"From today, the Ukrainian company will receive Russian natural gas only in the amounts it has paid for."

**chaos0xomega**

Iron_Captain wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Governments, well, good governments, anyway, are an extension of the will of the people.

The issue is that we have all been here before, gentlemen, and as before, men argue for appeasement and sell their allies to avoid war.
Since when did Ukraine suddenly become an 'ally'?
Also, the amount of godwin in this thread (and Western media) is over 9000. I am pretty sure that unlike Hitler, Putin has no evil plans for world domination and genocidal campaigns to exterminate all non-Russians. And neither is he preparing an invasion of Poland.
I will also tell you that only because appeasement failed once, doesn't mean it will never work. We are dealing with a vastly different situation here that bears no resemblence to WW2.
Making such comparisons is silly, and only illustrates your lack of knowledge about this conflict.

You can only say that whilst conveniently overlooking Putins human rights violations against certain ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ community, overlooking his statements (and the Russian medias) pertaining to the reestablishment of the Soviet Empire, and his recent statements regarding Russias nuclear arsenal, as well as comments made pertaining to certain Baltic nations.

Anyway, everyones favorite Dutch Putin apologist aside, the rebels are willing to settle for autonomy, would that be a bad thing? Theyd still be part of the Ukraine but have a little more say in local affairs, etc., I dont see how thats any different than any one of the US states relationships with the federal govt... then again Crimea was autonomous and look how that worked out.

**Iron_Captain**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Governments, well, good governments, anyway, are an extension of the will of the people.

The issue is that we have all been here before, gentlemen, and as before, men argue for appeasement and sell their allies to avoid war.
Since when did Ukraine suddenly become an 'ally'?
Also, the amount of godwin in this thread (and Western media) is over 9000. I am pretty sure that unlike Hitler, Putin has no evil plans for world domination and genocidal campaigns to exterminate all non-Russians. And neither is he preparing an invasion of Poland.
I will also tell you that only because appeasement failed once, doesn't mean it will never work. We are dealing with a vastly different situation here that bears no resemblence to WW2.
Making such comparisons is silly, and only illustrates your lack of knowledge about this conflict.

You can only say that whilst conveniently overlooking Putins human rights violations against certain ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ community, overlooking his statements (and the Russian medias) pertaining to the reestablishment of the Soviet Empire, and his recent statements regarding Russias nuclear arsenal, as well as comments made pertaining to certain Baltic nations.

Anyway, everyones favorite Dutch Putin apologist aside, the rebels are willing to settle for autonomy, would that be a bad thing? Theyd still be part of the Ukraine but have a little more say in local affairs, etc., I dont see how thats any different than any one of the US states relationships with the federal govt... then again Crimea was autonomous and look how that worked out.

Nah, I don't overlook those LGBT rights violations (which have been ridiculously exaggerated in western media but that aside) and I think it is bad, but in Russia, no one cares for LGBT rights. Only Western people care for them. Who are you to say your cultural values are better than someone else's?

As to the Ukrainian seperatists, greater autonomy has been what they wanted from the very beginning. It is why they started protesting. I don't know where people got the idea they wanted to break away and join Russia. They only started saying that after the Ukrainian government started killing them.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Who are you to say your cultural values are better than someone else's?.

Is society being damaged by treating homosexuals, trans-gendered people and other groups in similar situations decently? No? Then why be an ass to them?

Hiding behind "cultural values" is a BS excuse. Even if it weren't the West's cultural values it'd still stand on it's own, because it's reasonable and logical. Unless "reason" and "logic" is now Western cultural attributes as well.

**Ketara**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Who are you to say your cultural values are better than someone else's?.

Is society being damaged by treating homosexuals, trans-gendered people and other groups in similar situations decently? No? Then why be an ass to them?

Hiding behind "cultural values" is a BS excuse. Even if it weren't the West's cultural values it'd still stand on it's own, because it's reasonable and logical. Unless "reason" and "logic" is now Western cultural attributes as well.

Perception of what is 'reasonable' or 'logical' are heavily influenced by cultural norms and attributes.

I'm a heavy defender of LGBT rights, but I'm not naive/arrogant enough to believe that my answers(and those of contemporary Western culture/society) are always fundamentally and objectively the right ones. A mere fifty years ago, you had the likes of Turing being hounded around. Being 'Western' does not always mean being correct.

**Iron_Captain**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Who are you to say your cultural values are better than someone else's?.

Is society being damaged by treating homosexuals, trans-gendered people and other groups in similar situations decently? No? Then why be an ass to them?

Hiding behind "cultural values" is a BS excuse. Even if it weren't the West's cultural values it'd still stand on it's own, because it's reasonable and logical. Unless "reason" and "logic" is now Western cultural attributes as well.

Some Russians would argue that they are a considered abomination by their religion (religion is very important to most Russians) and that they are therefore offended by those people. They would also argue that they damage society by undermining traditional values, causing unrest and leading young people astray from the path of Orthodox Christianity, condemning them to Damnation.
To them, this makes LGBT people a threat to their society, which turns them very hostile. They consider the West to be degenerate and morally corrupt, and they are determined to prevent the same from happening to Russia. It is really hard being openly gay in Russia, people often get beaten up, even when they are not gay themselves but just trying to defend LGBT people/rights. Putin's anti gay propaganda law did not really have much effect, except on Western media. Openly displaying gayness was already dangeruous, and thus it already rarely happened. But as sad as I think it is, I still find it impossible to condemn it. How do you judge cultural values? If you had been born in that culture, you would likely have supported them!

**A Town Called Malus**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Who are you to say your cultural values are better than someone else's?

That's a question that is better being asked to Putin and his bigoted thugs than those preaching tolerance and kindness to human beings.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iron_Captain wrote:
Putin's anti gay propaganda law did not really have much effect, except on Western media.

You mean apart from making it illegal to actually talk openly and honestly about homosexuality? Therefore further alienating a segment of Russias own people who are already facing massive amounts of discrimination and violence?

How can Russia claim to not be degenerate or morally corrupt when it allows its own citizens to be assaulted and humiliated in the streets with no punishment to those responsible.

If religion was important to Russians then they would stand up for what is the single most important part of pretty much every religion: Treat others as you yourself wish to be treated.

**Iron_Captain**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Who are you to say your cultural values are better than someone else's?

That's a question that is better being asked to Putin and his bigoted thugs than those preaching tolerance and kindness to human beings.

The question goes both ways. What you see as tolerance and kindness might be offensive to someone else. They might have a very different view of what is tolerant and kind.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Putin's anti gay propaganda law did not really have much effect, except on Western media.

You mean apart from making it illegal to actually talk openly and honestly about homosexuality? Therefore further alienating a segment of Russias own people who are already facing massive amounts of discrimination and violence?

The law did not have any practical effect. Talking openly and honestly about homosexuality already was not possible in Russia.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
How can Russia claim to not be degenerate or morally corrupt when it allows its own citizens to be assaulted and humiliated in the streets with no punishment to those responsible.

If religion was important to Russians then they would stand up for what is the single most important part of pretty much every religion: Treat others as you yourself wish to be treated.

That is a question you should ask other Kirya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Kirill_of_Moscow

**motyak**

If you want to discuss Russia's treatment of homosexuals, start another thread please. Behemoths like this at 107 pages don't need any more help getting knocked off the rails

**BaronIveagh**

Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't know where people got the idea they wanted to break away and join Russia.

I believe it was called 'Crimea'.

**loki old fart**

The Crimea was always part of Russia, in the peoples hearts.
Giving it to Ukraine was a mistake.

**BaronIveagh**

loki old fart wrote:
The Crimea was always part of Russia, in the peoples hearts.
Giving it to Ukraine was a mistake.

Actually, the mistake was killing or deporting the Ukrainians living there to Siberia under this guy called Stalin, who replaced them with loyal party members. The inhabitants of Crimea got the particularly heavy end of the hammer for having been one of the last holdouts in the region against communism. Nikita Khrushchev (who was actually from Donbas) gave it to the Ukraine after denouncing the mass purges Stalin conducted.

The Crimea was part of Russia in the people's hearts once Stalin got done carving them out and leaving them in the bloody snow. It's sort of like saying that Czechoslovakia was always part of Germany in the people's hearts.

**Howard A Treesong**

I think Russia has made it clear on the priority that religion gets. That's why playing some rude music in a church gets you slung in a freezing gulag for two years.

**Storm Shadow**

I believe Putin to quite certainly be a madman.

**Relapse**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think Russia has made it clear on the priority that religion gets. That's why playing some rude music in a church gets you slung in a freezing gulag for two years.

It's funny how times change. There were the days when just being in a church in Russia to worship could open you to that.

**BaronIveagh**

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29042561

Putin has agreed to a ceasefire on behalf of the rebels. But not on behalf of himself, since honest, Russia is not involved in the war in Donbas. Further has NOTHING to do with the results of the Nato meeting where the Ukraine's entry into Nato is being discussed, nor the fact that Nato fast reaction force is being assembled to deal with Russian aggression in the region.

**Iron_Captain**

BaronIveagh wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
The Crimea was always part of Russia, in the peoples hearts.
Giving it to Ukraine was a mistake.

Actually, the mistake was killing or deporting the Ukrainians living there to Siberia under this guy called Stalin, who replaced them with loyal party members. The inhabitants of Crimea got the particularly heavy end of the hammer for having been one of the last holdouts in the region against communism. Nikita Khrushchev (who was actually from Donbas) gave it to the Ukraine after denouncing the mass purges Stalin conducted.

The Crimea was part of Russia in the people's hearts once Stalin got done carving them out and leaving them in the bloody snow. It's sort of like saying that Czechoslovakia was always part of Germany in the people's hearts.

There were no Ukrainians in the Crimea before Stalin. Before the deportations, the cities and Sevastopol especially were populated by ethnic Russians while the rural areas were mainly populated by Crimean Tatars. The Tatars were deported because Stalin did not like them and they had cooperated with the Nazis. The Ukrainians mainly started emigrating to Crimea after the Ukrainian Kruschchev gave it to the Ukrainian SSR, which didn't actually have any effect because Russia and Ukraine were the same country. This decision was motivated by: "the commonality of the economy, the proximity, and close economic and cultural relations between the Crimean region and the Ukrainian SSR". Nonetheless Russians always remained the majority. If Kruschchev really had condemned Stalin's purges, he would have allowed the Crimean Tatars to return, which he didn't. The Crimean Tatars had a reputation for dissent, and Kruschchev didn't like them any better than Stalin.
Crimea can't be compared to Czechoslovakia, which was an independent state mainly populated by Czechs and Slovaks, not Germans, and had never been considered a part of Germany. Crimea has been in the Russian people's hearts since they captured it in the 18th century, signalling the end of centuries of war against the Tatars. Sevastopol especially holds a special place in Russian history as 'The City of Russian Glory'. This place became even more special in WW2, with the heroic last stand of the Red Army. Sevastopol is a sacred city to the Russians. It has a huge historical and symbolic value.

**Frazzled**

BaronIveagh wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
The Crimea was always part of Russia, in the peoples hearts.
Giving it to Ukraine was a mistake.

Actually, the mistake was killing or deporting the Ukrainians living there to Siberia under this guy called Stalin, who replaced them with loyal party members. The inhabitants of Crimea got the particularly heavy end of the hammer for having been one of the last holdouts in the region against communism. Nikita Khrushchev (who was actually from Donbas) gave it to the Ukraine after denouncing the mass purges Stalin conducted.

The Crimea was part of Russia in the people's hearts once Stalin got done carving them out and leaving them in the bloody snow. It's sort of like saying that Czechoslovakia was always part of Germany in the people's hearts.

Indeed. Even after the Ukraine was happy for the Germans coming, thinking they were being liberated. That didn't turn out so well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Storm Shadow wrote:
I believe Putin to quite certainly be a madman.

Really? Why? Nothing he's done has indicated madness, just good calculation, specific goals, and careful timelines to achieve those goals.

Putin, he's dreamy...

**elotar**

Just some historical trivia:

Crimea was conquered by Russian Empire in 1795. After the conquest 2/3 of the 450k tatar population was killed or deported. 7k russians took their place.

Second deportation/killing was after the Crimean war (1864)
Tatar population dropped from 350k to 200k, russians rose from 23k to 42k.

Third departation was by Stalin after WW2
All 220k tatars was gone(as well as other minority ethnic groups), number of russians was rised to 860k

At 2007 census there was:
1,450k Russians
577k Ukranians
245k Tatars
~60k other ethnic groups

So yea, there are more than half russian population there, but not really much more and mostly because of 200 years of ethnic cleansing.

The second idea, which somehow is lost by most, is that Russian Empire, Soviet Union and Russian Federation is not the different names of the one country, but 3 absolutely different countries, which just happen to share some(!) territory.

So something like - "Sevastopol especially holds a special place in Russian history as 'The City of Russian Glory'" is total ... crap. It can have some special place in history of the Soviet union/Russian empire, but those countries was predesessors for both modern Russian Federation and Ukraine equally.

At the time of the Russian Empire there was no "Russia" or "Ukraine". Borders of this "republics" was arbitrary drawn by bolshevics(commies) after winning civil war. Then one of the bolshevics changed borders (quite reasonably, cause there is no land connection between Russia and Crimea). But somehow first arbitrary drawing is called "right" and the second "wrong", despite that at the signing of the independence declaration after the fall of Soviet Union, both parties agreed to stay within the "second" borders.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Really? Why? Nothing he's done has indicated madness, just good calculation, specific goals, and careful timelines to achieve those goals.

Putin, he's dreamy...

Putin is just playing RL Civilisation with Russia. He want high score, but don't want to bother with boring economy/culture.

**A Town Called Malus**

Frazzled wrote:

Indeed. Even after the Ukraine was happy for the Germans coming, thinking they were being liberated. That didn't turn out so well.

Well, it was fine as the actual army was moving through. When the SS turned up afterwards though....

**loki old fart**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Indeed. Even after the Ukraine was happy for the Germans coming, thinking they were being liberated. That didn't turn out so well.

Well, it was fine as the actual army was moving through. When the SS turned up afterwards though....

Indeed, some were so frightened they joined up. Check your history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_%281st_Galician%29

**A Town Called Malus**

loki old fart wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Indeed. Even after the Ukraine was happy for the Germans coming, thinking they were being liberated. That didn't turn out so well.

Well, it was fine as the actual army was moving through. When the SS turned up afterwards though....

Indeed, some were so frightened they joined up. Check your history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_%281st_Galician%29

Oh yeah some of them did. Though when I referred to the SS I was more referring to the Einsatzgruppen than the actual fighting divisions. Some Ukrainians and other eastern Europeans were guards at some of the concentration camps, though.

**Iron_Captain**

elotar wrote:

The second idea, which somehow is lost by most, is that Russian Empire, Soviet Union and Russian Federation is not the different names of the one country, but 3 absolutely different countries, which just happen to share some(!) territory.

The government and name changed, but the country always remained Russia, whether it was Russian Empire, RSFSR, Soviet Union or Russian Federation. The Russian Federation is a sucessor to the Russian Empire, and both countries were Russia. Ukraine is also a sucessor to the Russian Empire and Soviet Union, but it never was Russia, it was Ukraine, even when it was part of Russian Empire. Legally, the succesor of the Russian Empire and SSSR is Russian Federation.

elotar wrote:
So something like - "Sevastopol especially holds a special place in Russian history as 'The City of Russian Glory'" is total ... crap. It can have some special place in history of the Soviet union/Russian empire, but those countries was predesessors for both modern Russian Federation and Ukraine equally.

That is not how the nationalists think...
And I think Putin is a nationalist.

elotar wrote:
At the time of the Russian Empire there was no "Russia" or "Ukraine". Borders of this "republics" was arbitrary drawn by bolshevics(commies) after winning civil war. Then one of the bolshevics changed borders (quite reasonably, cause there is no land connection between Russia and Crimea). But somehow first arbitrary drawing is called "right" and the second "wrong", despite that at the signing of the independence declaration after the fall of Soviet Union, both parties agreed to stay within the "second" borders.

Giving Crimea to Ukraine was a mistake, but it only was a mistake in hindsight. At the time, no one could ever have predicted this crisis would happen. Legally, re-annexing Crimea was wrong, as it was against laws and agreements. But morally, I think it was right. Crimea fits better with Russia than with Ukraine.

elotar wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Really? Why? Nothing he's done has indicated madness, just good calculation, specific goals, and careful timelines to achieve those goals.

Putin, he's dreamy...

Putin is just playing RL Civilisation with Russia. He want high score, but don't want to bother with boring economy/culture.

Than Putin is a pansy, he set the AI to 'easy'

I think Putin bothers with economy, just look how much it has improved since Jeltsin. But Putin also considers other things more important than economy. He wants to make Russia great and powerful again, that is his biggest goal.

**A Town Called Malus**

Iron_Captain wrote:

Than Putin is a pansy, he set the AI to 'easy'
I think Putin bothers with economy, just look how much it has improved since Jeltsin. But Putin also considers other things more important than economy. He wants to make Russia great and powerful again, that is his biggest goal.

You can't have a great and powerful country without a great and powerful economy. The USSR failed because it never had the economy required to sustain itself whilst providing people a good standard of living, especially when it was competing in an incredibly expensive arms race with the USA.

People in the USSR realised the West had it better and decided to try and break away from the USSR. The rest is history.

**DarkTraveler777**

France is not going to deliver the first of two warships commissioned by Russia.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29052599

France has said conditions are "not right" for delivery of the first of two Mistral navy assault ships to Russia.

President Francois Hollande's office blamed Moscow's recent actions in Ukraine.

France had until now resisted pressure to halt the delivery.

It had said it needed to respect an existing contract, to which EU sanctions could not apply retroactively, and that it would have been too costly to cancel.

The Vladivostok, the first of the two helicopter carriers, was expected to have been delivered to Russia by late October.

The second, the Sevastopol, was to have been sent next year, although no mention of it was made in Mr Hollande's statement.

Analysis: Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence and diplomatic correspondent
As the crisis has escalated in eastern Ukraine and as Russia's direct military role there has become more blatant, so the pressure on the French government to halt its sale of two advanced assault ships to Russia has grown ever stronger.

The US and a number of other countries have long made their feelings plain. But the deal weathered tensions with Moscow over Syria, and the Russian crew of the first vessel which is already undergoing sea trials has travelled to France to begin training.

This was the most significant Western arms sale to Russia and its postponement - the exact terms of the suspension of the deal are not clear - marks a very visible rebuff to Moscow on the eve of Nato's Wales Summit.

The Mistral assault ships can carry up to 16 heavy helicopters, land troops and armoured vehicles. Their delivery would have resulted in a marked improvement in Russia's amphibious capability.

But Mr Hollande's office said Wednesday's remarks by the Russian and Ukrainian presidents about a possible ceasefire were not enough to allow France to give it the go-ahead.

"The president of the republic has concluded that despite the prospect of ceasefire, which has yet to be confirmed and put in place, the conditions under which France could authorise the delivery of the first helicopter carrier are not in place," it said in a statement.

Peace deal hopes
Earlier on Wednesday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said he had agreed a "ceasefire process" with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.

Mr Putin said he hoped a peace deal could be reached by Friday, when representatives of Russia, Ukraine and the rebels meet in Minsk for talks.

The pro-Russian rebels have said they support Mr Putin's proposals, but that they do not trust Mr Poroshenko to maintain a ceasefire.

It is not clear whether any truce is being observed on the ground.

Meanwhile, in Estonia, US President Barack Obama sought to reassure the Baltic states that they would be protected by Nato, and said that Washington would stand by Ukraine.

Analysis: Oleg Boldyrev, BBC News, Moscow
Insisting that Russia is in no way a negotiating party in the Ukrainian conflict, Vladimir Putin is nevertheless certain that it is Moscow's proposals that are going to advance both sides to peace. Mr Putin's plan is short and leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

Take, for example, a point on moving Ukrainian troops away from positions from which towns and cities can be shelled. Taken to an extreme, this could mean rewinding the situation on the ground to a point several weeks ago before Ukrainian advances.

Just two weeks ago the discussions centred around when, and not if, the rebels would have to move out of Donetsk and Luhansk. But Moscow's plan will allow them to strengthen their control over the two regional centres and other areas.

Mr Putin has often seemed unwilling to negotiate from a position of weakness and the reversals of the past few days illustrate this perfectly. Now it's Petro Poroshenko who has to choose whether to accept something which clearly protects Kiev's enemies in eastern Ukraine.

Grey line
The announcements come a day before a Nato summit in Wales which is expected to discuss the alliance's response to Russia's involvement in the Ukraine conflict.

More than 2,600 civilians and combatants have been killed and more than a million people have fled their homes since fighting erupted in eastern Ukraine in April, when pro-Russian separatists there declared independence.

Russia has denied accusations by the West and the Ukrainian government that it is sending troops and military equipment over the border to support the separatists, who recently gained the upper hand against government forces.