Ukraine Thread [Archive] - Page 2

Husar

02-04-2015, 02:37

The DDR had free elections at the end of its existence, after which the new Volkskammer voted to split the DDR into several smaller entities, which entered the BRD separately as new Länder. I suppose that the vote might have been contrary to the DDR's constitution, I have no idea.

The point is that it hardly matters whether it fit the DDR constitution as hardly anyone wanted to keep that anyway. The Russians retreated from there (IIRC they were paid a hefty sum of money for it), there was no resistance by the population that I'm aware of, quite the contrary in fact, and their representatives, however representative they actually were, voted in favor of it. Their top politicians left/fled the country and the army didn't resist either unless I missed that war entirely.
It's questionable whether anyone could actually have a legitimate complaint given that there were none at the time it happened. Where would complaints come from? From the countries or people who watched it happen or agreed to it at the time?

I mean if another country says it was not agreeable enough as an event the way it happened, then I can probably find an argument for how that country should be disbanded based on its own disagreeable foundation. Most major countries I can think of have "integrated" people or geographical locations in far more violent ways, in the Germany case it was even a re-unification, basically just a return to a status that had previously existed instead of the addition of entirely new territory. Even a banana import restrictions reform leaves more ground for complaints than that. :smug:

Gilrandir

02-04-2015, 15:24

"And perhaps Brenus as well - after all he must pay something, Napoleon was a well-known arsonists." And perhaps you should learn History: Most historians agreed that the Russians set fire to Moscow following the orders of Count Rospochin to deprive the Grande Armée of any shelter. Is it ignorance or deliberate lies? No, it is ignorance.
It is neither. However, since you don't believe me anyway, you can believe it is both.
In fact, you are as bad at detecting irony as I am.
Yet if you adopt an edifying attitude, you should have at least taken pains to get the names correct. It is Count Rostopchin. Is is ignorance or deliberate lies? No, it is ~:confused:

The point is that it hardly matters whether it fit the DDR constitution as hardly anyone wanted to keep that anyway.

It's questionable whether anyone could actually have a legitimate complaint given that there were none at the time it happened.

... in the Germany case it was even a re-unification, basically just a return to a status that had previously existed instead of the addition of entirely new territory.
The problem is that very similar arguments are put forward by Russia trying to justify the annexation of Crimea. Replace "Germany" with "Russia" and "DDR" with "Crimea" and you can debate with yourself to your heart's content.

Gathering of clouds?
http://www.interpretermag.com/moscow-readying-a-massive-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-golts-says/

Brenus

02-04-2015, 19:04

"Is is ignorance or deliberate lies? No, it is" No, just simple spelling mistake due a different alphabet. As usual, you lack of knowledge. Does it change the reality of your claim based on ignorance? No.

Gilrandir

02-05-2015, 09:28

Does it change the reality of your claim based on ignorance? No.
Believe me or not, at school and at University I studied the subject called "The history of the USSR", so I am well aware of the fact you refer to. You again fail to see that it wasn't a "claim based on ignorance" (and my awareness of the correct name of the 1812 arsonist is a proof), but a sarcastic remark aimed at showing stupidity of the claim forwarded by Russian Duma. Husar's posts are full of sarcasm, somehow you never accuse him of ignorance or other sins. Yet you go on spouting vitriol only at me following the logics: "If he doesn't understand something - he lacks brains, if he (as I believe) doesn't know something - he is know-nothing, if he expresses a different view of things - he is an obsurantist nazi". If France is full with the likes of you, I don't wonder you will have other Charlie Hebdo style accidents.
And speaking of nazis:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-run-by-miserable-jews-says-rebel-chief/
Any crying foul on how nazism flourishes in DNR?

Brenus

02-05-2015, 20:13

“and my awareness of the correct name of the 1812 arsonist is a proof)” Nope, that is an “proof” that you know to use research engine….

“you go on spouting vitriol only at me following the logics: "If he doesn't understand something - lacks brains, if he (as I believe) doesn't know something - he is know-nothing, if he expresses a different view of things - he is an obsurantist nazi".” Can I remind you who start this? By the way, obscurantist and Nazi is a pleonasm.

“If France is full with the likes of you, I don't wonder you will have other Charlie Hebdo style accidents.” Thanks. You just confirm my judgement on your opinion and judgment capacities. The murdered ones deserved what happened to them… Was not an accident, it was a deliberate attack by obscurantist Muslim Fanatics. Not it matters for you, apparently.

“Any crying foul on how nazism flourishes in DNR?” Nope. Russians are known for anti-Semitism, I think the word pogrom comes for here. Wearing Nazi uniform is just a step forward that Ukrainian did. From you previous appreciation, I though you would call them extreme-nationalists. I am not sure of for classification, but it was something like this.

Ok, we clarified the burning of Moscow, I will go back to my indifference for this thread you awake me from, in putting my avatar’s name in.

Viking

02-07-2015, 11:22

The German and French leaders are starting to feel like they've had enough with Putin's unreliability.

https://i.imgur.com/LDGV7bB.jpg

Gilrandir

02-07-2015, 16:24

“and my awareness of the correct name of the 1812 arsonist is a proof)” Nope, that is an “proof” that you know to use research engine….

So only you can really know something, others (especially those you don't like) only google it. What a conceit!

“If France is full with the likes of you, I don't wonder you will have other Charlie Hebdo style accidents.” Thanks. You just confirm my judgement on your opinion and judgment capacities. The murdered ones deserved what happened to them…

Again distortion. More than once I said I was sorry for the victims. I wanted others (since you apparently won't) to see that for modern France the choice is get polite or get armed. CH did neither. Now France seems to have opted for the latter. And it is good. If it can't grow decency, it has at least started growing some common sense (albeit at the cost of freedom and security measures expenses).

“Any crying foul on how nazism flourishes in DNR?” Nope. Russians are known for anti-Semitism, I think the word pogrom comes for here.

1. What a piece of generalized xenophobia! All Russians are? It is like claiming that the French are known for alcohol (notably wine) abuse.
2. Zakharchenko is not Russian. Although, he apparently doesn't consider himself Ukainian either.

Wearing Nazi uniform is just a step forward that Ukrainian did.

We have had a discussion on uniforms way back, so I won't enter a sequel of it. But if you think that wearing any uniform is much more terrible that hating other nations... But at least you NOW admit that nazis are in DNR (and at the head of the "state" too).

Ok, we clarified the burning of Moscow, I will go back to my indifference for this thread you awake me from, in putting my avatar’s name in.
Like I said, the burning of Moscow was clear to me at least in the 6th grade, but if you say so... Go back to sleep, sweet dreams and let no obscurantists/nazis enter them.:Zzzz:
Meanwile for all you night walkers out there - a new interception by SBU.
http://espreso.tv/news/2015/02/07/perekhoplennya_sbu_yak_v_rosiyi_prykhovuyut_quotvantazhi_200quot_z_donbasu
In it a Russian officer (nickname CHIEF), responsible for dealing with the killed in Donbas Russian military, upbraides an official of DPR for issuing death certificates which have Donetsk morgues' seals on them. He says that he has several hundreds of such certificates which create problems for him since his job is to conceal the cases. He insisits that the dead must not come in zincs and the death certificates must not mention Ukraine as the site of death. Such caskets should be sent only to a specific military unit's location where he will forge (sic!) the neccessary documents. He is very much vexed with the fact that undesirable death certificates appear from time to time in different Russian cities (he mentioned St. Petersburg and Krasnoyarsk). Cheif is also dissatisfied with the fact that journalists are prowling about Rostov sniffing out unpleasant truth which the families of the dead are likely to reveal to them for some remuneration.

Gilrandir

02-07-2015, 16:26

The German and French leaders are starting to feel like they've had enough with Putin's unreliability.

https://i.imgur.com/LDGV7bB.jpg
And Putin, perhaps, is showing the size of the gun he has at home... oops, the guns which are sold at supermarkets all over Russia.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-10-2015, 02:59

Seamus Fermanagh

02-10-2015, 06:30

Obama is now actively considering supplying arms to Ukraine: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31279621

Putin will pitch like a teenage girl but if he wasn't supplying the rebels they're be out of spare parts and ammo now, like the Ukrainian Army.

It will happen, but will change little. Merkel will have assuaged German sensibilities on the issue and Obama will still be replaced in two years.

Gilrandir

02-10-2015, 13:19

Putin will pitch like a teenage girl but if he wasn't supplying the rebels they're be out of spare parts and ammo now
And men and fuel.

Merkel will have assuaged German sensibilities on the issue and Obama will still be replaced in two years.
Two years is eternity for both Ukraine and Putin. As the precipitate winter offensive shows, Putin feels his time is running short or at least shorter than he had hoped for.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-10-2015, 13:27

Gilrandir

02-10-2015, 13:46

The Winter Offensive might just be the the Russians attacking early to get a jump on the Ukrainian Army, I confess I wasn't expecting the offensive to start until at least mid-February, more likely March.
Nobody was and Lugandoneans were not inclined to. Something happened that spurred them faster than they were supposed to. People here noticed that all their offensives started either on Ukrainian national holidays or before expected summits. Right now there are reports of DNR/Russia trying to cut off the Debaltsevo promontory. Ukrainians are on the offensive on the southern flank and some villages in the vicinity are reported to have been captured by Ukrainians.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-10-2015, 16:34

And men and fuel.

Two years is eternity for both Ukraine and Putin. As the precipitate winter offensive shows, Putin feels his time is running short or at least shorter than he had hoped for.

Putin is a chess player. Simply trying to consolidate the gain in the time frame he has left before his own people are fed up with affairs as they are. He won't go much further after this -- because he needs to consolidate, not because of much of what the West is doing.

Gilrandir

02-10-2015, 17:41

Putin is a chess player. Simply trying to consolidate the gain in the time frame he has left before his own people are fed up with affairs as they are.

His people are being successfully bombarded by his propaganda, so as far as I can judge (from what I see on Russian TV) they (well, the vast majority of them) don't blame him in anything. They still believe that it is the USA-Russia affair, so the USA (or broadly speaking the West) is guilty of it all as it ultimately aims to destroy Russia. Thus, they are to weather it and it can be done by tightening their belts and ranks around the leader. The saddest part of it all is that the two closely related peoples have now become enemies and even the lulling of the conflict is not likely to change this enmity in the foreseeable future.

He won't go much further after this -- because he needs to consolidate, not because of much of what the West is doing.
Yet, I believe, that if the West announces of lethal weapons being given to Ukraine it will bring about more aggressive warfare on Russia's part.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-10-2015, 20:59

His people are being successfully bombarded by his propaganda, so as far as I can judge (from what I see on Russian TV) they (well, the vast majority of them) don't blame him in anything. They still believe that it is the USA-Russia affair, so the USA (or broadly speaking the West) is guilty of it all as it ultimately aims to destroy Russia. Thus, they are to weather it and it can be done by tightening their belts and ranks around the leader. The saddest part of it all is that the two closely related peoples have now become enemies and even the lulling of the conflict is not likely to change this enmity in the foreseeable future.

Yet, I believe, that if the West announces of lethal weapons being given to Ukraine it will bring about more aggressive warfare on Russia's part.

That's my read on it too, broadly. However, I suspect Putin and company are smart enough to realize that propaganda only works for so long. I think he senses the moment passing and is simply trying to make the most of it before things shift and fervor begins to wane. More weapon systems to Ukraine would, short term, encourage them to up the pace of aggression for a bit so that they could consolidate before the new systems are deployed in any significant number.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-10-2015, 21:29

That's my read on it too, broadly. However, I suspect Putin and company are smart enough to realize that propaganda only works for so long. I think he senses the moment passing and is simply trying to make the most of it before things shift and fervor begins to wane. More weapon systems to Ukraine would, short term, encourage them to up the pace of aggression for a bit so that they could consolidate before the new systems are deployed in any significant number.

I think you're wrong - people keeps going on about Putin being this great strategist and a "chess player" but people forget that MOST politicians play Chess, I'm sure Obama does having been to Harvard, David Cameron certainly would having been to Eton and Oxford, Hollonde probably does too - Merkel might not I suppose.

Putin miss-judged badly when he tried to force Ukraine into his Customs Union and away from the EU, Ukraine is now actively seeking membership of NATO and is no longer unaligned. He also miss-calculated again with Crimea, he annexed the peninsula but the long term repercussions include having lost pretty much all his personal credibility and NATO reversing its collective defence cuts.

I think he's miss-calculating again, nobody has any hopes for the most recent round of peace talks because Putin has used previous rounds as nothing more than a stalling tactic. So the talks will happen, the rebels will step up their attacks and weapons and other material will flow into Ukraine from the US and then the rest of NATO. At that point Putin either has to give ground or commit Russian troops openly.

My reading of the situation is that he will commit Russian troops to "defend the people of Novarossoia" (sic). I base this conclusion on the fact that it's a viable option but not the one that looks logical from a Western perspective, so taking it follows Putin's established pattern.

Gilrandir

02-11-2015, 15:10

That's my read on it too, broadly. However, I suspect Putin and company are smart enough to realize that propaganda only works for so long.
Giving the swing of the propaganda and the money he is pumping into it I would say that it shows no sign of abating or even slackening. Sometimes it is so ridiculous that I can hardly believe that people buy it. For example, at a talk show broadcast on Russian TV (in the primetime on Sunday too) a man who claimed to have witnessed it personally said that elementary school teachers in Zaporizhya said to second-graders that they must feed finches during the winter cold since their color is blue and yellow, the colors of the Ukrainian flag, while the kids should not feed and even shoo away bull finches as their color suggest they are Russian birds.
And people at the talk show (and not only there) considered it a credible story!

My reading of the situation is that he will commit Russian troops to "defend the people of Novarossoia" (sic). I base this conclusion on the fact that it's a viable option but not the one that looks logical from a Western perspective, so taking it follows Putin's established pattern.
And if he does, what do you think the West would do? Cut Russia off from Swift?

Papewaio

02-12-2015, 04:39

Well the American Congress have actually done stupid things like this:

"On March 11, 2003 Republican U.S. Representatives Bob Ney and Walter B. Jones directed the three House cafeterias to change all references to French fries and French toast on menus, and replace them with Freedom fries and Freedom toast, respectively. Jones chose to follow Cubbie's example by circulating a letter to his colleagues advocating their renaming because, he said, "the French were 'sitting on the sidelines.'"[4][7] As Ney was Chairman of the United States House Committee on House Administration, the action did not require any vote, as the committee has authority over House cafeterias. According to a statement released by Ney, the renaming was intended to express displeasure with France's "continued refusal to stand with their U.S. allies". The statement further read: "This action today is a small but symbolic effort to show the strong displeasure many on Capitol Hill have with our so-called ally, France."[8] When asked about his view on the change, Jones said it was a "lighthearted gesture."[9]" - Wikipedia

So the talk show bird story looks credible when compared to the US Congress... not that that is a very high standard...

Gilrandir

02-12-2015, 16:13

So the talk show bird story looks credible when compared to the US Congress... not that that is a very high standard...
The story I mentioned was just a sample. Here is one more:
A woman said that she had witnessed it herself. After Ukrainian military entered Slovyansk (left by the separatists in July) they gathered all the poplulation of the town in the central square. Then they took a boy of three dressed only in his underwear and crucified him on the announcement board in the presence of his mother.
The problem is not in the stories, but in the people in Russia most of whom are ready to believe any boogie story about Ukrainian nazi junta. And Russian TV keeps pumping out such coverages. That is why I think that Ukrianians and Russians are unlikely to have the attitude to each other they have had for the last 50-70 years. In the long run it is worse than the current crisis which will end sooner or later.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-12-2015, 19:32

I think you're wrong - people keeps going on about Putin being this great strategist and a "chess player" but people forget that MOST politicians play Chess, I'm sure Obama does having been to Harvard, David Cameron certainly would having been to Eton and Oxford, Hollonde probably does too - Merkel might not I suppose.

Hmmm. I may be using the "chess player" analogy a bit differently. I am not saying that Putin has been mistake free. I am saying that he has a mind set where pressure and control of territory -- incremental gains -- are the objectives as opposed to sweeping results. By contrast, the USA has a strong poker player streak in us -- "all in" -- hoping for sweeping results from a policy or approach. THAT is what I mean by consolidation. He knows that going much further in ramping things up is likely to get too costly. He will keep the current situation running as long as it is generating results and the cost isn't ramped up. If that shifts, he will stop -- but not reverse -- these efforts.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-12-2015, 19:38

Giving the swing of the propaganda and the money he is pumping into it I would say that it shows no sign of abating or even slackening. Sometimes it is so ridiculous that I can hardly believe that people buy it. For example, at a talk show broadcast on Russian TV (in the primetime on Sunday too) a man who claimed to have witnessed it personally said that elementary school teachers in Zaporizhya said to second-graders that they must feed finches during the winter cold since their color is blue and yellow, the colors of the Ukrainian flag, while the kids should not feed and even shoo away bull finches as their color suggest they are Russian birds.
And people at the talk show (and not only there) considered it a credible story!

And if he does, what do you think the West would do? Cut Russia off from Swift?

I am saying that Putin's current efforts will run up against economic hardships or the potential for significant casualties and he will either need to back off and consolidate a bit or take Russia to war. While he is playing off the sentiment of many Russians that they deserve their "place in the sun" and that other Western powers are denying them that opportunity (that has been a "chip on the shoulder' for Russian since Pytor), he knows that Russia lacks the wherewithal for a general war. As long as he can keep profiting from the current arrangement of events, he will do so. When the price escalates, he will become conciliatory -- but doesn't plan to hand anything back.

Papewaio

02-13-2015, 02:30

The story I mentioned was just a sample. Here is one more:
A woman said that she had witnessed it herself. After Ukrainian military entered Slovyansk (left by the separatists in July) they gathered all the poplulation of the town in the central square. Then they took a boy of three dressed only in his underwear and crucified him on the announcement board in the presence of his mother.
The problem is not in the stories, but in the people in Russia most of whom are ready to believe any boogie story about Ukrainian nazi junta. And Russian TV keeps pumping out such coverages. That is why I think that Ukrianians and Russians are unlikely to have the attitude to each other they have had for the last 50-70 years. In the long run it is worse than the current crisis which will end sooner or later.

What I'm getting out is propaganda works even blatantly fake propaganda because people have done more malicious and stupid things then what is talked about. Most people who watch TV don't look at multiple sources or even review the source they are getting it from.

Good rule of thumb if Al Jazeera, BBC and Fox News all agree on something then it is probably true. Otherwise take it with a grain of salt.

Given that the majority of Westerners can't do that, it would be much easier to dupe an audience who may not have been brought up with such critical thinking and a culture that questions authority.

Tuuvi

02-13-2015, 02:59

Funny clip of Putin at the summit in Minsk:

http://coub.com/view/4z2tx

Seems like Europe is starting to get a little tired of Mr. Putin.

a completely inoffensive name

02-13-2015, 07:17

Husar

02-13-2015, 11:33

Funny clip of Putin at the summit in Minsk:

http://coub.com/view/4z2tx

Seems like Europe is starting to get a little tired of Mr. Putin.

That's the reversed clip, and the guy holding the chair is Lukashenko, if Lukashenko represents Europe or people getting tired of Putin, I'll eat a banana*.

*I might eat a banana anyway.

Gilrandir

02-13-2015, 16:11

Another funny video from Minsk - a Lifenews journalist communicates to his Ukrainian colleagues:
http://obozrevatel.com/abroad/32094-v-minske-sotrudnik-lifenews-zagavkal-na-ukrainskih-zhurnalistov--videofakt.htm

Tuuvi

02-14-2015, 02:25

That's the reversed clip, and the guy holding the chair is Lukashenko, if Lukashenko represents Europe or people getting tired of Putin, I'll eat a banana*.

*I might eat a banana anyway.

Oh come on Husar don't ruin it for me...

Husar

02-14-2015, 12:23

Oh come on Husar don't ruin it for me...

There are already enough false news coming out of Ukraine... :drama1:

TotalGamer

02-14-2015, 14:33

Another funny video from Minsk - a Lifenews journalist communicates to his Ukrainian colleagues

lol :D

Gilrandir

02-14-2015, 16:18

Finally, the west caught Putin lying about absence of his weapons in Donbas:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/fiia_researchers_minsk_ceasefire_agreement_contains_proof_of_russian_involvement_in_ukraine/7803774

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-15-2015, 02:18

Finally, the west caught Putin lying about absence of his weapons in Donbas:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/fiia_researchers_minsk_ceasefire_agreement_contains_proof_of_russian_involvement_in_ukraine/7803774

The Russians will say Ukraine inserted the clause to cause mischief.

In other news...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31475744

"Donetsk rebel leader Alexander Zakharchenko said earlier on Saturday that he considered the Debaltseve area was not covered by the agreed ceasefire."

Men like this deserve their heads on spikes.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-15-2015, 18:24

...Donetsk rebel leader Alexander Zakharchenko said earlier on Saturday that he considered the Debaltseve area was not covered by the agreed ceasefire."

Men like this deserve their heads on spikes.

While I cannot completely disagree with "deserve," I would advocate restraint. Too "old school" for modern sensibilities -- ends up creating sympathy for someone thereof undeserving. Quiet and relatively painless execution followed by private family funeral is a more practicable route. Still ends up with sympathizers screaming "martyrdom!" but probably won't add to their numbers any as a public showing would.

Gilrandir

02-16-2015, 15:22

The Russians will say Ukraine inserted the clause to cause mischief.

... and Putin was too sleepy after exhausting night negotiations in Minsk that he failed to detect the trap. Yet it doesn't diminish his greatness:
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/news/politics/66351.html

"Donetsk rebel leader Alexander Zakharchenko said earlier on Saturday that he considered the Debaltseve area was not covered by the agreed ceasefire."

One more proof that it is useless to sign anything with Putin and his puppets. They blame the Ukrainian army in shelling Donetsk to proclaim the Minsk agreements void, but in fact they do it themselves:
http://nv.ua/ukraine/doneck-obstrelivayut-terroristy-sbu-opublikovala-perehvat-telefonnogo-razgovora-34751.html
Moreover, DNR demanded additional clause(s) to the signed agreement which would stipulate Ukraine's not joining NATO (sorry, links only in Russian). One can never know what new ideas they (read Putin) will come up with. Like this one:
http://sirgis.info/2015/02/16/separatist_clothes/

GenosseGeneral

02-16-2015, 16:21

One can never know what new ideas they (read Putin) will come up with. Like this one:
http://sirgis.info/2015/02/16/separatist_clothes/

Well, the Russian military gear supplier SSO/SPOSN is advertising with pictures of Strelkov & gang on its vkontakte account. That company gained its reputation by supplying the 'spetsnaz' units of quite number of agencies.

Apart from that: nothing new in the East, unfortunately. Yet this ceasefire was doomed to fail when Zakharchenko unilaterally excluded Debalzevo, because "it is inside the DNR, thus we are free to shoot there." There is still a minimal chance of someone from Moscow bringing the separatists into line, but since both DNR and Ukraine halted the withdrawal of heavy weaponry (the key agreement in the recent agreement as well as the one from September), fighting is likely to escalate again.
I wonder whether we will see another round of sacntions and/or arms deliveries now. Since I will study as an exchange in Moscow from March 1st on, I am somewhat worried about Russia maybe being cut off SWIFT.

Gilrandir

02-16-2015, 17:17

I wonder whether we will see another round of sacntions and/or arms deliveries now. Since I will study as an exchange in Moscow from March 1st on, I am somewhat worried about Russia maybe being cut off SWIFT.
I don't think the West would have guts enough to do that since it will mean (as experts say) a complete collapse of Russia's finacial system within a couple of days. The West is afraid that Putin will retaliate in god knows what way. So the policy of soft sanctional pressure will continue possibly coupled with a decision to supply Ukraine with weapons. But if the West opts for the latter I think the prudent thing would be to do it without any announcement urbi et orbi.
I wish you a smooth journey and uneventful stay in Moscow. Try to keep your head in the propaganda flurry you will experience there.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-17-2015, 00:20

The Ceasefire is dead, officially: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/ukraine-ceasefire-fighting-escalates-debaltseve

More sanctions have also been issued: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/russia-frank-sinatra-eu-sanctions-list-ukraine

We're getting quite close to Putin himself being persona non grata, I don't think that will happen but at this rate he'll be the only official allowed to travel.

I can't see how Obama can resist supplying Ukraine with arms now, even though arms will require American "advisers". This is a nightmare scenario for Obama because he now has two options - be the president who "let the Russians have Ukraine" or be the president who "started the new Vietnam."

Gilrandir

02-17-2015, 14:02

The Ceasefire is dead, officially: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/ukraine-ceasefire-fighting-escalates-debaltseve

It was a still born baby the moment it was signed since no party to the agreement liked it. It was supposed to bring a short respite, but evidently that was a vain hope.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-17-2015, 17:02

Kagemusha

02-18-2015, 16:23

Gilrandir

02-18-2015, 17:14

According to news Ukrainian forces are withdrawing from Debaltseve. Now the separatist have a railroad connection between Donetsk and Luhansk.
I may be wrong, but from what I've heard railroads in Debaltseve need a most serious repair. If the separatists (read Russia) do that, they may use the said connection.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-18-2015, 17:40

According to news Ukrainian forces are withdrawing from Debaltseve. Now the separatist have a railroad connection between Donetsk and Luhansk. One has to wonder will Mariupol be the next target, or are they satisfied now of what they hold.

Apparently US loosened restrictions of exporting unmanned drones. Maybe US will send some drones to Ukraine next.

The town has fallen, thankfully most of the Ukrainian forces were able to withdraw rather than being captured, although some were apparently taken.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31519000

I liked this quote, "The rapidly deteriorating situation inside Debaltseve and its possible fall to Russian-backed forces - despite a ceasefire brokered specifically to avoid this scenario - raises a number of questions but one in particular: What were Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande thinking?"

What indeed?

So far diplomacy has benefited Russia, they aren't even using the fig leaf of the Separatist leaders any more, Germany and France have been negotiating directly with Russia, not the rebels.

So - lets review - two Minsk deals - neither held up by Russia - no benefit to Ukraine, her neighbours, or the West.

Can we stop pansying about now?

Russia isn't THAT scary in a conventional war and they aren't going to fire off Nukes over Ukraine so at what point are we going to mobilise, when they take Poland?

Kralizec

02-18-2015, 22:00

The town has fallen, thankfully most of the Ukrainian forces were able to withdraw rather than being captured, although some were apparently taken.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31519000

I liked this quote, "The rapidly deteriorating situation inside Debaltseve and its possible fall to Russian-backed forces - despite a ceasefire brokered specifically to avoid this scenario - raises a number of questions but one in particular: What were Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande thinking?"

What indeed?

So far diplomacy has benefited Russia, they aren't even using the fig leaf of the Separatist leaders any more, Germany and France have been negotiating directly with Russia, not the rebels.

So - lets review - two Minsk deals - neither held up by Russia - no benefit to Ukraine, her neighbours, or the West.

Can we stop pansying about now?

Russia isn't THAT scary in a conventional war and they aren't going to fire off Nukes over Ukraine so at what point are we going to mobilise, when they take Poland?

Seriously? You want to send your country's troops to fight in this conflict?

Putin initially tried to bargain for a ceasefire 10 days later than the final agreement finally provided for. The purpose of that was obviously to give the rebels time to capture Debaltseve, which suggests that he wasn't negotiating with the intent of breaking the deal afterwards.

Some people claim that the rebels are Putin's puppets, while Russia claims it has no involvement in the dispute at all. I'm guessing that neither is true; Russia provides the rebels with the means to fight but has limited control over what they do with them.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-19-2015, 02:43

Seriously? You want to send your country's troops to fight in this conflict?

No, but that's where we're headed now.

We should have supplied Ukraine with the materials to fight the rebels six months ago, we didn't, things have escalated and now we're looking at Ukraine being turned into a failed state by Russia.

Diplomacy has failed - people will look back on this the way they did American negotiation with Japan before Pearl Harbour.

Putin initially tried to bargain for a ceasefire 10 days later than the final agreement finally provided for. The purpose of that was obviously to give the rebels time to capture Debaltseve, which suggests that he wasn't negotiating with the intent of breaking the deal afterwards.

In other words, he wanted a ceasefire he didn't need to break, which is still negotiating in bad faith.

Some people claim that the rebels are Putin's puppets, while Russia claims it has no involvement in the dispute at all. I'm guessing that neither is true; Russia provides the rebels with the means to fight but has limited control over what they do with them.

Whether or not Russia controls the idiots with guns, any resulting "state" that comes out of this will be a vassal of Russia.

Kadagar_AV

02-19-2015, 04:45

Seriously? You want to send your country's troops to fight in this conflict?

Putin initially tried to bargain for a ceasefire 10 days later than the final agreement finally provided for. The purpose of that was obviously to give the rebels time to capture Debaltseve, which suggests that he wasn't negotiating with the intent of breaking the deal afterwards.

Some people claim that the rebels are Putin's puppets, while Russia claims it has no involvement in the dispute at all. I'm guessing that neither is true; Russia provides the rebels with the means to fight but has limited control over what they do with them.

That would not be a natural conclusion in the grand scheme of things.

He might have had every intention to break it anyway, but have set that date so that if he couldnt break it, because the international situation changed, at least he would get that city as well.

I dont have an agenda here, heck, I don't even know what side I am rooting for. Just wanted to point out that that part of the post seemed wrong from a logical standpoint.

Gilrandir

02-19-2015, 07:27

Putin initially tried to bargain for a ceasefire 10 days later than the final agreement finally provided for. The purpose of that was obviously to give the rebels time to capture Debaltseve, which suggests that he wasn't negotiating with the intent of breaking the deal afterwards.

In fact, he expected the town to have been captured by the time the negotiations started to have a stronger bargaining position. But, if I understand his intent, his aim wasn't and isn't Debaltseve per se. His main hope is to break Ukraine from within: by crawling offensive and constant loss of territories to cause dissatisfaction with the country's management and question their competence. This (together with deteriorating economic situation - one of the reasons it is so in:https://twitter.com/ok1ua/status/568155020379725824) is to bring down the current regime in Kyiv and install a more lenient one or (if he is lucky) to break the country apart.

Russia provides the rebels with the means to fight but has limited control over what they do with them.
The control is complete: Putin can stop supplying the rebels with weapons, ammo, fuel, food and close the border against any reinforcements coming from Russia. How long can Lugandoneans hold out provided these conditions are met? Instead he keeps doing the opposite babbling about victorious miners and tractor drivers plus directly involving his army:
https://globalvoicesonline.org/2015/02/18/russia-military-debaltseve-rebels-verification/

Gilrandir

02-20-2015, 15:59

The Russian newspaper Kommersant reveals how the impression that in Donbas local miners and tractor drivers fight is created:
http://ukrainiancrisis.net/news/8400

Gilrandir

02-21-2015, 15:19

http://panteres.com/2015/02/20/ukraine-conflict-berlins-response-to-putins-myths/

CrossLOPER

02-21-2015, 17:33

No, but that's where we're headed now.
This is a question to which the answer has totally eluded me, but could you explain why you would want to?

The control is complete: Putin can stop supplying the rebels with weapons, ammo, fuel, food and close the border against any reinforcements coming from Russia.
You are fully aware that this is impossible.

Don Corleone

02-21-2015, 22:32

Russia isn't THAT scary in a conventional war and they aren't going to fire off Nukes over Ukraine so at what point are we going to mobilise, when they take Poland?

Putin has had his media repeatedly stress that while Soviet military doctrine precluded offensive nuclear options, modern Russia reserves the right of nuclear first strike capability for any reason.

They're going to the Baltics next, then Poland. Any further "negotiations" will just embolden him to expand Warsaw ~1986 boundaries. Don't forget, Putin considers Berlin as rightfully his.

As for "what we're going to do about it"... Come on.... Doesn't everyone remember the famous hot-mike incident in 2011 when Obama told him to wait until after he got relelected, then he'd let Putin do whatever he wanted?

This is a good read on the current situation. The Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21643189-ukraine-suffers-it-time-recognise-gravity-russian-threatand-counter?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709), noted for its rather thoughtful, restrained insights on aggressive foreign policy, nails it. Now or later, we're going to war with this guy.

CrossLOPER

02-21-2015, 23:41

This is a good read on the current situation. The Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21643189-ukraine-suffers-it-time-recognise-gravity-russian-threatand-counter?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709), noted for its rather thoughtful, restrained insights on aggressive foreign policy, nails it. Now or later, we're going to war with this guy.
That article completely ignores the core issues and boils down complex problems to "Putin bad, BAD."

Kagemusha

02-21-2015, 23:45

If Brits want to invade Russia with their two operational divisions then go ahead and attack. Maybe the single US Airborne division in Europe can join you guys. I am sure the odd 40 Brigades Russia can field would be shitting themselves just by hearing of such force being deployed against them. Lets be realist here. West is not ready for such war at the moment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11424238/Britain-cannot-defend-itself-against-Putins-military-might-top-brass-warn.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11424238/Britain-cannot-defend-itself-against-Putins-military-might-top-brass-warn.html)

For some reason everyone in this thread saying we should go to war with Russia are either living on a island or a different continent all together. It is kind of funny when people are being worried if Poland will be next, when Poland has a stronger military for a conventional warfare then most of Western European countries, who have dissected their armies into something that has little value in a conflict some of you are talking about.

CrossLOPER

02-22-2015, 00:00

For some reason everyone in this thread saying we should go to war with Russia are either living on a island or a different continent all together. It is kind of funny when people are being worried if Poland will be next, when Poland has a stronger military for a conventional warfare then most of Western European countries, who have dissected their armies into something that has little value in a conflict some of you are talking about.
They are told that because it is a fun thing to think about. Moreover, they act and speak as if Putin has already reconquered most of the lost Warsaw Pact.

Don Corleone

02-22-2015, 00:40

Don Corleone

02-22-2015, 00:45

Yes, bullying your neighbors into submission always has complicated underlying issues that absolve the bully of wrong-doing. Just ask Georgia.

CrossLOPER

02-22-2015, 03:37

I agree Kagemusha. I wouldn't start an offensive, certainly not in our current state of affairs.

I'm highlighting that IMHO, there is no choice here. If we won't go fight Putin, he'll come to you. He's not stopping with getting Warsaw territory back.
What indications has he shown of doing this? I am not denying it, I am asking for your proof.

Yes, bullying your neighbors into submission always has complicated underlying issues that absolve the bully of wrong-doing. Just ask Georgia.
Again, you are oversimplifying it.

Brenus

02-22-2015, 11:14

"Just ask Georgia" Or Serbia. Ooops, sorry, that was NATO, sorry, wrong guy.

Gilrandir

02-22-2015, 13:10

You are fully aware that this is impossible.
I am. But it was meant to show how he exercises control over Lugandoneans and this control is complete.

I'm highlighting that IMHO, there is no choice here. If we won't go fight Putin, he'll come to you. He's not stopping with getting Warsaw territory back.
If he ever starts a war, the problem for him will be both conquering anything within the reach and holding the overrun territory. When some people speak of Russian tank wedges in Europe they fail to realize that tanks need refuelling and ammo replenishing, crews need catering. One can't provide that in long-distance operations. Holding the territory is a more problematic issue what with the mentioned logistic problems and the attitude of the hostile populace. So the conclusion is: if Putin will start a war anywhere it will be a war in the territories where Russians live and it will break no sooner than preliminary steps are taken. The latter usually takes time but if one Russia puts its mind into it it will take it 4-5 years.

http://joinfo.com/world/1001285_Russia-uses-tactics-of-hybrid-war-against-Latvia.html
What the Far West may fear is not a land operation, but missile and aicraft warfare. Or it may side with Putin:
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/events/other-anti-war-events/22-feb-london-protest-stop-nato-s-war-in-ukraine-peace-for-the-donbass

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-22-2015, 23:17

This is a question to which the answer has totally eluded me, but could you explain why you would want to?

Want to fight Putin? I want to fight Putin about a much as my grandfather wanted to fight Hitler - but it's starting to look as though it might be as necessary.

Putin has had his media repeatedly stress that while Soviet military doctrine precluded offensive nuclear options, modern Russia reserves the right of nuclear first strike capability for any reason.

He's still not going to attack with Nukes, there's no point unless we invade Russia itself and that's not necessary, or profitable.

They're going to the Baltics next, then Poland. Any further "negotiations" will just embolden him to expand Warsaw ~1986 boundaries. Don't forget, Putin considers Berlin as rightfully his.

Moldova is a more likely target, followed by Hungary, cutting Romania and Bulgaria off from the rest of NATO - Poland, Romania and Bulgaria are more hostile to Russia than Hungary or Austria, or indeed even Greece.

As for "what we're going to do about it"... Come on.... Doesn't everyone remember the famous hot-mike incident in 2011 when Obama told him to wait until after he got relelected, then he'd let Putin do whatever he wanted?

Experience says that America will never do the right thing for Europe unless pushed or outraged, although Americans have affection for Europe it is a distant and vague affection, you will never inconvenience yourselves to help us, which is why your wisest politicians created NATO, to force you to do the right thing. Unfortunately the end of the cold war has resulted in an American AND European drawdown beyond the point of safety and now we will reap the whirlwind.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-23-2015, 04:13

...Experience says that America will never do the right thing for Europe unless pushed or outraged, although Americans have affection for Europe it is a distant and vague affection, you will never inconvenience yourselves to help us, which is why your wisest politicians created NATO, to force you to do the right thing. Unfortunately the end of the cold war has resulted in an American AND European drawdown beyond the point of safety and now we will reap the whirlwind.

We do tend to do the right thing pretty lethargically when in comes to Europe. And you are quite fair in your apportionment of blame regarding NATO's military preparedness.

I hope you are wrong about the need to go to war with Putin. That would be a lot of blood spilled. He does seem to harken back to the days of Empire and expansionism though....so you may have a point.

Gilrandir

02-23-2015, 15:36

Moldova is a more likely target, followed by Hungary, cutting Romania and Bulgaria off from the rest of NATO - Poland, Romania and Bulgaria are more hostile to Russia than Hungary or Austria, or indeed even Greece.

To get at Moldova he has to conquer all the way through the south of Ukraine and be able to control the strip. Hungary has a most friendly to Putin regime. Moreover, no hybrid war tactics will be possible to preliminary weaken the adversary since no large quantities of Russian speakers/Russians reside there (exept Transdniestria). So I believe the Baltics (namely Latvia) will have to bear the brunt of assault if it comes to war.
http://www.baltictimes.com/latvian_security_police_investigate__latgale_people_s_republic__internet_pictures/
But again, it will take money (which Russia definitely is short of at the moment) and time (which gives Latvia a respite of couple of years) to get things prepared properly.
Or, alternatively, Putin may consider Kazakhstan as an option. The north of the country is entirely populated by Russian speakers (among whom a great proportion is taken by ethnic Ukrainians, btw) who seem to be an easy target to sway Russiawards.
And Belarus, having such soldiers, seems perfectly safe from any attack from the East:
14949

Fisherking

02-23-2015, 21:45

Putin is merely an opportunist taking advantage of very stupid US efforts to weaken Russia.

The West lacks any leadership half as cunning as Putin nor wise enough to know it.

Putin can afford to act like a bandit. He is fully aware that the US military is not the threat it once was.

It has a military focused on the use of small scale special forces operations and air power focused on air to air combat. Their multi mission aircraft do none of their missions well and there are too few troops to take on the tasks or trained to handle a combined arms campaign.

Russia has be isolated by the US each time they have tried to cooperate with them.

The rest of the west keep following Washington’s ridiculous short sighed policies and diplomatic leads which brought it to this stage.

His latest move shows that he has lost any hope of bringing the EU to a more neutral stance, so from here on it is put up or shut up.

As weak as Europe is and as unreliable an ally as the US has turned out to be he is fairly confident in being able to push things even further. All I can see from the West is more bluster and no substance.

Gilrandir

02-24-2015, 14:24

Putin can afford to act like a bandit. He is fully aware that the US military is not the threat it once was.

Luckily, both EU and the USA have other levers (mainly economic and finacial) to reach their goal. Unluckily, they don't use them or are afraid/reluctant to use them (I mean those they are using aren't efficient enough).

Gilrandir

02-24-2015, 17:07

Russian propaganda in action:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/magazine/out-of-my-mouth-comes-unimpeachable-manly-truth.html?_r=1

CrossLOPER

02-25-2015, 00:46

Want to fight Putin? I want to fight Putin about a much as my grandfather wanted to fight Hitler - but it's starting to look as though it might be as necessary.
I'm not entirely sure whether that means you want to or not, but I have a suggestion. There is a large group of morally questionable psychotic death cultists in the middle east and Levant right now, who may or may not have views opposite your own. I would say that they are clearly more deserving of your ire, but I am sure you are more than capable of coming up with reasons why Putin is more the antichrist or whatever.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-25-2015, 00:56

I'm not entirely sure whether that means you want to or not, but I have a suggestion. There is a large group of morally questionable psychotic death cultists in the middle east and Levant right now, who may or may not have views opposite your own. I would say that they are clearly more deserving of your ire, but I am sure you are more than capable of coming up with reasons why Putin is more the antichrist or whatever.

Well, my Grandfather was an electrician, and (surprise, surprise) he didn't want to fight Hitler.

CrossLOPER

02-25-2015, 06:20

Russian propaganda in action:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/magazine/out-of-my-mouth-comes-unimpeachable-manly-truth.html?_r=1
I never understood why people bash Russian TV so much. I don't know of a single place where TV does not suck, most especially in the US. As for propaganda, that article is propaganda itself.

You knew this.

Gilrandir

02-25-2015, 07:50

I never understood why people bash Russian TV so much. I don't know of a single place where TV does not suck, most especially in the US. As for propaganda, that article is propaganda itself.

You knew this.
The reason I posted this is because people here tend to underestimate the power of Russian propaganda. My aunt who lives in Krasnodar calls my father now and again and he is astounded and even apalled after such communications. He can't believe that she trusts what she hears and sees on TV more than the words of her brother.

Gilrandir

02-25-2015, 09:05

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-25-2015, 19:34

I never understood why people bash Russian TV so much. I don't know of a single place where TV does not suck, most especially in the US. As for propaganda, that article is propaganda itself.

You knew this.

True, but Russian TV "news" is laughable - especially given that any dissenting stations are simply closed.

America is apparently sending a training Battalion to Ukraine, which is a significant symbolic commitment whilst the UK is sending 75 troops in four training teams.

The news is from the BBC, but I can't find the article now.

CrossLOPER

02-26-2015, 06:38

True, but Russian TV "news" is laughable - especially given that any dissenting stations are simply closed.
Are you unfamiliar with US news stations? They are 24-hour clownshoes cabaret.

Again, I fully concede that the state of Russian media is an unsustainable joke, but to suggest that this is somehow unique is unrepresentative of the truth.

Brenus

02-26-2015, 08:09

Ukrainian Gvt and freedom of media:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27546283

Probably Russian propaganda.

Gilrandir

02-26-2015, 08:48

Ukrainian Gvt and freedom of media:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27546283

Probably Russian propaganda.
Hybrid war neccessitates unconventional countermeasures. Informational component of the said war is even more important than the actual warfare which was proved by the Crimean episode. Have you paid attention that only representatives of particular media were under attack? Why RT and Lifenews, and not BBC, Al-Jazeera or NYT? Don't you think it is connected with the nature of messages they carry and their "unbiased policies"? Russia was officially proclaimed the aggressor by the parliament, so these are steps consistent with this - to disable the enemy's informational soldiers. Or can you imagine German newspaper correspondents reporting, say, from Moscow in December 1941?
If you think it was/is otherwise in Western democracies:
http://russia-insider.com/en/military_politics_ukraine/2015/02/23/3771
Will you entitle it like "British Gvt and freedom of media"?

GenosseGeneral

02-26-2015, 10:38

Found an interesting prediction and thought it might be curious for others to know. One of Ukrainian experts claims that the oncoming spring will be the time when ISIS will step up its offensive and try to cooperate/coordinate it with Taliban. This will give a push to fundamentalist activities in Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan) as far as attempts to topple secular regimes in those states. This consequently will demand more attention from Russia which is likely to strengthen its military presence in those regions. That is why the haste of Putin to solve the situation in Ukraine and his precipitate offensive in winter. Thus ISIS offensive may ultimately benefit Ukraine.

I am not an expert here, but if ISIS will expand, this will more likely happen (or is already happening) in Libya and Egypt, particularly the Sinai peninsula. Currently, it is more the other way round: Jihadis from Central Asia and the Caucasus have joined the IS, especially notable are Chechens. At least those of them, who are not fighting on either side of the Ukrainian civil war.

Regarding freedom of press in Ukraine: Unfortunately, freedom of press and human rights activists inside and outside of Ukraine have every reason to protest against it. In the Ukrainian context, it will be very likely not only used to suppress Russian propaganda (already a very, you know, imprecise term), but also to target journalists exposing misconduct and corruption, especially in the armed forces.

Gilrandir

02-26-2015, 10:56

I am not an expert here, but if ISIS will expand, this will more likely happen (or is already happening) in Libya and Egypt, particularly the Sinai peninsula. Currently, it is more the other way round: Jihadis from Central Asia and the Caucasus have joined the IS, especially notable are Chechens. At least those of them, who are not fighting on either side of the Ukrainian civil war.

When I spoke of Cenral Asian fundamentalism I meant more its Taliban orientation/relation/support than ISIS. And Taliban is much closer than ISIS.

Greyblades

02-26-2015, 13:59

Are you unfamiliar with US news stations? They are 24-hour clownshoes cabaret.

Again, I fully concede that the state of Russian media is an unsustainable joke, but to suggest that this is somehow unique is unrepresentative of the truth.

While the incompetence of American news reporting is both staggering and largely intentional, they are not remotely equivelant to that of the Russian Federation.

That the fox news crew havent been put against a wall and shot during the tenure of a democratic president is testament to that if nothing else

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-26-2015, 16:17

Hax

02-26-2015, 19:06

There is not a really strong presence of fundamentalist/jihadis in Central Asia, so I would be surprised if ISIS managed to get a foothold there. Especially considering how hard the Central Asian states tend to crack down on such movements. The governments there pretty much call everyone that disagrees with them "islamists", so I'm not sure to what degree we should take that very seriously.

But if Putin believes that, sure -- why not?

CrossLOPER

02-27-2015, 04:50

I've heard of them - but I'm in the UK, so it doesn't matter to me much.

So why did you bring this up?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-27-2015, 21:51

So why did you bring this up?

Because US news is not the only news Russia has to compete with?

German, French, English, Australian...

US news sucks but Russian news is a bad joke, because it pretends to be serious.

Husar

02-28-2015, 00:47

US news sucks but Russian news is a bad joke, because it pretends to be serious.

And we all know that the guys at Fox News always laugh about themselves and the things they say.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-28-2015, 01:39

And we all know that the guys at Fox News always laugh about themselves and the things they say.

Actually, much of Fox news is pretty solid. THeir Fox and Friends morning show and the Hannity program are whacked, but the afternoon business and politics roudups are good info.

Strike For The South

02-28-2015, 02:33

The Russian opposition leader was just gunned down, shot in the back.

fucking fascist shit stain, piss on him

Husar

02-28-2015, 07:19

Actually, much of Fox news is pretty solid. THeir Fox and Friends morning show and the Hannity program are whacked, but the afternoon business and politics roudups are good info.

A lot of RT is good info as well. It's mostly just the Russia vs. West topics that you can't trust.

Viking

02-28-2015, 11:41

A lot of RT is good info as well. It's mostly just the Russia vs. West topics that you can't trust.

Indeed, I wouldn't know otherwise know that It’s a slippery slope from yoga to Satan (http://rt.com/uk/234443-priest-yoga-satan-danger/). Thanks RT, you saved my soul.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-28-2015, 11:56

A lot of RT is good info as well. It's mostly just the Russia vs. West topics that you can't trust.

And all the stuff about Africa, the Middle East, causes of the Great Recession...

Yeah... real reliable.

also - about what Strike said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31669061

Gilrandir

02-28-2015, 15:29

also - about what Strike said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31669061
Also what Kadyrov said:
http://news.rin.ru/eng/news///94442/
And one more admission by Putin that his spetznaz tiik a leading part in annexing the Crimea:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11439362/Vladimir-Putin-announces-official-holiday-to-mark-Crimea-operation.html

CrossLOPER

02-28-2015, 17:38

Indeed, I wouldn't know otherwise know that It’s a slippery slope from yoga to Satan (http://rt.com/uk/234443-priest-yoga-satan-danger/). Thanks RT, you saved my soul.
That exact same article was posted on BBC's newsite. Several of its kind, in fact.

Stop being thick.

Viking

02-28-2015, 19:23

That exact same article was posted on BBC's newsite. Several of its kind, in fact.

Stop being thick.

And thank you for having no humour. The similar BBC article (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28225837) I was able to find is far from identical. The RT article is poorly written; it is not made clear in the text why the claims made by this priest are news, something that is far from self-evident. Almost half of the article is spent on an exact quote of the priest, and most of the rest of the article is spent on quoting other people echoing similar views (which indeed makes it seem less like news). Only in the last two (out of nine in total) paragraphs is the yoga bashing over.

Husar

02-28-2015, 23:11

Indeed, I wouldn't know otherwise know that It’s a slippery slope from yoga to Satan (http://rt.com/uk/234443-priest-yoga-satan-danger/). Thanks RT, you saved my soul.

They are actually against that idea, if you had properly read the article you should know that.

And all the stuff about Africa, the Middle East, causes of the Great Recession...

Yeah... real reliable.

Seamus also said that the political stuff on Fox other than two specific shows was perfectly reliable, but I don't think that one is well-advised to take everything Papa Bear says as reliable...
A lot of propaganda in nationalistic countries does also not appear to be propaganda to those who are used to the nationalism, but that's just my opinion. When you are used to thinking that your nation is the greatest, you are far less likely to question most of the people who proclaim that your nation is on the right side of history, always justified etc. That's also true in Russia of course, but they're far from the only ones.

CrossLOPER

03-01-2015, 02:18

And thank you for having no humour.
Explain.

The similar BBC article (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28225837) I was able to find is far from identical. The RT article is poorly written; it is not made clear in the text why the claims made by this priest are news, something that is far from self-evident. Almost half of the article is spent on an exact quote of the priest, and most of the rest of the article is spent on quoting other people echoing similar views (which indeed makes it seem less like news). Only in the last two (out of nine in total) paragraphs is the yoga bashing over.
You are wrong. The articles are written in a similar manner with the BBC article having interpreted the quotes, rather than posting the exact quotes.

Viking

03-01-2015, 13:33

You are wrong. The articles are written in a similar manner with the BBC article having interpreted the quotes, rather than posting the exact quotes.

Which means they are not written in a similar manner; that's the crucial difference I am getting at. Whether lazy journalism or a dislike for yoga, it's poorly written. The BBC article contains context.

But there are more interesting matters to probe; like a German neo-nazi light (http://www.interpretermag.com/rts-manuel-ochsenreiter/) appearing as a commentator on their shows:

Manuel Ochsenreiter is not a household name either in the United States or in his native Germany. He’s the editor of “Zuerst! German News Magazine” [...]

In a format familiar to readers of mainstream news magazines, Zuerst! promotes Neue Rechte and Völkisch ideas such as the preservation of “German ethnical (sic) identity”, burnishing the image of the Third Reich in popular culture and opposing what it regards as the humiliating legacy of denazification.

[...]

RT has singled Manuel Ochsenreiter out as their primary on-air spokesman for the German point of view, featuring him on talk shows and extended interviews on the network scores of times over the past four years.

Husar

03-01-2015, 14:13

The BBC has an atheist agenda, they want to make Christians look stupid because the demons that posses them make them do it. The world is the devil's domain after all and the BBC is firmly implanted in the world.

http://www.todayschristianwoman.com/articles/2005/march/truth-about-yoga.html

See, the priest is not the only one warning people of New Age "spirituality" and the slow but dangerous ways in which the devil corrupts good christians while making them feel good to lure them further into the trap, and therefore right into hell.
The part where RT quotes people saying that they remained good christians is just more of the same "it's okay, you can engage in non-christian thoughts for a bit each day", that's how it begins and sooner or later you sacrifice some quality bible reading time for yoga class and miss out on the words of the lord. The idea of the articles is basically the same Viking.

Ice

03-01-2015, 17:35

The Russian opposition leader was just gunned down, shot in the back.

fucking fascist shit stain, piss on him

This is almost straight out of a Tom Clancy novel.

CrossLOPER

03-01-2015, 18:01

Which means they are not written in a similar manner; that's the crucial difference I am getting at. Whether lazy journalism or a dislike for yoga, it's poorly written. The BBC article contains context.
It is EXACTLY the same. It cites several Catholic critics who state that practicing yoga is spiritually impure. It mentions that similar events have been noted in the past. It also includes a dissenting opinion by a practitioner. The only thing that the RT article does not do is mention Tai-chi or Reiki, which are tangents that the BBC author decided to include.

None of this matters because you simply wanted to point out how ridiculous RT is with this article, and I countered with an example of a BBC article that covered the same information. You are just arguing minutiae.

Viking

03-01-2015, 21:23

It is EXACTLY the same. It cites several Catholic critics who state that practicing yoga is spiritually impure. It mentions that similar events have been noted in the past. It also includes a dissenting opinion by a practitioner. The only thing that the RT article does not do is mention Tai-chi or Reiki, which are tangents that the BBC author decided to include.

No. This is what RT's article allows for yoga's defence:

One Derry yoga instructor, however, defended the practice, telling the Belfast Telegraph that teaching yoga for 15 years has not stopped her from being a “good, practicing Catholic.” Evelyn Donnelly said that her yoga students come to classes to "learn good posture and breathing to help them with tension in their bodies and to help calm a busy mind.”

"In all the time I have been teaching, not one person has ever expressed an interest going deeper into the spiritual elements of yoga," she added.

this is BBC's article:

Yoga teacher Norah Graham, who has held yoga classes in the area for about 20 years, said she was both offended and "a bit surprised" by the comments.

'Over the top'
She said she had spoken to Fr O'Baoill about the issue before and he had put an "embargo" on the advertising of yoga classes, so she was aware that he did not approve.

However, the yoga teacher said the strength of Fr O'Baoill's latest comments had come as a surprise and said she felt his remarks were "over the top".

Ms Graham, who is also a retired secondary school teacher, said she was not a particularly religious person.

She said the handful of people who regularly attended her yoga lessons had "their own beliefs" and religion played no part in her classes.

Ms Graham added that the practice of yoga in Western countries was now "largely divorced" from religious associations.

The parts negative to yoga are of similar sizes.

I could go on with other differences, but that's pointless. My issues with RT does not stem from articles like that, but issues like the one I mentioned in my previous post.

CrossLOPER

03-01-2015, 21:53

My issues with RT does not stem from articles like that, but issues like the one I mentioned in my previous post.
This is what I found on MO: http://rt.com/shows/tim-kirby/224567-donbass-ukriane-russia-kirby-manuelochsenreiter/
Can you tell me specifically what you find distasteful, or even disagreeable, without referring to the article you posted?

The parts negative to yoga are of similar sizes.

Yoga teacher Norah Graham, who has held yoga classes in the area for about 20 years, said she was both offended and "a bit surprised" by the comments.

Ms Graham, who is also a retired secondary school teacher, said she was not a particularly religious person.She said the handful of people who regularly attended her yoga lessons had "their own beliefs" and religion played no part in her classes. She added that the practice of yoga in Western countries was now "largely divorced" from religious associations.

That is the article edited down to the main ideas. The BBC article has 86 words, where the RT article has 85.

Gilrandir

03-02-2015, 13:52

This is what I found on MO: http://rt.com/shows/tim-kirby/224567-donbass-ukriane-russia-kirby-manuelochsenreiter/

This is what I found on Kirby's employers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuerst!

Immediately after its first issue the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution announced that the content of the magazine was against the "unending de-nazification efforts", advocating revisionist theories on national boundaries, and the terrorist activities of the "South Tirolean Freedom Fighters" in the 1960s.

GenosseGeneral

03-02-2015, 19:47

Really interesting, althoug unfortunately only available in Russian: interview with a Russian tanker wounded in Ukraine, recorded in a hospital in Donetsk.
http://www.novayagazeta.ru/society/67490.html
The soldier actually tells a lot of interesting details.
1. All Russian soldiers serving in Ukraine are professionals who have signed a contract. Conscripts were withdrawn from his unit before deployment. But even the professional soldiers could have objected to be deployed on "excercises in the Rostov oblast'", which is from where the Russian military aid trickles into Ukraine.
2. The soldiers were aware of where they would be deployed, although it was never stated explicitly and they were not totally sure until they actually crossed the border. The order to do so was given after a prolonged time which was indeed spent on excercises. However, at least the interviewed soldier saw it as the right thing to do and nobody had to be coerced into carrying out that order. <What he describes seems to be a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude between the rank-and-file soldiers and their superiors.
3. His battailon was deployed as one unit. So not only as a limited number of advisors or in specialist roles (e.g. manning air defence systems), but as a regular unit employing regular military tactics, even engaging in tank-on-tank combat.
4. His unit was some kind of a reserve. Even after moving into Ukraine, they were kept off the frontline. Only when the "regular" separatists saw themselves unable to capture a place, his company received the order to engage. However, he says that there was hardly any coordination with the cossacks fighting for the DNR, which is why he was very afraid accidentally shooting his own allies. His overall impression of the "normal" rebels seems to be that of a bunch of rather unprofessional weekend warriors.

Don Corleone

03-02-2015, 22:11

rvg

03-03-2015, 01:51

Fascinating, thank-you for the quick translation. GenosseGeneral.

Playing devil's advocate for a second, how can one be sure he's not a plant? What sort of credentials did the individual offer?

If you suspect that the guy is a plant, then the burden of proof is on you. Could he be a plant? Sure. Maybe he is. Heck, maybe you are. Do I have any evidence to support my theory of you being Putin's stooge? Nope. But you might be.

CrossLOPER

03-03-2015, 03:37

If you suspect that the guy is a plant, then the burden of proof is on you. Could he be a plant? Sure. Maybe he is. Heck, maybe you are. Do I have any evidence to support my theory of you being Putin's stooge? Nope. But you might be.
You just proved his point.

Viking

03-03-2015, 12:30

Fascinating, thank-you for the quick translation. GenosseGeneral.

Playing devil's advocate for a second, how can one be sure he's not a plant? What sort of credentials did the individual offer?

I'm just finding it difficult to believe that this guy voluntarily engaged in black-ops work, backing rebels in a neighboring country, then proudly proclaiming his activities upon being taken into custody at a hospital? What ever happened to "name, rank and serial number"?

Sounds a little too good to be true, if you know what I mean.

He is not in Ukrainian custody, he was interviewed by the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta in a hospital in insurgent-held Donetsk. Here is another (http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-live-day-378-severely-injured-russian-soldier-describes-deployment-to-ukraine/#7227) translated (but still incomplete) version.

A couple of weeks ago, the Russian newspaper Kommersant published a story about how Russian regular troops were involved in the capture of Debaltseve, translated here (http://www.unian.info/war/1046898-kommersant-article-on-russian-troops-fighting-in-debaltseve-full-text-in-english.html):

The logic of military operations in recent months is quite simple: only experienced troops are being deployed to perform combat missions on behalf of either the self-proclaimed republics, or “certain regions of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions” (as is written in the Minsk agreement). They complete a mission and pull back, and local insurgents move into the seized towns, the commandants’ offices and checkpoints - ready to meet the journalists and tell them of their past lives as “miners.”

(original Russian article here (http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2671088))

This is what I found on MO: http://rt.com/shows/tim-kirby/224567-donbass-ukriane-russia-kirby-manuelochsenreiter/
Can you tell me specifically what you find distasteful, or even disagreeable, without referring to the article you posted?

This is beside the point. Using controversial people like they were normal sources makes the channel controversial. Another guy, which they used as a stringer (http://rt.com/news/175676-ukraine-deport-rt-contributor/) in Ukraine, is this (https://twitter.com/grahamwp_uk/status/513702725339844609) guy, the Brit Graham Phillips; here seen in an insurgent uniform at one of their firing ranges:

https://i.imgur.com/udAecDN.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/alIy4u4.jpg?1

Clearly taking the embedding part seriously.. (and that's the tip of the iceberg regarding him)

There is not one thing in isolation that makes RT problematic (at best), it's the sum of all the weird stuff they do.

That is the article edited down to the main ideas. The BBC article has 86 words, where the RT article has 85.

Not continuing this line of debate.

Gilrandir

03-03-2015, 12:58

That's what I've been saying for quite a time. I will allow myself to put in my two cents.

1. All Russian soldiers serving in Ukraine are professionals who have signed a contract. Conscripts were withdrawn from his unit before deployment.

I heard reports (from Russian conscripts) that in some units they were forced to sign a contract thus becoming professionals with further redeployment you know where.

But even the professional soldiers could have objected to be deployed on "excercises in the Rostov oblast'"

Sometimes they are given a choice - get deployed or get fired - which evidently makes it hard to refuse, at least for many of them.

However, at least the interviewed soldier saw it as the right thing to do and nobody had to be coerced into carrying out that order.

It is no wonder with all the brainwashing Russians are subject to. As for coercion, the dissident are sifted out before sending a unit to Rostov region.

As for the source, Novaya Gazeta is considered to be the last (more or less) independent (of the Kremlin) and unbiased Russian newspaper. The last TV station enjoying the same reputation is Dozhd. The last "free" radio station is Ekho Moskvy.

Gilrandir

03-03-2015, 13:05

Another guy, which they used as a stringer (http://rt.com/news/175676-ukraine-deport-rt-contributor/) in Ukraine, is this (https://twitter.com/grahamwp_uk/status/513702725339844609) guy, the Brit Graham Phillips;

Clearly taking the embedding part seriously.. (and that's the tip of the iceberg regarding him)

Perhaps you have missed it, so I'll venture to post the link again (what the British government thinks of its subject):
http://russia-insider.com/en/military_politics_ukraine/2015/02/23/3771

GenosseGeneral

03-04-2015, 16:37

I'm just finding it difficult to believe that this guy voluntarily engaged in black-ops work, backing rebels in a neighboring country, then proudly proclaiming his activities upon being taken into custody at a hospital? What ever happened to "name, rank and serial number"?

Sounds a little too good to be true, if you know what I mean.

Well, they give his name, his unit, the number of the base where he is stationed and the number of his military ID.
For him, it is not really black-ops work - first of all, he is convinced of fighting for the right side (you know, the whole "the Kyiv fashists kill children there!" thing). Also, to him it was a 'grey' mission at best - they only covered the licence plates and callsigns of their tanks, just like in Crimea, where the intervention of Russian troops ws acknowledged publicly later on.
It is still somewhat naive that he is not afraid of reprisals and also somewhat strange, that a reporter of Novaya Gazeta was not shot at the place. Usually separatists talk only to LifeNews, Pervyj Kanal and all the other propaganda media.

Don Corleone

03-04-2015, 23:03

Black-opps = no markings as regular Russian units, not a commentary on the morality of their position. ;-)

But you made a point.. that he believes it to be "grey", that you're all gonna know what a wonderful war hero I am soon enough anyways...

Strange. I would have thought the Kremlin would have pushed a little more tight-lipped out of the troops until things were more fully evolved.

Well, they give his name, his unit, the number of the base where he is stationed and the number of his military ID.
For him, it is not really black-ops work - first of all, he is convinced of fighting for the right side (you know, the whole "the Kyiv fashists kill children there!" thing). Also, to him it was a 'grey' mission at best - they only covered the licence plates and callsigns of their tanks, just like in Crimea, where the intervention of Russian troops ws acknowledged publicly later on.
It is still somewhat naive that he is not afraid of reprisals and also somewhat strange, that a reporter of Novaya Gazeta was not shot at the place. Usually separatists talk only to LifeNews, Pervyj Kanal and all the other propaganda media.

Gilrandir

03-05-2015, 08:33

I would have thought the Kremlin would have pushed a little more tight-lipped out of the troops until things were more fully evolved.
It seems that the Kremlin doesn't care any more. After it has tested the West's resilience and found out it (the West) is not likely to do anything palpable, the Kremlin keeps doing what it started and gives blank denials to any charges that may be pronounced by the West or Ukraine. Moreover, it invents charges itself, and not even through the media, but through top officials:
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/77660.htm
I think that it is quite obvious that Ukrainians kill priests and demolish curches seeing what outfit they wear.
14967
14968
14969
Imperial stormtroopers are coming! Watch for the next wave of Russian hysterics.

Gilrandir

03-09-2015, 15:59

Is this high treason?
http://uatoday.tv/politics/ukrainian-orthodox-church-moscow-patriarchate-accepts-the-annexation-of-crimean-peninsula-by-r-414058.html

Beskar

03-09-2015, 18:19

"LOL", Putin goes on national television to say Crimea was intentional.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31796226

It was the worst kept secret.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-09-2015, 19:52

Claude Rains put it best....

Shocked (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME)

Gilrandir

03-10-2015, 12:45

"LOL", Putin goes on national television to say Crimea was intentional.
It was the worst kept secret.
Brenus will sue BBC for disproving his analysis skills thus causing moral and reputational damage. He was the one to claim that the Crimea was Putin's impromtu.
And watch out for confessions about Russian military in Donbas, MH 17, Nemtsov... One usually comes a year later.

Husar

03-10-2015, 14:32

That's just a smokescreen to hide the still-very-secret NATO-encroachment via regime-toppling that forced Putin to make this brave move.
And since Ukraine is more or less a standstill by now, Obama has decided to bully the nation of Venezuela, declaring it a security threat to the US' financial system due to alleged transfers by corrupt officials. Meanwhile HSBC knowingly laundered money for terrorists and drug cartels and is probably part of the financial system that has to be "protected" for US security. There are most likely banks laundering ISIS money (or do they cart around paper money in treasure chests to pay for their conquests?) whose heads are very welcome in the US and who'd get barely more than a slap on the wrist if it every becomes public, just like HSBC did.

The US bullying has to stop so that the people of Russia and Venezuela can focus on internal issues again and finally get rid of Putin et al.
This entire antagonism policy just serves as a convenient distraction for these dictators and drives up the profits of the West's weapons manufacturers while everybody else suffers from it. But then again, who cares if the poor people suffer, right? The only thing that matters is that some people get the few extra billions to buy even more politicians.
:soapbox:

GenosseGeneral

03-10-2015, 19:06

Brenus

03-10-2015, 21:19

"Brenus will sue BBC for disproving his analysis skills thus causing moral and reputational damage. He was the one to claim that the Crimea was Putin's impromtu." Well, you should re-read what I wrote. Once again, you are either lying, either didn't understand (I now go for the 2nd hypothesis after reading some of your justifications). I said, and you can check, that Putin, (or Russia) had and have contingency plans in case of their vital interests are in danger. So, contrary to yours, as still no armoured Russian divisions are rolling to Berlin and even not to Kiev, my analyses are still valid. But don't let reality disturbs you fantasies.

Viking

03-10-2015, 23:08

German ministry of foreign affairs calls Nato general's claims about Russian troops in Ukraine "dangerous propaganda".
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/germany-concerned-about-aggressive-nato-stance-on-ukraine-a-1022193.html
It seems to me indeed, that some people in Brussels (no, not at the EU) are very glad about finally havin a purpose again.

Article:

It was quiet in eastern Ukraine last Wednesday. Indeed, it was another quiet day in an extended stretch of relative calm.

Real life last Wednesday:

Mr. Bociurkiw said [...] fighting continued around the rebel-held city of Donetsk and the village of Shyrokyne near the industrial port of Mariupol. Ukraine reported that one serviceman died in the past 24 hours.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/osce-says-ukraine-violence-easing-but-weapons-withdrawal-not-clear-1425489721

Shyrokyne remains a hot front.

It's like the author(s) of that article has forgotten that Minsk I ever existed, and how much land has changed hands since then, and who has been on the offensive. This becomes ironic when a keyword of the article is aggression.

Brenus

03-10-2015, 23:24

Yeap, but the US general is still lying.

"He blamed both sides for a “piecemeal approach,” in same article.

What is tragically ironic is it will finish as it should have started with proper understanding and negotiation: Ukraine will become a Federal State, so Russia (not only Putin as lazy media want to portray it) will have it buffer zone, NATO will sent for few weeks 43 soldiers etc.

Husar

03-11-2015, 03:30

http://www.wsj.com/articles/osce-says-ukraine-violence-easing-but-weapons-withdrawal-not-clear-1425489721

Shyrokyne remains a hot front.

It's like the author(s) of that article has forgotten that Minsk I ever existed, and how much land has changed hands since then, and who has been on the offensive. This becomes ironic when a keyword of the article is aggression.

Just let me quote your own article:

OSCE Says Ukraine Violence Easing

You act as though one dead soldier in a war zone makes it intense fighting.
And you cherry-picked your quote from the Spiegel article. The full quote should be more like this:

It was quiet in eastern Ukraine last Wednesday. Indeed, it was another quiet day in an extended stretch of relative calm. The battles between the Ukrainian army and the pro-Russian separatists had largely stopped and heavy weaponry was being withdrawn. The Minsk cease-fire wasn't holding perfectly, but it was holding.

One dead guy doesn't make a front incredibly hot and one cherry-picked sentence doesn't invalidate an entire article just as quoting something out of context doesn't make its author wrong.

What's ironic is your way of "arguing" where you quote one sentence out of context and try to use that to somehow prove that the entire article is wrong. That the previous peace negotiations didn't yield a positive result is not really relevant. If that meant only a military solution is possible then we should have driven Israel back into the sea in the 60ies or so already...

Gilrandir

03-11-2015, 08:47

One dead guy doesn't make a front incredibly hot and one cherry-picked sentence doesn't invalidate an entire article just as quoting something out of context doesn't make its author wrong.

It is not about "just one dead soldier", it's about continuous attempts of the separatists to capture Shyrokine that have never ceased whatever agreements might have been signed. A bit of land here, a bit of land there (like Svitlodarsk between Debaltseve and Artemivsk) - a crawling offensive, which is not noticed by Europe, because the scale of it is too minute and it will not prevent the EU from lifting sanctions against Russia one of these days.

That the previous peace negotiations didn't yield a positive result is not really relevant.

It is!!! Those where not "just negotiations", those ended up with a signed treaty. The treaty was discarded by Russia which spurred the separatists into the winter offensive. It happened once, it will happen again. At the moment Russia is pinning hopes on destroying Ukraine from within by instigating Ukrainians to topple the current government and making use of the ensuing chaos. Once Putin sees that this goal can't be immediately reached, the offensive will resume.

Meanwhile Russia seems now safe from being SWIFT-expelled:
http://www.thebanker.com/Editor-s-Blog/Swift-s-Russian-board-director-is-not-a-political-decision?ct=true
Somehow the link doesn't show the article itself, so I give the full text of it:

With the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (Swift) under pressure to throw Russia off the system as part of western sanctions against the country, the news that Russia has been given a seat on the Swift board is open to misinterpretation.

But, the promotion of Russia from being represented under one of three amalgamated seats on the 25-seat board to having its own director has nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with the tensions over Russia’s involvement in Ukraine. Board seat allocation is a purely mechanical process based on traffic volumes.

Swift, as every banker knows, is a non-political utility, which connects up 10,500 banks in more than 200 countries and territories. It provides the messaging that makes trillions of dollars of international payments possible. It literally makes the world of global trade and payments go round.

The whole system could be blown up, however, if politicians from the US and Europe start to drag Swift into their sanction armoury against this or that country with which they are currently having problems. Regrettably this has already happened in respect of Iran. Back in March 2012, the EU passed a regulation prohibiting Swift from providing services to EU-sanctioned Iranian banks. As Swift is headquartered in Belgium, it was obliged to comply with Belgian law.

Since the Swift cut-off measure almost certainly played a part in pushing Iran to the negotiating table over its nuclear programme, the temptation is to use the same means against other countries at odds with the west, such as Russia.

Poland’s foreign minister, Grzegorz Schetyna, has described this as the nuclear option, which hopefully means that he understands the risks of such an approach. For, while the immediate outcome is to cause chaos in Russian finance and disrupt trade, the long-term result is for major powers, such as Russia, China and India, to build their own messaging systems. The advantages of having a global politically neutral system would be lost and would be replaced by competing systems all with their own political agenda.

One can imagine a situation, a few decades hence, in which US financial institutions are thrown off a new Chinese system amidst a dispute between the two countries. US banks then find their requirements cannot be met by the truncated Swift system that has resulted from its repeated use as a sanctions tool and which now only serves a proportion of the world. The US’s trade would suffer as a consequence.

That is why it is important that there is no misunderstanding about why Russia has been given a board seat. Swift’s board is reconfigured about every three years with shares, and subsequently, seats allocated on the basis of network usage. On this basis, in 2015, Russia gains a seat and Hong Kong loses one; Belgium gains an additional seat giving it two and the Netherlands loses a seat giving it one.

Changes in traffic volumes could be due to a change of business hub by an international bank or the location of infrastructure, such as Euroclear in Belgium. But mostly, it reflects changes in economic growth and trade. Unsurprisingly, China gained a board seat in the last reallocation back in 2012.

As economic power shifts to the east, more such changes can be expected. As long as institutions such as Swift can continue to provide a framework with open access and even treatment, all parties will benefit. The alternative is to misuse the global financial architecture as a sanctions tool and end up with a more factional and divided world economy.

Husar

03-11-2015, 11:27

It is not about "just one dead soldier", it's about continuous attempts of the separatists to capture Shyrokine that have never ceased whatever agreements might have been signed. A bit of land here, a bit of land there (like Svitlodarsk between Debaltseve and Artemivsk) - a crawling offensive, which is not noticed by Europe, because the scale of it is too minute and it will not prevent the EU from lifting sanctions against Russia one of these days.

You mean we are too stupid to notice when these towns have changed hands or are you saying it will only happen in a hundred years when we have already lifted all the sanctions and Putin will finally grab them on his 160th birthday?

CrossLOPER

03-11-2015, 14:35

A bit of land here, a bit of land there (like Svitlodarsk between Debaltseve and Artemivsk)

90% of Ukraine was constituted by Russian influence. It's more like repo, don't you agree? :D

I'm being facetious again, if it matters.

Viking

03-11-2015, 18:47

You act as though one dead soldier in a war zone makes it intense fighting.

During a ceasefire, there is no fighting at all.

And you cherry-picked your quote from the Spiegel article. The full quote should be more like this:

Yes, it contradicts itself. There was no calm, and there still is no calm:

#pisky and surrounding villages are burning. Huge battles going on in #ukraine. Just got out of frontline in time.

- Tom Daams (https://twitter.com/unaPhotographer/status/575703267860168704)

That the previous peace negotiations didn't yield a positive result is not really relevant.

The reason why it didn't work is vital for the context of Breedlove's statements.

Husar

03-11-2015, 22:06

During a ceasefire, there is no fighting at all.

There should be none, that is correct, but that's beside my point, which was that you cite one dead soldier as evidence for intense fighting, which it is not.
You also ignore the possibility that maybe Putin is not 100% in control of the rebels and some try to sabotage the ceasefire. If that were the case, we would play into their hands by taking that as a reason to start WW3.

Yes, it contradicts itself. There was no calm, and there still is no calm:

It says calm and then specifies this as a relative calm compared to what there was before, that's not a contradiction.
Adding context or detail does not make the sentences contradictory.

- Tom Daams (https://twitter.com/unaPhotographer/status/575703267860168704)

Using random guys on twitter as evidence, priceless. You forgot that your own article said the situation is calming down.

The reason why it didn't work is vital for the context of Breedlove's statements.

You mean that he exaggerates the figures about russian support is justified by the context?

Brenus

03-11-2015, 23:16

You mean..... propaganda? In the Free World?:boxedin:

Seamus Fermanagh

03-12-2015, 01:59

You mean..... propaganda? In the Free World?:boxedin:

Even in the West there is little pravda in izvestya and a lack of izvestya in pravda.

Gilrandir

03-12-2015, 08:18

You mean we are too stupid to notice when these towns have changed hands or are you saying it will only happen in a hundred years when we have already lifted all the sanctions and Putin will finally grab them on his 160th birthday?
I don't know what you mean by "we" (Europe, NATO, you personally), but this is not about stupidity, it is about reluctance for any serious response if it is just a small town that changed hands. Debaltseve was symptomatic in this respect: weeks after ceasefire had been proclaimed the town was taken (and after heavy battles too). What did "we" do? "We" lumped it. Of course "we" keep on saying that there is a red line which, if crossed by Putin, would meet a serious response. But no one specifies what is this red line supposed to be. Mariupol? Russia will not storm the city head on. It will rather try to surround it by way of Volnovakha-directed offensive and then move south. This will (hopefully for Putin) cause panic within the city and (still more important for him) general dissatisfaction with the current government and (hopefully for Putin) attempts to topple it. Will such a development spur the "we" into anything serious? I doubt it, because for Russia SWIFT switched off means a war. Will "we" risk it? Oh, no. I believe it will be just another portion of grave concerns and serious warnings.

You also ignore the possibility that maybe Putin is not 100% in control of the rebels and some try to sabotage the ceasefire.

Control works simply: no weapons, no fuel, no ammo, no money for the recalcitrant and (if it is not convincing enough) send Russian spetznaz or regular army against them. The latter happened several times, especially against "the Donskiye kazaky" who have been dislodged from many towns of Luhansk region.
And if anyone still doubts that there are Russian military aplenty in Ukraine:
https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/201503_BP_Russian_Forces_in_Ukraine_FINAL.pdf

Sarmatian

03-12-2015, 10:42

During a ceasefire, there is no fighting at all.

Give it a rest. Different levels of violence require different level of response. A bar brawl is not the same as WW2.

Husar

03-12-2015, 12:47

I don't know what you mean by "we" (Europe, NATO, you personally), but this is not about stupidity, it is about reluctance for any serious response if it is just a small town that changed hands. Debaltseve was symptomatic in this respect: weeks after ceasefire had been proclaimed the town was taken (and after heavy battles too). What did "we" do? "We" lumped it. Of course "we" keep on saying that there is a red line which, if crossed by Putin, would meet a serious response. But no one specifies what is this red line supposed to be. Mariupol? Russia will not storm the city head on. It will rather try to surround it by way of Volnovakha-directed offensive and then move south. This will (hopefully for Putin) cause panic within the city and (still more important for him) general dissatisfaction with the current government and (hopefully for Putin) attempts to topple it. Will such a development spur the "we" into anything serious? I doubt it, because for Russia SWIFT switched off means a war. Will "we" risk it? Oh, no. I believe it will be just another portion of grave concerns and serious warnings.

We as in our governments, intelligence services and populations. So do you think Ukraine would be better off if the West finally sent military there and started to carpet bomb the separatist forces? Do you expect Putin to retreat in that scenario or launch an all-out offensive on Ukraine after which Ukraine would be even better off? You keep criticizing what we don, maybe tell us what we should do and what you expect to happen if we do that. Constructive criticism is much better than just whining about the attempts of others to help.

Control works simply: no weapons, no fuel, no ammo, no money for the recalcitrant and (if it is not convincing enough) send Russian spetznaz or regular army against them. The latter happened several times, especially against "the Donskiye kazaky" who have been dislodged from many towns of Luhansk region.
And if anyone still doubts that there are Russian military aplenty in Ukraine:
https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/201503_BP_Russian_Forces_in_Ukraine_FINAL.pdf

With the first option they may still have reserves to keep fighting until you and others demand an end to the ceasefire and with the second option there might be "intense fighting" on the front that would make you and others demand an end to the ceasefire, no?

Viking

03-12-2015, 14:49

There should be none, that is correct, but that's beside my point, which was that you cite one dead soldier as evidence for intense fighting, which it is not.

He is one example, equally important is this bit:

fighting continued around the rebel-held city of Donetsk and the village of Shyrokyne near the industrial port of Mariupol.

If one soldier dies a day, that's quite a lot and way beyond the levels of a frozen conflict.

The article says

The Minsk cease-fire wasn't holding perfectly, but it was holding.

which is misleading. Such details become very important when the main topic is the accusation that one individual is exaggerating what is going on. The article is itself is exaggerating how peaceful the situation is with its choice of words. It should have said "the ceasefire is holding many places, but not all", which is the literal truth. If Spiegel doesn't have to choose its words carefully, why should Breedlove? If it is roughly correct, it's good enough - right?

By the look of things, the insurgents are trying to take Shyrokyne , which is another of way of saying that there is no ceasefire at that location. Controlling Shyrokyne is important when it comes to taking the strategically important city of Mariupol.

Note how different an impression the article would have given if it contained the sentence "the ceasefire does not hold in town X" instead of the "the ceasefire is largely holding".

You also ignore the possibility that maybe Putin is not 100% in control of the rebels and some try to sabotage the ceasefire. If that were the case, we would play into their hands by taking that as a reason to start WW3.

No, I haven't touched that subject or anything directly relevant.

It says calm and then specifies this as a relative calm compared to what there was before, that's not a contradiction.
Adding context or detail does not make the sentences contradictory.

It says "it was another quiet day", which isn't true. It wasn't quiet, no such sentence should have been included. It's a misleading choice of words. If "the battles between the Ukrainian army and the pro-Russian separatists had largely stopped", that means battles are still going on, and where battles are still going on, it is not quiet. So the first part has gotten contradicted, not supplemented.

The article's audience is mainly people that live outside war zones. For them, it's not quiet if mortars rain down and tanks are firing shells at the enemy.

Using random guys on twitter as evidence, priceless. You forgot that your own article said the situation is calming down.

A war photographer isn't a random guy. He's one of many whose work I've been following for a while.

That article is from last Wednesday as that was the specific day the Spiegel article was talking about. Things change.

You mean that he exaggerates the figures about russian support is justified by the context?

So you know he exaggerated? Of course you don't, you only have different sources to rely on rather than counting for yourself. Is Breedlove correct, or the people who contradict him? Maybe the truth is somewhere in between? Don't forget that definitions matter when counting, as well as the possibility that some sources have less complete data to base their counting on.

It might be said that Breedlove is being careless with how he chooses to present information, but that is separate from lying or exaggerating.

Give it a rest. Different levels of violence require different level of response. A bar brawl is not the same as WW2.

Beside the point.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-12-2015, 15:12

Is this high treason?
http://uatoday.tv/politics/ukrainian-orthodox-church-moscow-patriarchate-accepts-the-annexation-of-crimean-peninsula-by-r-414058.html

No - unless the Ukrainian Church applies to the Ecumenical Patriarch to be released from the Moscow Patriarchate they are answerable to Moscow. So they agree or they get Excommunicated, which trickles all the way down to YOU being excommunicated with Constantinople. Messy. It'll get even messier when Constantinople convenes an Ecumenical Council over the issue.

All those excommunicated soldiers in a war zone, not spiritually healthy

"LOL", Putin goes on national television to say Crimea was intentional.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31796226

It was the worst kept secret.

So at what point will he admit to the Donbass now?

The US bullying has to stop so that the people of Russia and Venezuela can focus on internal issues again and finally get rid of Putin et al.
This entire antagonism policy just serves as a convenient distraction for these dictators and drives up the profits of the West's weapons manufacturers while everybody else suffers from it. But then again, who cares if the poor people suffer, right? The only thing that matters is that some people get the few extra billions to buy even more politicians.
:soapbox:

An Entente with Putin was tried, remember how the G7 became the G8, even after Georgia we tried, then Ukraine happened.

On the one hand you're correct that sanctions don't work especially well, but on the other hand we don't have a lot of options given that cuddles apparently lead to wars in Central Europe.

Husar

03-12-2015, 16:03

It might be said that Breedlove is being careless with how he chooses to present information, but that is separate from lying or exaggerating.

You spend half a page explaining how the Spiegel article is bad for not representing the literal truth and then this?
The article says his numbers do not reflect the findings of several european intelligence services, since he doesn't have one of his own, where does his sloppy research come from? Does he just add up the averages he gets from various sources?

There are plenty of examples. Just over three weeks ago, during the cease-fire talks in Minsk, the Ukrainian military warned that the Russians -- even as the diplomatic marathon was ongoing -- had moved 50 tanks and dozens of rockets across the border into Luhansk. Just one day earlier, US Lieutenant General Ben Hodges had announced "direct Russian military intervention."

Senior officials in Berlin immediately asked the BND for an assessment, but the intelligence agency's satellite images showed just a few armored vehicles. Even those American intelligence officials who supply the BND with daily situation reports were much more reserved about the incident than Hodges was in his public statements. One intelligence agent says it "remains a riddle until today" how the general reached his conclusions.

He's a top official of NATO giving information to the public that cannot be backed up by any reliable sources or intelligence services and you turn that into little mistakes he made by being a little sloppy? Is he a first grader or what?
And what's your actual accusation? That Der Spiegel is a pro-russian newspaper on par with RT? Even in Germany this sort of criticism of the West/NATO is relatively rare, newspapers don't just throw that around usually.
Why is it so hard to see that there are people here who would like to further escalate the conflict?

On the one hand you're correct that sanctions don't work especially well, but on the other hand we don't have a lot of options given that cuddles apparently lead to wars in Central Europe.

I wouldn't call regime change cuddles, but declaring war on Russia will hardly not lead to war either, sometimes I get a little confused on what people actually do want us to do. Station lots of tanks in Ukraine which will actually not do anything and stay away from the fighting? Send mercenaries and drones? Declare War on Russia and go all in? Deliver lots of equipment to Ukraine? How would that actually help if Russia has so much more to send itself?

Brenus

03-12-2015, 21:25

“even after Georgia we tried” Georgia, Georgia, ah, yes, the country where a dictator tried to play Tudjman in Ethnically cleansing minorities… Shelling refugee camps he was indeed. And help by US of course, as he was a democrat, a pro-Westerner. Got the red nose, indeed… Then, unfortunately, the revenge ethnic cleansing, all by his fault…
You should take another example: What about Kosovo from where the poor local Kosovars are emigrating “en masse” to escape the Mafia State put in place by NATO.

“Ukraine happened.”Oops, you forgot few steps, as US missiles in Poland, NATO attack on Serbia, building of US bases all around Russia (Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Georgia, Turkey, Baltic States, Japan, South Korea, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.): Indeed, it did. Miscalculation, ignorance, arrogance, violence, Coup d’Etat followed by attacks,

Viking

03-13-2015, 00:00

The article says his numbers do not reflect the findings of several european intelligence services [...]

Where does the article say this?

The closest I could find was this:

At the beginning of the crisis, General Breedlove announced that the Russians had assembled 40,000 troops on the Ukrainian border and warned that an invasion could take place at any moment. The situation, he said, was "incredibly concerning." But intelligence officials from NATO member states had already excluded the possibility of a Russian invasion. They believed that neither the composition nor the equipment of the troops was consistent with an imminent invasion.

a covert invasion did happen in August, when the insurgents suddenly got superpowers and turned a steady rout into a decisive offensive. Prior to this, there was also solid evidence of shelling of Ukrainian troops originating from inside Russia.

The text you have quoted is weird. Hodges talks about direct Russian military intervention, which means that the troops are already fighting, so why they are dragging in the claims about military vehicles crossing the border at that point is beyond me - the Russian vehicles would already be at the front line, of course. Reports in the Russian newspapers Kommersant and Novaya Gazeta that was recently brought up here corroborate Hodges' claim of direct but covert military intervention.

And what's your actual accusation?

That the article depicts the situation inaccurately, and in a way that promotes the article subject. You could call it sensationalism.

Kazakhstan

Nope.

Afghanistan

From the fight against the Taliban after the WTC attacks.

Japan

WWII

Russia is the biggest country on the planet and makes most other countries look like dwarves. The only way to not have bases anywhere near Russia is to have them in Africa, South America or Australia.

Husar

03-13-2015, 02:17

Where does the article say this?

The closest I could find was this:

Let me help you out, it's right after your quote:

The experts contradicted Breedlove's view in almost every respect. There weren't 40,000 soldiers on the border, they believed, rather there were much less than 30,000 and perhaps even fewer than 20,000. Furthermore, most of the military equipment had not been brought to the border for a possible invasion, but had already been there prior to the beginning of the conflict. Furthermore, there was no evidence of logistical preparation for an invasion, such as a field headquarters.

He exaggerated the numbers and their preparations, yes, maybe there was seeping in of russian troops, but it was not the invasion he wanred of or Ukraine would probably be 100% part of Russia by now.

The text you have quoted is weird. Hodges talks about direct Russian military intervention, which means that the troops are already fighting, so why they are dragging in the claims about military vehicles crossing the border at that point is beyond me - the Russian vehicles would already be at the front line, of course. Reports in the Russian newspapers Kommersant and Novaya Gazeta that was recently brought up here corroborate Hodges' claim of direct but covert military intervention.

There are two claims, first Hodges claimed that there was direct Russian involvement, which is what the intelligence services found weird as they had apparently no evidence at that point in time when he claimed it.
And then there was a claim about 50 heavy tanks and dozens of rockets, while actual intelligence only showed some lighter vehicles, although it seems that at this point, one day later, a movement of vehicles from Russia was visible.
The article does not deny Russian involvement, it merely says that some top NATO officials exaggerated that Russian involvement in order to evoke a much stronger reaction from Western leaders and scare people into thinking along the lines that Putin was going to start a huge war.
And it's not the first article to claim that, the only thing that is sensationalist here are the claims of the NATO officials, they are the ones who portrayed the situation inaccurately because they gain a lot of importance if NATO gets more scared of Russia and moves further towards actual military involvement.

Russia is the biggest country on the planet and makes most other countries look like dwarves. The only way to not have bases anywhere near Russia is to have them in Africa, South America or Australia.

Pretty much the three places apart from Russia and immediate surroundings where they have almost none...
http://forusa.org/sites/default/files/uploads/usmilexpan117.jpg

Brenus

03-13-2015, 08:06

“Nope” Well. According the map of NATO bases, yes. And on line articles such as http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/kazakhstan/1341581/Kazakhstan-Offer-of-airports-and-military-bases.html

But all right, at least you don’t deny the rest. So, in term of Geo-strategy, even without Kazakhstan, you can recognise that it not Russia going around USA/NATO and in fact, NATO/USA/EU upsetting Russia, and this immediately after the collapse of USSR.

“From the fight against the Taliban after the WTC attacks.” & “WWII”: So? They don’t count as US bases?

“Russia is the biggest country on the planet and makes most other countries look like dwarves. The only way to not have bases anywhere near Russia is to have them in Africa, South America or Australia.” So many? So recent? And why do you need bases around it, if not for the capacity to attack in all flanks?

Gilrandir

03-13-2015, 13:21

We as in our governments, intelligence services and populations. So do you think Ukraine would be better off if the West finally sent military there and started to carpet bomb the separatist forces? Do you expect Putin to retreat in that scenario or launch an all-out offensive on Ukraine after which Ukraine would be even better off? You keep criticizing what we don, maybe tell us what we should do and what you expect to happen if we do that. Constructive criticism is much better than just whining about the attempts of others to help.

1. It may be an eye-opener, but all you people are doing here is sheer criticizing - nations, governments, individuals, minorities, confessions, values, trends ... The whole forum is about it. So I just conform to the pattern.
2. Own up to it: the "we" aren't helping (or attempting to help) Ukraine. The we are concerned with how to keep what they have had before 2014 (reputation-wise, money-wise, business-wise, security-wise). This approach was once epitomized in a phrase by Pannonian: "I was better off when I didn't know anything about Ukraine and I would be happier if the good old times returned". If we look at the Ukraine situation from this vantage point everything the we do is sensible. The problem is that in the past such attitude often led to adverse consequences.
3. As to what may be done to stop Putin: total economic and finacial embargo/blockade. Weapon supplies (if any are done) should not be heralded by worldwide trumpet calls. And peacekeepers at the frontlines. Of course, I don't know (and no one does - except, perhaps, Brenus the Seer) if it will bring the desired result or what will the Huilo do if such measures are introduced, but the we have tried other things and they didn't work, so maybe it is time to try something else, no?

And you never told us your recipe. So spill it out.

With the first option they may still have reserves to keep fighting until you and others demand an end to the ceasefire and with the second option there might be "intense fighting" on the front that would make you and others demand an end to the ceasefire, no?
And who provides the reserves? If Russia decided on stopping rebels their reserves would run short within weeks. And I've heard reports of dissatisfaction among the separatists, as their wages are not always regularly paid, which shows the absence of significant reserves.
As for the second option, the intense fighting that would ensue will be far behind the front lines (as are the non-intense fightings among the separatists that we witness from time to time), so it will in no way be considered a violation of ceasefire between UKRAINE and SEPARATISTS.

No - unless the Ukrainian Church applies to the Ecumenical Patriarch to be released from the Moscow Patriarchate they are answerable to Moscow. So they agree or they get Excommunicated, which trickles all the way down to YOU being excommunicated with Constantinople. Messy. It'll get even messier when Constantinople convenes an Ecumenical Council over the issue.

Ukaine has several christian churches, those with the largest congregations being Ukrainian Orthodox church (Moscow patriarchy), Ukrainian Orthodox church (Kyiv patriarchy), Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox church and Greek Catholic church. The only "canonical" church (recognized by Constantinople) is the first and the dioceses in the Crimea belonged to it. But it has (officially) a complete autonomy within Russian Orthodox church, including its property and right to choose a metropolitan (and the latest elections happened in August 2014). Its status can be loosely compared to the status of Scotland within the UK. Can Scotland give some of the state property or land to England without prior discussions, voting and other procedures? I don't think so. That is why alienating property/dioceses of UOC was as much of a treason as the imagined alienation in Scotland would be.

Why is it so hard to see that there are people here who would like to further escalate the conflict?
However numerous such people in the West may be (or you recognize them as such) the only person responsible for further escalating the conflict is Putin. Other "hawks" are only on-lookers doomed to react (mostly inadequately) to Putin's moves.

“Ukraine happened.”Oops, you forgot few steps, as US missiles in Poland, NATO attack on Serbia, building of US bases all around Russia (Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Georgia, Turkey, Baltic States, Japan, South Korea, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.): Indeed, it did. Miscalculation, ignorance, arrogance, violence, Coup d’Etat followed by attacks,
Remind us, how many lives were lost during the malicious base-planting process? And compare against what was and is going on in Ukraine.

“Russia is the biggest country on the planet and makes most other countries look like dwarves. The only way to not have bases anywhere near Russia is to have them in Africa, South America or Australia.” So many? So recent? And why do you need bases around it, if not for the capacity to attack in all flanks?
Now remind us, how many Nato's flank attacks against Russia happened and compare it against Russia's attacks in Transdniestria, Abkhasia, South Ossetia, Chechnya and now Ukraine. How come that Russia has been delighting in creating a belt of unrecognized quasi-states around its borders, while Nato did it once with Kosovo (and you never tire to bring it up as an ultimate example)? The existing pattern and current Russian government's attitude suggest that the Empire's reconquista is likely to proceed.

Gilrandir

03-13-2015, 13:35

I like this:http://tass.ru/en/world/782433
My favorite is:

"Ukraine lost its territorial integrity due to complicated internal processes that are of no relation to Russia or its commitments on the Budapest memorandum," Lukashevich said.

And this is after Putin's confession of how much Russia was "unrelated" to the Crimean events.

Husar

03-13-2015, 14:32

And you never told us your recipe. So spill it out.

Where to begin? First of all I wouldn't have given Austria a blank cheque for attacking Russia in 1914...
Then we have the election of Yanukovich by a majority of Ukrainians, the way the Maidan movement acted and was celebrated and a few other mistakes in more recent history. Maybe one could have talked to Putin a little earlier about this whole affair, before he said "Hello, I'm here in Crimea" for example. You know, finding common solution instead of going all "Nyanyanya, suck on this Putin, EU gets Ukraine, *****!" It's not like you would expect a communist overthrowing of the government to suceed in Mexico without the US attempting a counter-coup or an invasion.

By now the entire situation is a train wreck and I'll be happy with any solution that doesn't end up with half of Europe getting nuked, which is why I don't like the jingoist rhetoric. All the West does is talk down to Russia, but the Russians are proud people, much like us, I tend to think that an approach where we don't act like their parents will work better than trying to subdue them with force, threats and so on. It may work for the time being if you go far enough, but consider that they may hate us for it for decades to come...
As for 'the West is only talking down to Putin', he still has enough support even among the population to stay in power, those segments of the population do not like it if we disrespect their president.

If Putin doesn't get reelected for having lost a war and being too weak, which seems to be the plan for some here, then who will the Russians elect instead? Someone who is even more of a strongman?

And who provides the reserves? If Russia decided on stopping rebels their reserves would run short within weeks. And I've heard reports of dissatisfaction among the separatists, as their wages are not always regularly paid, which shows the absence of significant reserves.

Russia provided them stuff and some of it may not have been used up by now = reserves.
And yes, they may run out within weeks, but that's not of much use if the West cries for WW3 after a day already.

As for the second option, the intense fighting that would ensue will be far behind the front lines (as are the non-intense fightings among the separatists that we witness from time to time), so it will in no way be considered a violation of ceasefire between UKRAINE and SEPARATISTS.

If a unit of separatists is breaking the ceasefire at the frontline and Putin wants to stop them he can do that by fighting them way behind the frontlines? How, if they are all on the frontline breaking the ceasefire?

Gilrandir

03-13-2015, 17:18

It's not like you would expect a communist overthrowing of the government to suceed in Mexico without the US attempting a counter-coup or an invasion.

And biting off some Mexican state? I doubt it.

By now the entire situation is a train wreck and I'll be happy with any solution that doesn't end up with half of Europe getting nuked

Your wish is granted. We have tried now any solutions and no one is nuked. The problem is Putin doesn't agree to have any of the offered. And he is likely to push the game further and further. So it will all eventually boil down to agreeing to his solution. And no one is nuked again.

All the West does is talk down to Russia, but the Russians are proud people, much like us, I tend to think that an approach where we don't act like their parents will work better than trying to subdue them with force, threats and so on.

The West may talk foul to/about Putin, but acts nice and slow. Putin, as it turned out, sets little store by talking, negotiations, threats, treaties, promises... And the way the West has been acting so far convinces him that he can keep doing what he was, perhaps with a little adjustment now and then.

It may work for the time being if you go far enough, but consider that they may hate us for it for decades to come...

It is what Putin has done to Russians and Ukrainians.

As for 'the West is only talking down to Putin', he still has enough support even among the population to stay in power, those segments of the population do not like it if we disrespect their president.

Ciausescu had 85-90% support the night before he was lynched. So much for the accuracy of Russian polls.

If Putin doesn't get reelected for having lost a war and being too weak, which seems to be the plan for some here, then who will the Russians elect instead? Someone who is even more of a strongman?

If in 1945 the West had the same ideas of Hitler, would they have tried to keep him in power?

If a unit of separatists is breaking the ceasefire at the frontline and Putin wants to stop them he can do that by fighting them way behind the frontlines? How, if they are all on the frontline breaking the ceasefire?
They would shoot not ACROSS the front line, but behind it, thus it is not the shoot out between the beligerents that were parties to the Minsk agreement.

Viking

03-13-2015, 17:50

Let me help you out, it's right after your quote:

He exaggerated the numbers and their preparations, yes, maybe there was seeping in of russian troops, but it was not the invasion he wanred of or Ukraine would probably be 100% part of Russia by now.

"The experts" = "several european intelligence services"? This isn't math I am familiar with. The article doesn't preclude that some intelligence services agree with his assessments.

There are two claims, first Hodges claimed that there was direct Russian involvement, which is what the intelligence services found weird as they had apparently no evidence at that point in time when he claimed it.

One intelligence agency is cited: BND.

Pretty much the three places apart from Russia and immediate surroundings where they have almost none...
http://forusa.org/sites/default/files/uploads/usmilexpan117.jpg

For a map like that, definitions are everything. Tweak the definitions slightly, and you can potentially end up with a radically different map. You'll notice that every continent has indicated a presence of some sort.

“Nope” Well. According the map of NATO bases, yes. And on line articles such as http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/kazakhstan/1341581/Kazakhstan-Offer-of-airports-and-military-bases.html

Nonetheless, they have none there. You'll notice that Russia itself has some light military presence in Kazakhstan (http://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publications/swp-research-papers/swp-research-paper-detail/article/russias_military_capabilities.html) (PDF).

But all right, at least you don’t deny the rest.

Rather, I have to start somewhere. To my knowledge, neither the US nor any other non-Eastern European NATO country has a permanent military presence in Eastern Europe; only rotational forces (http://www.stripes.com/news/rotational-forces-new-way-of-doing-business-in-europe-1.166942?localLinksEnabled=false). As far as I can see, the US has also been decreasing its European presence - before Putin started to annex things, that is.

The reasons why as well as the nature of the American military presence vary wildly between the countries in the list. With this in mind, the list forms no coherent argument on its own.

So, in term of Geo-strategy, even without Kazakhstan, you can recognise that [...] NATO/USA/EU upsetting Russia, and this immediately after the collapse of USSR.

Only if Putin is a very sensitive and frightened man can I can recognise that. But judging by the pictures, he's supposed to be macho..

Russia has been weak after the USSR dissolved. Putin has gradually strengthened it, and would have been able to continuing doing so hadn't he started his current Ukrainian project. Any attack on Russia should happened immediately after the dissolution of the USSR, when it was at its most weakest. Until recently, any such attack made less and less sense for every day that passed as Russia grew stronger.

“From the fight against the Taliban after the WTC attacks.” & “WWII”: So? They don’t count as US bases?

It's kind of hard to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan without having bases there.

[...] why do you need bases around it [...]

That the US is intentionally attempting to encircle Russia with military bases is the claim, not a fact to deduce new conclusions from.

Husar

03-13-2015, 18:05

And biting off some Mexican state? I doubt it.

Different superpower, different approach. Installing a friendly government more or less gives you the entire country without having to bit it all off. Putin had that in Ukraine, the people even voted the friendly government in. Now some tried to take it away from him in a move that destabilized the country and gave him tho opportunity to do what he did and does now. The US used the terror and nonexistant WMDs arguments to topple a government in a country far away from their own borders. It's what super powers do. You give them the slightest excuse and they try to further their own interests as far as they can. China is currently biting off islands that Japan wants to have as well.

Your wish is granted. We have tried now any solutions and no one is nuked. The problem is Putin doesn't agree to have any of the offered. And he is likely to push the game further and further. So it will all eventually boil down to agreeing to his solution. And no one is nuked again.

Yes, and what remains of Ukraine will not have a lot of angry pro-Russians anymore and can safely do the whole EU mating dance that the British and the Dutch cheer them for because we all love the EU so much.

The West may talk foul to/about Putin, but acts nice and slow. Putin, as it turned out, sets little store by talking, negotiations, threats, treaties, promises... And the way the West has been acting so far convinces him that he can keep doing what he was, perhaps with a little adjustment now and then.

Yes, I'm confident that you know Putin's convictions far better than the people who negotiate with him in person.

It is what Putin has done to Russians and Ukrainians.

And therefore we should do it to all Russians? Because two wrongs make a right or because the situations are totally comparable?

Ciausescu had 85-90% support the night before he was lynched. So much for the accuracy of Russian polls.

I didn't know that he was Russian.

If in 1945 the West had the same ideas of Hitler, would they have tried to keep him in power?

I didn't know that Hitler was up for reelection in 1945.

They would shoot not ACROSS the front line, but behind it, thus it is not the shoot out between the beligerents that were parties to the Minsk agreement.

But it would be enough to scare a photographer who would tweet about fighting at the frontlines and therefore justify a full NATO war against Russia.

Brenus

03-13-2015, 19:55

“and no one does - except, perhaps, Brenus the Seer” Err, a part you, everybody knows as it is impossible to enforce. Fantasy, again.

“so maybe it is time to try something else, no?” What about getting out of propaganda and go to negotiation based on reality and respect?

“Remind us, how many lives were lost during the malicious base-planting process? And compare against what was and is going on in Ukraine.” : Irrelevant as I was speaking of who is menacing the other. However, few figures: For Kosovo only: around 5000, followed by ethnic cleansing of few 100,000 Serbs. Afghanistan, a million, more? So still to go for Ukraine…

“Now remind us, how many Nato's flank attacks against Russia happened and compare it against Russia's attacks in Transdniestria, Abkhasia, South Ossetia, Chechnya and now Ukraine.” Again irrelevant, but it is not the first time: Firstly, none of these regions are countries, but regions of others countries. And even if they were, it wouldn't be a menace against NATO.
Second, no Russian aggression, No Russian Air Force attacking on the grounds, but break away from the main country, for most of them, Chechnya still being part of Russia as you didn’t stop to claim that Chechnya sent (Russian) soldiers in Ukraine, as usual without the beginning of a proof. I am almost sure you can buy some passports to show on TV, com’on, make an effort. You, as usual, don’t care of facts.

“Nato did it once”: Bosnia, Croatia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and of course Iraq, Syria, Libya. And if we count the NATO auxiliary France, Chad, and others African Countries. :laugh4:

Brenus

03-13-2015, 20:05

"Rather, I have to start somewhere. To my knowledge, neither the US nor any other non-Eastern European NATO country has a permanent military presence in Eastern Europe; only rotational forces. As far as I can see, the US has also been decreasing its European presence - before Putin started to annex things, that is.
The reasons why as well as the nature of the American military presence vary wildly between the countries in the list. With this in mind, the list forms no coherent argument on its own."
If I was a Russian remembering the few millions of dead from WW2, I would make a coherent argument just in looking at a map: They are all around me, they are telling I am an enemy, and they are coming every day near the borders with their weapons. Hum, what shall I do? And oof course in the fact that NATO had started all major illegal conflicts in the last quarter of century...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-14-2015, 01:32

“Ukraine happened.”Oops, you forgot few steps, as US missiles in Poland, NATO attack on Serbia, building of US bases all around Russia (Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Georgia, Turkey, Baltic States, Japan, South Korea, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.): Indeed, it did. Miscalculation, ignorance, arrogance, violence, Coup d’Etat followed by attacks,

Brenus, if I was a Romanian I would want as many NATO troops in my country as possible - but of course Romanians are actually all mafia too, right?

Over the last few years your scepticism has morphed into anti-NATO bias.

Brenus

03-14-2015, 08:29

"Brenus, if I was a Romanian I would want as many NATO troops in my country as possible" You might, but you can't expect Russia not to see it as a menace at her door.
Then you guys, are telling that Putin is a mafia boss. You, guys, are telling that Russia is the enemy. So, PVC, if you were a Russian, wouldn't worry to see troops in a country that never miss the occasion to attack you? Wouldn't worry to see a power describing you as an enemy massing forces at your borders? All around your borders, under various reasons, all legitimate of course.

Unfortunately, that is not my skepticism that modified my view, but NATO participation in rough aggression, against legality and international laws. And if you read my very first participation (well, one of) on Ukraine subject was to ask why NATO followers were so upset about Russia's actions as the model followed was NATO's one.
Double standards I would say: EU/USA impose sanctions, Russia blackmails, Putin's regime, Obama's administration, etc.

Gilrandir

03-14-2015, 16:27

Different superpower, different approach. Installing a friendly government more or less gives you the entire country without having to bit it all off. Putin had that in Ukraine, the people even voted the friendly government in. Now some tried to take it away from him in a move that destabilized the country and gave him tho opportunity to do what he did and does now.

I'm sure if he had reacted otherwise, now he would have quite a different Ukrainian government to deal with (with the pro-russians in Donbas and Crimea participating in the elections). Instead, with every new move he is digging himself into a deeper hole. He has two choices only: to press his cause until he wins (which he is finding increasingly difficult) or leave his post. His backing out at this (or any further) stage and saving his face is not possible any more.

Yes, and what remains of Ukraine will not have a lot of angry pro-Russians anymore and can safely do the whole EU mating dance that the British and the Dutch cheer them for because we all love the EU so much.

Putin will not have it even with the truncated Ukraine. He needs both non-Nato and non-EU guarantees of Ukraine's future. And can he guarantee anything in return? I mean guarantees that anyone would trust? And would anyone trust him anymore? Not Ukraine, at least.

Yes, I'm confident that you know Putin's convictions far better than the people who negotiate with him in person.

His convictions can be easily surmised on the basis of his actions.

And therefore we should do it to all Russians? Because two wrongs make a right or because the situations are totally comparable?
You didn't get what I meant. I mean that Ukrainians and Russians have been living side by side for several centuries and considered each other more than friends. This is one of the reasons no one expected such attitude and actions from a strategic partner. What Putin has done may have benefited him tactically, yet strategically he has disadvantaged Russia tremendously. I don't see any time in the nearest future when Russians and Ukrainians would feel the same towards each other. And this is more grievous than all territorial and political disputes. Ultimately, Ukraine will never (well, not in the forseeable future) say that our brothers and close friends live across the border.

I didn't know that he was Russian.

He wasn't. I just wanted to show how unreliable socialogical surveys are in modern Russia. Do you know the procedure? They TELEPHONE random people and ask: "Do you support Putin?"

But it would be enough to scare a photographer who would tweet about fighting at the frontlines and therefore justify a full NATO war against Russia.
Once again: Nato, EU, USA - they KNOW everything perfectly well so if they had wanted to start a war they would have done it long ago. As the USA had done it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada... They don't want a war still hoping to give Putin a chance to back out and save his face. Putin sees it as a sign of weakness and keeps doing his dirty tricks. The questions is who will acknowledge the failure of his approach first.

So, PVC, if you were a Russian, wouldn't worry to see troops in a country that never miss the occasion to attack you? Wouldn't worry to see a power describing you as an enemy massing forces at your borders? All around your borders, under various reasons, all legitimate of course.

Remind us, as a Russian, how many times since 1945 your country has been attacked by the surrounding forces of evil. Russians offer only apprehensions as a reason and start real wars in response.

“so maybe it is time to try something else, no?” What about getting out of propaganda and go to negotiation based on reality and respect?

It may be an eye-opener for you, but I lost count of negotiations the West has had with Putin or Lavrov giving them all chances to change the attitude and save face at the same time. No good. A question: are you sure Putin lives in the same reality as all the world around him and respects international rules, laws and treaties?

Irrelevant as I was speaking of who is menacing the other.

Now consider it: Nato keeps menacing, Russia keeps waging wars. An equal exchange?

“Now remind us, how many Nato's flank attacks against Russia happened and compare it against Russia's attacks in Transdniestria, Abkhasia, South Ossetia, Chechnya and now Ukraine.” Again irrelevant, but it is not the first time: Firstly, none of these regions are countries, but regions of others countries. And even if they were, it wouldn't be a menace against NATO.
Second, no Russian aggression, No Russian Air Force attacking on the grounds, but break away from the main country, for most of them, Chechnya still being part of Russia as you didn’t stop to claim that Chechnya sent (Russian) soldiers in Ukraine, as usual without the beginning of a proof. I am almost sure you can buy some passports to show on TV, com’on, make an effort. You, as usual, don’t care of facts.

Short answer: none. No flank attacks to justify the fears Russia is having.

“Nato did it once”: Bosnia, Croatia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and of course Iraq, Syria, Libya. And if we count the NATO auxiliary France, Chad, and others African Countries. :laugh4:
I spoke of NATO's NEIGHBORS. So the answer is - only once - in former Yugoslavia. Russia is constantly involved in wars at its borders.

CrossLOPER

03-14-2015, 16:40

Russia keeps waging wars.
I would hardly call regional conflicts "wars".

Husar

03-14-2015, 16:48

I'm sure if he had reacted otherwise, now he would have quite a different Ukrainian government to deal with (with the pro-russians in Donbas and Crimea participating in the elections). Instead, with every new move he is digging himself into a deeper hole. He has two choices only: to press his cause until he wins (which he is finding increasingly difficult) or leave his post. His backing out at this (or any further) stage and saving his face is not possible any more.

Putin will not have it even with the truncated Ukraine. He needs both non-Nato and non-EU guarantees of Ukraine's future. And can he guarantee anything in return? I mean guarantees that anyone would trust? And would anyone trust him anymore? Not Ukraine, at least.
[...]
Once again: Nato, EU, USA - they KNOW everything perfectly well so if they had wanted to start a war they would have done it long ago. As the USA had done it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada... They don't want a war still hoping to give Putin a chance to back out and save his face. Putin sees it as a sign of weakness and keeps doing his dirty tricks. The questions is who will acknowledge the failure of his approach first.

So Putin is digging himself deeper into a hole and his approach is really bad for him in the long term, but the strategies of the Western countries have also completely failed, so who is going to "win" this? Putin? Apparently not, he's digging a deeper hole all the time and cannot go back. The West? Apparently not, their tactic has failed. Sounds like the situation will either disappear magically or WW3 as I said earlier. Or am I getting something wrong here?

You didn't get what I meant. I mean that Ukrainians and Russians have been living side by side for several centuries and considered each other more than friends. This is one of the reasons no one expected such attitude and actions from a strategic partner. What Putin has done may have benefited him tactically, yet strategically he has disadvantaged Russia tremendously. I don't see any time in the nearest future when Russians and Ukrainians would feel the same towards each other. And this is more grievous than all territorial and political disputes. Ultimately, Ukraine will never (well, not in the forseeable future) say that our brothers and close friends live across the border.

Maybe Putin didn't expect his strategic friends to dump him for the EU with the whole Maidan thing either, which happened before he showed his "attitude and actions".

He wasn't. I just wanted to show how unreliable socialogical surveys are in modern Russia. Do you know the procedure? They TELEPHONE random people and ask: "Do you support Putin?"

What's the problem with telephones? Political polls in the West aren't conducted by magic mind readers either, telephones are a common tool.
https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/public-opinion-6/measuring-public-opinion-46/telephone-and-internet-polling-275-6802/

Brenus

03-14-2015, 18:57

“Now consider it: Nato keeps menacing, Russia keeps waging wars. An equal exchange?” Not factual. NATO waged more war than Russia (legitimate and not). This is a fact.

“A question: are you sure Putin lives in the same reality as all the world around him and respects international rules, laws and treaties?” Of course not but I am sure that the world around him doesn’t either, repeatedly.

“No flank attacks to justify the fears Russia is having.” Ask the Russians: due to History, they’ve got a point.

“I spoke of NATO's NEIGHBORS” Nope, you didn’t as you included Kosovo in it.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-14-2015, 21:42

Brenus:

What should be done with this situation? What is a good end result here?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-14-2015, 22:22

...

Pretty much - Putin doesn't live in our reality - he's paranoid. It's what makes him so dangerous - I've adopted the positions that whatever we think is just far too extreme is what Putin will do. From which perspective I'm afraid he will eventually escalate to formally invading your country to annex the other Russian-majority regions.

Brenus

03-15-2015, 00:03

“What should be done with this situation? What is a good end result here?”
I don’t know. :shrug:
What do we have? A potential war in a country which has a nuclear plant named Chernobyl and I think 3 more (Zaporijia, Rovno and Khmelnitski ) for a total of 15 reactors like it that needs fuel and spare parts for maintenance from…Moscow.
I will not answer the “should” part, what is done is done, and Ukraine will have to deal to the situation as Serbia has to deal with the loss of Kosovo. There is no justice, only me, said Death in one of Prachett’s book.
Arming Ukraine is a bad idea, as Russia will be able to match every piece of equipment. If necessary, Russia will provide grounds troops, as Russia sees Ukraine as vital for her security. USA and EU will not be able to mobilise on the same feeling, so no troops will be sent.
After the disastrous dealing of the situation by EU/US and Ukrainian Putchist then Legitimate Government of Ukraine of the crisis, it, perhaps, was still place of compromise and to keep Ukrainian territory intact. I still don’t understand how the CIA analysts (but not only) got it so wrong, and underestimated (if not misestimate) Russian feelings and intentions.
Long time ago, I went in Russia (during Chechnya first war) to deliver medical equipment to Doctors without Borders working in the region. All conversations with the translators, and contact with the locals were about the humiliation of Russia by the West under the Drunken Bear Boris Eltsin. I was told that there were so many Russian prostitutes in Istanbul that all of them were called Natacha. True or not, it was what I was told.
They were almost all thirsty for dignity and respect.
Putin success is due for a large part to the return of Russia to a level of self-dignity.
If this is not understood and rectify, all efforts will be in vain.
Thanks to Gilrandir, I started to watch RT recently, and not every day, to be frank. I don’t know if what is said in English is what is said in Russian, but they show the comments made by Westerner Politicians, comparing RT and IS.
So, in term of what can be done, only de-escalation is an option. Ukraine has now no other solution than federalisation, negotiation and talk. Confidence Building Programmes, financed by the European Agency for Reconstruction, rebuilding an economy, a real democracy, creation of jobs, repair of infrastructures: One of the greatest French Colonial General said one to the Foreign Legion after the conquest (I think Morocco) to build one market, one school and to provide medical assistance in each conquered village: Same principal, different wording, bringing populations together, stopping the aggressive stance and coming back to civil life. As Gilrandir often said, they were all neighbours (even if it doesn’t always make it easier).
George Clemenceau, the man who won the 1st World War, said one: Better a bad peace than a good war. It is not always true, but I think in this case it is.

Gilrandir

03-15-2015, 11:58

So Putin is digging himself deeper into a hole and his approach is really bad for him in the long term, but the strategies of the Western countries have also completely failed, so who is going to "win" this? Putin? Apparently not, he's digging a deeper hole all the time and cannot go back. The West? Apparently not, their tactic has failed. Sounds like the situation will either disappear magically or WW3 as I said earlier. Or am I getting something wrong here?

You are getting everything right. I don't see any solution either. Perhaps, if Putin magically disappears (and he hasn't shown himself in public for ten days or so having cancelled some important visits (namely to Kazakhstan), the signing of the union treaty with South Ossetia and the NSDC sitting in Pyatigorsk (IIRC) which he heads and has never missed) than for a time Russian elite will be too busy with sorting things out among themselves to pay all other events more than a cursory look, the rest of the world will have a chance to come up with something. Mind you, I don't hope for any successor with a milder attitude. As many experts claim, Putin's environment now consisits of "the party of blood and money" and "the party of Big blood". Whichever wins the outlook is not bright, yet while they are bickering the world will have a breathing space and might be able to do somehting (hopefully).

Maybe Putin didn't expect his strategic friends to dump him for the EU with the whole Maidan thing either, which happened before he showed his "attitude and actions".

I have answered this one, yet I can do it again: some countries (Turkey, Israel) are perfectly well having free trade agreements both with the EU and Russia. Even Yanukovych in summer of 2013 said that he would like to see the same future for Ukraine. Russia thought (and still thinks) that it should be a matter of choice - either the former or the latter.
Anyway, the way Putin enforces friendship is unlikely to get him friends.

What's the problem with telephones? Political polls in the West aren't conducted by magic mind readers either, telephones are a common tool.
https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/public-opinion-6/measuring-public-opinion-46/telephone-and-internet-polling-275-6802/
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: You evidently have no experience of living in the USSR and modern Russia which increasingly reminds the former. Ask GenosseGeneral, for example, what a modern Russian is likely to say when he is asked by an unknown person on the telephone about his attitude to Putin. Of course, there are some (or very many) that genuinely support him (see the video on celebration Putin's birthday in Grozny), but I would say that a considerable portion would just freak out and say that they worshipped their leader. So the 85-88% figure that Russian media boast of is in fact bloated out of proportion. The real figure (though great in fact, I'm sure) is far less.

“Now consider it: Nato keeps menacing, Russia keeps waging wars. An equal exchange?” Not factual. NATO waged more war than Russia (legitimate and not). This is a fact.

I speak of wars IN THE NEAR VICINITY. No one beats Russia in that.

“A question: are you sure Putin lives in the same reality as all the world around him and respects international rules, laws and treaties?” Of course not but I am sure that the world around him doesn’t either, repeatedly.

What is then the purpose to talk and negotiate with Putin?

“No flank attacks to justify the fears Russia is having.” Ask the Russians: due to History, they’ve got a point.

No they don't. Since the time Nato was created Russia has NEVER been attacked by any of NATO members. On the contrary, any nations Russia had wars with ceased any military aggression against Russia since they joined NATO. So for any country joining NATO seems a safeguard against any attacks on Russia through point 5 of the treaty.

The most funny thing in all these Brenus' anti-NATO philippics is the fact that they come from a person who at least once (in Bosnia) was instrumental in NATO's depredations. I wonder where is genuine Brenus - the one that is now denouncing NATO's hideous ways or the one who put his signature against his name on the payroll and got his salary from NATO.

From which perspective I'm afraid he will eventually escalate to formally invading your country to annex the other Russian-majority regions.
He realizes that now he has not enough manpower and money to capture them and still less to hold them. Right now he is bent on destroying Ukraine from within, but Ukraine got a respite with the IMF money. This evidently will demand the adjustment of his policies. What he comes up with we will see pretty soon (that is if he emerges from his hiding).
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-12/putin-disappears-like-a-dictator

A potential war in a country which has a nuclear plant named Chernobyl

It has been shut down years ago.

So, in term of what can be done, only de-escalation is an option.

And Russia thinks so too:
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150310/1019309874.html

Ukraine has now no other solution than federalisation, negotiation and talk.

I don't agree on the first, while the second and the third have been tried repeatedly bringing no palpable improvement.

As Gilrandir often said, they were all neighbours (even if it doesn’t always make it easier).

We still are and we are doomed to ever be.

Brenus

03-15-2015, 12:44

“The most funny thing in all these Brenus' anti-NATO philippics is the fact that they come from a person who at least once (in Bosnia) was instrumental in NATO's depredations. I wonder where is genuine Brenus - the one that is now denouncing NATO's hideous ways or the one who put his signature against his name on the payroll and got his salary from NATO.” The funniest thing in your smear campaign is you get all wrong as usual.
My time in the Army (and France was not part of NATO at that times) is from 1979 to 1984).
Bosnian wars started in 1992. I know you don’t really care of facts but it was still 8 years later.

So, what will you find now in order to attack the person and not the arguments?:rolleyes:

The other unexpected effect of your ill-informed statement is it looks you think to work with or for NATO is something to be ashamed of… You are free to think so, but I want to emphasize I am not of this opinion. Some of my best friends worked for NATO.

“What is then the purpose to talk and negotiate with Putin?” The same than for Russia to talk to NATO/EU/US liars: To try to find a solution. From Russian’s point of view, all promises made after the USSR collapse were broken, so perhaps it is time to re-built some bridges.

“I speak of wars IN THE NEAR VICINITY.” Ooh, you change your stance again. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, to recognise your mistakes. So Afghanistan is not in Russian’s vicinity? And which war in near vicinity Russia did start, invade? I am writing “start”.

“Russia has NEVER been attacked by any of NATO members” Which NATO member has been attacked by Russia?

“And Russia think so too” Oops, again your weak point, understanding wording: De-escalation (lowering down tensions) in not withdrawing from a association or organism.
You might have mixed-up because withdrawing military equipment is part of de-escalate a conflict.

Husar

03-15-2015, 13:27

I have answered this one, yet I can do it again: some countries (Turkey, Israel) are perfectly well having free trade agreements both with the EU and Russia. Even Yanukovych in summer of 2013 said that he would like to see the same future for Ukraine. Russia thought (and still thinks) that it should be a matter of choice - either the former or the latter.
Anyway, the way Putin enforces friendship is unlikely to get him friends.

He wasn't making a lot of friends before that either, but since when were Turkey and Israel historically friends of Russia? Their free trade agreements have nothing to do with the situation in Ukraine.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: You evidently have no experience of living in the USSR and modern Russia which increasingly reminds the former. Ask GenosseGeneral, for example, what a modern Russian is likely to say when he is asked by an unknown person on the telephone about his attitude to Putin. Of course, there are some (or very many) that genuinely support him (see the video on celebration Putin's birthday in Grozny), but I would say that a considerable portion would just freak out and say that they worshipped their leader. So the 85-88% figure that Russian media boast of is in fact bloated out of proportion. The real figure (though great in fact, I'm sure) is far less.

Of course not, I was born in the Free World™.
But that seems to be a general problem with polling outside the free world, nothing very special about using a telephone to do so, so I was surprised that you highlighted the world telephone. Or would people answer differently if a random guy asked them on the street?

Gilrandir

03-15-2015, 15:30

The other unexpected effect of your ill-informed statement is it looks you think to work with or for NATO is something to be ashamed of…

For one so critical of NATO as you it would be not a shame, but hypocrisy. Morally, one can't get paid by someone and then go about saying how you hate what in fact is being done with your participation.

“What is then the purpose to talk and negotiate with Putin?” The same than for Russia to talk to NATO/EU/US liars: To try to find a solution. From Russian’s point of view, all promises made after the USSR collapse were broken, so perhaps it is time to re-built some bridges.

All the promises you mention (afaik) never took the shape of a treaty, while Russia's promises (concerning Ukraine) did at least twice (Budapest memorandum of 1994 and Russia-Ukraine treaty of friendship and cooperstion of 1997). Bridges you may build, but Russia will have a terrorist with an explosive ticking under each of them.

“I speak of wars IN THE NEAR VICINITY.” Ooh, you change your stance again. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, to recognise your mistakes. So Afghanistan is not in Russian’s vicinity? And which war in near vicinity Russia did start, invade? I am writing “start”.

I don't change it - just a misunderstanding on your part. I speak of Russia waging wars in its vicinity against NATO waging wars in its vicinity. Clearly Russia wins - wars in Transdniestria, Abkhasia, South Ossetia, Chechnya (inside Russia) and now Ukraine. The nearest vicinity of NATO with the latter's involvement saw only Yugoslavian war(s). Since there were several of them on a limited territory (or several stages of the same war) it is safe to assume that it is the locale itself that was in trouble. Russia, on the contrary, was (and is) directly involved in conflicts in different republics of the former USSR. It is a pattern of Russia's behavior rather than natural troubles.

“Russia has NEVER been attacked by any of NATO members” Which NATO member has been attacked by Russia?

No. SO the answer to your question will bring you directly to answering this one: should Ukraine become a NATO member?

“And Russia think so too” Oops, again your weak point, understanding wording: De-escalation (lowering down tensions) in not withdrawing from a association or organism.
You might have mixed-up because withdrawing military equipment is part of de-escalate a conflict.
So lifting limitations on the number of weapons is not against de-escalation?:dizzy2:

He wasn't making a lot of friends before that either, but since when were Turkey and Israel historically friends of Russia? Their free trade agreements have nothing to do with the situation in Ukraine.

When Yanukovych started his EU campagn he claimed (and I agree with him) that being a member of an economic organisation can not cancel any friendly, historic, economic, political and other ties with other countries (Russia in particular). And free trade agreement with both the EU and Russia could be a good example of such approach. Unfortunately, Russia didn't (and doesn't) see it that way. For Putin it is: either be our friend or be within the EU.

Of course not, I was born in the Free World™.
But that seems to be a general problem with polling outside the free world, nothing very special about using a telephone to do so, so I was surprised that you highlighted the world telephone. Or would people answer differently if a random guy asked them on the street?
People in the former USSR (and more so in modern Russia) are pretty much sure that their telephone talks are being eavesdropped on. There is even expression in Russian which is still in use and which can be roughly translated as "it is not a kind of talk one should have over the telephone". Since the researchers telephoned their homes people assumed that they knew their home phone number and consequently their address and consequently their name. So at the back of their mind would always be a picture of a guy with earphones taping every word they said and knowing all private information about them. Questioning people in the street in the broad daylight by an unknown person would give the survey at least a semblance of anonymity.

Brenus

03-15-2015, 16:06

“For one so critical of NATO as you it would be not a shame, but hypocrisy. Morally, one can't get paid by someone and then go about saying how you hate what in fact is being done with your participation.” Oh, so you think that because one is paid by an organisation, one can’t be critical of the same organisation… So, if you work for Health Services and you see something wrong, you can’t report it? You have strange points of view on how things work. Someone working for CIA has to agree with torture?
But, as you acknowledge, and contrary of what you wrote in order to disqualify what I am saying, that is not my case, so not really in debate, at least for me…

“All the promises you mention (afaik) never took the shape of a treaty, while Russia's promises (concerning Ukraine) did at least twice (Budapest memorandum of 1994 and Russia-Ukraine treaty of friendship and cooperstion of 1997). Bridges you may build, but Russia will have a terrorist with an explosive ticking under each of them.” Yeah, but the same can be said for the Internationally Recognised Borders that NATO didn’t hesitate to cross illegally (then changed) when needed… So Russia might have a terrorist under the bridges, NATO might have a drone/airplane above the bridges equipped with armed bombs.

“Clearly Russia wins - wars in Transdniestria, Abkhasia, South Ossetia, Chechnya (inside Russia) and now Ukraine” None of these wars (low level conflicts) was initiated by Russia. However, Iraq, Afghanistan, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya were initiated by NATO. I might as well put Ukraine in the bag, as it was the Coup d’Etat initiated by if not NATO (but as you do not hesitate to add internal conflicts in Russian backyard, why shouldn’t I?), by it diplomacy and secret services. So NATO wins the contest without appeal. Just with Iraq, NATO aggression succeeded to destabilise the entire Middle-East, not bad for an organisation supposed to act defensively.

“No. SO the answer to your question will bring you directly to answering this one: should Ukraine become a NATO member?” Up to Ukraine and NATO to decide. However, due to the success record of the latest NATO interventions, if I would be Ukraine, I would think twice, after seeing what happened in Libya, Kosovo or Iraq… Do note that these countries didn’t crumble under Putin’s evil hand but all by themselves…

“So lifting limitations on the number of weapons is not against de-escalation?” No, not as such, especially when you read the article. I find the reason quite compelling. Treaty was signed when promises not to extend NATO was made, so including new Countries in NATO de facto increased NATO capacities, so Russia sees no reason to keep her part of the deal when clearly NATO is not.
Or perhaps you will tell now that NATO didn’t include new members?

GenosseGeneral

03-15-2015, 22:27

Regarding the "polling debate":
Telephone calls are indeed the most common way of conducting polls, although they have a lot of biases and shortcomings, e.g. non-coverage of people not owning a telephone or who are not home when the pollster calls. However, all types of polls have biases and telephone interviews are comparably cheap, accurate and quick (more on the topic: you can certainly find something comparable in your language (http://www.google.ru/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.de%2FEmpirische-Sozialforschung-Grundlagen-Methoden-Anwendungen%2Fdp%2F3499555514&ei=5PEFVYNX4f_KA4T4gYgD&usg=AFQjCNETipFeJ3q_aU5A77H2JHOculKQHQ&bvm=bv.88198703,d.bGQ&cad=rjt)
Yet I can indeed see a number of reasons why I indeed expect them to work less well in a post-soviet environment:
a) More uneven spread of telephone numbers: whereas most German households have one fixed-line number, most people here have a varying number of mobile numbers. That makes drawing a randomized sample much more difficult.
b) Lower responsiveness: As Gilrandir already said, for cultural reasons people can be less open than in the West, especially those who grew up in the USSR. Although I have so far never met a person who declined talking about politics in person, but then again, I also have never called random people and asked them about their personal opinion. It is indeed notable, that the chunk of people "finding it hard to answer the question" is significantly larger in polls from Russia/Ukraine than in those from the West.

If you are interested in polls from the region, check the Levada Tsentr: http://www.levada.ru/eng/ Widely regarded as the most independent pollster in Russia and they also publish a good deal of their work in English. As a a social scientist, I like their releases actually more than what is published in the average Western mass media, as the data is presented in far more different categories, for example the population size of the respondent's place of residence. It is quite interesting to see how huge differences between Moscow/Petersburg and small towns are. Putin, for instance, is actually MORE popular with the urban than with the village population.
EDIT: More on their methodology: http://www.levada.ru/eng/omnibus-survey
It gives you an idea of how difficult the conduction of an accurate survey is.

“What should be done with this situation? What is a good end result here?”
I don’t know. :shrug:
What do we have? A potential war in a country which has a nuclear plant named Chernobyl and I think 3 more (Zaporijia, Rovno and Khmelnitski ) for a total of 15 reactors like it that needs fuel and spare parts for maintenance from…Moscow.
I will not answer the “should” part, what is done is done, and Ukraine will have to deal to the situation as Serbia has to deal with the loss of Kosovo. There is no justice, only me, said Death in one of Prachett’s book.
Arming Ukraine is a bad idea, as Russia will be able to match every piece of equipment. If necessary, Russia will provide grounds troops, as Russia sees Ukraine as vital for her security. USA and EU will not be able to mobilise on the same feeling, so no troops will be sent.
After the disastrous dealing of the situation by EU/US and Ukrainian Putchist then Legitimate Government of Ukraine of the crisis, it, perhaps, was still place of compromise and to keep Ukrainian territory intact. I still don’t understand how the CIA analysts (but not only) got it so wrong, and underestimated (if not misestimate) Russian feelings and intentions.
Long time ago, I went in Russia (during Chechnya first war) to deliver medical equipment to Doctors without Borders working in the region. All conversations with the translators, and contact with the locals were about the humiliation of Russia by the West under the Drunken Bear Boris Eltsin. I was told that there were so many Russian prostitutes in Istanbul that all of them were called Natacha. True or not, it was what I was told.
They were almost all thirsty for dignity and respect.
Putin success is due for a large part to the return of Russia to a level of self-dignity.
If this is not understood and rectify, all efforts will be in vain.
Thanks to Gilrandir, I started to watch RT recently, and not every day, to be frank. I don’t know if what is said in English is what is said in Russian, but they show the comments made by Westerner Politicians, comparing RT and IS.
So, in term of what can be done, only de-escalation is an option. Ukraine has now no other solution than federalisation, negotiation and talk. Confidence Building Programmes, financed by the European Agency for Reconstruction, rebuilding an economy, a real democracy, creation of jobs, repair of infrastructures: One of the greatest French Colonial General said one to the Foreign Legion after the conquest (I think Morocco) to build one market, one school and to provide medical assistance in each conquered village: Same principal, different wording, bringing populations together, stopping the aggressive stance and coming back to civil life. As Gilrandir often said, they were all neighbours (even if it doesn’t always make it easier).
George Clemenceau, the man who won the 1st World War, said one: Better a bad peace than a good war. It is not always true, but I think in this case it is.

I have to admit, that I rarely agree with your posts in this topic, but this one is definitely an exception to the rule. Especially the bit about Russians longing for respect. One thing I have noticed in my first 2 weeks here, is that people have a certain obsession with the US as a rival. The USSR used to be on par with the US and Russians see the Yeltsin era as not more than an exception from the
rule. The Russian version of 'Murica is bringing freedom, F*CK YEAH (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T65SwzHAbes)
Expect more of that over the next days, as Crimea returning day seems to have become a national holiday. Oh and have the Putin quotes from the "documentary" made by Pervyy Kanal already made it into the Western press? THERE WERE GRU SPETSNAZ IN CRIMEA! *Badum tsss*

I also agree with the part about the complete failure of US/EU officials. I don't know what frightens me more: the idea of them being so ruthless, that they didn't care or so clueless, that they didn't know better.

Beskar

03-16-2015, 00:48

The Russian version of 'Murica is bringing freedom, F*CK YEAH (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T65SwzHAbes)

Good propaganda piece, I could see it being well received domestically and those who are sympathetic.

Gilrandir

03-16-2015, 16:12

“For one so critical of NATO as you it would be not a shame, but hypocrisy. Morally, one can't get paid by someone and then go about saying how you hate what in fact is being done with your participation.” Oh, so you think that because one is paid by an organisation, one can’t be critical of the same organisation… So, if you work for Health Services and you see something wrong, you can’t report it? You have strange points of view on how things work. Someone working for CIA has to agree with torture?

It is not about criticizing, it is about conceptual disagreements with the employer. For example, one can't be a whaler and the member of Green Peace simultaneously, one can't work for a cosmetics company which is known to be testing its produce on animals and hold auctions to help suffering animals. Well, of course one can, but one's moral integrity is, to put it mildly, questionable. The same with NATO: one can't take the money from the organization and say how one hates it for being so dirty and aggressive in its ways, means, policies and devices. In fact, he would be denouncing himself as he gives a hand in devising all those.

“All the promises you mention (afaik) never took the shape of a treaty, while Russia's promises (concerning Ukraine) did at least twice (Budapest memorandum of 1994 and Russia-Ukraine treaty of friendship and cooperstion of 1997). Bridges you may build, but Russia will have a terrorist with an explosive ticking under each of them.” Yeah, but the same can be said for the Internationally Recognised Borders that NATO didn’t hesitate to cross illegally (then changed) when needed… So Russia might have a terrorist under the bridges, NATO might have a drone/airplane above the bridges equipped with armed bombs.

The guy under the bridge will always be one move ahead while airplanes are circling about and their pilots are "apalled, shocked and gravely concerned".

“Clearly Russia wins - wars in Transdniestria, Abkhasia, South Ossetia, Chechnya (inside Russia) and now Ukraine” None of these wars (low level conflicts) was initiated by Russia. However, Iraq, Afghanistan, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya were initiated by NATO. I might as well put Ukraine in the bag, as it was the Coup d’Etat initiated by if not NATO (but as you do not hesitate to add internal conflicts in Russian backyard, why shouldn’t I?), by it diplomacy and secret services.

I'm as much sure that all the wars I mentioned were initiated by Russia. And I may as well claim that all the conflicts you mentioned stemmed from inside those countries and NATO may have had its say in them afterwards. So we must agree to disagree on it.

“No. SO the answer to your question will bring you directly to answering this one: should Ukraine become a NATO member?” Up to Ukraine and NATO to decide. However, due to the success record of the latest NATO interventions, if I would be Ukraine, I would think twice, after seeing what happened in Libya, Kosovo or Iraq…

Those countries were not NATO members. So, if we admit that NAtO doesn't attack its members and that Russia doesn't attack NATO members, would Ukraine be safer within NATO - both from NATO and Russia?

“So lifting limitations on the number of weapons is not against de-escalation?” No, not as such, especially when you read the article. I find the reason quite compelling. Treaty was signed when promises not to extend NATO was made, so including new Countries in NATO de facto increased NATO capacities, so Russia sees no reason to keep her part of the deal when clearly NATO is not.
Or perhaps you will tell now that NATO didn’t include new members?
It is again promises against the signed treaty. Evidently, for Russia these two are equal. It never honors either.

Gilrandir

03-16-2015, 16:36

Isn't that romantic?
15016

Seamus Fermanagh

03-16-2015, 23:17

Brenus:

Our intelligence services screw up the feelings and intentions side of things regularly. Why? A preference for SIGINT over HUMINT....been our Achilles' heel for quite a while now.

For example, we had so little HUMINT in Iraq that we completely believed our source who said Saddam still had an active WMD program in place -- even though that source had a huge axe to grind and we had little corroboration.

Gilrandir

03-17-2015, 08:19

A U-turn in Russia's stance on peacekeepers in Ukraine.
http://mw.ua/WORLD/lavrov-moscow-is-ready-to-discuss-peacekeepers-in-donbas-1455_.html

Brenus

03-17-2015, 08:23

“It never honors either.” And NATO did?

“So, if we admit that NAtO doesn't attack its members and that Russia doesn't attack NATO members, would Ukraine be safer within NATO - both from NATO and Russia?” Good point. Just a mild remark, Greece and Turkey, both member of NATO did fight each other and Cyprus is still divided between the two. I can mentioned as well the war between UK and Argentina, both allied with US (at the time, I don’t know what is the situation for Argentina now).

“The guy under the bridge will always be one move ahead while airplanes are circling about and their pilots are "apalled, shocked and gravely concerned".” Yeap, but the guy under the bridge put his life on line, when the pilot will be back home ½ hour after. And when did you ever heard pilots being "appalled, shocked and gravely concerned” of bombing?

“Our intelligence services screw up the feelings and intentions side of things regularly. Why? A preference for SIGINT over HUMINT....been our Achilles' heel for quite a while now.
For example, we had so little HUMINT in Iraq that we completely believed our source who said Saddam still had an active WMD program in place -- even though that source had a huge axe to grind and we had little corroboration.” I agree, but not entirely. Iraq is a good case. French, German, Italian intelligence told US that it was not possible. And if you put personnel on the grounds, just watching and listening, you could have seen that Iraq was not in position to maintain even a conventional army. And I remember on the French TV debates about the validity of the “free” Iraqis testimony…
As Ukraine is concerned, I said it before, I think it was a pure blunder due to arrogance itself generated by a string of successes in the coloured Revolutions. I am still convinced that no one planned Ukraine; it just went at its momentum as Dr Frankenstein’s creature wobbling to the nearest village. Or, as put by Pratchett, someone throwing a snow ball on a mountain and being surprise by the villages swept by the avalanche.

Gilrandir

03-17-2015, 08:45

“It never honors either.” And NATO did?

So once again - no treaties nor negotiations will change anything at the moment.

“So, if we admit that NAtO doesn't attack its members and that Russia doesn't attack NATO members, would Ukraine be safer within NATO - both from NATO and Russia?” Good point. Just a mild remark, Greece and Turkey, both member of NATO did fight each other and Cyprus is still divided between the two.

It was never a full-scale war and it was not between Greece and Turkey but rather between Cyprus and Turkey.

I can mentioned as well the war between UK and Argentina, both allied with US (at the time, I don’t know what is the situation for Argentina now).

Argentina wasn't and isn't a Nato member and we have agreed that "no attack rule" 100% applied to Nato/Russia relations.

“The guy under the bridge will always be one move ahead while airplanes are circling about and their pilots are "apalled, shocked and gravely concerned".” Yeap, but the guy under the bridge put his life on line, when the pilot will be back home ½ hour after.

You forget two important considerations:
1. The guy under the bridge isn't usually alone - there is another one who brought him there and is squatting in the bush by the roadside with a stinger on his shoulder.
2. Those who sent both are not sorry to lose them - they have plenty more to replace them.

And when did you ever heard pilots being "appalled, shocked and gravely concerned” of bombing?

Since the plane is metaphorically the EU and its pilots are the EU leaders, their reaction to seeing armed guys from Russia in Donbas was what I described.

Gilrandir

03-17-2015, 15:08

Although I have so far never met a person who declined talking about politics in person, but then again, I also have never called random people and asked them about their personal opinion.
I wonder how many of those you talked to were critical about current Russian government? I have a suspicion that those ready to talk were Putin supporters.

Gilrandir

03-18-2015, 15:50

This is what I call de-escalation.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-16/putin-puts-troops-on-full-alert-in-snap-western-russia-drills

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-18-2015, 16:30

This is what I call de-escalation.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-16/putin-puts-troops-on-full-alert-in-snap-western-russia-drills

What "new" threat?

The Mole people?

Husar

03-18-2015, 16:32

Kagemusha

03-18-2015, 16:34

This is what I call de-escalation.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-16/putin-puts-troops-on-full-alert-in-snap-western-russia-drills

Maybe in response to this? http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0514_atlanticresolve/

Just asking..

Beskar

03-18-2015, 17:03

Maybe in response to this? http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0514_atlanticresolve/

Just asking..

Don't you know better, Kagemusha? They are the good guys!

Gilrandir

03-19-2015, 11:59

More de-escalation:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/30/us-ukraine-crisis-usa-idUSKBN0K819420141230
http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/18/4635
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/u-s-sends-10-thunderbolt-ii-aircraft-back-germany-amid-n308776

Maybe in response to this? http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0514_atlanticresolve/

There is one common thing I see in all the links: they are all about PLANS for more or less distant future. In my opinion, it doesn't explain why Putin the Re-emerged needs to put his military on alert RIGHT NOW. Will this alert state keep infinitely/for a prolonged time? If yes, then all the abovementioned plans will look like a response to the alert.

Gilrandir

03-19-2015, 12:04

Perhaps this one is crucial for understanding Putin's attitude and plans he has in mind for Ukraine:
http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1426699976896724000/putin-claims-ukrainians-and-russians-are-one-people.aspx

Husar

03-19-2015, 12:53

There is one common thing I see in all the links: they are all about PLANS for more or less distant future. In my opinion, it doesn't explain why Putin the Re-emerged needs to put his military on alert RIGHT NOW. Will this alert state keep infinitely/for a prolonged time? If yes, then all the abovementioned plans will look like a response to the alert.

Maybe you missed the dates of the articles, which would show you that they were from before Putin's announcement. The movement of US troops to Europe has already begun if I'm not mistaken, but the english press seems to be more quiet about it than the german press:

13.03.2015: USA want to move 800 tanks to Europe http://www.sat1bayern.de/news/20150313/800-zusaetzliche-panzer-in-grafenwoehr-stationiert/
Second link: http://www.br.de/nachrichten/oberpfalz/inhalt/usa-panzer-stationierung-grafenwoehr-100.html

10.03.2015: USA send 3000 soldiers to the baltic countries http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usa-manoever-baltikum-101.html
The first sentence says the tanks and other equipment are being unloaded in the port.

All the exercises that happened in Europe were well-known and publicly announced, the page Kage linked has several from 2014 shown on the map.

Gilrandir

03-19-2015, 13:06

13.03.2015: USA want to move 800 tanks to Europe http://www.sat1bayern.de/news/20150313/800-zusaetzliche-panzer-in-grafenwoehr-stationiert/
Second link: http://www.br.de/nachrichten/oberpfalz/inhalt/usa-panzer-stationierung-grafenwoehr-100.html

Not just to abstract Europe, but to Bayern. Check the distance from it to Russia. It is stupid to thus react to tanks being deployed thousands of miles from Russia. They might as well justify the alert by ISIS activity.

10.03.2015: USA send 3000 soldiers to the baltic countries http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usa-manoever-baltikum-101.html
The first sentence says the tanks and other equipment are being unloaded in the port.

All the exercises that happened in Europe were well-known and publicly announced, the page Kage linked has several from 2014 shown on the map.
Those (and the Bayerische one) were not exercises but deployments. I don't know if such things are heralded a year ahead. Since the articles claim that these were the steps connected with the Ukraine crisis, I don't think it could have been announced in 2014.

Husar

03-19-2015, 13:49

Not just to abstract Europe, but to Bayern. Check the distance from it to Russia. It is stupid to thus react to tanks being deployed thousands of miles from Russia. They might as well justify the alert by ISIS activity.

It says to Europe and "some of them should be stationed in Grafenwöhr". It does not say they all go to Bavaria.

Those (and the Bayerische one) were not exercises but deployments. I don't know if such things are heralded a year ahead. Since the articles claim that these were the steps connected with the Ukraine crisis, I don't think it could have been announced in 2014.

There's an empty line between the part about deployments and the part about exercises, don't mix them up. The exercises already happened in 2014, they weren't just announced. They were partially held in connection with the Ukraine crisis, but you were the one saying that military exercises do not contribute to de-escalation, no?

Gilrandir

03-20-2015, 11:47

The exercises already happened in 2014, they weren't just announced. They were partially held in connection with the Ukraine crisis, but you were the one saying that military exercises do not contribute to de-escalation, no?
I don't know what you mean by "partially in connection". The exercises had been planned and announced way back, and when the crisis hit they were proclaimed to be connected with it? Then they have nothing to do with escalation or de-escalation. They do if they were re-scheduled or the participants of them were increased in number, they were shifted to another locale (closer to the fighting zone) or they hadn't been planned before the conflict started or (most importantly) if the participants of them are universally credited to be one of the beligirents likely to take part in fighting any time soon after or during the exercises and the latter are a smoke screen to send soldiers to actual fighting. The last mentioned seems to be the case with Russia's troops. But Russia has had numerous exercises in the vicinity of Ukraine since 2014, and what is being discussed now is the ALERT STATE not the exercises. Alert states are not pre-planned.

Gilrandir

03-20-2015, 11:58

http://www.radiosvoboda.org/media/video/26909782.html
I am confused - are there Russian nazis who thus salute to the Crimea liberation from nazis?

Husar

03-20-2015, 12:26

I don't know what you mean by "partially in connection". The exercises had been planned and announced way back, and when the crisis hit they were proclaimed to be connected with it? Then they have nothing to do with escalation or de-escalation. They do if they were re-scheduled or the participants of them were increased in number, they were shifted to another locale (closer to the fighting zone) or they hadn't been planned before the conflict started or (most importantly) if the participants of them are universally credited to be one of the beligirents likely to take part in fighting any time soon after or during the exercises and the latter are a smoke screen to send soldiers to actual fighting. The last mentioned seems to be the case with Russia's troops. But Russia has had numerous exercises in the vicinity of Ukraine since 2014, and what is being discussed now is the ALERT STATE not the exercises. Alert states are not pre-planned.

Partially means that IIRC some were scheduled hastily when the Ukraine thing began, others were already scheduled before that.
And that they were scheduled before that already is part of the reason Russia felt threatened for a while already, so yes, they can contribute to escalation. Maybe you want to explain why it bothered the USA so much when Russia stationed nuclear missiles on Cuba when it was just a defensive measure in case the US would like, try to start an invasion of Cuba or something?

And Alert State can mean a lot, does it mean that their ammo is extra-lethal while they conduct the exercise or that they open their eyes a little wider?

Gilrandir

03-20-2015, 12:33

And that they were scheduled before that already is part of the reason Russia felt threatened for a while already, so yes, they can contribute to escalation.

Russia feels threatened and does its best to make the whole world feel threatened.

Maybe you want to explain why it bothered the USA so much when Russia stationed nuclear missiles on Cuba when it was just a defensive measure in case the US would like, try to start an invasion of Cuba or something?

Were there any nuclear wepons recently stationed close enough to Russia for it to feel so much threatened?

Brenus

03-20-2015, 20:21

“Were there any nuclear weapons recently stationed close enough to Russia for it to feel so much threatened?” Turkey?
http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/turkey/

Close enough?

Husar

03-20-2015, 21:05

http://www.thelocal.de/20120905/44779

Germany?

Viking

03-21-2015, 10:39

The solar eclipse was also visible from Ukraine.

https://i.imgur.com/oOtYQMe.jpg?1

Gilrandir

03-21-2015, 15:04

“Were there any nuclear weapons recently stationed close enough to Russia for it to feel so much threatened?” Turkey?
Close enough?

Germany?
The key word in my question was RECENTLY. AFAIK, Turkey got its nukes in 1961, (West) Germany in 1960. The dates surely explain why Putin is getting his hackles up in 2015.

Meanwhile, is Russia threatened or it threatens:
http://cphpost.dk/news/russian-ambassador-threatens-denmark.13108.html

Gilrandir

03-21-2015, 15:10

http://www.unian.info/politics/452126-ukraine-and-turkey-start-forming-free-trade-zone.html
Will we hear anything against it from Russia?

Husar

03-21-2015, 16:52

The key word in my question was RECENTLY. AFAIK, Turkey got its nukes in 1961, (West) Germany in 1960. The dates surely explain why Putin is getting his hackles up in 2015.

But they were RECENTLY still stationed in both countries, you didn't say that they had to be recently shipped there. My article also specified that they were RECENTLY upgraded to become more dangerous and that the plan to get rid of them here in Germany was RECENTLY revealed not to be feasible for apparently shady reasons. In fact it sounds like the US and other NATO countries RECENTLY forced Germany to keep the nukes.

Sarmatian

03-21-2015, 20:59

It is apparently much more benign if someone is shown enmity for a half of century rather than just for the last few weeks.

http://www.unian.info/politics/452126-ukraine-and-turkey-start-forming-free-trade-zone.html
Will we hear anything against it from Russia?

1) That was in 2011
2) The fact that you didn't hear anything against it from Russia kinda proves that this whole thing isn't about free trade but political and military issues.

Gilrandir

03-22-2015, 07:04

But they were RECENTLY still stationed in both countries, you didn't say that they had to be recently shipped there.

You can as well give a list of countries where nukes are still stationed - it serves no explanation of RECENT escalation by Russia.

In fact it sounds like the US and other NATO countries RECENTLY forced Germany to keep the nukes.
I don't think Germany's position as a current leader of both the EU and NATO (in Europe) makes it susceptible for any outside pressure. Germany is an independent enough player to make decisions itself and force others to adopt unpopular decisions too.

It is apparently much more benign if someone is shown enmity for a half of century rather than just for the last few weeks.

So the task of all the world is to please Russia and see to it that it doesn't feel threatened, hurt and offended? What if others are not just offended and threatened but invaded by Russia?

1) That was in 2011
2) The fact that you didn't hear anything against it from Russia kinda proves that this whole thing isn't about free trade but political and military issues.
My bad. Coudn't find any uptodate English-language information on it, now I have a more recent one:
http://en.molbuk.ua/ukraine/88432-poroshenko-ta-erdogan-domovylysya-aktyvizuvaty-peregovory-pro-zonu-vilnoyi-torgivli.html
Evidently the free trade zone introduction was at a standstill, but now Ukraine and Turkey want to step it up. Still waiting for Russia to put in its spoke.

Husar

03-22-2015, 13:31

You can as well give a list of countries where nukes are still stationed - it serves no explanation of RECENT escalation by Russia.

So you missed the part where the nukes were only recently modernized to make them more lethal.

I don't think Germany's position as a current leader of both the EU and NATO (in Europe) makes it susceptible for any outside pressure. Germany is an independent enough player to make decisions itself and force others to adopt unpopular decisions too.

And you missed the part where it clearly states that the german government bowed to NATO pressure.

Gilrandir

03-22-2015, 14:13

So you missed the part where the nukes were only recently modernized to make them more lethal.

So they had been not nukes nor lethal? One can feel threatened enough to know just of any kinds of nuclear missiles pointed at you. But that acute feeling of danger must have been blunted since 1960. It can serve no incentive to start fussing around just at the moment. Besides, you were the one to claim that 10 years is enough for any acute feelings to dissipate.

And you missed the part where it clearly states that the german government bowed to NATO pressure.
I maintain that the German government is powerful enough to act on its own. Perhaps the said pressure was just an excuse to justify the deployment or (more plausibly) it chimed with what the Germans themselves wished or planned to do, so Germany and NATO met each other half way.

Husar

03-22-2015, 14:29

So they had been not nukes nor lethal? One can feel threatened enough to know just of any kinds of nuclear missiles pointed at you. But that acute feeling of danger must have been blunted since 1960. It can serve no incentive to start fussing around just at the moment. Besides, you were the one to claim that 10 years is enough for any acute feelings to dissipate.

I don't remember that but even if I did, they were only recently modified. Whether you understand how a modification can make them more lethal is irrelevant.

I maintain that the German government is powerful enough to act on its own. Perhaps the said pressure was just an excuse to justify the deployment or (more plausibly) it chimed with what the Germans themselves wished or planned to do, so Germany and NATO met each other half way.

I'm glad that you always have a better opinion than the experts on every subject. Surely some random guy from Ukraine must know this better than a reporter who deals with these political topics every day.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-22-2015, 15:15

What Gilandir was talking about:

"We in Russia always thought that Russians and Ukrainians are one people. And I believe so today," Putin told a rally on Red Square marking the first anniversary of Crimea's "unification" with Russia.

People asked why the CIA et al failed to foresee this and I think the answer is actually as simple as it is sad - we have ceased to see war as a tool of statecraft. In the West when we go to war now it is essentially prompted by a humanitarian argument - Afghanistan and Iraq are the exceptions as they are essentially American Wars of Vengeance, but otherwise war has become something of a humanitarian exercise in Europe. Recall that in 1982 the British were unprepared for Argentina to invade the Falklands, they believed the Argentinians would continue to negotiate until both sides were satisfied or the questions became moot.

I think the same was believed in Europe - the politicians believed Putin would continue to negotiate and not deploy Spetnatz in Crimea, and then they didn't think he would escalate.

It's worth pointing out, by the way, that this assumption was at the political level, so it may be moot as to whether or not analysts in the basement saw this coming or not.

CrossLOPER

03-22-2015, 15:29

People asked why the CIA et al failed to foresee this and I think the answer is actually as simple as it is sad - we have ceased to see war as a tool of statecraft.
So the expansion of NATO was not an extension of the containment policy used against the USSR, and was totally peaceful in its intentions?

Right, thanks for clearing that up.

Also, clearly a sliver of land is worth nuclear war.

Husar

03-22-2015, 16:17

Also, clearly a sliver of land is worth nuclear war.

I think most British people would rather die in a nuclear fire than let the Bolsheviks have Mariupol.

Beskar

03-22-2015, 16:22

I think most British people would rather die in a nuclear fire than let the Bolsheviks have Mariupol.

Only because you would give him Warsaw too, Neville.

CrossLOPER

03-22-2015, 16:28

Only because you would give him Warsaw too, Neville.
Yeah, kinda like Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Nigeria, Kenya and now Tunisia were given to IS and Egypt was given to an even more repressive dictator. What, do you want the next Witcher title that badly?

Gilrandir

03-22-2015, 16:33

Whether you understand how a modification can make them more lethal is irrelevant.

"Lethal" as an adjective doesn't have degrees of comparison. The same as "just", "right", "wooden", "silken" and many others.

I'm glad that you always have a better opinion than the experts on every subject. Surely some random guy from Ukraine must know this better than a reporter who deals with these political topics every day.
You can say use it as a reply to almost every post people send on the forum. The whole forum is about exprsessing one's own opinion on things, experts' opinions can be obtained elsewhere.

I think the same was believed in Europe - the politicians believed Putin would continue to negotiate and not deploy Spetnatz in Crimea, and then they didn't think he would escalate.

Why do you use the past tense? Europe still DOESN'T believe in any plans for escalation Putin might have. And after every advance made by the separatists in Donbas Europe lumps it saying to itself: "Well, this was definitely the last time."

I think most British people would rather die in a nuclear fire than let the Bolsheviks have Mariupol.
And you seem to have an opposite opinion: "Let the Bolsheviks have whatever they want as long as we don't see any nukes above our heads".
As it is often the way with things, there should be some sensible position and reaction by Europe which (i.e. the position) lies in the middle between the extremes.

Brenus

03-22-2015, 17:23

“the politicians believed Putin would continue to negotiate and not deploy Spetnatz in Crimea, and then they didn't think he would escalate.” I agree with the last part, but I disagree on the first one. They believed that Putin wouldn’t dare to escalate. Based on past experience, they observed rightly that each time Russia was backtracking and couldn’t really react. They believed that negotiation would take place and at the same time, the “pro-western” side would take the grip of power, and smoked by the deliberately slow negotiation, Putin (Russia) had no choice than the fait accompli.
The Georgian case showed that Russian army had enormous difficulties in deploying and to achieve even simple task.
Because Crimea was considered as Ukrainian, the prospect of an invasion from Russian’s borders was not really considered and even so the Ukrainian Army would have resisted any invasion. This was proved wrong. The use of Spetnatz was possible only because the locals were favourable to the invaders. Gilrandir will not agree, but this is a fact. No resistance at all was even tried, really.

“Tunisia” Not yet.

Husar

03-22-2015, 17:51

"Lethal" as an adjective doesn't have degrees of comparison. The same as "just", "right", "wooden", "silken" and many others.

How can someone or something be "most lethal" out of a group then?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brit-worlds-most-lethal-sniper-5088822
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_lethal_American_battles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02fvf9r

Wouldn't the most lethal thing be more lethal than the others?

You can say use it as a reply to almost every post people send on the forum. The whole forum is about exprsessing one's own opinion on things, experts' opinions can be obtained elsewhere.

I think you're wrong.

And you seem to have an opposite opinion: "Let the Bolsheviks have whatever they want as long as we don't see any nukes above our heads".
As it is often the way with things, there should be some sensible position and reaction by Europe which (i.e. the position) lies in the middle between the extremes.

Yes, how is demonizing Putin going to get us there? In my opinion all the Hitler-comparisons suggest that we can only stop him through all-out war, by bringing Russia to its knees and then making it bend over backwards. Your opinion on my opinion is wrong by the way.

Montmorency

03-22-2015, 17:55

So when's Episode 3 coming out?

CrossLOPER

03-22-2015, 18:36

Why do you use the past tense? Europe still DOESN'T believe in any plans for escalation Putin might have. And after every advance made by the separatists in Donbas Europe lumps it saying to itself: "Well, this was definitely the last time."

Do you know something we don't?

GenosseGeneral

03-22-2015, 18:44

So when's Episode 3 coming out?

The producers haven't agreed on the plot yet, but there is a number of groups working on it. Ideas:

1) MOAR ESCALATION! MORE WAR, MORE SANCTIONS! IN 3D!!! This plot is favoured by NATO, hawks in Russia and the US, Ukrainian Nazis, those of their Russian counterparts fighting against them at the Donbass.
2) Majdan the Third. The Ukrainian people are so fed up with their new corrupt government, that they decide to bring another group of oligarchs into power. I suggest Pinchuk, Kuchma and Firtash.
3) Civil war of the oligarchs. The Ukrainian oligarchs, during the 90s also known as the Russian mafia, go back to their roots and use the mobilized volunteer battaillons to fight each other over the control of valuable assets. For instance Ukrtransnaftgaz. More on this innovative approach to keep things exciting:
http://korrespondent.net/special/1688-konflykt-vokruh-ukrtransnafty Unfortunately in Russian, but some of the pictures taken on set might give you an idea.
Kolomoyskiy and some of Poroshenko's followers are currently working on this episode.

Viking

03-22-2015, 19:44

So the expansion of NATO was not an extension of the containment policy used against the USSR, and was totally peaceful in its intentions?

No, it must clearly have been with the intention to invade Russia and paint the Kremlin pink.

No resistance at all was even tried, really.

Erm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFM7KjqnwEo

CrossLOPER

03-22-2015, 20:21

No, it must clearly have been with the intention to invade Russia and paint the Kremlin pink.
Precisely.

Brenus

03-22-2015, 22:01

"Erm." Yeah, I know. Stalingrad was a battle for pussy cats...

Montmorency

03-22-2015, 22:21

The producers haven't agreed on the plot yet, but there is a number of groups working on it. Ideas:

1) MOAR ESCALATION! MORE WAR, MORE SANCTIONS! IN 3D!!! This plot is favoured by NATO, hawks in Russia and the US, Ukrainian Nazis, those of their Russian counterparts fighting against them at the Donbass.
2) Majdan the Third. The Ukrainian people are so fed up with their new corrupt government, that they decide to bring another group of oligarchs into power. I suggest Pinchuk, Kuchma and Firtash.
3) Civil war of the oligarchs. The Ukrainian oligarchs, during the 90s also known as the Russian mafia, go back to their roots and use the mobilized volunteer battaillons to fight each other over the control of valuable assets. For instance Ukrtransnaftgaz. More on this innovative approach to keep things exciting:
http://korrespondent.net/special/1688-konflykt-vokruh-ukrtransnafty Unfortunately in Russian, but some of the pictures taken on set might give you an idea.
Kolomoyskiy and some of Poroshenko's followers are currently working on this episode.

Sounds lame. I'll just get the videogame (http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=335&Itemid=579).

CrossLOPER

03-22-2015, 22:24

Erm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFM7KjqnwEo
Why do they insist on butchering the pronunciation of Khruschev's name like that? It's not recognizable.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-22-2015, 23:13

So the expansion of NATO was not an extension of the containment policy used against the USSR, and was totally peaceful in its intentions?

Right, thanks for clearing that up.

You're welcome - from a European perspective "NATO" is a primarily defensive alliance, it's secondary function is to be a sort of club for militarily friendly nations who are also democracies. In fact in Europe NATO and the EU a less and less distinguishable.

You also have to ask, why did the Baltic Republics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria... etc want to join NATO? The answer is that they fear Russian aggression, with historical justification. This fear is currently being realised in Ukraine, which did not join NATO.

Also, clearly a sliver of land is worth nuclear war.

It's more a belief that conventional war with Putin is inevitable, because he doesn't occupy our reality.

I think most British people would rather die in a nuclear fire than let the Bolsheviks have Mariupol.

See above - the long you wait the worse it will be - like an amputation - which lots of us will probably need once we've fought the Russians. I'm hoping to only lose a foot.

Montmorency

03-22-2015, 23:30

It's more a belief that conventional war with Putin is inevitable, because he doesn't occupy our reality.

Nah - Putin is, as you say, a fascist. He's posturing out of a position of weakness. The more he loses, the more he has to commit, or else its international humiliation, domestic privation, and potentially his own ouster.

Husar

03-22-2015, 23:43

You also have to ask, why did the Baltic Republics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria... etc want to join NATO? The answer is that they fear Russian aggression, with historical justification. This fear is currently being realised in Ukraine, which did not join NATO.

Meh, why does half of South America and the Middle East hate the USA? Does that make the USA just as evil and aggressive or even more so?

It's more a belief that conventional war with Putin is inevitable, because he doesn't occupy our reality.

If he doesn't occupy our reality then war is not even necessary, but either way it is not inevitable.

See above - the long you wait the worse it will be - like an amputation - which lots of us will probably need once we've fought the Russians. I'm hoping to only lose a foot.

I don't intend to fight the Russians.
And there's a chance that you will just make a peaceful solution impossible by attacking right now. But apparently you have absolutely no doubt about your conclusions.

Montmorency

03-22-2015, 23:49

The problem is that Russia is in a bad position right now, so the US and Europe have to navigate carefully:

they don't want to empower Russia at their own expense and at the expense of their reputations, but neither do they want to cripple Russia or send it spiraling back into chaos.

That is why we have a simmering crisis in the Ukraine.

To be honest, the easiest way to resolve it would be for Western governments to privately pledge to Putin that they will support him against internal rivals.

Of course, if discovered, that would be a tremendous scandal, and the Tea Party would be looking to lynch Obama - literally.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-23-2015, 00:29

Meh, why does half of South America and the Middle East hate the USA? Does that make the USA just as evil and aggressive or even more so?

Because America acted like a Tyrant to those countries? I mooted this when we were arguing over Libya, that a major reason for negative developments in those regions is the xternal tyranny of interally democratic countries.

I.e. If we are dicks to them they won't wants to be like us.

If he doesn't occupy our reality then war is not even necessary, but either way it is not inevitable.

A year ago I didn't think he'd annex Crimea, then he did. Going to war, actual war, would be insane but given that everything else he's done this year also seems insane to me I'm just following the pattern. Putin has shown that we have exactly two choices - war or let him have what he wants.

I don't intend to fight the Russians.
And there's a chance that you will just make a peaceful solution impossible by attacking right now. But apparently you have absolutely no doubt about your conclusions.

We won't be attacking - eventually Putin will attack something NATO troops are standing on. It's the "fight him over there or fight him here" gambit.

Hax

03-23-2015, 00:55

Everyone hates America until they get a green card.

Montmorency

03-23-2015, 01:03

Putin has shown that we have exactly two choices - war or let him have what he wants.

Trust me, everyone involved is looking for a convenient pretext to de-escalate. As I said, the problem lies in actually finding one before someone's population gets frenzied enough to force some "gambit".

Husar

03-23-2015, 01:16

Because America acted like a Tyrant to those countries? I mooted this when we were arguing over Libya, that a major reason for negative developments in those regions is the xternal tyranny of interally democratic countries.

I.e. If we are dicks to them they won't wants to be like us.

Yes.

A year ago I didn't think he'd annex Crimea, then he did. Going to war, actual war, would be insane but given that everything else he's done this year also seems insane to me I'm just following the pattern. Putin has shown that we have exactly two choices - war or let him have what he wants.

That still doesn't make anything inevitable, maybe I'd rather become a Russian than plop out of life in a nuclear explosion.
I'm sure that not subscribing to "better dead than red" makes me a horrible person, but we're not even close to such an option yet.

We won't be attacking - eventually Putin will attack something NATO troops are standing on. It's the "fight him over there or fight him here" gambit.

Don't you think he is going a bit slow if he wants to reach Paris during his lifetime?

Everyone hates America until they get a green card.

Oh man, I'd [do things] for a greencard!!!111

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-23-2015, 01:51

Yes.

I followed that up by saying we should support all anti-tyrannical movements. Given the rise of ISIS off the back of the Syrian Civil War I feel somewhat vindicated.

That still doesn't make anything inevitable, maybe I'd rather become a Russian than plop out of life in a nuclear explosion.
I'm sure that not subscribing to "better dead than red" makes me a horrible person, but we're not even close to such an option yet.

If push came to shove and you had to see your children grow up in a copy of Communist Russia, or WORSE Communist Romania, you would probably fight. It's not like we went off to World War II laughing - we spent years trying not to fight Germany, but once we recognised it was impossible to avoid without giving up on all our principles we fought your country to the (very) bitter end.

Don't you think he is going a bit slow if he wants to reach Paris during his lifetime?

He only has to get to Bucharest - that's why those countries wanted to join NATO, because Russians elect men like Putin.

Montmorency

03-23-2015, 02:36

PVC, I'm afraid it takes a fanatical ideologist to imagine one.

Lean back and take a sober look at the picture. From my view, the only thing informing your hawkishness is delusions of glory and grandeur.

There is little evidence that significant national leaders have your mindset.

Also, Hitler is irrelevant to the conversation as external factors had already determined Germany's path to war in the context of that time. Germany as a state had no option other than to fight. Likewise with France, the UK, the US, the USSR, Japan, and all the rest.

In the contemporary context, Russia has nothing to fight for such as was driving states in the 1930s. War now would be a desperate last resort for Russia's very survival as a unified political entity, or at least Putin's own survival, as it were.

And even if we were to imagine Putin as equal to you in war-lust, you still must acknowledge that even the highest King-of-Kings, let alone some two-bit modern authoritarian, must answer not just to his own subjects, but to his 'vassals'.

Montmorency

03-23-2015, 02:51

To be clear on where I'm coming from:

Political Realism - "Reason" = Behaviorism

Husar

03-23-2015, 03:11

I followed that up by saying we should support all anti-tyrannical movements. Given the rise of ISIS off the back of the Syrian Civil War I feel somewhat vindicated.

I'm a bit confused, are you saying that I somehow agreed to that follow-up as well this time even though you didn't mention it or are you trying to help me in saying that you are sometimes wrong?

If push came to shove and you had to see your children grow up in a copy of Communist Russia, or WORSE Communist Romania, you would probably fight. It's not like we went off to World War II laughing - we spent years trying not to fight Germany, but once we recognised it was impossible to avoid without giving up on all our principles we fought your country to the (very) bitter end.

Meh, hyperbole, there are still people who think the DDR was the better Germany.

He only has to get to Bucharest - that's why those countries wanted to join NATO, because Russians elect men like Putin.

And Israelis elect men like Netanyahu and Americans men like Bush and Germans men like Hitler, it's mostly due to geolocation and history that some end up as our allies and some as our enemies but that is no reason to think our enemies are somehow that much worse than our friends or even that they cannot become our friends one day. It's this attitude of irreconcilable opposition towards a certain people that I find more dangerous than the conquerous adventures of some madman.
The Russians didn't really elect Putin because he promised to conquer half of Europe, IIRC a lot of it was about his image that he was fighting corruption and bringing the country back onto a more stable track.
Most Israelis probably do not elect Netanyahu because they want him to genocide the Palestinians and take their land but because they think his toughness will protect them from more rocket attacks. Whether that's actually the case is not relevant, it's a lot about perception.
At the same time I think you perceive Putin as worse than he is because for you he represents the "arch-enemy".

Montmorency

03-23-2015, 03:25

no reason to think our enemies are somehow that much worse than our friends or even that they cannot become our friends one day.

irreconcilable opposition

This is why, from a realist perspective, the US should cultivate Iran as an partner (regardless of whether in such a relationship "it's not a matter of if, but when, the US screws you over") in the Middle East.

Of course Israel would protest, but if the US were to take the project seriously, then Israel would have to deal with it and play nice.

Sarmatian

03-23-2015, 09:36

You're welcome - from a European perspective "NATO" is a primarily defensive alliance, it's secondary function is to be a sort of club for militarily friendly nations who are also democracies. In fact in Europe NATO and the EU a less and less distinguishable. A NATO military spending is twice the rest of the world combined.

You also have to ask, why did the Baltic Republics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria... etc want to join NATO? The answer is that they fear Russian aggression, with historical justification. This fear is currently being realised in Ukraine, which did not join NATO.

How can France and England be such strong allies then? Bitter enemies for many centuries.

It's more a belief that conventional war with Putin is inevitable, because he doesn't occupy our reality.

Your reality is to keep NATO monopoly of force that keeps the rest of the world in line and anything that endangers that is a threat.

See above - the long you wait the worse it will be - like an amputation - which lots of us will probably need once we've fought the Russians. I'm hoping to only lose a foot.

Don't worry, one can usually find it in one's mouth.

Everyone hates America until they get a green card.

That's untrue.

When you get a green card, you go to work there legally. When you work, you also pay taxes, BUT, you don't get a vote. So, what is that? That's taxation without representation, which Americans hate the most, and, to fit it, you have to hate the government that taxes you without giving you representation. In fact, hating America is the most American thing you can do when you get that green card!

Everybody now!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XZQZ8KL3as

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-23-2015, 23:52

PVC, I'm afraid it takes a fanatical ideologist to imagine one.

Lean back and take a sober look at the picture. From my view, the only thing informing your hawkishness is delusions of glory and grandeur.

There is little evidence that significant national leaders have your mindset.

No, I don't think they do agree with me. Like I said, I didn't think he'd annex Crimea, I didn't think he'd instigate a war in the Donbas but there you go.

Also, Hitler is irrelevant to the conversation as external factors had already determined Germany's path to war in the context of that time. Germany as a state had no option other than to fight. Likewise with France, the UK, the US, the USSR, Japan, and all the rest.

In the contemporary context, Russia has nothing to fight for such as was driving states in the 1930s. War now would be a desperate last resort for Russia's very survival as a unified political entity, or at least Putin's own survival, as it were.

Germany didn't HAVE to go to war, it didn't benefit the country in the slightest. Germans just believed they had to go to war. I'm surprised you can make the comparison and not see that, increasingly, Russians believe they need to go to war. We must fight for Donbas, we must recover Russia's honour, fatherland this and that.

Putin and his ilk look at a map of the former USSR and see it overlaid in one colour, must like a Byzantine looked at a map and saw SQPR overlaid.

Montmorency

03-24-2015, 01:14

Germany didn't HAVE to go to war, it didn't benefit the country in the slightest.

In hindsight, obviously not, but if Germany didn't go to war at the time then it would rapidly have undergone Finlandization towards either the USSR or the old couple.

increasingly, Russians believe they need to go to war. We must fight for Donbas, we must recover Russia's honour, fatherland this and that.

Do you have any idea how many Americans supported war as a general path to solving perceived problems just over a decade ago?

What's at issue here is your insistence on treating snapshots of sentiment in segments of populations and fleeting positions of leadership as fixed states of affairs, when in reality they are fluctuating constantly and wildly - this should be obvious to anyone who has lived as a human being, let alone someone with political experience or historical knowledge.

Also, Germany is again waking up to its status as one of the major European powers. So far, they're trying to use that power to indirectly keep themselves in check (through economic entanglements), but if it finds itself first among equals in Europe but still unable to effect the international policy outcomes it desires (e.g. brokering a solution to disputes over Ukraine), then it may come to see accumulating more power as the best option -

again.

But because this is possible, by your logic 'DEAR GOD THE EAGLE IS STIRRING ONCE MORE WE MUST PRE-EMPTIVELY CRUSH THE JERRIES FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY THE ENGLISH NEVER NEVER NEVER SHALL BE SLAVES"

Putin and his ilk look at a map of the former USSR and see it overlaid in one colour

But see, inasmuch as they do you are conflating geography with ideology or megalomania.

CrossLOPER

03-24-2015, 06:22

'DEAR GOD THE EAGLE IS STIRRING ONCE MORE WE MUST PRE-EMPTIVELY CRUSH THE JERRIES FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY THE ENGLISH NEVER NEVER NEVER SHALL BE SLAVES"
I spat out my porridge.

Gilrandir

03-24-2015, 11:12

Gilrandir will not agree, but this is a fact. No resistance at all was even tried, really.

If you mean military resistance, then I do agree with you. Why I shoudn't?
But there is an essential "but": many people here who are of the like mind with you were keeping their fingers crossed hoping that it would not come to blows. And it didn't - for many reasons, primarily because such an attack from "strategic partners and brehtren" was incredible in the eyes of Ukrianian soldiers, because many of those soldiers were locals from the Crimea, because everyone didn't wish for any "fratricidal" bloodshed... You had what you prayed for. And now you sound contemptuous that the Ukrainians didn't offer any (military) resistance. Would it make you happier if they had?

How can someone or something be "most lethal" out of a group then?
Wouldn't the most lethal thing be more lethal than the others?

Lethal means "bringing/causing death". You can't bring more death - a human dies only once. You can speak of something causing more casualties.

Yes, how is demonizing Putin going to get us there? In my opinion all the Hitler-comparisons suggest that we can only stop him through all-out war, by bringing Russia to its knees and then making it bend over backwards.
Putin himself now and again adds to this much-hated (by you) comparison. About a week ago in Russia a film was released to celebrate the Crimea's annexation - I'm sure you are aware of it. It is called "The Crimea: the road to Motherland". Do you know the name of the film released in 1941 to justify/celebrate Danzig's annexation? - "Heimkehr". Deliberately or involuntarily Putin - both by his actions and by his propaganda techniques and devices - follows the pattern set eighty years ago. So it is natural for people to draw the comparison mentioned.

Do you know something we don't?
I see the pattern of the EU reactions to events in Ukraine and make conclusions.

Nah - Putin is, as you say, a fascist. He's posturing out of a position of weakness. The more he loses, the more he has to commit, or else its international humiliation, domestic privation, and potentially his own ouster.
I would say the opposite - the more he is allowed to do, the more it whets his appetite. But at the same time he is aware that he can't vomit out what he has already swallowed - because of the reputational damage. So it is a dead end for him - he can't digest the piece he has in his stomach, but he can't get it out without being ridiculed and despised by his electors.

Meh, why does half of South America and the Middle East hate the USA? Does that make the USA just as evil and aggressive or even more so?

People who live in the close vicinity to a superpower are likely to hate it. The Middle East hates the USA by proxy - as the country supporting their local superpower - Israel.

Trust me, everyone involved is looking for a convenient pretext to de-escalate.
Putin had plenty of chances to, yet he didn't use any of them, and I'm afraid he will not.

Gilrandir

03-24-2015, 11:19

In the contemporary context, Russia has nothing to fight for such as was driving states in the 1930s. War now would be a desperate last resort for Russia's very survival as a unified political entity, or at least Putin's own survival, as it were.

It may be an eye-opener, but Russia IS fighting a war. And the reasons to continue it are obvious - having started the offensive (accompanied by the propaganda frenzy) Putin can't just say: "Now we will stop supporting the oppressed Russian-speakers and Russians suffering from depredations of Kiev junta". He is to push it till he can report to the nation that the enemy is worsted. Until there is a halt in the propaganda, he can't hope to explain such a U-turn to his people. And right now the propaganda shows no signs of slackening. When we see the latter it may be a hint that Putin indeed wishes to de-escalate.

Montmorency

03-24-2015, 11:26

Putin had plenty of chances to, yet he didn't use any of them, and I'm afraid he will not.

Though as pointed out it isn't up to just him, there is an important cautionary tale here.

In 1969, everyone (in power) wanted the Vietnam War to end. However, Nixon and Kissinger escalated military activity and at various points rejected overtures for peace from the North Vietnamese.

Why? Because they wanted to negotiate from a more advantageous strategic position at the inevitable peace conference.

What happened? In 1973, both sides came to the table with basically the same cards as in 1969 - but with hundreds of thousands more in dead.

So of course there are risks like that in international relations. But in this particular situation, there are hopefully many more factors encouraging the players to end the game (i.e. the "active" crisis), cut the losses, and plan for future strategic maneuvers (i.e. economic, political, and, yes, military development and policy tweaking).

Montmorency

03-24-2015, 11:27

having started the offensive (accompanied by the propaganda frenzy) Putin can't just say: "Now we will stop supporting the oppressed Russian-speakers and Russians suffering from depredations of Kiev junta". He is to push it till he can report to the nation that the enemy is worsted. Until there is a halt in the propaganda, he can't hope to explain such a U-turn to his people. And right now the propaganda shows no signs of slackening. When we see the latter it may be a hint that Putin indeed wishes to de-escalate.

Well yeah, as we discussed with commitment and all. Putin's disadvantage as an autocrat is that all these risks and gambles he is taking are very personal ones.

Gilrandir

03-24-2015, 11:28

And speaking of Nazis:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32009360
Meanwhile in France:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11488851/Marine-Le-Pens-dramatic-defeat-in-French-local-elections.html
But I think it is worth a remark (although Brenus might not like it):
The Telegraph rejoices in Le Pen's defeat, yet let's face the stark truth: the French gave 26% of votes for the Nazis - the second place and only 4% behind the winners. I wouldn't call it a defeat.
Now where is the threat of nazism coming from - Ukraine or France+Russia?

Gilrandir

03-24-2015, 11:30

Though as pointed out it isn't up to just him, there is an important cautionary tale here.

In 1969, everyone (in power) wanted the Vietnam War to end. However, Nixon and Kissinger escalated military activity and at various points rejected overtures for peace from the North Vietnamese.

Why? Because they wanted to negotiate from a more advantageous strategic position at the inevitable peace conference.

What happened? In 1973, both sides came to the table with basically the same cards as in 1969 - but with hundreds of thousands more in dead.

According to the dating in your tale we still have around a couple of years of the crisis ahead of us.

Montmorency

03-24-2015, 11:31

Juif, la France n'est pas a toi?

Gilrandir

03-24-2015, 11:59

Juif, la France n'est pas a toi?

Вибач, французькою не володію.

Husar

03-24-2015, 12:00

Lethal means "bringing/causing death". You can't bring more death - a human dies only once. You can speak of something causing more casualties.

You can bring more death, by killing two humans, I thought I made that clear.
They call someone the most lethal sniper because he is the sniper who killed the most humans, not because he killed one human more than all the other snipers killed one human. Therefore making a bomb more lethal means giving it the potential to kill more humans, for example by making it more accurate so that it won't land on the periphery of the intended target.

Montmorency

03-24-2015, 12:04

You can bring more death, by killing two humans, I thought I made that clear.
They call someone the most lethal sniper because he is the sniper who killed the most humans, not because he killed one human more than all the other snipers killed one human. Therefore making a bomb more lethal means giving it the potential to kill more humans, for example by making it more accurate so that it won't land on the periphery of the intended target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathmatch

consecutive kills: when a player kills a combatant within 5 seconds after a previous kill, a consecutive kill occurs. The timer starts ticking anew, allowing a third kill, a fourth kill etc. Alternatively, killing several enemies with a mega weapon (such as the Redeemer, which resembles a nuclear rocket) also counts as consecutive kill. The titles of these kills are: Double Kill (2), Multi kill (3), Ultra kill (4), Megakill (5), MONSTERKILL (6; 5 in the original Unreal Tournament). For comparison, id Software's "Quake III Arena" tracks double kills, but a third kill soon after results in another double kill award.

Killtacular, Killamanjaro, etc.

Like that?

Husar

03-24-2015, 12:53

Not entirely, but war can be more lethal:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20173927?sid=21105758430771&uid=4&uid=3737864&uid=2

Ebola can become more lethal:
http://consumer.healthday.com/health-technology-information-18/genetics-news-334/animal-study-shows-how-ebola-virus-becomes-more-deadly-as-it-spreads-695692.html

And even Al Qaeda can become more lethal:
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/tm/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=578&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=238&no_cache=1

None of those imply that people who get killed get *more* killed, it usually means that out of a certain group of targeted people, fewer survive if something or someone becomes more lethal. Indirectly that means if someone or something kills more people, it or she is more lethal, after all the "target group" can be defined as e.g. all people of a certain city, so the more cityzens a nuke can kill, the more lethal it is. Therefore making a nuclear bomb more accurate to make it more likely to hit the point of a city where it causes the most deaths makes it more lethal. Just like Britain's most lethal sniper is the one who killed the most insurgents where the insurgents are the target group. Being the most lethal sniper implies that he is more lethal than all other snipers and therefore more lethal in the sense of killing more people is a thing, q.e.d.

Gilrandir

03-24-2015, 13:51

Husar

03-24-2015, 14:09

I repeat: it is called "causing more casualties".

I repeat: I've shown six links that prove my point that it can also be called "more lethal", your opinion is inferior to mine.

Montmorency

03-24-2015, 14:22

?

There's more than one sense to "lethal being used by you two.

Relative lethality

1. For every person included in the AoF (area of effect) of some agent, item, force, etc. there is a greater likelihood of expiration of the affected organism than for other such.
1.a. The Ebola contagion is more lethal than allergic reactions in general.

Absolute lethality

2. The total number of organisms terminated in some specified range or domain is greater for one agent, item, or force than for another.
2.a. Allergic reactions are more lethal than the Ebola contagion.

Both are perfectly valid English usages; you just have to be clear about what you are referring to.

Husar

03-24-2015, 15:46

Seamus Fermanagh

03-24-2015, 18:38

...Germany didn't HAVE to go to war, it didn't benefit the country in the slightest. Germans just believed they had to go to war. I'm surprised you can make the comparison and not see that, increasingly, Russians believe they need to go to war. We must fight for Donbas, we must recover Russia's honour, fatherland this and that.

Putin and his ilk look at a map of the former USSR and see it overlaid in one colour, must like a Byzantine looked at a map and saw SQPR overlaid.

I think most Russians use Rodina, other than the Fatherland-all-Russia group (who admittedly DO support Putin). Aside from such quibbling, I think you have hit on an important point. Putin's regime does seem to be looking at maps with that SPQR background thought in mind and also seems to have the "our place in the sun" chip on their shoulder. The combination does not readily lend itself to peaceful conflict management.

Brenus

03-24-2015, 20:17

“Would it make you happier if they had?” ? Happier? We speak of politic and field reality. If the Ukrainian soldiers would have felt they were defending the mother land (or father land) they would have fought like lions, against all odds and with bravery. They didn’t because it wasn’t worth of it.

“But I think it is worth a remark (although Brenus might not like it):
The Telegraph rejoices in Le Pen's defeat, yet let's face the stark truth: the French gave 26% of votes for the Nazis - the second place and only 4% behind the winners. I wouldn't call it a defeat.
Now where is the threat of nazism coming from - Ukraine or France+Russia?” Once again you don’t understand.
Contrary to you I don’t dispute reality. There is a threat of Nazism/Fascism in France. But, again contrary to you, I don’t pretend they are not Nazi/Fascists. And until the French politicians carry-on the cheat and to do all the same policy, more people will go fishing during elections, except the most motivated, the opposition. Because the real winner is the no-vote camp (49.9 %), which is logical as it doesn’t matter what you vote, you’ve got EU policy, un-employment, poverty and austerity.
Democracy was killed in France when, against the national will shown in a Referendum, the so-called National Representatives voted the EU treaty. So, now, populations vote against the establishment (and Le Pen is supposed to be one) or just, as I do, don’t bother to go to vote when my candidate is not on the line.

Strike For The South

03-24-2015, 21:42

It is March 24th 2015 and Vladimir Putin is still a fascist
It is March 24th 2015 and Marine Le Pen is still a fascist

CrossLOPER

03-25-2015, 01:27

It is March 24th 2015 and Vladimir Putin is still a fascist
It is March 24th 2015 and Marine Le Pen is still a fascist
Someone please fill me in on the joke.

Gilrandir

03-25-2015, 08:02

Yes, apparently Gilrandir denies that you can say something is "more lethal", which you have done for both uses however.
Evidently, he word is polysemantic, so its different meanings possess different grammatical categories. One can't, for example, say: "His disease now is more lethal then the one he had last year", because if the previous was lethal, he should have died of it. However, those semantic disputes don't cancel what I was trying to prove, namely: if you know your neigbor has several guns, you will feel threatened anyway irrespective of the kind of any of them or your knowledge of any of them having been upgraded lately. Yet if you have been living with this awareness and insecurity for 40 years and the neighbor never fired any of them, I'm sure the feeling will have gotten numb. The only reason you may have a relapse of apprehensions is when your neighbor is "divorced from reality". But that applies to Putin, not to those in the west who upgrade their weapons.

“Would it make you happier if they had?” ? Happier? We speak of politic and field reality. If the Ukrainian soldiers would have felt they were defending the mother land (or father land) they would have fought like lions, against all odds and with bravery. They didn’t because it wasn’t worth of it.

Having been a military once you know perfectly well that soldiers do (or don't do) something not because they feel it is worth/not worth doing. They are taught to obey the order irrespective of what they feel. Or was it different in your case? Did you listen to your heart before you considered whether to obey the order or not?
More than once the officers from the blockaded military units in the Crimea demanded from their bosses in Kyiv a clear cut order. I'm sure those loyal to their oaths would obey it. But the order to shoot was never issued. There were reasons why not and I had given them.

“But I think it is worth a remark (although Brenus might not like it):
The Telegraph rejoices in Le Pen's defeat, yet let's face the stark truth: the French gave 26% of votes for the Nazis - the second place and only 4% behind the winners. I wouldn't call it a defeat.
Now where is the threat of nazism coming from - Ukraine or France+Russia?” Once again you don’t understand.
Contrary to you I don’t dispute reality. There is a threat of Nazism/Fascism in France.

Contrary to what you have said about disputing reality, this is the first time you openly admit the threat. In our previous debate you were trying hard to prove that the support of Le Pen (of both generations) was insignificant and only seemed so because of the peculiarities of counting votes and turn out percentage. You have finally owned up to it.

So, now, populations vote against the establishment (and Le Pen is supposed to be one) or just, as I do, don’t bother to go to vote when my candidate is not on the line.
That was a bad call. You were the one who taught me democracy saying that to have one you must be ready to vote not FOR someone, but also AGAINST someone. Well, people change as well as thier values.

It is March 24th 2015 and Vladimir Putin is still a fascist
It is March 24th 2015 and Marine Le Pen is still a fascist
I suggest calling them Vlamarine Le Putin.

Gilrandir

03-25-2015, 10:17

On how independent the separatists are:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/separatisten-in-der-ostukraine-gefangen-in-der-befehlskette-1.2406228
Regretfully, it is in German, but when I open the article I have an option of translation. I posted the link of the translated article, yet it shows only the original. Perhaps others could find some way of doing it in English.

Sarmatian

03-25-2015, 13:47

Someone please fill me in on the joke.

Strike wrote two consecutive sentences without grammar or spelling mistakes.

It's more of an oddity than a joke, really.

Husar

03-25-2015, 15:33

Evidently, he word is polysemantic, so its different meanings possess different grammatical categories. One can't, for example, say: "His disease now is more lethal then the one he had last year", because if the previous was lethal, he should have died of it.

No, you can say that. He could have had the flu last year, which is a lethal disease, but he survived and now he has ebola, which is a more lethal disease concerning the chance that it may kill him. Lethal in this case refers to the potential of the disease killing you, a more lethal disease is more likely to kill you. Lethal does not necessarily mean that there is a 100% certainty that it kills you.

However, those semantic disputes don't cancel what I was trying to prove, namely: if you know your neigbor has several guns, you will feel threatened anyway irrespective of the kind of any of them or your knowledge of any of them having been upgraded lately. Yet if you have been living with this awareness and insecurity for 40 years and the neighbor never fired any of them, I'm sure the feeling will have gotten numb. The only reason you may have a relapse of apprehensions is when your neighbor is "divorced from reality". But that applies to Putin, not to those in the west who upgrade their weapons.

By upgrading the weapons your neighbor also states that he is still thinking about using them against you, so much so that he wants them to be able to kill you even more effectively (i.e. kill more people). It revives the hostility like watering a flower revives the flower.