Does make the Patriot Act seem a little tame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Printable View
Does make the Patriot Act seem a little tame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Is it true or another RT malarkey?
https://www.rt.com/news/348562-putin...-turkey-pilot/
I think it is funny:
https://nobsrussia.com/2015/09/11/cn...to-a-ukraines/
Something is brewing in Crimea?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...other-invasion
http://khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1470869445
Like the article said Putin does seem to like using the Olympics as a distraction, immediately after Sochi he took Crimea and although he wasn't the aggressor the war with Georgia was during the Beijing Olympics.
Guess with Obama on the out and re-election pretty much making the US paralyzed for foreign policy it's the right time for his shenanigans. No republicans will approve any initiative of Obama during the election season. Merkel has also been seen as weak due to the migrant crisis so I wonder if she'd be able to gather any meaningful support from the EU to oppose Russia, especially when France has been trying hard to thaw relations with Russia.
Wonder if he got buy-in from Turkey during his recent negotiations. Erdogan certainly doesn't like NATO, the EU,or the US and would probably love to create dissent within NATO and the EU by siding with Russia.
I definitely think that Putin is gearing up for something big. Maybe not within the next couple of weeks but I think before the winter starts we will see much more intense fighting in eastern Ukraine. Not that the fighting ever really stopped, but I think its definitely going to ramp up. I dont think that Russia would do a full-on invasion of Ukraine. I hope not anyways. But spmetla is right, Putin does love using the Olympics as a distraction.
If you mean that Putin wasn't Russian president then, you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
If you mean Russia wasn't the aggressor, you are wrong.
If I recall correctly Georgia tried to take South Ossetia and killed Russian 'peacekeepers' in the process prompting the massive Russian attack/invasion. I'm no fan of Russia but you don't go poking the big bear like that, he will retaliate. Granted that South Ossetia and Abkazia were Russian puppet pseudo-states in one of the many frozen conflicts following the cold war but Georgia tried to change that status quo via force making it the aggressor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I understand that the Ossetians had been attacking the Georgians (possibly Russian saboteurs to prompt a war?) but the size of the Georgian counter attack was not small and looking at the state of the subsequent operations they certainly had not been prepared for the Russian involvement in such a large scale.
Looking at it now, Saakashvili seemed to have vastly overestimated Bush Jrs. support and willingness to go toe to toe with the Russians as repayment for Georgian support in Iraq. He blundered, badly, and showed the limits to what NATO and the US were willing to protect thereby gifting Putin with a foreign policy coup. Up to that point Putin had not been Mr. RUssiaStrong foreign policy but after that war it became his new policy in the face of US/NATO/EU impotence which is something he certainly sees now and intends to exploit, same as the Chinese in the S. China Sea. Short of force or risking WW3 like during the Cuban missile crisis those two powers are piece by piece building up what they want for a sphere of influence.
I am very worried though that with Trump's recent remarks essentially saying Estonia wasn't worth defending despite being a NATO ally that Putin will try some similar nonsense to save poor oppressed Russians in the Ukraine, Baltic States(especially Lativia), or even something out of left field like weaken Azerbaijan via Armenia to kill another island of US influence in the Caucasus.
You picture the events correctly, but the bolded should be "retake" since South Ossetia was and is ostensibly a part of Georgia which is acknowledged by all countries (except few Russia's satellites).Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
But is it an aggression if you try to take back your property, and after being repeatedly shelled by those who stole it, too?
And as for Saakashvili's vain hopes for American support - it only whetted Putin's appetite and he ventured to annex Crimea seeing that the West can only express deep concerns at his iniquities.
True that by all legal means it was part of Georgia but that doesn't make it any better. Using force to retake your property is still aggression. China considers Taiwan its own territory even though its defacto independent, changing that status quo by force is aggression. If the Ukraine were to be foolish enough right now to try and retake the Crimea by force they would certainly be the aggressors even though no one outside the Russia sphere recognizes their annexation of it. It's one of the unfortunate realities that Western Europe has tried to forget but might does make right when it comes to nation-states.
I agree entirely that it only whetted Putin's appetite. Once he started messing with the Crimea NATO should have essentially done a mass mobilization and threatened WW3 if Russia didn't back down. No Western leader has the stones to stand up to him because he's playing politics like it's the 20th century and the West likes to pretend that its evolved beyond having to do that. Unfortunately the only people that would threaten force to defend democracy are idiots like Trump who would discredit and wreck whatever cause they stand behind. Need a few more Kennedy like people in power who can mix soft and hard power while making the West still fill on the morally correct side.
So Allies' landing in Normandy in 1944 was aggression? Evidently, our understanding of what aggression is are different.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Starting or escalating tensions into a war versus fighting a battle in a war are not the same.
I understand that the Ukraine is in a low intensity war with Russia's proxies and occasionally Russian troops but not in outright war. Escalating that low intensity war into a proper war in my mind is aggression. Please don't mistake me though, aggression can at times be the right thing to do and I'm pro Ukrainian for sure at least in regards to its eastern Rebel provinces versus Crimea.
I think you and I actually are closer in opinion than you may think but what I'm stating is more or less how the international community will treat any escalation of the war. I far too much of a hawk to decry all aggression but I will not shirk from calling it such.
One may claim that by 1944 Normandy had been a scene of low intensity war for 4 years when it was escalated by the Allies' landing.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Being close in views doesn't exclude being at variance in understanding some terms. By definition, any war is an aggression.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression
Aggression is overt, often harmful, social interaction with the intention of inflicting damage or other unpleasantness upon another individual.
So it doesn't matter what is the intensity of this war - aggression it stays.
Moreover, aggressor is the one who started the war.
A possible escalation of the war/aggression is to be called "escalation" and as it can be both undertaken by the aggressor and the victim. The same with Normandy landing.
We're clearing not going to come to a consensus seeing as we have differing views on the current conflict and how to define and compare it.
Bottom line: I am very concerned about Russia trying to force an escalation of the current war in the Ukraine.
At this moment, Russia doesn't need escalation. Russia got what it wanted, Crimea has been annexed, eastern Ukraine is outside Kiev's control and Ukraine in general is a mess, and with every passing day, world is less and less interested in what's going on over there.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
A simple cui bono question leads to a different conclusion.
I believe the Russians are using Crimea right now together with Olympics to stoke their patriotism and then somewhere out of left field Putin will do something in the Baltic States. He's prevented NATO expansion to the Caucasus Mountains and to his southern border (Ukraine) but still has the Baltic States providing a direct border with NATO which cuts off Kalinigrad Oblast and the waterways to St. Petersburg. While I don't think he would dare be as blatant as in Ukraine I don't doubt that he'll try and create a crisis affecting the large Russian minorities there which he would be obliged to protect at a much later point but in the mean time would cause NATO and the EU to question its commitment to the Baltic States. Trump has already questioned his preparedness to defend our weaker NATO allies and if the US doesn't weigh in there's very little chance that Germany or France would do a thing to oppose Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Russia doesn't need escalation but can use it all the same to its advantage. By causing a rift in NATO and doubt of US commitment to Eastern Europe. Obama is in lame duck territory, Hillary might scare off any peacenik supporters if she indicates opposing Russia with force and Trump is an unwitting aid to Putin's policies. If the Ukrainian government feels completely abandoned by the EU and US who's to say they won't make a deal with the Russians. No shortage of corrupt politicians in the Ukraine who want peace by any means if they can line their pockets with GAZPROM as well. Who benefits out of any escalation of conflict in Ukraine right now is Russia and no one else.
Again, what I never read in these analyses is that an attack on an EU country would not only trigger a NATO defense clause but also an EU one.
So basically the fate of the EU may be decided if he attacks an EU country because if Germany and France don't even defend other EU members from an outright invasion, all of Europe/the entire EU could easily fall apart...
That's the whole problem, if Russia can create a situation that would cause member states to doubt their support if the defense clause is enacted the whole NATO and EU enterprise could be shattered. Most Americans don't even know Estonia exists much less that it's an ally we'd need to defend, a muppet like Trump would have wide support for withdrawing to the continental US and leaving Europe to defend itself. France and Germany are no where near prepared for squaring off with Russia or its proxies not politically or militarily.
Would Trump walk away from NATO
http://www.dw.com/en/would-a-trump-a...ato/a-19475314
Germany calls for calm amid growing crimea tensions
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-russia-...ine/a-19475852
Or economically.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
In which case you might also want to ask how Russia can afford that.
The country is almost bankrupt and depends on us buying its gas. On the other hand we depend on Russia delivering said gas, especially during winter. And that's just one area of trade and business cooperation. If Putin attacks Latvia or Estonia and doesn't even hide it, he attacks the EU and then we either do something or risk the EU completely falling apart. If there were to be an actual war between Russia and the EU, I'd guess all bets are off. Whether the British would just want to sit there and do nothing, EU membership or not, is a debatable question and Poland has quite a sizeable army, too. It's not just France and Germany, especially Poland would probably want to stop Russia sooner rather than later.
But that war is not just a military thing, because what happens after it? Imagine Putin wins and the armies of Germany, France, the UK and Poland plus a few others are all in shambles. Then what? He probably just lost all income from trade with the EU, his army probably took an enormous amount of losses and several EU countries such as Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Spain, Portugal are still left with their armies. Does he go on and conquer more or just wait until the hurt kicks in because he just lost his biggest trade partner and made 500 million people very angry? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26436291
Also consider the scenario where the EU actually does stand together and Russia is not the superpower it once was anymore, the armies of Europe combined would not only rather large in size, but also comparatively more modern and actually quite varied. In a scenario where the EU would actually fight back I don't quite see what Putin could gain, especially since even Trump may get into trouble for just watching that from a distance.
The other option is that the EU falls apart and we start WW3 sooner or later. The End.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32vsKWgdywc
Putin is very concerned. Seems like sam Ukrainian Spec ops who tried to ambush yankovich but failed great and dark times we are in my friends.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92Ub2kW6iSo
This was missing black helicopters.
And tinfoil.
What ukraine has done is an act of war
I understand your point. Putin has made clear that he doesn't seem to mind his economy tanking so long as he can maintain his domestic support base. All hardships are pointed at the evil West. I know that Russia's military isn't so good that it can sustain military operations too far beyond its borders right now, especially with a country like Poland that takes its national defense seriously next door.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I don't think Putin is quite so stupid as to blatantly attack the Baltic States but do think he'll create some sort of situation there that will draw a line in the sand and demonstrate whether NATO/EU are paper tigers or not.
Hate making the Hitler comparison but remember that he never expected France and the UK to actually go to war with him over Poland. He assumed they too were paper tigers and would instead debate about war endlessly. Saddam didn't think the US was going to invade him in 2003 without a clear resolution form the UN Security Council. Strongman politics is always gambling and trying to call bluffs. I think that Putin believes he can obtain his goal of dismantling or shrinking NATO/EU without having to actually resort to a large war but that type of gambling can very well lead to WW3. Obama's declaration that Nukes would only be used in retaliation to nukes and never be used as first means that the defeating the US in a conventional fight does not mean we'd go nuclear to makeup for that defeat or shortfall which has severally limited the effectiveness of it as a deterrent to conventional military threats.
Also, just to explain myself. I don't see WW3 around the corner but do worry that our fickle leadership right now could set the conditions that might lead to it.
Are there EU armed forces?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The answer is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
As he showed in Crimea and later in Donbas, he will pretend any insignialess military men in Estonia (or anywhere else) are local militias who protect the oppressed Russian-speakers.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: Do you believe anything Putin says? There are a lot of inconsistencies in Russia's side of the story which make it a fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardo
little known fact is that putin is kept from invading through the prospects of fighting the swedish and austrian armies.Quote:
Are there EU armed forces?
How is Ukrainian Media spinning it then total silence? And no i don't sometime's i notice what Putin says doesnt add up like this video Putin is bullshitting us,Putin is deflecting saying western propaganda I also know for a fact Russia is extending its border miles within striking distance to the trans caucaus pipeline swallowing up georgian territory and moving barbed wire border fences into georgia, but this situation with ukraine sending special forces units into crimea i totally believe. It's just something they would do because they destroyed powerlines to crimea before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Do you mean Ukrainian media are totally silent about the incident? How do you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardo
Ukrainian media are full of it.
You may believe whatever you like and you may as well say that Russia invaded Ukraine in August 2014 so it would do it again in August 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardo
The most flagrant inconsistensies/stupidities of what Russia spins are:
1. After the incident had happened Russia was silent for three days and only then came up with the story you believe so much. What took it so long to present the facts if there were any? In other cases Russia's reaction is prompt.
2. According to Russia, a group of 15 saboteurs (sometimes they make it 20) with KALASHNIKOVS in RUSSIAN MILITARY UNIFORM broke through border fences in Crimea being supported by INTENSE ARTILLERY FIRE from over the border. Their purpose was to organize a series of explosions to destabilize situation in Crimea and RUIN THE TOURIST SEASON.
a) When they showed the first captured "saboteur" he was wearing a T-shirt. Did they allow him to change to spoil a perfect picture? And the T-shirt he was wearing was his regular one he wore working in his garage (by admission of his brother). Did he take it with him under the uniform to change back into it once the border was crossed?
b) Is this the way saboteurs penetrate into the territory of the enemy? Wouldn't they rather do it as ordinary tourists and later stick to their hidious plan? And why do saboteurs need Kalashnikovs?
c) If there was artillery fire, why no shell craters were exhibited to the public?
d) One should be very smart to ruin the tourist season IN AUGUST when it is drawing to the end (well, if you could call it a season with 1.5 million tourists compared to 6 million in 2013).
3. Russia claimed the group was headed by Ukrainian intelligence officers never exhibiting any. All they showed to the public was three Ukrainians who suited the role of saboteurs perfectly: the first had taken part in Maidan and in fighting in Donbas, the second had been born in Lviv (although he was a Crimea resident, twice served his prison terms on criminal charges before 2014, now and then went to work to Moscow as a builder, supported the annexation and was generally pro-Russian) and the third was a Tatar (arrested two months before, by the admission of his relatives).
4. The things "the saboteurs" had carried with them included (among the other stuff) a rusty pistol and several packages of ground red pepper (of course, written in Ukrainian on it).
5. When Russian TV showed the footage of capturing "the saboteurs" there was something wrong with the moon phase. You can't read it (I assume), but look at the pictures:
http://fakeoff.org/freak-show/ochere...oy-provokatsii
On balance, the likeliest version of what had happened is:
There was a conflict with shooting among Russian military deployed in Northern Crimea in which a FSB officer was killed. Some say there was a brawl between the former Ukrainian military who changed sides in 2014 and the genuine Russian ones (who upbraided the former for betraying the oath). Others say there was a conflict between Russian military and FSB. Anyway, the story of saboteurs was invented to cover up for unsavoury truth and rev up anti-Ukranian hysteria. And to be believed by unwary foreigners.
Thanks, very interesting however there is a desire in Ukrainian + Western political circles to commence the war in the east, if Putin wanted to push on in Eastern Ukraine this incident would be a legitimate reason. But i see a stalemate is in Russia interest? But ukraine is a great scapegoat atm. A flare up in conflict may derail the removal of sanctions
As the events of the last 2 and a half years showed, the West has been doing everything to avoid any war at any price, including pushing Ukraine into any peace treaty. Ukraine has been trying to avoid war since August 2014 (though with a different motivation) when Russian regular army interfered into Donbas fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardo
Does the ukraine have any relationship with turkey? As much as a prick Edrogan is they are militarily strong and belligerent towards russia, seems like ideal allies for the Ukraine.
On the one hand, Turkey has always been a supporter of their Turkic brethren in Crimea (Tatars) who were against the annexation. So officially, Turkey took the side of Ukraine in the conflict. On the other hand, inofficially, Turkish ships continue to enter the Crimean ports who are ostensibly under sanctions and thus must be a no-go zone. After Turks had shot down the Russian plane and Russia had imposed sanctions on Turkish vegetables and fruit together with stopping all tourist flow to Turkey, there was a hope that Ukraine and Turkey may draw closer in opposing Russia. However, Erdogan evidently felt snubbed by Europe and the USA and Turkish resort facilities suffered greatly because of the abscence of Russian tourists. So Erdogan went to Putin with his tail between the legs. Such an ally would be too fickle for Ukraine to rely on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Once again on how "civil" is the war in Ukraine:
http://bunews.com.ua/politics/item/p...-conversations
And the reaction of the main characters of the story:
http://www.meganewsweb.com/en/news/b...zevym-po-krymu
A little translation (last third) to help the joke along:
There's no more Moskovskaya (vodka) or table vodka, not for a while. This is Russia, they've replaced it with a knockoff.
[but at least they have State Wine] ?
With every year it's better to be alive. One can even save up [double entendre: 'drink away'] money if you leave some of the vodka for the morning.
Because vodka (citizen-bros, let's give up vodka from now on, starting today)
Oh how great it is to be sober in the morning (Honestly, citizens).
It's like with Hamlet: to drink or not to drink, that is the question.
Oh vodka, we can't forget you.
Only a war in which we might take casualties. If you can arrange the other kind, you'd get a much heartier response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I know. Why die for Danzig.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Don't mistake me. I think NATO should have pushed the issue, mobilized, and issued war warnings. I have little faith that Putin respects anything short of same. However, NATO is not a unified entity by any means and it was clear that there was little support for initiating, or at least credibly threatening, a border war with Russia.
On how nazi Right Sector are:
http://ukropnews24.com/in-dobrobat-y...rst-synagogue/
A neccessary comment: there is no more Right Sector of 2014 type: about a year ago it split into Right Sector and Ukrainian Volunteer Army the latter being headed by the former Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh.
DNR and LNR are among top violent non-state actors:
https://www.statista.com/chart/5918/...-state-actors/
The MH 17 report:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/28/eu...17-buk-russia/
Everything Bellingcat claimed a year (or even more) ago was corroborated by the official investigation.
It's 28/09/2016 and Putin is still a Fascist and Liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The fact it was returned to Russia the next day is most suspicious.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/28/op...eotti-opinion/Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I came across a very interesting article by the Russian war historian (and plane engineer by profession) Mark Solonin on why Buk was brought from Russia to Donbas.
He draws attention to some very curious facts about it.
1. Buk was not adequate for the tasks of bringing down Ukranian military planes. In MTW terms, it was like sending a Janissary heavy infantry unit to deal with a unit of peasants. Russian army is equipped with at least 4 self-propelled anti-aircraft missile systems (Osa, Tor, Tunguska and Pantsyr) whose range of fire is 8-12 km and altitude of fire - 5-6 km, which is more than enough to empty the sky from infrasonic Su-26 or as old as the hills transport plane An-26. Such systems total about 1,5 units in the Russian army.
Buk, on the other hand, is a very expensive and much less numerous system whose range of fire is 35 km and altitude range - 22 km and which is able to hit targets moving at 2,6 sound velocity. It seems too overpowered and expensive for the tasks of countering Ukranian military aviation.
2. It seems strange that only one Buk was brought. It is against military routine procedures which don't measure weapon systems in units, but in detachments. The army commanders would think in regiments, companies, platoons, squadrons etc, but not in individual units.
3. The Buk came being accompanied by no transportation loading vehicle which means that it could use only four missiles it was equipped with.
All of those make him think that it was not an army operation. It looked more like special service scheme.
4. To reach its destination (which is 60 km from the border) it took the Buk 2 days and it made a circuit of 250 km with a prolonged stop in Donetsk. Being placed at the destination it could have hardly been meant to cover the separatists positions behind it since those positions where close to the Russian-Ukranian border, so the task could have easily (and quite safely) been achieved by placing the same Buk on the Russian side of the border.
5. Stopping in Donetsk it was waiting for the tanks of the separatists' Vostok detachment (as the intercepted communications between the separatists show). The tanks never came, so the Buk moved the way it did.
6. The route of the Russian passenger plane SU 2074 Moscow-Larnaca over Ukraine had been changed twice (on July 14 and 15) giving the fighting zone a birth to the east and to the west respectively. But on July 16 and 17 (when the Buk was out on the drive around Donetsk) the plane route was plotted in the direct line few km aside from the fighting zone.
In view of all these facts, Solonin hypothesizes that the Buk came to Ukraine with the initial purpose of bringing down the Russian passenger plane. To accuse Ukraine of it, it was to be done from the territory controlled by Ukraine. At that time there was no proper front line but rather the roads were controlled by checkpoints but off roads both parties' troops (and tracked military vehicles) could roam at will. So Vostok's tanks were to have escorted the Buk to the place where its range was enough to reach the plane and then escort the Buk back. Since the tanks didn't come and the Buk personnel by the end of the second day was "tired and nervous", to put it mildly (as the intercepted communications show they even "lost" one of their crew members and had to search for him), they just decided to shoot down at least something and go quickly back the hell out of Donbas.
Hmmm it looks the assocation treaty is comming anyway, sorry Gilrandir you are so fucked, it wasn't me. Have a nice proxy-war and send us your babes please. You can come as well. Nobody has read what's in it meh, only non-quality media did
I have my own opinion as to whether Ukraine will win or lose by having the AA with the EU. The same as on Brexit. And both are different from yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
You mean that without the AA we wouldn't have the proxy-war and wouldn't export babies to the EU? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Do you think I can only come if the AA is signed? And why would you need me over there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
What I think is that you meant visa-free traveling, not the AA.
Some blackmailing on Russia's part?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...m-in-swipe-at/
Free travel is fine, people keep forgetting the military aspectsQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Then you evidently had some news on AA which I didn't and which got you so emotional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That much seems obvious
Then spill out your information - is it somehow connected with the Netherlands changing their stance on Ukraine-EU AA?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
No do you expect the Netherlands to have any influence. The deal with Russia has always been that 'whe' the west would never creep up on them. The AA treaty basicly makes the Ukraine a member-state and a military partner. There more reasons why we said no to it including just hating the EU but (which will be ignored, referendum is not binding) there very good other reasons as well but these only concern us reallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Association =/= Membership nor Military partnership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Putin demands compensation for the damage caused by US sanctions:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ru...KCN1231HA?il=0
No chance of that happening.
The first no, the second yes. Our mp is cornered on the latter because nobody wants it here, only the EU does. You must not have heard of it but it's a major issue here. Biggest issue is simply that we said no to it, for various reasons, often just hate for the EU I'll admit thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
EU is not a military alliance and doesn't have its armed forces, so the part in the Ukraine-EU AA which you are so afraid of concerns security issues, not military ones. Anyway, we both read the corresponding part of the agreement and had a discussion of it, if you remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Meanwhile in Russia:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ring-pre-teen/
Putin cancels his visit to France.
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/intern...ift-over-syria
Now we had it - finally Putin admits Russia was involved into Donbas.
http://khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1476316494
So much for rioting populaces of scared Russian-speakers.
He said the troops were there "resolving various issues." No doubt he is requiring his troops to settle outstanding gambling debts, pay off parking tickets, and probably marry a few locals who got ankled. Surely he was not intimating an out-and-out military role? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
He had said it in 2015, so I wouldn't link to the information that old. The latest claim of his (two passages above the one you referred to) is that "they were forced to defend the Russian-speaking population of Donbas". How can you defend somebody on the territory of another country but by sending troops?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Ptuin rhetoric on Donbas shows the same tendency as with Crimea: in March 2014 he said that Russian army didn't participate in besieging Ukrainian military bases - it was local militias (who were dressed in Russian-looking uniforms bought in stores) and that there are no Russian army units in Crimea (except those of the navy); in April he said that "behind local militias stood Russian soldiers", and later (don't remember the exact date, it seems it was in August 2014) he said that they NEVER denied Russian troops played the crucial role in overrunning Crimea.
I was being facetious.
I got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Meanwhile PACE acknowledges war in Donbas for what it is - Russian aggression:
http://uatoday.tv/politics/political...ne-785449.html
What day is it?
The date of the article is October 13, so the resolution was passed on that day or the day before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
was actually asking what day it is expecting "today is 16 October 2016 and so and so is still a...."Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Not my style.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Well as it looks the Netherlands won't be participating in the sneaked in military part of the treaty, but that is not enough. We were pretty clear about what we don't want to be a part of
A film on how much Russia is involved in Donbas:
http://www.france24.com/en/20161014-...kraine-weapons
At 2.40 a curious conversation in which separatists contrive shelling of their own positions to blame it on the Ukrainian army.
Gil'Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
In point of fact, I haven't really doubted, ever, that Russia has been manipulating the whole thing, from the start, to acquire all of Ukraine East of the Dneper along with the Crimea. They want to own/control virtually all of the industrialized portion of Ukraine while leaving Western Ukraine as perpetually weak as Moldava so as to have a nice buffer for themselves.
The real issue, and this is very much the sticking point, is what the heck to do about it.
I linked the film since there are some people (even on these boards) who still believe that what Ukraine is experiencing is a civil war waged by the oppressed Russian speakers against Kiev nazis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
As to what to do - no one knows that. The only way I see is to outlast Russia hoping it will be burdened by its own problems too much to pay serious attention to Ukraine. One of such problems may be the change of leadership.
Those elements do exist in the current conflict, but I think you would find very few people -- even on these boards -- who could actually believe that the whole internal portion of this squabble could have amounted to anything like this without Russia aiding and abetting for their own benefit (or maybe even having fomented it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Regrettably, there are any number of European governments who are willing to "officially" accept that fig leaf -- because the alternative (action against Russia) is too scary. The USA doesn't accept the fig leaf -- but still isn't willing to take decisive action.
The association treaty IS an action against Russia, and yes that scares me, granted. A Russisn leader can never look weak he doesn't have the luxory. Ukrainian, nazi's, what to say.
Getting really dangerous https://mobile.twitter.com/NATO/status/789170642897686529?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Smoke on the water (performed by Russia):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ical-problems/
On one of the principal Putin's aides:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...v-east-ukraine
Very big lol, our much beloved PM starts talking about what vaccuum-bombs do when being asked why the associating-treaty is so important, not just a trade-agreement dear president hmmmm? We (those who trust blogs more than state-media and quality newspapers) already knew that and said no to what you said all the time. It's true though for a change, vaccuum-bombs really suck. But what does that have be with something that is just a 'trade agreement', how obvious can you admit that it's more. People who don't watch state-tv and don't read quality newspapers already knew that. Now some of those who as well but they probably just want to bake a pie becsuse of someones birthday. No you stephord wives it's not just a trade-agreement and people who know that at least TRIED to stop it