Ukraine Thread

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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

Probably Russian propaganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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/militar...015/02/23/3771
Will you entitle it like "British Gvt and freedom of media"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GenosseGeneral

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

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.

---

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

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

fucking fascist shit stain, piss on him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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. Thanks RT, you saved my soul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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/worl...operation.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Indeed, I wouldn't know otherwise know that It’s a slippery slope from yoga to Satan. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Indeed, I wouldn't know otherwise know that It’s a slippery slope from yoga to Satan. Thanks RT, you saved my soul.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

And thank you for having no humour.

---

Explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

The similar BBC article 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

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 appearing as a commentator on their shows:

Quote:

---

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.

---

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/...bout-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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...lochsenreiter/
Can you tell me specifically what you find distasteful, or even disagreeable, without referring to the article you posted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

The parts negative to yoga are of similar sizes.

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

This is what I found on MO: http://rt.com/shows/tim-kirby/224567...lochsenreiter/

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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 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:

Quote:

---

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

This is what I found on MO: http://rt.com/shows/tim-kirby/224567...lochsenreiter/
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 in Ukraine, is this 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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GenosseGeneral

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GenosseGeneral

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GenosseGeneral

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Another guy, which they used as a stringer in Ukraine, is this 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/militar...015/02/23/3771

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GenosseGeneral

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.
Attachment 14967
Attachment 14968
Attachment 14969
Imperial stormtroopers are coming! Watch for the next wave of Russian hysterics.

Is this high treason?
http://uatoday.tv/politics/ukrainian...-r-414058.html

"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.

Claude Rains put it best....

Shocked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

"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.

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:

German ministry of foreign affairs calls Nato general's claims about Russian troops in Ukraine "dangerous propaganda".
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...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.

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GenosseGeneral

German ministry of foreign affairs calls Nato general's claims about Russian troops in Ukraine "dangerous propaganda".
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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-say...ear-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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

http://www.wsj.com/articles/osce-say...ear-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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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-Bl...cision?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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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

---

During a ceasefire, there is no fighting at all.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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

---

- Tom Daams

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

- Tom Daams

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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/asset...aine_FINAL.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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/asset...aine_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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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".

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Is this high treason?
http://uatoday.tv/politics/ukrainian...-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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

"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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiegel article

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

“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,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Kazakhstan

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

Afghanistan

---

From the fight against the Taliban after the WTC attacks.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Where does the article say this?

The closest I could find was this:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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/file...ilexpan117.jpg

“Nope” Well. According the map of NATO bases, yes. And on line articles such as http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ary-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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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.

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

Quote:

---

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Pretty much the three places apart from Russia and immediate surroundings where they have almost none...
http://forusa.org/sites/default/file...ilexpan117.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Nope” Well. According the map of NATO bases, yes. And on line articles such as http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ary-bases.html

---

Nonetheless, they have none there. You'll notice that Russia itself has some light military presence in Kazakhstan (PDF).

Quote:

---

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. 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

“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.

Quote:

---

[...] 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

“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:

"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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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, 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Russia keeps waging wars.

---

I would hardly call regional conflicts "wars".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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-...ling-275-6802/