Ukraine Thread

[Viking]

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

During a ceasefire, there is no fighting at all.

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

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

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

- Tom Daams

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

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

[Husar]

During a ceasefire, there is no fighting at all.

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

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

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

- Tom Daams

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

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

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

[Brenus]

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[Gilrandir]

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

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

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

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

[Husar]

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

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

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

[Sarmatian]

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.

[Viking]

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

He is one example, equally important is this bit:

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

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

The article says

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beside the point.