Uh so has Debaltseve fallen?

[DreDay]

Sorry, I didn't realize it had been discussed already, in my opinion it is a real one, even if some details are not exact, I don't expect a young soldier sleeping and fighting in a tank having an all-around view of the situation.

But the addition of tiny facts makes it a very convincing narrative.

 

I personally tend to agree with your assessment... but it's a matter of faith and nothing more; I just wanted to point out that it is a bit controversial and should not be automatically assumed to be 100% truthful... Then again, that's about the most first-hand information about Russian Ops in Donbas that we have seen in the printed media; so what choice do we have but to take it seriously?

[Baneman]

...

Now to make this a little controversial – did the slaughter of Jews, Poles, and Russians in Western Ukraine during WW2 really hapen or is that just a Soviet (and now Russian) myth? Can anyone without access to both Russian and (West) Ukrainian side of this story make an educated decision on that? On a flip side - what about Gholodomor (sp?) – can that be accurately analyzed without having access to (Soviet) Russian and (anti-Soviet) Ukrainian reports?

Since this is a topic I've studied in considerable detail, though not recently for sure, I can say "yes" to all your questions.

... detail ...

I am sorry Steve, I just fail to see your point here. I am not a historian nor was I planning to start a debate about UNA/OUN or Khatyn or Kholodomor. I personally have no interest in debating those topics, and that is not what my post was about....

You fail to see his point ? You raised the point - and he answered fairly comprehensively.

You don't have to debate it, but you could acknowledge that his response was valid.

[Krater]

Regarding a few points that were raised .... oh, about 10 pages ago.

 

It's of course wise to keep in mind the motivations of various personalities who are talking about the conflict.  In some cases - like "RT" - it's fairly easy to discern the slant in it's reporting. But there are interesting factional splits which sometimes make it more likely to determine whether somebody is hewing closer (or farther) from the truth.  For example - Girkin has been making snarky comments about Givi ever since he came back to Russia.  They clearly don't get along, so if I ever read something positive about Givi from Girkin, I'll give it more weight.  On the Ukrainian side, Biryukov has been generally anti military establishment, however since he has been appointed advisor to both the President and Minister of Defense, he has been taking government's side much more often.  Gone native, I suppose.

 

On the other hand, Yuri Butusov (editor in chief of Censor.net.ua) is still very much of the opinion that MoD/General Staff are making a total mess of the the war.  That makes his estimates of combat losses to be more believable, at least as the upper boundary of the range.

 

Regarding employment of battalion/company tactical groups - that's something Russian army has been practicing for a while.  It certainly has an effect of allowing a lower-readiness formation to detach a composite sub-unit composed of assets which are ready to be employed.  I suspect that's the main reason for Ukrainians adopting this method.  If they could be consistently fighting 2 up - 1 down, or even 3 up, they would be doing so.  Also, there seems to be at least some level of throwing ad-hoc units into the fighting, wherever there is a need for them.  That results in units being deployed at significant distance from their immidiate parent HQ - which creates serious difficulties for C&C.

[Battlefront.com]

I am sorry Steve, I just fail to see your point here.

The point is that you established a position that someone can not understand what is going on in a particular country unless they, at a minimum, understand the languages involved. I countered that such a position is untenable by directly challenging your hypothesis. I concluded my post by asking you, basically, how you explain my demonstrably strong grasp of the subject matter, including predicting Putin's moves years before he made them (almost step by step) despite no working knowledge of either Ukrainian or Russian. Did I make a really super lucky guess?

I am not a historian nor was I planning to start a debate about UNA/OUN or Khatyn or Kholodomor. I personally have no interest in debating those topics, and that is not what my post was about....

I don't have an interest in debating these topics here either. Though, obviously, I am capable of doing so in these particular areas. In many other areas I'd have to bow out due to a lack of working knowledge, but not this area.

As for your larger post above, I would love to reply to it (nay I would like to finish reading it first) when I have a couple of hours to spare and a fresh pot of coffee    I personally feel that those kinds of debates are best left for PMs - but I know that you don't like that route; so I will have to respect your wishes and would be obliged to give you a thoughtful response.

I enjoy engaging in debates, but only in public. It's not because I crave an audience, but because I don't have time to debate things in both private and public spheres beyond what I already do.

If you want, you can skip my post and instead get right down to the question I asked you to address. Since it is the single most important aspect of *any* debate about *any* topic of this war, it is rather important one:

"We would not be having a discussion about crucified babies or rocket attacks in Luhansk if Russia had not decided that it's interests were best served by invading Ukraine and creating chaos to further it's selfish interests. True or false? Answer very directly, please."

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

It's of course wise to keep in mind the motivations of various personalities who are talking about the conflict.  In some cases - like "RT" - it's fairly easy to discern the slant in it's reporting. But there are interesting factional splits which sometimes make it more likely to determine whether somebody is hewing closer (or farther) from the truth.  For example - Girkin has been making snarky comments about Givi ever since he came back to Russia.  They clearly don't get along, so if I ever read something positive about Givi from Girkin, I'll give it more weight.  On the Ukrainian side, Biryukov has been generally anti military establishment, however since he has been appointed advisor to both the President and Minister of Defense, he has been taking government's side much more often.  Gone native, I suppose.

This is an excellent approach and it is one I use. Adding to this, it is very important to get a feel for the statements/personalities of an individual as best you can. When you see something that is out of character for them, or so you think, then focus more attention on it because there's probably a reason for it even if you can't figure out why at the time. It is easy to read too much into any one thing, granted, but sometimes there's a lot that can be gleaned from these apparent inconsistencies.

 

On the other hand, Yuri Butusov (editor in chief of Censor.net.ua) is still very much of the opinion that MoD/General Staff are making a total mess of the the war.  That makes his estimates of combat losses to be more believable, at least as the upper boundary of the range.

Yes, and this is an example that the pro-Russians constantly avoid talking about. The biggest critics of what is going on in Ukrainian military and government policies? Ukrainians. And how do we know this? Because their press is not censored and controlled by the Ukrainian state. Since freedom of the press is the single most important element of a free society, it's presence in Ukraine is certainly a good sign while the lack of it in Russia is a bad sign.

And now getting us very much back on topic (at least for a while!):

 

Regarding employment of battalion/company tactical groups - that's something Russian army has been practicing for a while.  It certainly has an effect of allowing a lower-readiness formation to detach a composite sub-unit composed of assets which are ready to be employed.  I suspect that's the main reason for Ukrainians adopting this method.  If they could be consistently fighting 2 up - 1 down, or even 3 up, they would be doing so.  Also, there seems to be at least some level of throwing ad-hoc units into the fighting, wherever there is a need for them.  That results in units being deployed at significant distance from their immidiate parent HQ - which creates serious difficulties for C&C.

Yup. That and the relative size of forces in any one particular fight are relatively small, but intensive. A larger formation would not have the right mix of forces present for a sustained operation under such conditions. It is far less disruptive to rotate in/out smaller component pieces, tailored to the terrain and type of fighting, than it is to put in/out larger sized units. And some of those reasons aren't necessarily positive. For example, limited ability to quickly relocate larger units due to a lack of long distance transport, equipment spread thin due to shortages means no one large unit has everything it needs, some units are simply not battle ready yet, etc.

Steve

[DreDay]

You fail to see his point ? You raised the point - and he answered fairly comprehensively.

You don't have to debate it, but you could acknowledge that his response was valid.

 

Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my original post. I personally don't care to debate the controversial topics that I had pointed out. They were brought up to simply highlight how highly sensitive and politicized matters like these tend to be presented and documented completely differently by the opposing sides; and one better have a thorough understanding of the culture and history of those sides, along with access to sources in their native language in order to analyze them...

[DreDay]

The point is that you established a position that someone can not understand what is going on in a particular country unless they, at a minimum, understand the languages involved. I countered that such a position is untenable by directly challenging your hypothesis. I concluded my post by asking you, basically, how you explain my demonstrably strong grasp of the subject matter, including predicting Putin's moves years before he made them (almost step by step) despite no working knowledge of either Ukrainian or Russian. Did I make a really super lucky guess?

Steve, my point (perhaps not formulated clearly enough) is that those are highly controversial topics that evoke completely different viewpoints and emotions based on which side you happen to be addressing. As time goes by, history tends to sort things out (more or less) based largely on the works of the historians who have access to local archives, personal accounts, and overall cultural and political context that they fit into. That’s all fine and well when processed in hindsight; but you are simply not going to have that luxury in real-time developing scenarios… so you better have as much access and understanding of the local happenings as they go on, or have someone else whom you trust do that for you… Again, that is what foreign studies (and yes - intelligence processing which is a part of them) are based on.

As for your “demonstrably strong gasp of the subject matter” and your predictions…. I’ll just politely choose to not comment on that.

 

If you want, you can skip my post and instead get right down to the question I asked you to address. Since it is the single most important aspect of *any* debate about *any* topic of this war, it is rather important one:

"We would not be having a discussion about crucified babies or rocket attacks in Luhansk if Russia had not decided that it's interests were best served by invading Ukraine and creating chaos to further it's selfish interests. True or false? Answer very directly, please."

This is not a True or False question as it is formulated in a highly subjective matter that ignores much of the origins of this conflict and shows nothing but your personal biases (which is something that we are all guilty of). In the same vein one could ask “Would we be talking about all the horrors of this war had the new Kiev government (again with full approval of US and EU) had not chosen that its own selfish interests are best served by violently suppressing a sizable regional and cultural minority instead of embracing the dialog with them?” Or how about “Would we be talking about (feel the blank) if the US and EU governments had not supported a violent and divisive overthrow of Ukraine’s legal and democratically elected government?” Those are all highly ambiguous questions that are formulated with a politicized agenda in mind - so there is no True or False answer to them. I am sorry but I am not going to play that game here and give “direct answers” to provocative abstract questions. As I’ve said – you are entitled to your views and they are certainly not without basis, but your unwillingness to acknowledge other factors and views that don’t fit into your model makes this for a rather predictable and dull debate.

Edited March 15, 2015 by DreDay

[467Mike]

Have been following this discussion for several weeks. Interesting commentary from many points of view. Just finished reading through a Google Books preview on Stepan Bandera, "Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist: Fascism, Genocide, and Cult. Stuttgart: Ibidem Press 2014" by Grzegorz Russolinski-Liebe.  There is a lot of background info there, that in my opinion,  suggests the current war isn't only about Russian domination of Ukraine, but more about the legacy of the past.

[Baneman]

Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my original post. I personally don't care to debate the controversial topics that I had pointed out. They were brought up to simply highlight how highly sensitive and politicized matters like these tend to be presented and documented completely differently by the opposing sides; and one better have a thorough understanding of the culture and history of those sides, along with access to sources in their native language in order to analyze them...

 

Yes, but his answer to your question more or less debunked your position ( restated in your quoted post above ).

 

DreDay : "... can that be accurately analysed ? ..."

Steve : "yes ... <gives reasoning>

DreDay : <paraphrased> "I don't want to go into that..."

 

If you bring up points in this discussion, which other people take time and effort to address, you could at least acknowledge whether your point has been addressed or not ? Do you believe that your point will retain its validity if you ignore the response which proves it wrong ?

 

You certainly dodged Steves True or False question with an impressive chunk of text. In my layman's opinion, that shows your own bias.

[DreDay]

Yes, but his answer to your question more or less debunked your position ( restated in your quoted post above ).

 

DreDay : "... can that be accurately analysed ? ..."

Steve : "yes ... <gives reasoning>

DreDay : <paraphrased> "I don't want to go into that..."

 

If you bring up points in this discussion, which other people take time and effort to address, you could at least acknowledge whether your point has been addressed or not ? Do you believe that your point will retain its validity if you ignore the response which proves it wrong ?

 

You certainly dodged Steves True or False question with an impressive chunk of text. In my layman's opinion, that shows your own bias.

Again, I have already explained my original point twice. I don’t feel like doing again, especially to someone who does not seem to offer anything new to this debate… If that does not satisfy you - then God Bless you and have a great Sunday… peaches and love friend!

As to your second argument - We all have biases. I am certainly no exception to that rule. What I am calling Steve out on (now that I have had some time to observe his MO and to gauge his understating of the subject matter) - is his dogmatic and stubborn inability to consider the fact that his analysis (which is actually more of what we would call a model rather than true analysis) is biased (again, just like mine or anyone else's) and his unwillingness to consider the other side of the debate in order to try rectifying his model with reality (something that most scholars have to do, even if it means swallowing their pride - myself included). If you think that I was trying to doge his contrived True/False question (something that I have not seen in a debate since high school) I certainly would not lose any sleep over it… what I will not be willing to do though - is to get suckered into answering provocative and short-sited questions with a Yes/No answer.

 

If you wonna do that – be my guest – “Have you stopped cheating on your taxes or do you still do that?” True or False?

Edited March 15, 2015 by DreDay

[akd]

Something odd seen with rebels training in East Ukraine:

 

 

I wonder if the empty armor wedges were cut from a dead tank and slapped on to the BMP-2 simply for added ballistic protection?

Edited March 15, 2015 by akd

[DreDay]

Something odd seen with rebels training in East Ukraine:

 

 

I wonder if the empty armor wedges were cut from a dead tank and slapped on to the BMP-2 simply for added ballistic protection?

 

Good catch! There are all kinds of weird with that BMP... Note the unconventional frame around the rear doors. Do you happen to have a clip to the full video?

 

BTW, on a interesting side note - the original Soviet factory for ERA plates (Kontakt-1 and Kontakt-5) is actually located in Donetsk and supposedly it is still production-ready. This is not as big deal for the rebels as it is for the Ukranian army which still uses old Soviet-make Kontakt-1 blocks on their T-64BVs and those are way past their expiration date by now...

 

PS: Personal "Thank you" for trying to get us back on track here

[akd]

From this video:

 

https://youtu.be/8EuLeZNZ7nA

[DreDay]

From this video:

 

https://youtu.be/8EuLeZNZ7nA

 

Very interesting indeed! Thanks AKD!!

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, my point (perhaps not formulated clearly enough) is that those are highly controversial topics that evoke completely different viewpoints and emotions based on which side you happen to be addressing. As time goes by, history tends to sort things out (more or less) based largely on the works of the historians who have access to local archives, personal accounts, and overall cultural and political context that they fit into. That’s all fine and well when processed in hindsight; but you are simply not going to have that luxury in real-time developing scenarios… so you better have as much access and understanding of the local happenings as they go on, or have someone else whom you trust do that for you… Again, that is what foreign studies (and yes - intelligence processing which is a part of them) are based on.

This was more true in the past, but technology has greatly changed the situation. You are aware of computer translation services? I use them on a daily basis to translate various pieces of information from Ukrainian and Russian into something I can understand. The translations are not perfect, but they get the job done pretty well. In fact, I find them quite helpful because the more "propagandistic" the message the worse the translation in that the result is often harder to distill. On top of that, Russia has put a lot of effort in broadcasting its message into English.

But there are also very timely breakdowns of specific or general topics by people who do speak the languages and are able to put them into English. This includes analysis by people who do understand the local culture and minutia because they are part of it. Of course one must watch for bias as one would in any other language, but the information is there for me to evaluate sometimes within hours of it being published in its native language.

So... you can disparage and belittle my abilities to research this topic, but you haven't really done a very convincing job to counter pretty much any of my statements. Instead, you have adopted a rather conceited position that I am incapable of having an reasonably informed opinion. Case in point...

 

As for your “demonstrably strong gasp of the subject matter” and your predictions…. I’ll just politely choose to not comment on that.

Once again you are copping out. I put my marker down about events long before they happened. They unfolded almost exactly as I expected they would (big exception was outright annexation of Crimea, but that's a more complicated sub story). So either I have a pretty good grasp of the subject or I got incredibly lucky. You appear to believe I got incredibly lucky. A valid position to take, but I don't think it's a very credible one.

 

This is not a True or False question as it is formulated in a highly subjective matter that ignores much of the origins of this conflict and shows nothing but your personal biases (which is something that we are all guilty of).

Double talk BS. I asked you a very, very simple and straightforward cause and effect question. I did not ask you about the background to it, but of course there is background to it. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Perhaps that background even excuses the behavior, or at least mitigates it. But how can we have a discussion about that part if you refuse to confirm simple facts.

 

In the same vein one could ask “Would we be talking about all the horrors of this war had the new Kiev government (again with full approval of US and EU) had not chosen that its own selfish interests are best served by violently suppressing a sizable regional and cultural minority instead of embracing the dialog with them?”

And down the rabbit hole of Russian aggression apologist we go, again. Your bias is showing through very, very clearly. Example...

I ask you if Russia hadn't started the war if we would be talking about this at all. You counter with if Kiev hadn't decided to side with the West, after a change in power, would Russia have needed to attack Ukraine (if you are even admitting it is). I can then ask you, in response, would there have been a need for a revolt in Kiev if the government had not been illegitimate and largely controlled by Russia for Russian interests? We can go back and forth like this all day long.

 

As I’ve said – you are entitled to your views and they are certainly not without basis, but your unwillingness to acknowledge other factors and views that don’t fit into your model makes this for a rather predictable and dull debate.

Again with the condescending and ill informed deflection tactics. I have shown NO unwillingess to talk about the intricacies that have led to the current situation. But I'll cover that in my next response.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

As to your second argument - We all have biases. I am certainly no exception to that rule.

We finally, at least, have a point in which we can agree on!

 

What I am calling Steve out on (now that I have had some time to observe his MO and to gauge his understating of the subject matter) - is his dogmatic and stubborn inability to consider the fact that his analysis (which is actually more of what we would call a model rather than true analysis) is biased (again, just like mine or anyone else's) and his unwillingness to consider the other side of the debate in order to try rectifying his model with reality (something that most scholars have to do, even if it means swallowing their pride - myself included).

None of this is an accurate portrayal of events at all. I have not once dodged a debate, including the ones you have started and then abandoned. You do not agree with my positions so you presume that I either haven't examined the excuses being made for Russia's aggression nor the rifts in Ukrainian society. You are wrong.

Many years ago, I spent some time looking into the "facts" presented by Holocaust deniers and Final Solution apologists. I did so because I wanted to understand what their arguments were all about before dismissing them. In doing so I even found a few small points might have been deemed legitimate by any reasonable standards of impartial examination. Yet at the end of the day I still believe the Holocaust happened and it can in no way be justified.

Using your logic, I am biased because I did not give proper weight to the "evidence" that there was no Holocaust and/or that the Jews were responsible for bringing it all down on themselves.

You can hold such a position if you like, but I don't hold it in much regard.

 

If you think that I was trying to doge his contrived True/False question (something that I have not seen in a debate since high school) I certainly would not lose any sleep over it… what I will not be willing to do though - is to get suckered into answering provocative and short-sited questions with a Yes/No answer.

You are dodging and you are obviously afraid to answer the simple question I posed. Why? I'll show you:

 

If you wonna do that – be my guest – “Have you stopped cheating on your taxes or do you still do that?” True or False?

This is not what I asked. I asked "have you cheated on your taxes? True or False". This is a factual question, one to which a yes or no answer is possible. Instead you refused to answer it on the grounds of "I won't tell you that because you don't understand the tax laws or the burden they impose on honest, hard working people." My question does not need a debate about the fairness of the tax system in order for it to be answered. The fairness of the tax system is a separate issue which, obviously, is something that can be debated.

That is a dodge and you've been doing quite a bit of it, yet you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty/cowardice. Interesting.

OK, so you have leveled a specific charge against me that I don't know squat about what is going on from the perspective of the people of Donbas. According to you I am ignorant and ill informed, which is not something I wish to be. So help me out and educate me by laying out the case that war in eastern Ukraine was the result of actions in Kiev and not Moscow.

Steve

[Baneman]

Again, I have already explained my original point twice. I don’t feel like doing again, especially to someone who does not seem to offer anything new to this debate… If that does not satisfy you - then God Bless you and have a great Sunday… peaches and love friend!

...

 

Granted I'm not adding any new information to this debate, I'm effectively calling you out on the fact that you raise issues/questions then if they are answered/addressed, you move on quickly.

 

eg. you've spent more text telling everyone that you're not going to address Steve's response to your question with the concept of "I have already explained my original point twice. I don’t feel like doing again" than it would have taken to say "ok, you've got me there, that's a valid response" ( because, y'know, he DID answer rather comprehensively ). Restating your point doesn't address the response.

 

But your debating style appears ( to me ) to be "move on rapidly as soon as any point is countered".

That's fine, but it does appear to be a waste of time debating with you.

No doubt, this post of mine will appear irrelevant to you.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Baneman

[Battlefront.com]

Something odd seen with rebels training in East Ukraine:

 

 

I wonder if the empty armor wedges were cut from a dead tank and slapped on to the BMP-2 simply for added ballistic protection?

I think a field refit seems like the right answer. Certainly the separatists and Russians have lost significant numbers of tanks over the past few months and some of those no doubt had Kontakt-5 on them (i.e. because Russian made T-72s with Kontakt-5 are for sure operating in Ukraine).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Granted I'm not adding any new information to this debate, I'm effectively calling you out on the fact that you raise issues/questions then if they are answered/addressed, you move on quickly.

I'm not surprised to be the only one to notice this.

 

eg. you've spent more text telling everyone that you're not going to address Steve's response to your question with the concept of "I have already explained my original point twice. I don’t feel like doing again" than it would have taken to say "ok, you've got me there, that's a valid response" ( because, y'know, he DID answer rather comprehensively ). Restating your point doesn't address the response.

In a way it does. When one side of a debate resorts to dodging and obfuscation, it tends to undermine the credibility of their position (or at least their ability to express it). As does belittling and mischaracterizing the other side's capabilities in a generalized way that can't be directly refuted. This behavior, once identified and repeatedly pointed out, tends to lead to a different tactic. I'm waiting to see if that is the case here.

Steve

[DreDay]

Steve I honestly don't have the time or the interest to go through your multi-page tirades (75% of which seem to be self-reflective notes and are of no value to me what so ever).

My point is pure and simple – your "analysis" (which IMHO is not a right word to use for what you do) is biased and slanted. Every single one of your arguments on the subject that I've read is formulated with intent of making excuses for the Ukrainian side; marginalizing any of our (Western) responsibility for the mess that’s going on there, and accusing the Russians of all the ills. You speak on those matters with position of authority, which is definitely backed up by extensive research; but not by any kind of original ideas or conclusions (which is why I propose that you follow a formulated model). This wouldn’t be too bad on its own (especially if you were writing this on a Russian forum), if your model and your conclusions were not the exact replicas of what we are already fed in our mass media… so I have to question the value and overall benefit of all the research that you have done. That’s my personal take on it (and let’s just say that I am no scrub when it comes to this subject matter either), but it appears that many other forum members who have tried to take you up on this (many of whom are actually from the areas in question, have studied the conflict no less than you, and happen to have first-hand exposure to what you read about on Google-translate from some blogger-de-jure) ; but you either shut them up as “Russian Propaganda” (thankfully you have not put me into that bracket yet), or drag them into your endless debates where you never allow yourself to deviate from the model and dismiss other people’s views (including personal accounts) as less relevant than your beliefs (that’s where I see myself fitting in right now). This makes for a very dull and one-sided debate that might be enjoyable to you, but few others.

I have been warned by several forum members (who are obviously smarter than me) to avoid getting into debates with you on this subject due to their complete fruitlessness, but I saw it otherwise. Now I hear their point loud and clear. So if you consider someone bowing out of the debating you because they see it as fruitless and don’t get any enlightenment from it, then by all means call it “avoiding the tough questions” and “running away”… as I’ve said to another poster here – I certainly would not lose any sleep over it…

I am sorry if the above sounds harsh, but that is my honest take on your self-imposed status of an expert and a moral authority on “All Things Ukraine”.

I do very much enjoy your games and I hope that our disagreement here would not lead to your (and your colleagues’) response to my (technical and much more tangible) suggestions in game-related threads - which in the past has been stellar and is very much appreciated and valued by this loyal customer.

Peaches and luv!

[Battlefront.com]

Quoting me from above:

 

In a way it does. When one side of a debate resorts to dodging and obfuscation, it tends to undermine the credibility of their position (or at least their ability to express it). As does belittling and mischaracterizing the other side's capabilities in a generalized way that can't be directly refuted. This behavior, once identified and repeatedly pointed out, tends to lead to a different tactic. I'm waiting to see if that is the case here.

Add yet another prediction I've made that's come true!

 

Steve I honestly don't have the time or the interest to go through your multi-page tirades (75% of which seem to be self-reflective notes and are of no value to me what so ever).

"Tirades"? Your bias and lack of respect are showing clearer and clearer with each post. As for my "self reflective notes", these are explanations aimed directly at refuting charges you have levied against me personally.

You also appear to have adequate time to tell me how wrong/biased I am, but no time to make an actual case that I am. That's a poor use of your time, because if you went about proving me wrong/biased you wouldn't need to spend the time telling me I'm wrong/biased since it would be self evident. Wouldn't it?

 

My point is pure and simple – your "analysis" (which IMHO is not a right word to use for what you do) is biased and slanted. Every single one of your arguments on the subject that I've read is formulated with intent of making excuses for the Ukrainian side; marginalizing any of our (Western) responsibility for the mess that’s going on there, and accusing the Russians of all the ills.

I call "BS" on this. I have been willing to engage you in debate on any specific topic of your choice. Instead of countering my claims, and showing the folly of my argument, you try to ride off into the sunset high up on your horse. In fact, I invited you to educate me by telling me, in your own words, what your explanation is for this conflict is the fault of Kiev and not Moscow. You have, not surprisingly, declined to put your money where your mouth is.

 

You speak on those matters with position of authority, which is definitely backed up by extensive research; but not by any kind of original ideas or conclusions (which is why I propose that you follow a formulated model).

I have no original ideas about the Holocaust either. So what's your point? That I'm not a field researcher? That is absolutely correct. So what? Anybody publishing a paper or a book on any event prior to the last 50 years is in the same boat. Again, you are creating an incredibly weak, unstable argument to discredit both me personally and anything I say generally. Yet you can't back up that position each time you are challenged.

Also, I do not claim to be a genius. But to say that I am parroting the works of others without any intellectual processing of that information is, well, interesting position to take. Especially since you have still refused, and I do me refused, to explain the creation of Black Sea's backstory.

 

This wouldn’t be too bad on its own (especially if you were writing this on a Russian forum), if your model and your conclusions were not the exact replicas of what we are already fed in our mass media… so I have to question the value and overall benefit of all the research that you have done. That’s my personal take on it (and let’s just say that I am no scrub when it comes to this subject matter either), but it appears that many other forum members who have tried to take you up on this (many of whom are actually from the areas in question, have studied the conflict no less than you, and happen to have first-hand exposure to what you read about on Google-translate from some blogger-de-jure) ; but you either shut them up as “Russian Propaganda” (thankfully you have not put me into that bracket yet), or drag them into your endless debates where you never allow yourself to deviate from the model and dismiss other people’s views (including personal accounts) as less relevant than your beliefs (that’s where I see myself fitting in right now). This makes for a very dull and one-sided debate that might be enjoyable to you, but few others.

It appears you are lacking in a working knowledge of how a debate works. A person makes a hypothesis, another person challenges it. The two exchange arguments that are intended to show how the other's position is incorrect to some degree or another. The more the exchange is based on discussing actual points, the more value it has. Debates don't work so well when one side reverts to name calling. In effect this is what you are doing.

You have challenged me on many points. I have responded to your challenges with reasoned responses. More often than not, you then drop the point and move onto something else as if there was no response. Apparently tiring of not catching me off guard on any subject (for example the Luhansk airstrike), you have since moved onto attacking my credibility and intellectual capabilities.

 

I have been warned by several forum members (who are obviously smarter than me) to avoid getting into debates with you on this subject due to their complete fruitlessness, but I saw it otherwise. Now I hear their point loud and clear. So if you consider someone bowing out of the debating you because they see it as fruitless and don’t get any enlightenment from it, then by all means call it “avoiding the tough questions” and “running away”… as I’ve said to another poster here – I certainly would not lose any sleep over it…

If you were actually engaged in a debate then I would say you are "bowing out". But you got yourself in over your head and now you are "running away".

 

I am sorry if the above sounds harsh, but that is my honest take on your self-imposed status of an expert and a moral authority on “All Things Ukraine”.

I do not consider myself that at all. But since nobody has been able to challenge the factual basis or logic of my arguments, least of all you, I am beginning to wonder if I am.

I have a long history of debate on this Forum. Mostly about things which are related to the games I help make. I am definitely stubborn in that I do not back down from a challenge. I must be convinced that I'm wrong in order for me to change my mind. Yet I do not raise the bar higher than it needs to be. We constantly implement customer suggestions and change existing features/data based on feedback. And the game is better for it. If I were not this way, the games we make would be weak and muddled, flipping back and forth like politicians.

I approach my non-game debates in the same way. Prove me wrong based on a factual and/or intellectually superior argument, and I'll concede the point no matter how doggedly I defended it. The opposite is also true.

 

I do very much enjoy your games and I hope that our disagreement here would not lead to your (and your colleagues’) response to my (technical and much more tangible) suggestions in game-related threads - which in the past has been stellar and is very much appreciated and valued by this loyal customer.

I can keep the two separate. Recently I answered and solved a tech support question for someone who has been repeatedly banned from this Forum. We fulfill our obligations.

Steve

[kaburke61]

Yep, this is familiar....he did the same thing with me. Asked him 2 very simple questions, of which all he did was dodge/insult.... It isn't worth the time because in the end all your gonna get is "Peaches and Luv"

[Do Right]

Here is more evidence there are Russian soldiers in Ukraine. At http://www.Lostivan.com, there is an article quoting Dmitry Tmchuk who said on Channel 5 that military leaders of terrorist groups in Ukraine were disquising themselves in cars or other movers with the OSCE symbol on them.

[Do Right]

A Russian woman said this is a reliable source of information regarding lost Russian soldiers in Ukraine. This site is forlost Russian soldiers in Ukraine started by mothers. http://www.lostivan.comThis site is for family members and mothers looking for brothers or sons, to see in English, there is a selection button (small) for language 1/4 of the way down the left side of the page. In one case a brother was looking for his lost last living relative, brother. He said, " he is still in Ukraine", " someone coerced his brother into saying he is being paid a lot of rubles to fight there". He does not think his brother would have accepted the money, and especially would have told him about this. In the video, he said his brother looked really scared.

Also, more evidence there are Russian troops in Ukraine, at the same http://www.lostivan.comwebsite, there is an article quoting Dmitry Tmchuk saying on channel 5 that military leaders of terrorist groups in Ukraine were disguising themselves incars and movers with the OSCE symbol on them.

[Kraft]

They mentioned it in one of the VICE news 'Russian Ghost Army' videos and also (tried to) interview/ed some of them.

 

 

But your account is - and I'm trying very hard to avoid being pre-judgemental here - somewhat suspicious