Jump to content

Separatist push/Ukraine shove back


Kinophile

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Nefron said:

Nobody has an obligation to surrender, but they have that option. They aren't going to take it, and opt for killing instead, so there's a war. This is pretty much the thing I've originally said, it's really not that complex. 

 

Let me try and get this straight - you're saying that in order not to have a war, a country that is invaded should surrender ?

Ooookay.

( btw, what country do you live in ? Just that I'm feeling the urge to invade one and it seems wise to pick one that's going to surrender straight away )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Baneman said:

Let me try and get this straight - you're saying that in order not to have a war, a country that is invaded should surrender ?

No, I'm not saying anybody should do anything. They are free to kill each other as far as I'm concerned. 

What I'm saying is that you need two warring sides to have a war, and each of them can stop the war, but they won't because it goes against their interests. That is simply a fact, and I stated it as a fact when Steve wrongly said otherwise. He is moralizing, and apparently believes I'm doing that too, which I'm not. 

5 minutes ago, Baneman said:

( btw, what country do you live in ? Just that I'm feeling the urge to invade one and it seems wise to pick one that's going to surrender straight away )

I'm not advocating for a surrender. I'm OK with violence in some cases, when it's for an important cause, just as you guys are.

Edited by Nefron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, this is getting off the point. Motivation of both sides is currently enough to keep things tense and lethal. 

I'm really curious why Russia hasn't "properly" resisted/reversed the Ukrainian advances. It's not like the legality of Minsk 2 matters to the Kremlin. Or that it needs to build a library of "provocations" - those are pretty simple and quick for it to manufacture, as it doesn't give a damn about believability. From what I've read it hasn't even reinforced it's Donbass garrison (although it's divisions across the border continue to expand/strengthen).

I'm curious, because this kind of continuous small defeats seems to be eating away at the morale of the local Donbass militias, and slowly boosting the Ukrainian. 

As Steve noted, my understanding is that static warfare drops morale, heavily. Any kind of successful advance/action raises confidence, energy and motivation. 

If you're trying to strengthen the (pretty brittle) l Donbass militias, then allowing them to be repeatedly kicked back, even in just small local actions, seems like a very bad idea. 

 

Edited by kinophile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Nefron said:

No. What's up with you and rape, this is really getting weird for me. 

It's called an analogy.  If you do not understand how your logic applies to the scenario I laid out, then that likely indicates you don't understand your own position.

Quote

Nobody has an obligation to surrender, but they have that option. They aren't going to take it, and opt for killing instead, so there's a war. This is pretty much the thing I've originally said, it's really not that complex. 

What? Where did I say anything of the sort? 

Everywhere.  That is what your logic leads to.

Quote

I disagree. 

Then you disagree with several thousand years of evolved societal norms.  Norms that most nations agree need to be paid more attention to, not less.  You're welcome to your opinion, but you're definitely in the minority.  And also wrong according to the world's legal structures, including those of Russia (the invasion was illegal according to the Russian Constitution).

Quote

If you say so, but the fact remains that the war is raging because both sides want to fight for their interests. You believing that one side is in the right does not change that. This right here is my point.

No, I believe one side is wrong.  And the wrong side should be the one to stop behaving badly.  Russia chose to invade, Ukraine didn't choose to be invaded. 

Quote

Again with the rape :S

Yes, because it's applicable and you're obviously having no luck refuting it.  But I can use plenty of other analogies.

Let's say you are home alone at night and someone breaks into your house.  He is armed and you retreat to your bedroom.  You have a gun to defend yourself with.  What you're saying is that morally and legally you two are on even ground in terms of violence.  The armed intruder is pursuing his interests with violence, you are pursuing yours with violence.  A police officer comes by and talks with both of you.  He decides the best way to avoid violence is for you to put down your gun because the intruder got the drop on you first.  You should hand over everything the intruder wants and then not press charges.  And then the cop should let the intruder leave the house without any unkind words or concerns for the neighbors.

That's the world you think we should live in?  Great.

Quote

 

So, uh, they did not choose to surrender in Crimea? Were they mind controlled or something?

Ukraine did not surrender in the Crimea.  They negotiated a retreat.  There's a big difference between the two scenarios.  Ukraine correctly figured out that it was in no position to effectively resist AND it understood that resistance was exactly what Russia wanted (aka the Georgia scenario).

As with the other issues raised here, the decision point of the conflict was 100% Russia's.  It decided to invade, it decided to force Ukraine into a position where it had to fight, retreat, or surrender.  Russia is, therefore, solely responsible for all the ramifications that have followed its invasion.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be that Russia is trying to look "nicer" to avoid antagonizing the west.  Also after a series of "provocations" they can still claim the moral high ground when they respond very heavily.   Lulling your enemy into false sense of security sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

It's called an analogy.  If you do not understand how your logic applies to the scenario I laid out, then that likely indicates you don't understand your own position.

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. 

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, because it's applicable and you're obviously having no luck refuting it.  But I can use plenty of other analogies.

 Please don't, we risk you invoking Hitler for the second time. Here, I think I explained it perfectly above. 

28 minutes ago, Nefron said:

What I'm saying is that you need two warring sides to have a war, and each of them can stop the war, but they won't because it goes against their interests. That is simply a fact, and I stated it as a fact when Steve wrongly said otherwise. He is moralizing, and apparently believes I'm doing that too, which I'm not. 

This is literally my original point, which you ignored for how long now. I'm not moralizing, and I don't care about what you think is right, justified, moral or whatever. I'm not commenting on that. 

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

it decided to force Ukraine into a position where it had to fight, retreat, or surrender

And then Ukraine decided to fight a war, which takes two. You are making my point.

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ukraine did not surrender in the Crimea.  They negotiated a retreat.  There's a big difference between the two scenarios.

Not every surrender is unconditional and absolute. They handed over their territory and left their equipment behind as ordered by the invading force. If that's not surrendering, I don't know what is.

Edited by Nefron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Nefron said:

No, I'm not saying anybody should do anything. They are free to kill each other as far as I'm concerned. 

Sure, got that.  What you're against is accountability.  Got that as well.

21 minutes ago, Nefron said:

What I'm saying is that you need two warring sides to have a war, and each of them can stop the war, but they won't because it goes against their interests. That is simply a fact, and I stated it as a fact when Steve wrongly said otherwise. He is moralizing, and apparently believes I'm doing that too, which I'm not. 

Of course you are :D  By unilaterally deciding that two things are equal you are saying they are morally equivalent.  And that people like me, therefore, have no basis to judge one side more than the other.

If you take something that is largely and widely seen as having moral implications, and you attempt to remove morality from the equation, then you are making a morality based argument.  You are, in effect, justifying what others see as immoral.

21 minutes ago, Nefron said:

I'm not advocating for a surrender. I'm OK with violence in some cases, when it's for an important cause, just as you guys are.

You are in favor of the immoral use of violence?  I sure as heck am not in favor of any such thing.

What could be more important a cause than defending one's territory and people from a foreign aggressor?  Most people would agree that a nation state's highest moral and legal obligation is to defend against foreign aggressors.  Which is why you're likely to find such language in all nation state's constitutions.  It's certainly in mine.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Nefron said:

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. 

Then refute my analogy instead of dodging it.  Analogies are excellent vehicles for arriving at a better understanding of positions.  Avoiding them also helps clarify things.

Quote

 Please don't, we risk you invoking Hitler for the second time. Here, I think I explained it perfectly above. 

This is literally my original point, which you ignored for how long now.

I did not ignore your point at all.  I have logically examined it and carefully laid out a response to it.  In fact, I'd say I've paid more attention to your point than you have.

Quote

I'm not moralizing, and I don't care about what you think is right, justified, moral or whatever. I'm not commenting on that. 

Sure you are.  Because my point was that Russia is the one responsible for the war, and you're saying that Ukraine is just as much responsible.  You have made a moral argument of equivalency.  And that is what I object to.

Quote

And then Ukraine decided to fight a war, which takes two. You are making my point.

No, your point is to make Russia's action morally equivalent to Ukraine's reaction.  That's what I'm objecting to.

Quote

Not every surrender is unconditional and absolute. They handed over their territory and left their equipment behind as ordered by the invading force. If that's not surrendering, I don't know what is.

Ukraine still maintains that Crimea is it's territory and has vowed to return it to its control, using force if necessary.  There is no agreement between Russia and Ukraine over the status of Crimea.  On top of that, Ukraine and Russia are still at war.  Not that any of this matters.  Ukraine made a shrewd decision to retreat because Russia gave it no practical alternative.  Further, Ukraine was aware that Russia wanted a fight and therefore the best way to resist the overall Russian aggression was to abandon Crimea without conducing violence against Russian forces (Russian forces did engage in violence against Ukrainian forces, though).

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

Of course you are :D  By unilaterally deciding that two things are equal you are saying they are morally equivalent.  And that people like me, therefore, have no basis to judge one side more than the other.

If you take something that is largely and widely seen as having moral implications, and you attempt to remove morality from the equation, then you are making a morality based argument.  You are, in effect, justifying what others see as immoral.

Again, I stated a fact and you are still moralizing. I have no issue with you believing that one side is evil or whatever, I'm not arguing against that.

My point from the beginning was that you wrongly stated that the only reason there is a war is because Russia is pursuing its own interests. That isn't true. There would be no war if the Ukrainians didn't decide it's in their interest to fight that war. It took a conscious decision from both sides.

That is simply a fact, and as such it doesn't assign a moral value to actions of either side. You are free to judge according to your morals standards, but don't warp facts. 

 

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sure, got that.  What you're against is accountability.  Got that as well.

That's funny. If anything, I think the war in Ukraine demonstrates accountability perfectly. 

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

What could be more important a cause than defending one's territory and people from a foreign aggressor?  Most people would agree that a nation state's highest moral and legal obligation is to defend against foreign aggressors.  Which is why you're likely to find such language in all nation state's constitutions.  It's certainly in mine.

And those are your beliefs, fine by me. I think it's a little sad that you can't think of a cause more worthy than fighting over what flag waves over what piece of ground, but OK. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nefron said:

Again, I stated a fact and you are still moralizing. I have no issue with you believing that one side is evil or whatever, I'm not arguing against that.

Sure you are because you objected to me holding one side accountable and not the other or both.  You are moralizing as much as I am, even if you don't see it that way.

2 minutes ago, Nefron said:

My point from the beginning was that you wrongly stated that the only reason there is a war is because Russia is pursuing its own interests. That isn't true. There would be no war if the Ukrainians didn't decide it's in their interest to fight that war. It took a conscious decision from both sides.

Sure, in a vacuum where the rest of reality is excluded you have a point.  Specifically I'm talking about legal and moral norms which just about everybody agrees with as ideals to aspire to.

2 minutes ago, Nefron said:

That is simply a fact, and as such it doesn't assign a moral value to actions of either side. You are free to judge according to your morals standards, but don't warp facts.

You are the one "warping".  You've made a moral position and yet you claim you are not.

2 minutes ago, Nefron said:

That's funny. If anything, I think the war in Ukraine demonstrates accountability perfectly. 

Yeah, as in there is none in the short term.

2 minutes ago, Nefron said:

And those are your beliefs, fine by me. I think it's a little sad that you can't think of a cause more worthy than fighting over what flag waves over what piece of ground, but OK. 

I suppose it's the fault of my education as a historian.  And that is Humans are prone to organizing themselves to take for themselves what others have.  Utopia doesn't exist because of this very simple basic fact.  Therefore, if one wishes to organize a society which is free to decide for itself how to better their own lives, it had better be prepared to defend it against others.

In a perfect world a state's least important obligation would be to defend its people and territory from others because there would be no others seeking to harm its people or take its territory.  Since the world we live in is not perfect, I accept that societies have to be organized appropriate for the times and locations lived in.  I do not like it and think it is an enormous waste of our planet and species' potential.  But it is what it is.  Best we can do is try to minimize it as best we can.  One way to do that is to hold aggressors accountable instead of trying to make them the moral equivalent of victims.

Steve

P.S. I do understand you better now.  You are not making a pro-Rusisan apologist argument.  You are making a moral argument that violence is not morally justifiable even when being victimized by violence.  I certainly have more respect for your argument now that I understand your motivations better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

P.S. I do understand you better now.  You are not making a pro-Rusisan apologist argument.  You are making a moral argument that violence is not morally justifiable even when being victimized by violence.  I certainly have more respect for your argument now that I understand your motivations better.

Yeah, that's not really my point. 

If you're arguing that Russia is responsible from a moral and a legal perspective, I can understand that. What I'm saying is that it's wrong to say the war is only caused by Russia pursuing its interests, since there would be no war if Ukraine wouldn't pursue their interests. That is not arguing morality, that is simply a fact.

I think you object to that because you see the Ukrainian use of violence as something just and holy, and above being classified as simply "pursuing interests". Or we simply misunderstood each other the whole time. 

And my criteria for use of violence is probably a lot more lax than yours (which I would most likely find to be hypocritical), considering I'm totally fine with Russia. So, probably an apologist in your book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Either way, this is getting off the point. Motivation of both sides is currently enough to keep things tense and lethal. 

I'm really curious why Russia hasn't "properly" resisted/reversed the Ukrainian advances. It's not like the legality of Minsk 2 matters to the Kremlin. Or that it needs to build a library of "provocations" - those are pretty simple and quick for it to manufacture, as it doesn't give a damn about believability. From what I've read it hasn't even reinforced it's Donbass garrison (although it's divisions across the border continue to expand/strengthen).

We had a discussion about this many pages ago.  Russia has many reasons to not escalate the ground warfare aspect of this conflict because if it gets out of control then it's got some big problems on its hands.  Better to lose a meaningless hill or village here and there as long as Ukraine doesn't get too bold.  Russia's response has been to increase its use of artillery on Ukrainian positions.

58 minutes ago, kinophile said:

I'm curious, because this kind of continuous small defeats seems to be eating away at the morale of the local Donbass militias, and slowly boosting the Ukrainian. 

I'm not sure there's any morale left to erode.   I mean that quite seriously.

58 minutes ago, kinophile said:

As Steve noted, my understanding is that static warfare drops morale, heavily. Any kind of successful advance/action raises confidence, energy and motivation. 

If you're trying to strengthen the (pretty brittle) l Donbass militias, then allowing them to be repeatedly kicked back, even in just small local actions, seems like a very bad idea.

Russia doesn't really have a choice.  They tried to establish a credible military force and it failed.  All they got was people with little ability beyond manning roadblocks and trenches, conducting small patrols, firing artillery, and not much beyond that.

44 minutes ago, Erwin said:

It could be that Russia is trying to look "nicer" to avoid antagonizing the west.  Also after a series of "provocations" they can still claim the moral high ground when they respond very heavily.   Lulling your enemy into false sense of security sort of thing.

This is definitely Russia's concept of "frozen conflict".  However, usually the other side surrenders and therefore the war doesn't continue.  There is no analogous situation in Russian history.  Therefore, Russia is doing the smart thing and that is to play things conservatively.  It already has experienced far more pushback than it expected.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Nefron said:

Yeah, that's not really my point. 

If you're arguing that Russia is responsible from a moral and a legal perspective, I can understand that. What I'm saying is that it's wrong to say the war is only caused by Russia pursuing its interests, since there would be no war if Ukraine wouldn't pursue their interests. That is not arguing morality, that is simply a fact.

Sure, but it's so simple that it's not very useful to the discussion we're having.  It's like saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" in a discussion about firearms regulations for a civilian population.

Quote

I think you object to that because you see the Ukrainian use of violence as something just and holy, and above being classified as simply "pursuing interests". Or we simply misunderstood each other the whole time. 

Of course I think Ukraine is both legally and morally justified in using violence.  The legality is beyond question, the morality is pretty close to beyond question as well.  Except for those rare people (like Quakers) who view violence as never justifiable under any circumstance or Anarchists who believe nothing is out of bounds (until they are attacked, then it's off to seek protection from the police and courts ;)).  Since this is a wargame forum I kinda don't expect to have Quakers here and Anarchists don't use the Internet because it's a means of controlling people :D

The more interesting, and relevant, discussions to have about Ukraine's response to Russia's war on it are around the responsible and wise use of violence to defend itself.  Case in point being Crimea.  I think it was a brilliant move on Ukraine's part.  Especially because I'm very sure Putin didn't expect it and I'm even more sure that he didn't want it.  More recently we're talking about the "creeping offensive".  I'd prefer to stick with the interesting stuff.  Therefore, I choose to hold Russia accountable in what little way that I can.

Quote

And my criteria for use of violence is probably a lot more lax than yours (which I would most likely find to be hypocritical), considering I'm totally fine with Russia. So, probably an apologist in your book.

Not a Russian apologist.  You're more in the "might makes right", liaise fare mindset.  It has the same effect of excusing Russia's overtly aggressive and anti-social policies, but you're not being selective about it as a proper Russian apologist would be.  For me, the world we live in is screwed up and bad enough as it is without reversing the slow progress towards less state sponsored violence and a greater respect for the rule of law within and between nation states.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Battlefront.com, Steve would you mind shedding some light on how your numerous and elaborate posts of "Ukraine - good, Russia - bad, very bad!" :D relate to the "actual situation on the fronts" - the limit you set for what's acceptable and what's not here? :D Are you not about to ban yourself very soon? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't want to start the political discussion again, but as discussion goes on, after reading lats posts I must remind that in the Ukraine took place illegal revolt. Goverment was overthrown, parlament was made to vote like winners say under the threat of "lustrations". There was no "Ukraine", there were fighters and their street leaders who captured goverment buildings. Why did they become "Ukraine"? Noone voted for them, in Kiev live minority of population, why 100 thousands at Maidan have a right to deside the fate of the 40 million country?

East didn't obey the new goverment, after that VSU was sent to punish opposition. Anti-maidan activists were beaten and killed all over the country, armed men in black uniform (oligarch bodyguards) shot protesters in the legs and sometimes in the head. In the Mariupol police office that didn't support the new goverment was captured by army, policemen were killed of captured. Anti-facsists in Odessa were driven inside the building and were burnt. (Try to imagine that, dozens of people are being burnt in the building, surrounded by crowd. Police just watch) Many anti-maidan activists "disappeared". Some of them were found in prisons, others not. Protesters in Lugansk captured administrative building. (Maidaners made the same some weeks ago, why they have right and anti-maidan protesters not?) Building was bombed by loyalist Su-25, several civilians were killed. And army started moving to the East, backed by well-motivated nationalist units, formed from maidan activists...

You would like to see the second Odessa in Donetsk or Lugansk? You like mass murders? I do not, and I am glad that Russia helps Donetsk and Lugansk.

And you say that Ukraine was defending from Russian agression?! What definitely Ukraine, East or West? Maidan supporters or their opponents? Why Maidan rebels = Ukraine?

"Russia invades little Ukraine that defends itself" is a huge simplification, that equals the Ukraine to Kiev authorities and doesn't consider will of the people of East Ukraine.

Maidan rebels could just stop and do not move to the East. There would be no war.

Feel free to consider it as "Russian propaganda view on the war in the Ukraine" and use it for more realistic mission briefings for Russian side!

P.S. I must say that loyalist Ukrainians have answer to the each point. Maidan = the people, anti-maidan = paid Russian agents, Odessa protesters shot first, (oh, that snipers...) in the Lugansk administration were terrorists, e.t.c.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMS said:

East didn't obey the new goverment, after that VSU was sent to punish opposition.

Man, something wrong with your chronology :). Can I recall you also, that first blood on Donbas is a blood of Ukrainin activist Cherniavskiy, which was killed during attack of thugs on pro-Ukrainain march in Donetsk 13th March ? In March also VSU were sent to protect east border from possible repeating of "gentle green men" actions, because on Donbas was't any army unit excepting 156th SAM regiment. Punish ? Ahah. So, armed Girkin detachment, wich infiltrated on territory of Ukraine and captured Sloviansk and Kramatorsk at 11th April, came just to gift a roses ? Can I recall you Girkin's words "I have pulled trigger of war"? Without Girkin and hybrid Russian support, all on Donbas would finished like in Kharkiv - all "Russian world" adepts just would lay faced down.

Edited by Haiduk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other news just in:  Warmongering Sweden bring back conscription 

"Ms Nyh Radebo said the return to conscription was prompted by "the security change in our neighbourhood".
"The Russian illegal annexation of Crimea [in 2014], the conflict in Ukraine and the increased military activity in our neighbourhood are some of the reasons," she said."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IMHO said:

@Battlefront.com, Steve would you mind shedding some light on how your numerous and elaborate posts of "Ukraine - good, Russia - bad, very bad!" :D relate to the "actual situation on the fronts" - the limit you set for what's acceptable and what's not here? :D Are you not about to ban yourself very soon? :D

Sorry for the side track.  When someone is talking about a war, who is responsible for it is an obvious and central question to realizing why it's being fought and how that fight plays out on the battlefield.  The problem I have seen with discussing this war, since the start, is that the pro-Russian side at best distorts reality (see DMS' post) to the point that we have difficulty talking about anything else.  How can one understand the fighting if we can't even agree on who is doing the fighting?  Not to mention why.

2 hours ago, DMS said:

I didn't want to start the political discussion again, but as discussion goes on, after reading lats posts I must remind that in the Ukraine took place illegal revolt. Goverment was overthrown, parlament was made to vote like winners say under the threat of "lustrations". There was no "Ukraine", there were fighters and their street leaders who captured goverment buildings. Why did they become "Ukraine"? Noone voted for them, in Kiev live minority of population, why 100 thousands at Maidan have a right to deside the fate of the 40 million country?

East didn't obey the new goverment, after that VSU was sent to punish opposition. Anti-maidan activists were beaten and killed all over the country, armed men in black uniform (oligarch bodyguards) shot protesters in the legs and sometimes in the head. In the Mariupol police office that didn't support the new goverment was captured by army, policemen were killed of captured. Anti-facsists in Odessa were driven inside the building and were burnt. (Try to imagine that, dozens of people are being burnt in the building, surrounded by crowd. Police just watch) Many anti-maidan activists "disappeared". Some of them were found in prisons, others not. Protesters in Lugansk captured administrative building. (Maidaners made the same some weeks ago, why they have right and anti-maidan protesters not?) Building was bombed by loyalist Su-25, several civilians were killed. And army started moving to the East, backed by well-motivated nationalist units, formed from maidan activists...

You would like to see the second Odessa in Donetsk or Lugansk? You like mass murders? I do not, and I am glad that Russia helps Donetsk and Lugansk.

And you say that Ukraine was defending from Russian agression?! What definitely Ukraine, East or West? Maidan supporters or their opponents? Why Maidan rebels = Ukraine?

"Russia invades little Ukraine that defends itself" is a huge simplification, that equals the Ukraine to Kiev authorities and doesn't consider will of the people of East Ukraine.

Maidan rebels could just stop and do not move to the East. There would be no war.

Feel free to consider it as "Russian propaganda view on the war in the Ukraine" and use it for more realistic mission briefings for Russian side!

P.S. I must say that loyalist Ukrainians have answer to the each point. Maidan = the people, anti-maidan = paid Russian agents, Odessa protesters shot first, (oh, that snipers...) in the Lugansk administration were terrorists, e.t.c.

 

Wow.  Very little of this is factually correct and what little is has been carefully taken out of context.  Like, for example, your accusations of anti-Maidan people going "missing" while not mentioning the extremely well documented arbitrary arrests, summary executions, torture, and other crimes committed in the short reign of the "Mayor" of Sloviansk.  Haven't you figured out by now that there's quite a few of us who know what the truth is and are not subject to believing Russian propaganda?

And none of this matters.  Russians nationals with ties to the GRU started the "uprising", Russian forces fired over the border into Ukraine, Russian forces fought in Ukraine, Russian forces are still in Ukraine.  Russian weapons, trainers, political leadership, and financing are the only reason the DPR/LPR exist.  And yet the Russian government denies almost all of it to this day.  The simply question to ask is:

If Russia believes it has a morale and/or legal justification for being in Ukraine, why does it lie about its activities there?

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

If Russia believes it has a morale and/or legal justification for being in Ukraine, why does it lie about its activities there?

Because doing it this way breaks political cohesion of their enemies to some degree. The West was slow to respond with economical measures because they were still trying to prove to each other what was happening, long after the fact. Denial gives an out to those that aren't so happy about engaging in economical warfare against Russia. 

Whatever Russia believes about the legality and morality of their actions doesn't matter. It's not like their enemies could be convinced to act against their own interests, so there's no point in trying. 

What exactly would Russia gain if they stopped with the denial, and what could they possibly lose? 

Edited by Nefron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Wicky said:

Other news just in:  Warmongering Sweden bring back conscription 

"Ms Nyh Radebo said the return to conscription was prompted by "the security change in our neighbourhood".
"The Russian illegal annexation of Crimea [in 2014], the conflict in Ukraine and the increased military activity in our neighbourhood are some of the reasons," she said."

Actually, the headline is "Sweden brings back military conscription amid Baltic tensions".

No warmongering to see here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Baneman said:

Actually, the headline is "Sweden brings back military conscription amid Baltic tensions".

No warmongering to see here.

Just preempting the Russian angle on the Viking resurgance on world domination and the RT.com / Sputnik news headlines ;-)

Combat Mission - Viking Horde or sumfink

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we back to the thread ? 

28th Feb enemy heavy shelled almost all positions along Svitlodarsk bulge, especailly in Troitske-Popasna area. 2 soldiers of 54th brigade was killed.

Probe or even attack on our position have took place in Troitske village area in 15 km SW from Horlivka. Two hours of fighting with LSA and heavy infantry weapon. The enemy fire suddenly finished and our positions were hit by some strange ammunition - locals say they never heard before such type of explosions - one ucommon shot sound and triple explosion. Possibly enemy covered in this way retreating of own unit. In that time our artillery came in the game and shelled different enemy locations during two hours in barrage mode.

Today enemy artillery and tanks all day with some pauses shelled our positions around Avdiivka and "promka". In the city have fell 20 different rounds. Were several direct shots in modular buildings and private houses, but fortunately without victims - there are no inhabitants inside.

Today SP-gun of 36th marines brigade blew-up on mine on road bomb somewhere in Mariupol sector. 1 KIA, 4WIA. Unclear where and how it happened - SP-guns operates usually in close rear, where diversion groups almost can't reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nefron said:

Because doing it this way breaks political cohesion of their enemies to some degree. The West was slow to respond with economical measures because they were still trying to prove to each other what was happening, long after the fact. Denial gives an out to those that aren't so happy about engaging in economical warfare against Russia. 

Obviously.  Especially because they didn't think they would need to rely upon it for years.  They thought they could have had things wrapped up by Spring 2014, possibly without much bloodshed.  Now they have to more-or-less stick with the lie because the damage is done and there's no incentive to come clean.  Nobody of consequence believes official statements anyway.

5 hours ago, Nefron said:

Whatever Russia believes about the legality and morality of their actions doesn't matter. It's not like their enemies could be convinced to act against their own interests, so there's no point in trying. 

If they had a real case to make, they would have made it.  I am absolutely sure of that.  Russia would LOVE the opportunity to legitimately take some high ground (without tanks).

5 hours ago, Nefron said:

What exactly would Russia gain if they stopped with the denial, and what could they possibly lose? 

Now?  Of course not.  Admitting to years of lying and killing is not something they're going to do.  My point was if Russia believed there was a legitimate concern they would have made that case back in Spring 2014.  But of course there wasn't so they didn't even bother trying.  Plus, the invasion of Ukraine officially started hours after Yanukovych fled so it's not like Russia allowed itself any time to concoct a plausible reason for invasion.  For those of us who were spending several hours a day, every day, watching events unfold it was pretty obvious the operations were largely planned and the cover story largely improvised.

4 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Can we back to the thread ? 

Yes please :)

4 hours ago, Haiduk said:

28th Feb enemy heavy shelled almost all positions along Svitlodarsk bulge, especailly in Troitske-Popasna area. 2 soldiers of 54th brigade was killed.

Probe or even attack on our position have took place in Troitske village area in 15 km SW from Horlivka. Two hours of fighting with LSA and heavy infantry weapon. The enemy fire suddenly finished and our positions were hit by some strange ammunition - locals say they never heard before such type of explosions - one ucommon shot sound and triple explosion. Possibly enemy covered in this way retreating of own unit. In that time our artillery came in the game and shelled different enemy locations during two hours in barrage mode.

To be clear... they heard one strange sounding outgoing shot and three explosions?

4 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Today enemy artillery and tanks all day with some pauses shelled our positions around Avdiivka and "promka". In the city have fell 20 different rounds. Were several direct shots in modular buildings and private houses, but fortunately without victims - there are no inhabitants inside.

Today SP-gun of 36th marines brigade blew-up on mine on road bomb somewhere in Mariupol sector. 1 KIA, 4WIA. Unclear where and how it happened - SP-guns operates usually in close rear, where diversion groups almost can't reach.

Ukraine is going to be demining it's territory for years after it gets it back under its control :(

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a morning joke - please go no further...

There's such a thing as Ukrainian Special Anticorruption Bureau - modelled after FBI at the insistence of EU/IMF. The Bureau opened a case of a theft of over 100 mln USD from the Ukrainian state budget. The case is opened against a number of MPs and high-placed officials and one of the latter is the Head if the State Tax Service (yes, the very very head of it :)) According to Ukrainian law when a case is opened the next legal action is to present the person under suspicion with a notice. So the Tax Service guy checked into a hospital and the Ukrainian Anticorruption Bureau was not able to deliver the notice as they were stopped by a duty nurse. She said those were not the visitation hours at the time :D

http://112.ua/obshchestvo/pravoohraniteli-ne-smogli-popast-na-territorii-feofanii-chtoby-soobshhit-nasirovu-o-podozrenii-375478.html

286325.jpg

PS The article says they were able to get into the hospital premises after some time but does not say if they delivered the notice - probably the guy was healed miraculously and left the hospital :D Again, don't want to go no further - just had a good laugh this morning.

Edited by IMHO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...