Russian army under equipped?

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

What is a threat is NATO making Russia out to be a aggressive country that can invade at any time and holding large scale maneuvers solely against Russia and bringing relations to almost cold war levels.

Holy crap!  Are you SERIOUS?!?  So all those "snap exercises" that Russia has done since February 2014 were all about peace loving intentions?  Any one of those exercises is larger than anything NATO has done in 2 years.  Plus, NATO has not even once held a nuclear attack drill, but Russia has.

Answer me this... which country has done the following things in the last 2 years:

1.  Militarily invaded a neighboring country

2.  Took territory and annexed it directly without legal justification or true population consent or compensation to the country the land/infrastructure/business was taken from

3.  Created, funded, armed, directed, and took part in a fake "civil war" resulting in the displacement of about 1 million people and causing the deaths of probably upwards around 10,000 people

4.  Illegally seized border crossings and prevented meaningful international monitoring

5.  Sent fake "Humanitarian aid" convoys, loaded with weaponry, in defiance of international law and their own word of state

6.  Shot down a civilian airliner and killing nearly 300 civilians

7.  Flew a large number of provocative military flights along national air spaces, including nuclear capable bombers.  Sometimes with transponders turned off

8.  Buzzed a foreign naval vessel with aircraft against international law (i.e. the naval vessel could have legally shot down the aircraft)

9.  Kidnapped an officer of a foreign state on its sovereign territory, at gunpoint, then put him up on fake charges in court

10.  Wage a vicious propaganda war directly intended to destabilize its neighbors via minorities within those countries

11.  Has said in official statements that certain neighboring countries have no right to exist and could be conquered within days if it wanted to

12.  Has conducted multiple massive military exercises including with nuclear forces

13.  Has said it will position 3 divisions of forces along the border of nations that are now set to host a few battalions of new troops

14.  Has threatened two sovereign countries that if they should even think of strengthening their defenses that there will be "consequences"

15.  Is funding fascist and radical left political parties in countries that it claims it wants to have good relations with

16.  Conducted military strikes on the border of a country that is part of the group that is being targeted with all the above, and some of those strikes were allegedly over that country's sovereign airspace

17.  Claims to be an ally in a common war against terrorism but brought in surface to air missile systems even though the terrorists have no aircraft

And that's just off the top of my head.

So which country has done all this?  Russia, of course.  Everything NATO has done has been in response to the above, not the cause of it.

Russia is an aggressor state.  Which is a dangerous thing because it is also an autocratic state.  Worse, it is headed down the road of failed sate.  This is not a good combination even if it were not armed with nuclear weapons.

Steve

[VladimirTarasov]

1, Militarily invading a neighbor without a legal government to protect Russian interests.

2, Again a fair vote which majority of people in Crimea supported, ask the Crimean dude in the forum don't even mind me I have family living in Crimea I don't.

3, It is not a fake civil war, going to Donbass you will automatically realize it is a civil war.

4, What is this?

5, Until there is a picture of weapons in these convoys you have nothing against them, as they have indeed provided aid.

6, Russia did not shoot down an airliner, obviously the Russian armed forces can understand when a plane is flying at commercial airliner altitudes.

7, NATO routinely goes near our borders with ships and planes as well, not like anyone is dying or going to die because of this. 

8, Ship was a bit close, and just how the British navy tailed the Russian sub in internation waters, pilot maybe got too low  

9, Take me into greater detail of this one.

10, Sure what else

11, If this has been done, it is not right. Although, just a near by example, Donald Trump also says things like that and so does other officials in the U.S.

12, Done in Russian borders to increase readiness rates of whole military districts, NATO has a specific goal in these drills (against Russia)

13, Well they are Russian troops and it isn't from another country.

14, Maybe we should go more detailed in this one

15, If this is true, America has done such things in Syria, funding whole armed groups.

16, Yeah sure the Turkish F-16 was able to target aquire and hit the Russian plane in the 7 seconds it was in Turkish airspace  what else?

17, If a certain country did not shoot down a Russian plane, there would have not been such air defenses. Although this is good, now we have a better presence in the region.

Steve, Honestly I hope politics doesn't make you get personal against me, I don't have anything against you I enjoy your games  

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I've talked about it numerous times, with a bunch of people, Russia does support the DPR/LPR armies against Ukraine. Yes I agree, but it did not start the rebellion the people of the east do not support this new government that was thrown in out of no where NO MATTER what you say you do know that a violent riot which killed and injured dozens of people kicked the government out, without the say of any other regions. If the Ukraine will abuse the Russian and Ukrainian peoples (which I view as one in fact I am of Ukrainian descent if we look at it) then Russia will of course support Russian/Ukrainian groups rebelling. If Ukraine did not launch this ATO not one life would have been lost, it is not like the people of Donbass are invading themselves. I support Russia helping Donbass armies, be it arming them or training them. If it was not for this violent and savage overthrow of the government, Crimea would still be Ukrainian, no civil war would have started. Of course you may disagree.

Of course I disagree because what you described is the Kremlin created myth which no facts support.  Here are the facts:

1.  The Yanukovych government was massively corrupt and autocratic.  Average Ukrainians were tired of this and so they pressured the Ukrainian government to move alignment away from Russia (which sponsored and partnered in the corruption to a large extent) and towards the West.  The believed some sort of deal with the EU would produce positive change politically and economically within Ukraine.

2.  Russia baked Yanukovych to the hilt.  in fact, it made things worse by pressuring Yanukovych to disobey the will of the Ukrainian people to work closer with the EU.  This was one thing too many and millions of Ukrainians took part in the protests known as Maidan.

3.  Yanukovych, or perhaps Russia (Yanukovych himself hints it was Russia), ordered a military crackdown on the Maidan and the result was 100 dead.  That in turn caused an even larger reaction against Yanukovych's government.

4.  On February 21st Yanukovych figured out that his security apparatus had fallen apart and that he was no longer able to control people by force.  He fled to Russia. 

5.  One the 22nd Ukraine recognized that there was no longer a President so they appointed a temporary one.  There was NO bloodshed at this stage.

6.  Later on the 22nd of February Putin ordered the invasion of Crimea to start.  This was coordinated with the remains of the Yanukovych regime and the network of criminal agents in Crimea that had been bought and paid for over many years.

7.  Tens of thousands of Russian forces were brought to the border of Ukraine starting on February 22nd.  Supposedly for "snap drills", but obvious that was just a cover story as these forces have been in Rostov ever since.

8.  Without any provocation or indication that violence was even a remote possibility, Russia started its invasion of Crimea with "Green Men" coming into play several days later.

9.  Russian forces, both Green Men and local hired thugs, tried to incite the Ukrainian military in Crimea to violence.  This failed because the Kiev government knew this is what Russia wanted so it could invade openly and probably in more places than Crimea.  So Russia had to switch tactics.

10.  As Russia consolidated control over Crimea it bussed in THOUSANDS of Russian citizens to march and riot in cities like Odessa, Kharkiv, Mariupol, Donetsk, and Luhansk.  These were highly organized and well funded activities that were definitely sanctioned by the Russian government because Russian border control did nothing to stop them.  This is when the violence in non-Crimean Ukraine started.  Evidence clearly shows that the Russian "tourists" were causing the violence.  Ukraine responded by banning large groups of Russian "tourists" from entering the country, which did calm things down.

11.  All the while Russian propaganda cranked up its anti-Ukrainian, anti-Western lies.  This included loads of fake stories of Russian discrimination and other crap.  Actors and actresses were paid to make false statements and claims.  These were done so poorly that they used the same actors and actresses in different cities using different names.  Pitiful.

12.  The infamous Odessa fire was a result of Russian sponsored attacks against Ukrainian peace marchers, including one known Odessan criminal boss using an AK.  This resulted in several Ukrainian deaths and that is what directly led to the attack against the pro-Russian groups.  This is a fact that is extremely well documented and never mentioned by Russians when they talk about the tragedy of Odessa. 

13.  Armed groups, led by Girkin, came into eastern Ukraine after helping seize Crimea.  Most were Russian.  They linked up with Ukrainian criminal elements and quickly caused chaos.  Using fear, which the Russian media was creating 24/7, some average Ukrainians joined.

14.  Polls indicated that only a minority of the people in Donbas wanted to separate from Ukraine.  The much larger pro-Ukrainian rallies for support in the region proved this.  They were attacked by pro-Russian thugs on many occasions, causing a few deaths in the process.

15.  The obvious lack of local support caused the start of the usual things that thugs do... they started beating, killing, and torturing people that opposed their actions.

16.  Russia around this time said that it was going to insert "peace keepers" to restore calm and protect Russian speaking people.  For some reason Russia opposed any attempts by anybody else, UN and OSCE (which it is a member of both!) were specifically told to stay out.  Ukraine, however, told Russia that any "peace keepers" would be treated as an invasion so Putin called it off, even though there were vehicles with peace keeping logos already massing in Rostov.

17.  Things weren't going well for the Russian Federation citizens that were in control of a large part of the Donbas.  So they started picking fights with Ukrainian forces that were loyal to their country.  This resulted in several armed clashes, the first of which were the targeted assassination of SBU officers by "The Demon".  The next most serious was the murder of about 18 Ukrainian conscripts.

18.  Things got out of hand and a direct conflict started to get more serious.  Russia was already arming the "separatists" (the leaders were mostly Russian citizens) with all kinds of weapons, but soon started to move armored vehicles and anti-aircraft weapons into Ukraine.

19.  The Ukrainian summer offensive picked up steam and retook a large amount of the territory but increasingly found itself confronted by ever escalating Russian supplied weapons, including T-72s, artillery, and MANPADs. 

20.  When this wasn't enough Russian artillery bombarded Ukrainian forces from Russian soil and Ukrainian soil.  When that wasn't enough regular Russian forces started to operate in larger numbers within Ukraine.

21.  All the time the Russian propaganda machine went into overdrive, including the infamous fake crucified baby story, Right Sector atrocities that never happened, shellings of civilian areas by pro-Russian forces (and blaming it on Ukrainian), etc.  All the while Russia lied, lied, lied, and lied more about what it was doing.  Russia was still claiming it didn't invade Crimea at this point, so nobody believed them anyway.

22.  The Ukrainian offensive was on the verge of victory so Russia sent in a very large force of regular Russian military.  This included attacks directly from Russian soil.  It largely blunted the Ukrainian offensive, but didn't defeat it.

And so the war continues.

This war was manufactured, staffed, funded, and equipped by the Russian Federation's government, not the people of Donbas.  The ones that support Russia are merely pawns, not active participants.

If anybody doubts this then answer me this... if Russia did not supply weapons and personnel to fight the war in Donbas, would there be a war today?  No, because the only reason Ukraine didn't win in summer of 2014 is because Russian forces stopped them.  And where does all the ammunition, money, fuel, supplies, and equipment come from that is necessary to keep Ukraine from walking into Donbas and taking it over?  Russia.

Russia and Russia alone is responsible for this war.  Nobody else, not Ukraine and certainly not NATO.  Which is exactly why we were able to predict Russia's actions 5 years before Russia did any of this.  Russia might have Russians fooled, but we're not Russian.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

 

I don't know, what has NATO done to show the world that it is not aggressive? It's bombing records show otherwise, they love to "help" other countries in trouble. Countless of times supporting rebelling sides of conflicts, so when Russia is doing it automatically we are evil? I mean don't get me wrong, I would love for Russia and NATO countries to get along and I have many American and European friends, but if NATO thinks Russia is aggressive now because of Ukraine... Does that make America aggressive for supporting Syrian rebel groups? Or maybe launching a air campaign in Libya supporting a rebellion? Sure you can say Gadaffi was a dictator, but see how there was a rebellion because people didn't get to choose what happened in Kiev? So what makes Russia much more evil than NATO? 

No matter how many times these sorts of totally irrelevant, flawed, badly thought out counter attacks coming straight from Russian media get defeated by facts and logic, they keep coming back again.

Russia is behaving very badly.  Even if you believe NATO is bad, that is no excuse for Russia to behave worse. And by worse there is no instance of a NATO country invading a neighboring country and annexing its territory.

50 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Yeah what ever, I gave out the facts you can believe them or not.

No, you repeated crap that comes straight from Russian state controlled media.  That's not the same as a "fact".  Especially since Russian state controlled media is still saying that Russia has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine, just like it said it had nothing to do with those "self defense forces" in Crimea.

50 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

ou can watch videos of people being shelled and killed by Ukrainian artillery, and a bunch of support for the rebellion. Of course propaganda will have you think otherwise, now if you are saying that I'm contradicting myself how so? I don't deny Russian military presence in Ukraine,

For almost 2 years you did.  Like it or not, this calls into question your capabilities to determine fact from fiction.

50 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Although I also don't deny the the people of Donbass were killed by clumsy Ukrainian ATO aimed at killing people who don't want to be apart of a government they did not get a say in.

And the Russian citizens that started the war and even admitted to murdering Ukrainian citizens (Girkin just said so in an interview) had no part to play in the violence that followed?  How about all those Russian artillery shells and artillery pieces that it put into Ukraine?  Not a single shell killed a Ukrainian citizen?  I suppose not since according to Russian government and media Russia has not killed a single civilian in Syria.

50 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Of course you can twist this and say "No there are 30,000 active Russian soldiers in the Donbass armies very few of them are locals" but I'll tend to agree with a little bit of logic. (yes 30,000 active soldiers in Donbass army)

Donbas does not have an army.  There is a force of Russian and Ukrainian citizens fighting in Ukraine that was formed by Russians, trained by Russian Federation forces, supplied by Russian Federation forces, and paid for by Russian Federation money.  It can't do as much as blow its own nose without approval from Moscow.  Same goes for the smaller LPR "army".

This has never been a civil war, and it will never be.  It is a hybrid war fought by the Russian Federation against the independent state of Ukraine.  The war is being fought for the purposes of benefiting Moscow's ruling elite, not the Ukrainian people and definitely not the people of Donbas.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

1, Militarily invading a neighbor without a legal government to protect Russian interests.

False.  Russia violated international law and it's own treaty with Ukraine.  The so-called "illegal" government was, and still is, recognized by the vast majority of the world as legitimate.  Even the Russian government recognizes it as legitimate.  And Russia never tired to do anything other than invade, therefore it went right for the gun. 

Plus, if Russia was justified to do this... why did it lie to the whole world?  Even when everybody, but Russians, knew it was a lie?  If one is right to do something then one doesn't need to lie about it.

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

2, Again a fair vote which majority of people in Crimea supported, ask the Crimean dude in the forum don't even mind me I have family living in Crimea I don't.

First, Russia had no legal right to impose the referendum in the first place.  That makes it illegal no matter what.  Second, even Hitler's faked Anschluss with Austria had a "no" option.  Russia did not allow anybody to vote "no", which makes the referendum a joke.  Third, the referendum was held without ANY international observation.  In fact, observers were kicked out of Crimea at gunpoint.  In fact, anybody trying to sort things out was kept out of Crimea by gunpoint.  Fourth, there wasn't any time for discussion as the process was rushed through.  Fifth, pro-Ukrainians were routinely beaten while pro-Russians had elaborate and well funded multi-media gatherings.  Fifth, Russia did it's best to block all media and communications within Crimea except for Russian Federation sources.  Sixth, the referendum results were faked.  Even the Russian government accidentally published the real results.  Seventh, Russian citizens (i.e. NOT Ukrainians) were allowed to vote.  Eighth, there were eye witnesses to widespread ballot box stuffing.

That does seem to fit the Russian definition of a "fair vote", but nobody else thinks it is.

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

3, It is not a fake civil war, going to Donbass you will automatically realize it is a civil war.

No, it's a war.  And it's a war because Russia created it, armed it, funded it, directed it, and supported it with its military forces.  There would be NO WAR there now if Russia was not involved.  Unhappy Ukrainians of Russian ethnicity?  Perhaps, but we will never know because Russia did not allow for that possibility.

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

4, What is this?

Russia has sole control of the border between Ukraine and the occupied areas of Donbas.  It established this control very early in the conflict, including attacks coming from Russian soil.

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

5, Until there is a picture of weapons in these convoys you have nothing against them, as they have indeed provided aid.

Er, there are plenty of pictures and eye witness accounts from the DPR/LPR members.  Of course not in Russian media

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

6, Russia did not shoot down an airliner, obviously the Russian armed forces can understand when a plane is flying at commercial airliner altitudes.

All evidence indicates that a Russian BUK from a military base in Russia shot down MH-17.  They made a mistake, I am sure.  I do understand why you will not admit this now, but hopefully like Putin's lies about Crimea and Donbas combat action by Russian forces you will come to understand that Russia is directly and solely responsible for the deaths of all the people on MH-17.  Because that is the truth.

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

7, NATO routinely goes near our borders with ships and planes as well, not like anyone is dying or going to die because of this. 

You are wrong.  Before this mess started both NATO and Russia kept respectable distances from each others borders.  After this, Russia has routinely violated decades of practice.  NATO has not.

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

8, Ship was a bit close, and just how the British navy tailed the Russian sub in internation waters, pilot maybe got too low  

You are dodging the point and trying to distract with a totally irrelevant nonsense point (i.e. ALL nations follow each others submarines.  It's normal).  So where did a US warplane fly directly over a Russian warship in international waters?  Can you list even one example of such a provocation?

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

9, Take me into greater detail of this one.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/07/russia-parades-detained-estonian-police-officer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eston_Kohver

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

10, Sure what else

This is an offensive action, not that of someone that wants to be friends.  It is important.

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

11, If this has been done, it is not right. Although, just a near by example, Donald Trump also says things like that and so does other officials in the U.S.

Sure, idiot politicians say all kinds of idiot things.  But when it is the active head of state and members of the ruling government, that's different.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11106195/Putin-privately-threatened-to-invade-Poland-Romania-and-the-Baltic-states.html

http://www.newsweek.com/putin-sets-his-sights-baltic-states-353682

There's a lot more "read between the lines" statements made by Putin and other officials.  It's a pattern of behavior more than one specific statement.

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

12, Done in Russian borders to increase readiness rates of whole military districts, NATO has a specific goal in these drills (against Russia)

Hardly.  Drills in NATO countries are about multi-national cooperation which is used for things like peace keeping missions and (previously) ISAF.  However, it is true that now Russia is the primary focus.  That's because Russia is the ONLY threat to Europe.  So why should it train to defend against an attack from Venezuela?

And if you think all the drills Russia had over the last two years were NOT intended to send a message to NATO and Europe you really should not be having discussions like this.

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

13, Well they are Russian troops and it isn't from another country.

Why does the nationality matter?  They are there because they feel threatened by Russia.  And for every 1 soldier NATO has put into the Baltics Russia is (on paper at least) positioning many times that number.  Disproportional reaction to a situation it created in the first place.

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

14, Maybe we should go more detailed in this one

Do your own research on Russian government statements made over the last two years, especially the last month, to Finland and Sweden.

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

15, If this is true, America has done such things in Syria, funding whole armed groups.

It is true.  It is documented very thoroughly, especially in the last few years.  France's far right party was given $40m from Russia.  As for the US funding armed groups elsewhere, that is irrelevant to the question about European threat from Russia.

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

16, Yeah sure the Turkish F-16 was able to target aquire and hit the Russian plane in the 7 seconds it was in Turkish airspace  what else?

Since you apparently don't understand the circumstances, a lot else.  Russia was already warned not to do this sort of thing and it did it anyway.  I wonder... how do you think Russia would react if NATO were conducting military strikes along its border against groups it supported?  We can only guess because NATO does not do this.

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

17, If a certain country did not shoot down a Russian plane, there would have not been such air defenses. Although this is good, now we have a better presence in the region.

You have things out of order.  S-300 systems were put into place at least several weeks BEFORE the shoot down.  Get your facts straight.

12 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Steve, Honestly I hope politics doesn't make you get personal against me, I don't have anything against you I enjoy your games  

I don't have anything against you, but I do feel very sorry for Russians who believe that Russia is not the one directly responsible for all of this mess.  NATO is only reacting to Russia's aggression, not causing it.

OK, so we went point for point about why Russia is seen as an aggressor.  Can you make a similar list of things that NATO has done, that were not the direct result of Russian acts of aggression?

Steve

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

All evidence indicates that a Russian BUK from a military base in Russia shot down MH-17.  They made a mistake, I am sure.  I do understand why you will not admit this now, but hopefully like Putin's lies about Crimea and Donbas combat action by Russian forces you will come to understand that Russia is directly and solely responsible for the deaths of all the people on MH-17.  Because that is the truth.

https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/interviews/2015/07/27/interview-with-wowihay/

@VladimirTarasov that is one small, but vital part of the body of evidence that shows the missile was fired from a BUK launcher, brought from Russia, with a Russian crew, firing from Separatist controlled territory. 

It's photographic proof, multiple eyewitness statements, basic logic and verified by 3rd party,  external experts. 

Not a single professional member of the Ukrainian or Russian media or military involved, simply ordinary people using their cameras, phones, eyes and common sense to document a real event.

Everything is internally and externally consistent and verifiable. 

Deny this and you are literally denying reality -  real photos, real people,  real analysis.

Let's hear/see an alternative with an equivalent body if evidence.

 Please,  don't give a theory but provide a link to an equivalent,  NON GOVERNMENT,large and varied set of verifiable personal photos, eyewitness accounts, social media screen grabs,  radio intercepts and satellite imagery. 

Let's see it, c'mon.

 

P. S.  No evidence from the Russian,  Ukrainian or any other government. Every political system has its biases. 

Edited June 10, 2016 by kinophile

[Kinophile]

To play conspiracy theorist,  I do actually give some, A LITTLE credence to the idea of the BUK intending to shoot down an Aeroflot plane to justify a full invasion.

Putin is heavily tied to the Moscow apartment bombings so, for me,  it's not out of his realm to dismember his own men, women and children for political gain. 

Can anyone clatify/debunk this Aeroflot theory? 

To be clear, I actually properly believe that the BUK was honestly intended to clear Ukrainian military planes from the local air space.  Ie it had a real military purpose for being there,  rather than a conspiratorial one. It's the simplest answer. The link above mentions the Separatists fear of the UAF. 

But, nasty ****ty conspiracies do exist and are possible (witness the US gulf of tonkin incident).  And the domestic political gain for Putin would have been an immense surge of anger against the Ukraine, with nternational revulsion against the Ukraine as well as further messing up its delicate internal politics. These huge gains, primarily legitimizing a full Russian invasion with one act, would seem to justify such a conspiracy. 

I'd like to hear/see more info for either idea,  if anyone has something. 

Edited June 10, 2016 by kinophile

[John Kettler]

Steve,

You make so-called SMEs on the Ukrainian War look like blithering idiots! Your mastery of your topic and your in-depth, point by point responses are positively gasp inducing and highly informative to someone not steeped in this matter the way you have chosen to become. Wish we could have you on TV instead of the supposed experts. Then people might learn some truth for a change.

kinophile,

I thought I'd made a solid case the Russians supplied the Buk and crew; that the SAM which killed MH17 was brought into Ukrainian territory by GRU authority and under Russian proxy control at the request of a senior proxy official (defense minister, I believe). But what you've provided, of which I was unaware, finishes nailing down the coffin lid on the Russian and proxy force lies and shows, with unmistakable clarity, the searing truth of what happened, who did it, why and how. As they say in tennis: game, set, match!

All,

Russian Prime Minster Medvedev stepped in it big time when he revealed to a pensioner how dire is the state of Russia's economy. Quoth he "There is no money left, bye!" He said it last month, but the story exploded yesterday. It notes that most of Russia's economic troubles are the result of annexing Crimea and of fomenting the pro-Russian separatist crisis in Eastern Ukraine. The story was on CNBC but is apparently all over the place. Naturally, Putin is spinning this like a gyro at 30,000 rpm!

Regards,

John Kettler

[VladimirTarasov]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Of course I disagree because what you described is the Kremlin created myth which no facts support.  Here are the facts:

1.  The Yanukovych government was massively corrupt and autocratic.  Average Ukrainians were tired of this and so they pressured the Ukrainian government to move alignment away from Russia (which sponsored and partnered in the corruption to a large extent) and towards the West.  The believed some sort of deal with the EU would produce positive change politically and economically within Ukraine. 

Yanukovich had his share of Pro-EU as well, although his fatal decision to not bow to the EU deal did him in.

2.  Russia baked Yanukovych to the hilt.  in fact, it made things worse by pressuring Yanukovych to disobey the will of the Ukrainian people to work closer with the EU.  This was one thing too many and millions of Ukrainians took part in the protests known as Maidan.

Russia of course will politically force Ukraine to not go over join the EU and have better relations and deals with Russia, This is natural. Ukrainians are still not happy with the current government BTW. Economy is very low, and to fix itself will take a while. Corruption is still present, dead Ukrainian troops are marked as missing so families don't have to get paid compensation.

3.  Yanukovych, or perhaps Russia (Yanukovych himself hints it was Russia), ordered a military crackdown on the Maidan and the result was 100 dead.  That in turn caused an even larger reaction against Yanukovych's government. 

A military crack down over a violent riot it was far from a crackdown, In the US it would have been way bloodier if it were to happen. Which is the right thing to happen..

4.  On February 21st Yanukovych figured out that his security apparatus had fallen apart and that he was no longer able to control people by force.  He fled to Russia. 

Or maybe Kiev was in flames, and he had no control over the situation, either send the army to contain this riot or you know...

 

5.  One the 22nd Ukraine recognized that there was no longer a President so they appointed a temporary one.  There was NO bloodshed at this stage.

Appointed a temporary one? Or a quick puppet of the EU.

6.  Later on the 22nd of February Putin ordered the invasion of Crimea to start.  This was coordinated with the remains of the Yanukovych regime and the network of criminal agents in Crimea that had been bought and paid for over many years.

Think of it as making sure nothing happens to the referendum, Crimea did not join Russia right away. There was a process before voting started.

7.  Tens of thousands of Russian forces were brought to the border of Ukraine starting on February 22nd.  Supposedly for "snap drills", but obvious that was just a cover story as these forces have been in Rostov ever since.

Ok, and I don't see how at this stage this shows the Russian army effected Ukraine.

8.  Without any provocation or indication that violence was even a remote possibility, Russia started its invasion of Crimea with "Green Men" coming into play several days later.

A brilliant operation that blocked the Ukrainian government using force on referendum supporters, as well as securing interests. I mean if they didn't do that Crimea would be what happened in Donbass. And BTW a lot of Ukrainian servicemen defected.

9.  Russian forces, both Green Men and local hired thugs, tried to incite the Ukrainian military in Crimea to violence.  This failed because the Kiev government knew this is what Russia wanted so it could invade openly and probably in more places than Crimea.  So Russia had to switch tactics.

Bases were surrounding quite politely and taken over without any deaths any where. Video footage shows that Russian troops did not provoke any Ukrainian military men and quite calmly did their objectives.

10.  As Russia consolidated control over Crimea it bussed in THOUSANDS of Russian citizens to march and riot in cities like Odessa, Kharkiv, Mariupol, Donetsk, and Luhansk.  These were highly organized and well funded activities that were definitely sanctioned by the Russian government because Russian border control did nothing to stop them.  This is when the violence in non-Crimean Ukraine started.  Evidence clearly shows that the Russian "tourists" were causing the violence.  Ukraine responded by banning large groups of Russian "tourists" from entering the country, which did calm things down.

Bussed in thousands of Russian citizens? Well I'd understand if you said a few activist leaders I'd maybe say that could be viable.

11.  All the while Russian propaganda cranked up its anti-Ukrainian, anti-Western lies.  This included loads of fake stories of Russian discrimination and other crap.  Actors and actresses were paid to make false statements and claims.  These were done so poorly that they used the same actors and actresses in different cities using different names.  Pitiful.

Should it had let Ukraine and other countries media play instead? And indeed there was Russian discrimination among the new government formed. I mean what else explains all the right sector groups, and destruction of historical statues.

12.  The infamous Odessa fire was a result of Russian sponsored attacks against Ukrainian peace marchers, including one known Odessan criminal boss using an AK.  This resulted in several Ukrainian deaths and that is what directly led to the attack against the pro-Russian groups.  This is a fact that is extremely well documented and never mentioned by Russians when they talk about the tragedy of Odessa. 

Well....

13.  Armed groups, led by Girkin, came into eastern Ukraine after helping seize Crimea.  Most were Russian.  They linked up with Ukrainian criminal elements and quickly caused chaos.  Using fear, which the Russian media was creating 24/7, some average Ukrainians joined.

Obviously events like this helped Girkin's cause: Graphic footage of SU-25 hitting a civilain center indiscriminately.

14.  Polls indicated that only a minority of the people in Donbas wanted to separate from Ukraine.  The much larger pro-Ukrainian rallies for support in the region proved this.  They were attacked by pro-Russian thugs on many occasions, causing a few deaths in the process.

Of course, not everyone wanted to seperate from Ukraine but no one was happy about what was going on in Kiev. I know of people who hate both the DPR/LPR and the Ukrainian government. Although I don't know how trustable those polls are, as know one enjoyed Ukrainian artillery raining down on them.

15.  The obvious lack of local support caused the start of the usual things that thugs do... they started beating, killing, and torturing people that opposed their actions. 

Lack of support? I know of separatists wanting more men to join, but that doesn't show a lack of support for the cause. Because often times, people are scared to actually go and fight.

16.  Russia around this time said that it was going to insert "peace keepers" to restore calm and protect Russian speaking people.  For some reason Russia opposed any attempts by anybody else, UN and OSCE (which it is a member of both!) were specifically told to stay out.  Ukraine, however, told Russia that any "peace keepers" would be treated as an invasion so Putin called it off, even though there were vehicles with peace keeping logos already massing in Rostov.

And what? A preparation for a peace keeping operation being called off, not a big problem.

17.  Things weren't going well for the Russian Federation citizens that were in control of a large part of the Donbas.  So they started picking fights with Ukrainian forces that were loyal to their country.  This resulted in several armed clashes, the first of which were the targeted assassination of SBU officers by "The Demon".  The next most serious was the murder of about 18 Ukrainian conscripts.

I'm not familiar with these events.

18.  Things got out of hand and a direct conflict started to get more serious.  Russia was already arming the "separatists" (the leaders were mostly Russian citizens) with all kinds of weapons, but soon started to move armored vehicles and anti-aircraft weapons into Ukraine.

Of course there were Ukrainian soldiers (local military men) who defected. As well as military bases being raided and having the equipment taken. 

19.  The Ukrainian summer offensive picked up steam and retook a large amount of the territory but increasingly found itself confronted by ever escalating Russian supplied weapons, including T-72s, artillery, and MANPADs. 

Yes, this is where Russia decided it will commit to keeping the DPR/LPR alive.

20.  When this wasn't enough Russian artillery bombarded Ukrainian forces from Russian soil and Ukrainian soil.  When that wasn't enough regular Russian forces started to operate in larger numbers within Ukraine.

True, although only for a brief period.

21.  All the time the Russian propaganda machine went into overdrive, including the infamous fake crucified baby story, Right Sector atrocities that never happened, shellings of civilian areas by pro-Russian forces (and blaming it on Ukrainian), etc.  All the while Russia lied, lied, lied, and lied more about what it was doing.  Russia was still claiming it didn't invade Crimea at this point, so nobody believed them anyway.

Propaganda machines of all parties involved went into overdrive.

 

22.  The Ukrainian offensive was on the verge of victory so Russia sent in a very large force of regular Russian military.  This included attacks directly from Russian soil.  It largely blunted the Ukrainian offensive, but didn't defeat it.

It ultimately destroyed the Ukrainian offensive, and saved DPR/LPR from ceasing to exist.

 

My replies are in bold black I will reply to your other arguments when I am more free.

[VladimirTarasov]

7 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

Steve,

You make so-called SMEs on the Ukrainian War look like blithering idiots!

Quite true!

[BTR]

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Extremely flawed logic.  First, as has already been stated, the missile defense systems that the US has deployed in Europe, at the request of those countries, can not defend against a Russian nuclear strike.  Therefore, even if one accepts that Russia feels it is threatened then Russia is a wimp of titanic proportions.  Or it is overreacting knowing that is overreacting.  Take your pick, because the missile defense system is in no way, shape, or form a true threat.  Plus, as others have pointed out, Russia is the one threatening people with nuclear war.

Steve

 

Many things have been stated, the fact remains that an anti-ICBM system is now a lot closer to our borders then previously in our history. I don't buy claims that it cannot intercept ICMB's from Ru to US just as much as I wouldn't buy claims that it could. Besides, US isn't the only nuclear capable NATO member. Without knowing full specs and MO of these stations, any claim is a matter of opinion and perspective. A joint mission has been proposed before in a region that is non-threatening to either party, but alas, NATO wanted these stations precisely in eastern Europe. Now NATO complains that strategically significant facilities are on the probable target list for retaliatory strikes in countries that would otherwise be ignored. 

Edited June 10, 2016 by BTR

[Baneman]

8 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

... If the opposition waited for the elections in May 2014 and the Crimea would remain a part of Ukraine. But in eastern Ukraine would not be a war.

 

6 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

... If it was not for this violent and savage overthrow of the government, Crimea would still be Ukrainian, no civil war would have started. Of course you may disagree...

So both of you are saying that if the government of a neighbouring country falls, it's totally ok to just send in your troops and carve chunks off it ( ie. Crimea ) and/or foment a rebellion ( Donbas ) ?

[Baneman]

31 minutes ago, BTR said:

...an anti-ICBM system is now a lot closer to our borders then previously in our history. I don't buy claims that it cannot intercept ICMB's from Ru to US just as much as I wouldn't buy claims that it could. ... 

No one has to claim anything.

The laws of Physics prevent it. It doesn't get less propagandistic than that.

[BTR]

Fair enough, if you say so. Why have these stations there in the first place then? 

[TheVulture]

2 minutes ago, BTR said:

Fair enough, if you say so. Why have these stations there in the first place then? 

To intercept missiles from Iran or similar areas of the middle east. Or that is what is said. Personally, I have no real idea of the mechanics and limitations of ICBM interception, so can't judge the truth of that.

[BTR]

3 hours ago, TheVulture said:

To intercept missiles from Iran or similar areas of the middle east. Or that is what is said. Personally, I have no real idea of the mechanics and limitations of ICBM interception, so can't judge the truth of that.

There is this though:

[Sublime]

Kidnapping citizens and kidnapping them to Russia? Not just the Estonian how about the female Ukrainian pilot?

 

Kino Id debunk uour aeroflot idra simply because the Russians would know when an aeroflot plane was due to come

Edited June 10, 2016 by Sublime

[Kinophile]

No response Vlad? No data? No link? No contrary photos from Ukrainian territory showing a UKR BUK in the same region? No contrary eyewitness reports? Somehow I doubt UKR opsec is any better than the Russian so if a UKR launcher did fire then there should be all the equivalent data and info to show it. 

Where I grew up there was/is an army testing and exercise range. As locals we always knew when the Army was mounting something,  and usually what it was. That's just how country people are, it's so ****ing boring out there that we feed on news of anything new happening in the area like water to a thirsty horse :-) Curiosity born of boredom is insatiable,  and young guys will always photo and track impressive military hardware in their locality. 

So,  No evidence of Ukrainian involvement other than a ridiculously poorly faked "satellite" photo. 

@BTR personally I consider the Iran reason total bull****. For Iran to get that far would require a crazy leap in its technology, aggression,  political extremism, stupidity and economics. I suspect it's actually a fairly mundane reason -  domestic US politics, ie economics, ie jobs. The US economy is tightly tied to its technological edge, with the more complex and advanced a technology generating more and more stable jobs and thence votes, for a particular party or individual. It would be an interesting study to examine the decision process that led to this double installation under such a flimsy excuse.

I feel the systems are not Aimed at Russia per se, but are intended as:

1) Political reassurance to NATO

2) Proof of Technology Concept

3) Continuation of US  jobs and technology/industrial base

It's really about time for the US to come clean. 

Edited June 10, 2016 by kinophile

[sburke]

13 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Kino Id debunk uour aeroflot idra simply because the Russians would know when an aeroflot plane was due to come

You missed his point, the shooting down of the Aeroflot plane would have been intentional.  Just like the Moscow Apt buildings the FSB orchestrated to make sure Putin easily took power.  Whether there is anything to the Aeroflot theory, I have no idea but it would be consistent with actions Putin took previously and therefore nowhere near as far fetched as all the BS nonsense the Putinbots have splattered everywhere.

[Kinophile]

Certainly just as valid as a ground attack plane hunting down a civilian airliner.

But even so,  I'm not peddling this as a valid theory,  just... Curious. 

Edited June 10, 2016 by kinophile

[Sublime]

Sburke no i didnt miss his point. Sorry for bad typing on that one btw.

No my point was for a false flag attack on an aeroflot then the Russians would easily know the flight path of said aeroflot times altitude etc and probably would have hit an aeroflot if that was their intentions.

[Kinophile]

Ahhhhhhhhhh but the theory is that the two planes had similar paths,  and without plugging in directly into the regional ATC it would be easy to make a mistake. 

Edited June 10, 2016 by kinophile

[Sublime]

Fair nuff. But i still contend that a Russian false flag operation could easily have made sure a different altitude and flight path and even blame it on UKR AD threats that were 'known' this would allow a clear idea of what theyr were shooting at. Or hell its aeroflot and we.re talkin FSB why not just put a few pounds of plastique on the plane and arrest some Ukrainian terrorists? The Russ government hasnt had any compunction in kidnapping Ukr mil personnel to Russia having a show trial etc.

[AttorneyAtWar]

SM-3 currently has the capability of intercepting some ICBM's, I don't know if it could from where it is in Europe but at sea it does have that capability if its in the right place at the right time. What were most concerned about right now is intercepting Chinese Anti-ship BM's which is really what it was being rushed for If I'm not mistaken.*

*Obviously it wasn't put in Europe to stop Chinese anti-ship BM's

Edited June 10, 2016 by Raptorx7

[Peter Cairns]

As everyone else has gone loony toons I might as well join in.

Oddly enough round about the time that Crimea was annexed I was heavily involved in an Independence referendum here in Scotland, the procedure here was;

The SNP put calling a Referendum in the next Parliament in it's election Manifesto.

The SNP won a majority in a proportional Parliament in an open multi party system declared fair and free by a selection of UN, EU, Council of Europe and Independent NGO's

The SNP formed the devolved Scottish Government within the UK and announced it would call for the UK government to allow a Referendum on Independence and put this proposal to a vote in the Scottish Parliament where it was passed.

The UK Government that still controls Elections, but which opposed both Independence and a Referendum, accepted the SNP had a democratic mandate and legislated to allow a Referendum it didn't want.

There was an agreed Referendum date and a two year period to allow preparation and democratic debate.

The conduct of the campaign was overseen by the independent UK Electoral Commission that set and inforced rules, covering campaign groups, funding, media broadcasts, advertising and the role of both Governments.

The Scottish Government published it's White Paper on it's Independence proposal and preferred Question a year before the proposed election date. The Electoral Commission studied the proposed Question, cautioned that it could be perceived as pro Independence and suggested a change of  wording. The Scottish Government accepted the Electoral Commissions recommendation without question.

The referendum campaign was conducted peacefully with the most disturbing acts a Labour Politician kicking someone on the chin bone, someone throwing two Eggs at the Scottish Labour leader, some posters getting torn or stolen and some run of the mill, but still nasty twitter and Facebook Trolling!

The Referendum was held on the 14th of September 2014, 85% of the electorate voted and it was deemed free and fair by and even larger number of independent observers.

Unfortunately from my point of view the result was 55% to 45% to remain in the Uk and not to become an Independent Country!

The Scottish Government immediately accepted the result!

AND THAT'S HOW WE DO IT IN THE DEMOCRATIC WEST!

Peter.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Peter Cairns
spelling mistakes

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Sublime said:

Fair nuff. But i still contend that a Russian false flag operation could easily have made sure a different altitude and flight path and even blame it on UKR AD threats that were 'known' this would allow a clear idea of what theyr were shooting at. Or hell its aeroflot and we.re talkin FSB why not just put a few pounds of plastique on the plane and arrest some Ukrainian terrorists? The Russ government hasnt had any compunction in kidnapping Ukr mil personnel to Russia having a show trial etc.

Good point, thank you.

It would make more sense to put a Russian BUK in reasonably close locality to a known, operating UKR one, As far as I understand, UKR did not have any BUKs in that AO, or at least not within range.

A bomb would theoretically be easier but runs the risk of detection by Western security agencies.

Where as in a warzone maintained by Russia it would have more control over the operation from start to finish.

The biggest thing pointing against an Aeroflot conspiracy is the lack of any pre-made fabricated evidence. This indicates an unexpected event, thence not intended.