Russian army under equipped?

[Wicky]

"there are vastly more Tatars living in mainland Russia'

Not surprising after Stalin's Sürgünlik (In November 1989, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR recognized the deportation of the Crimean Tatars as a crime against humanity of the highest degree.)

The results of crimes are now excuses for further crimes - interesting how Russia digs itself into a deeper hole.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Wicky

[VladimirTarasov]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

There are almost NO similarities between Kosovo and Donbas, no matter how much propaganda the Kremlin tells you there is.  NONE:

1.  Kosovo was part of a REAL civil war that had been going on for many years.  Donbas was started by Russia right from the very start.  There certainly was no civil war prior to Russian invasion of Crimea.

2.  Kosovo was the result of a large number of nations getting together in the UN and trying to come up with solutions, both specific to this conflict and the civil war in general.  Russia did not consult with anybody about Crimea or Donbas.  NOT ONE COUNTRY.  It not only didn't bring this up in the UN, it actively vetoed any attempts by the UN, OSCE, or any other organization to stop the conflict.  In other words, Russia did 100% opposite of the West in Kosovo.

3.  The war in Kosovo was the result of hundreds of years of ethnic conflict.  There was a domestic rebellion that was supported, in part, by Albania (not the West) as they are ethnically the same.  There was no such conflict in Donbas.  The Ukrainian and Russian populations were integrated with each other (though not perfectly of course) and had not had open conflict with each other since the early 1950s.  There was absolutely no indication that an ethnic war was about to start.  In fact, the opposite was true.  Despite all the propaganda that came out of Russian media, before the Russian Federation thugs (not locals) came into Donbas (and even for the first month after) there were mass rallies in support of peace.  They were attacked by Russian Federation nationals over and over again.  Then Russia inserted the same thugs that helped take over Crimea into Donbas and supported them right to the present day.

4.  NATO became involved only after Yugoslavia began repeating the behavior of ethnic cleansing and genocide that it did in Croatia and B-H.  Because of this established track record from current times, not fearing for another episode of mass murder would have been foolish.  NATO acted to stop Yugoslavia from repeating its crimes.  Since Ukraine had no history of this sort of action, and there was no indication of it happening in Donbas, Russia had no similar justification for action.  In fact, Ukrainians were the ones with a better claim  of being victims because Russia had just invaded its territory and back in the early Soviet days murdered millions of Ukrainians.

5.  The NATO action was very short, very targeted, and ended with Yugoslavia signing a peace treaty which included provisions for Kosovo determining its own fate.  This was approved of by the UN under several resolutions.  The opposite is the case in Donbas because Russia refuses to allow anybody to be involved in this except Russia.  At best we have Minsk 1 and Minsk 2, both of which Russian has repeatedly violated and shown it has no intention of honoring.

6.  After nearly 8 YEARS of failed political negotiations, the Kosovo assembly (an internationally recognized governing body) declared independence.  Serbia challenged this in international court and the court found in favor of the assembly's decision.  Russia, on the other hand, tried to set up republics within the Donbas within a few weeks/months of the armed conflict that it started.  These "break away republics" have no international standing at all.  They have rejected all forms of outside monitoring and oversight.  As mentioned, Russia refuses to let anybody else have a say in what is going on within the Donbas.

In short... Kosovo was a legitimate break away from a repressive regime with a very recent history of mass murdering on a huge scale.  Donbas is a continuation of Russia's wars of aggression against its neighbors, in particular the war it started when it invaded Crimea.  Kosovo was largely settled politically with the involvement of the UN, Donbas is to this date being militarily determined by Russia and only Russia.

There is no similarity at all.

I was reffering to Crimea not Donbas, the civil war in Donbas is not relatable to the Yugoslavian civil war, where ethnic groups committed genocide against each other. Be it Serbians doing it (which they did) or Croatians doing it (which they did) NATO did a close to 80 day campaign in Yugoslavia, which supported the separation of many countries including Kosovo. In Crimea there was barely any blood spilled, and it was a fair election. But of course, we don't agree with each other that it was a fair election because you are saying observers were kicked out. They were not kicked out, OSCE refused to come because they weren't permitted too. UN observers couldn't come for the same reasons, they cancelled their trips. 1.2 million people voted to join the Russian federation and 32,000 voted to stay in Ukraine, 81% of people voted which 80% supported joining the Russian Federation, obviously if the people want this there is no law that can stop it. Laws are made by people, and if people want to do something it is totally up to them. The ballot had 2 questions: 1, Become a part of Russia. 2, Stay in Ukraine. It is obvious that the Crimean people on a large percentage agreed to joining the Russian Federation.

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Of course not.  But that was a very small part of the months of Maidan.  It is the part that Russian propaganda focuses on, of course.  Russian propaganda also doesn't focus on the brutality the police waged upon the peaceful Maidan supporters over many months.  Including kidnapping and murdering protestors.  In fact, I'm going to bet you didn't even know that this happened.

I also wont deny that Berkut used force, although obviously they were given a reason too. Although kidnapping and murders would fall into a whole other category, it could be SBU, it could be a false flag op, mafia related, another group that is very radical doing it. A lot of factors play into these issues, although this does not give people a right to throw Molotovs and use extreme violence to topple the government. 100 protestors did die, although atleast 15 Berkut police died, and around 70 of them wounded. And protestors did not die from Berkut only, out of no where a sniper opens up on crowds and even on police. Pro Russian media outlet RT was also fired upon, probably some lunatic with political disruption in mind. And even in these riots they clashed with themselves, right sector was the most violent among these groups. But of course, these rioters got what they want, threw on some guy that no one got to vote for. And then we have the mess that started in the East and South of the country. You can argue that Russia added fuel, but obviously people rebelled on their own. 

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Do not believe in coincidences.  Especially when looking at Russian government actions.  They are calculated and very, very deliberate.  The invasion for Crimea had been on paper since at least 2004 and in the months before the February change of power Russia had recognized that they could not stop the Maidan movement.  Therefore, wheels were put in motion to attack Ukraine months earlier.  Only the timing was undetermined.

Sorry Steve, I am not trying to be ignorant but the invasion for Crimea has been on paper since 2004? So basically a 10 year calculated plan? Russia must have started the EU riots, and toppled Yanukovich to do what it did in Ukraine as well.

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Meaningless.  Nobody disputes that the majority of Crimean people supported union with Russia.  The issue is about how it happened.  Russia illegally invaded, made an illegal and illegitimate referendum, and has not offered Ukraine compensation for all the Ukrainian infrastructure and businesses it now possesses.

Also, lots of Austrians were very happy to join with Nazi Germany.  And even Hitler allowed Austrians to vote "no" on the union, even if those no votes were not counted.

Russia law wise did indeed do what happened in Crimea illegally, although the referendum results were quite fair. It has not offered Ukraine compensation because Russia did not recognize the new government, and obviously Kosovo didn't pay Yugoslavia what it lost, nor did Bosnia, or Croatia. The ballot had 2 questions, offered in Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar language. Asking if they would like to stay in Ukraine or go into the Russian Federation. And obviously Ukraine does not own the industries in Crimea as a state, Communism is over. Although, Russia is holding Ukrainian navy ships in docks and still negotiating about them. But I don't think they'll be given back.

 

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Good, at least we can agree that deliberately targeting a civilian area with a pre-planned, calculated mission is a war crime.  Especially when using a munition type that is largely viewed as illegal by most of the rest of the world.

Now, how does this relate to a single pilot making a poor decision in the heat of the moment when trying to defend himself from being attacked by a Russian supplied anti-aircraft gun positioned on Ukrainian soil by the Russian government?

The SU-25 faced no danger from a ZSU-23 statically mounted as a defensive weapon, If the SU-25 was flying at above 2 kilometers he'd be perfectly safe. Even if he was flying at 500 meters the ZSU-23 poses no threat there are trees and buildings covering LOS. And the pilot was obviously strafing other places not a point target in the video. But yes, deliberately targeting a civilian area with a calculated mission is indeed a very bad war crime and must be punished.

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

You have no facts to support that statement

"Their children will hole up in basements" Obviously he's referring that his military is using force, to keep these children holed up. To force them to join the Ukraine they didn't get a say in. 

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Two problems:

1.  You did deny Russia's involvement for a long time.  This indicates that you have had difficulty sorting out fact from fiction.  You are understanding more of the facts now, but you are still clinging onto a basic lie... this was never a civil war.  It was a Russian government sponsored proxy war from the start.  Ukraine's military offensive happened only after many deaths caused to it by the militias.

2.  There was also never, ever going to be a true referendum in the Donbas without oversight by international organizations.  The Russian Federation made absolute sure of this, just like it did in Crimea.  Therefore, there was never a chance for the people of Donbas to have a say in their future.  Donbas' fate was determined in Moscow by probably less than a dozen people.

I'll be honest with you, patriotism played its part on me more so than me being able to determine fact from fiction. This was alway a civil war and it is obvious every where that majority of the forces are locals. The militias barely were having any successes until the Russian military came to help, they were thrown away from the airport in no time, and they were fighting a very lop sided battle. The ATO was in response to militias starting the voting process for Donbas to separate from Ukraine. Which I have no doubt Russia supported.

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

For most of the last 20 years there has been massive discrimination in Ukraine against about 1/2 of the country's populace.  Of that we agree.  However, the discrimination was mostly against the ethnic Ukrainians in favor of the ethnic Russians.  Evidence of this is easily found, starting with the Berkut that attacked Maidan supporters being from Crimea.  The Yanukovych regime was also from Donbas, not from Lvov.  I could go on and on with this, but the important point here is that Russia has always used the Russian ethnic groups in its neighbors as a weapon against the stability and control of the sovereign states they belong to.  Nothing different happening in Ukraine except that Russia failed to achieve a swift victory like it did in so many other places.

Steve, In Kharkiv Russians and Ukrainians were living perfectly together. In the east Russians and Ukrainians are living perfectly together, In Crimea Russians and Ukrainians are living perfectly together. You say that Russia orchestrated what happened in Odessa, yet over 46 pro-Russia protestors have been killed while way less pro-Ukrainian groups have been killed. What I'm trying to say is, Russian groups are being targeted by nationalists in Ukraine. 

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

If you disagree with this statement, then please explain to me why Russia will not allow anybody to stabilize the area in accordance with international law?

International law doesn't mean nothing when people are being targeted on mass, be it on "accident" or a tactic to force rebel elements to give up on the cause. Russia will keep supporting the DPR/LPR, if a 3rd assault by the Ukrainian armed forces takes place. For now, its an artillery duel over the borders. Hopefully it will not escalate further, because if it does it will be another tragic loss of life. The only way to stabilize the area, is if DPR/LPR are recognized. It is too late to even offer a re-election. Too many people have been killed.

[VladimirTarasov]

49 minutes ago, Wicky said:

"there are vastly more Tatars living in mainland Russia'

Not surprising after Stalin's Sürgünlik (In November 1989, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR recognized the deportation of the Crimean Tatars as a crime against humanity of the highest degree.)

The results of crimes are now excuses for further crimes - interesting how Russia digs itself into a deeper hole.

Yes Stalin did commit this crime, and he was condemned afterwards for it, and Tatars have been called back by Putin's government. I don't get how Russia is digging itself into a deeper hole, honestly you just gave me a head ache. If we go further back in history what the Tatars have done to Russians may far exceed what Stalin's regime did to them.

[sburke]

5 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Yes Stalin did commit this crime, and he was condemned afterwards for it, and Tatars have been called back by Putin's government. I don't get how Russia is digging itself into a deeper hole, honestly you just gave me a head ache. If we go further back in history what the Tatars have done to Russians may far exceed what Stalin's regime did to them.

It wasn't about who did what to whom.  It was about the vote in Crimea that you guys keep citing as you bowing to overwhelming support.  Support that you own gov't admitted wasn't there.  The Crimeans were just an example of a substantial part of the population adamantly opposed and yet they don't seem to show up in those figures anywhere.

[VladimirTarasov]

18 minutes ago, sburke said:

It wasn't about who did what to whom.  It was about the vote in Crimea that you guys keep citing as you bowing to overwhelming support.  Support that you own gov't admitted wasn't there.  The Crimeans were just an example of a substantial part of the population adamantly opposed and yet they don't seem to show up in those figures anywhere.

Sburke, your link from washington post doesn't debunk that a vast majority of Crimeans supported this transition. If what it said is true that only 15% of people voted in favor, then I mean obviously it is impractical that the Russian government could still be there, and still enjoy so much support, and people are all Russian citizens there now. So I don't see Crimea going back to Ukraine ever being a possibility. 

Edited June 11, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[sburke]

Just now, VladimirTarasov said:

Sburke, your link from washington post doesn't debunk that a vast majority of Crimeans supported this transition. If what it said is true that only 15% of people voted, than I mean obviously it is impractical that the Russian government could still be there, and still enjoy so much support, and people are all Russian citizens there now. So I don't see Crimea going back to Ukraine ever being a possibility. 

What the Russian gov't would leave if it didn't have support?  Really?  And that is based on what previous example that Russia has voluntarily ever left anything?  It was the Russian gov't that gave that figure so perhaps you could explain the discrepancy.  The obvious answer is the election and hype is all a fraud, but that never seems to go over well with the pro Russian position.

As to the article not debunking the Crimeans supporting the occupation.  Well first it debunked the statement that ALL Crimeans were overjoyed that would include the Tatar subset.  Secondly maybe this will clarify how the Tatars specifically felt.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-crimea-tatars-idUSBREA2S09320140329

As to Ukraine never regaining control, meh.  Maybe, maybe not.  personally I think Russia being attached to that economic sinkhole works better for Ukraine right now despite the political insult.   It also gives Ukraine grounds to sue in the int'l court for reparations.

Heck if it were my call I would have Ukraine cede all the occupied Donbass to Russia.  Make that mess Russia's issue.  I would then go directly to joining NATO as I would no longer have a civil issue deterring membership and I'd invite NATO to build as large a base as they want and have access to Odessa and I'd plant that NATO flag right on Russia's border with a 10X life size poster of Savchenko giving Russia the finger.  Not that I have any strong feelings on the issue.  

[VladimirTarasov]

9 minutes ago, sburke said:

What the Russian gov't would leave if it didn't have support?  Really?  And that is based on what previous example that Russia has voluntarily ever left anything?  It was the Russian gov't that gave that figure so perhaps you could explain the discrepancy.  The obvious answer is the election and hype is all a fraud, but that never seems to go over well with the pro Russian position.

As to the article not debunking the Crimeans supporting the occupation.  Well first it debunked the statement that ALL Crimeans were overjoyed that would include the Tatar subset.  Secondly maybe this will clarify how the Tatars specifically felt.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-crimea-tatars-idUSBREA2S09320140329

As to Ukraine never regaining control, meh.  Maybe, maybe not.  personally I think Russia being attached to that economic sinkhole works better for Ukraine right now despite the political insult.   It also gives Ukraine grounds to sue in the int'l court for reparations.

Heck if it were my call I would have Ukraine cede all the occupied Donbass to Russia.  Make that mess Russia's issue.  I would then go directly to joining NATO as I would no longer have a civil issue deterring membership and I'd invite NATO to build as large a base as they want and have access to Odessa and I'd plant that NATO flag right on Russia's border with a 10X life size poster of Savchenko giving Russia the finger.  Not that I have any strong feelings on the issue.  

I'm not going to argue you with you on the support of Crimeans of joining the Russian Federation. Although what you propose is honestly what should happen, it will put NATO bases even closer to Russian missile strikes. and you indeed do have strong feelings on the issue, are you of Ukrainian descent? If so I can be considered Ukrainian too. Maybe I am a traitor?  Also a life size poster of Savchenko flipping off Russia? What do you want the Russian border guards to post up a life size picture of Putin with the captions of "Crimea river" obviously if you have humor it is a joke for "Cry me a river"  

Edited June 11, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I was reffering to Crimea not Donbas,

So was I.  You said that the justification for Russian invading Crimea was the same as the NATO air bombardment of Kosovo.  The conditions for each action could not be more different.  NATO reluctantly got involved, Russia was looking for an excuse to get involved.  Kosovo is an independent state, Crimea was taken by Russia and made a part of it.

No similarities either for the beginning, nor the end.

Quote

In Crimea there was barely any blood spilled, and it was a fair election. But of course, we don't agree with each other that it was a fair election because you are saying observers were kicked out. They were not kicked out, OSCE refused to come because they weren't permitted too. UN observers couldn't come for the same reasons, they cancelled their trips.

You have absolutely none of this correct.

1.  OSCE refused to send election monitors because the referendum itself was illegal under international law.  Therefore it refused to take part in an illegal activity.  However, it is probable that Russia would not have allowed them to enter any way.

2.  Russia refused to allow OSCE military monitors into Crimea.  When OSCE observers attempted to enter Crimea they were shot at by "self defense forces" (i.e. Russian special forces, Russian created militias, and Crimean organized criminals) which the Russian Federation had 100% control over.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-osce-idUSBREA2K1J220140321

http://www.dw.com/en/warning-shots-block-osce-observers-from-entering-ukraines-crimea/a-17483413

2.  The UN angle never got off the ground because Russia moved to quickly and likely would have vetoed any attempt to "interfere" with the referendum.

3.  The referendum did not have an option for "no".  This makes the referendum invalid because how can you ask the entire population what they want and only give them one option (in three flavors)?

4.  Violence and fear was used to prevent any sort of honest discussion about whether it would be good to become part of Russia or not.  Any attempts by pro-Ukrainians to organize was squashed by force.  Pro-Russian activities, on the other hand, were everywhere. You can not have a true vote when one side has guns and the other side has nothing.  Not even observers.

5.  We also know that the results of the referendum were faked.  The numbers do not add up.  It is probable that about 65% of the Crimean population wanted to be a part of Russia, which is sufficient under some definitions.  Russia did not have a legitimate referendum because it didn't want even the slightest chance that there would be a vote to stay with Ukraine.  Plus, it wanted a clear "mandate" and having 65% would not be sufficient for that.

From February 22nd Crimeans had no choice in their future.

 

Quote

I also wont deny that Berkut used force, although obviously they were given a reason too. Although kidnapping and murders would fall into a whole other category, it could be SBU, it could be a false flag op, mafia related, another group that is very radical doing it. A lot of factors play into these issues, although this does not give people a right to throw Molotovs and use extreme violence to topple the government.

Actually, it does.  When a government rules through force and not through the rule of law it loses its legitimacy.  If the government will not change to the will of the people then force is a legitimate option.  Most nations that exist today are the result of violence.  The Soviet Union came after a long and bloody fight against the Tzar and then each other.  Modern Russia came about after bloodshed caused the collapse of the Soviet Union.  It also used bloody force to put down a challenge to its authority in 1993, not to mention the two very bloody Chechen Wars.

Quote

Sorry Steve, I am not trying to be ignorant but the invasion for Crimea has been on paper since 2004? So basically a 10 year calculated plan?

Yes.  All nations have "contingency plans" for important things, and Crimea is obviously very important to Russia.  If it did not have such plans the Russian government would be utterly incompetent.  They are not, so therefore there must have been plans in place.  That can be presumed without any other information.  But we do have other information.

The 2004 Orange Revolution came very close to making that happen, but Russia was able to corrupt the leadership enough to retain it.  However, Russian leadership was not stupid.  They saw that this only bought them some time, nothing more than that.  So they started planning, though I don't think they did very much until the 2010 presidential election crisis.  Again, Russia barely got what it wanted when Yanukovych was named Present.  One of the first things that happened was the extension of the Crimean lease from 2017 to 2042.

Although it is extremely unclear when Russia started setting up the infrastructure within Crimea to support an eventual invasion, it was without a doubt before Yanukovych fled to Russia.  Within hours of Yanukovych fleeing Kiev there was a "self defense force" in Crimea.  Even though the leadership was Russian (Girkin led the forces and he is GRU Colonel) and I am sure many foot soldiers were as well, there definitely was a large number of Ukrainians.  Before the crisis started the presence of armed groups within Crimea was already known. IIRC the estimate was there was about 2000+ armed and trained men outside of the control of the Ukrainian government.  It was these men and Berkut who paved the road for the Russian military invasion.

Quote

Russia must have started the EU riots, and toppled Yanukovich to do what it did in Ukraine as well.

Obviously Russia did everything it could to keep Yanukovych in power.  The facts seem to suggest that the assault on Maidan was a FSB led operation with FSB officers involved along with Berkut and Alpha.  What is less clear is if Russia did this to give it an excuse to invade Crimea or if Russia thought that it could break up Maidan by force.  Either way, Yanukovych claims (and I believe him) that he did not order the operation and either way we know what effect it had.

Quote

Russia law wise did indeed do what happened in Crimea illegally, although the referendum results were quite fair. It has not offered Ukraine compensation because Russia did not recognize the new government, and obviously Kosovo didn't pay Yugoslavia what it lost, nor did Bosnia, or Croatia.

The difference is Kosovo became independent, Crimea was invaded and annexed by a neighboring state.  Also, the country of Yugoslavia ceased to exist, so it makes sense that each state retained its own infrastructure.  When Czechoslovakia broke up they divided everything proportional to population (i.e. Slovakia did not pay Czech Republic).  This is not the case with Crimea.  Crimea was "stolen" under international law and the Ukrainian state still exists.  Russia can claim no legitimacy without compensation.  And of course Ukraine would have to accept the payment and therefore the status of Crimea as Russian.

Quote

The ballot had 2 questions, offered in Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar language. Asking if they would like to stay in Ukraine or go into the Russian Federation.

What referendum are you referring to?  The actual one presented in Crimea offered the option to become a part of Russia or to be an independent state.  There should have been a third question which was to remain a part of Ukraine.  There was no such option.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26514797

 

Quote

And obviously Ukraine does not own the industries in Crimea as a state, Communism is over.

Ukrainian private assets were seized by the same criminal gangs that rule Crimea now:

http://www.businessinsider.com/crimeas-new-russian-overlords-are-seizing-thousands-of-businesses-2014-12

There's plenty of documentation of Ukrainian citizen assets, and even ethnic Russian assets, being taken at gunpoint.

Quote

The SU-25 faced no danger from a ZSU-23 statically mounted as a defensive weapon, If the SU-25 was flying at above 2 kilometers he'd be perfectly safe. Even if he was flying at 500 meters the ZSU-23 poses no threat there are trees and buildings covering LOS. And the pilot was obviously strafing other places not a point target in the video.

IIRC they were striking forces entering Luhansk and were flying over the city as part of the bomb run.  In any case, the ZSU-23 was there and it appears the SU-25 was attempting to attack it.  This is not the "indiscriminat" attack that Russian propaganda turned it into.  Russian media doesn't seem to have a problem with Russian aircraft cluster bombing civilian areas in Syria, so obviously it has a double standard.

Quote

But yes, deliberately targeting a civilian area with a calculated mission is indeed a very bad war crime and must be punished.

According to Russian military and Russian media not a single Syrian citizen has been killed by Russian airstrikes.  Does that sound like there is any chance of the Russian military being held accountable for war crimes?

Quote

"Their children will hole up in basements" Obviously he's referring that his military is using force, to keep these children holed up. To force them to join the Ukraine they didn't get a say in. 

I did not interpret it that way.  To me it sounded like what he was saying is that DPR/LPR would collapse because it can not live forever in a state of war.  Which is true.

Anyway, trying to establish that the Ukrainian military has been deliberately targeting and killing civilians is an argument you will never win because it isn't true.  Plus, it still comes back to the fact that without Russia there would be no war.  Not now, not in 2014, and not any time between.

Quote

I'll be honest with you, patriotism played its part on me more so than me being able to determine fact from fiction. This was alway a civil war and it is obvious every where that majority of the forces are locals. The militias barely were having any successes until the Russian military came to help, they were thrown away from the airport in no time, and they were fighting a very lop sided battle. The ATO was in response to militias starting the voting process for Donbas to separate from Ukraine. Which I have no doubt Russia supported.

This was NEVER a civil war.  The military conflict started with a GRU Colonel (Girkin), who had just helped illegally seize Crimea, moved through Russian territory and entered Ukraine fully armed with about 50 operatives.  They linked up with organized crime elements and stormed police stations to get more weapons.  Further weapons, munitions, and money came in from Russia from various Russian ultranationalist groups.  Money also came from Ukrainian oligarchs who saw more to gain from joining up with Russia than facing the chance of losing their power with the new Kiev government.  This is what started the conflict, nothing else.  It was never a civil war.

Quote

Steve, In Kharkiv Russians and Ukrainians were living perfectly together. In the east Russians and Ukrainians are living perfectly together, In Crimea Russians and Ukrainians are living perfectly together. You say that Russia orchestrated what happened in Odessa, yet over 46 pro-Russia protestors have been killed while way less pro-Ukrainian groups have been killed. What I'm trying to say is, Russian groups are being targeted by nationalists in Ukraine. 

Again, that is the way Russian propaganda paints it.  In reality Russian citizens were in Ukraine to create problems.  This is documented and you don't seem to either accept or challenge this information.  Instead you ignore it.

As for Odessa, it was a tragedy for sure.  But do you know why the attack happened and the fire was set?  Because pro-Russian activists shot at pro-Ukrainian activists with an AK while being protected by the police.  Two pro-Ukrainians were killed as a result.

 

Quote

Six people died of gunshot wounds and many others were injured during disturbances in the city centre after the pro-unity march was attacked by anti-Maidan (and pro-Russian) activists. The first two people killed were Euromaidan activists and the news of those deaths was instrumental in turning the disturbances uncontrolled and violent. More weapons began being brought to the scene and the other four deaths were of anti-Maidan activists. A large number of people were injured, including police officers. A further 42 people – all anti-Maidan activists - died as a result of a fire in the Trade Union building on Kulikovo Pole. That fire was certainly caused by a Molotov cocktail, however these were being hurled by activists on both sides and specialists agree that there is no way of knowing whether the fatal incendiary device was thrown from outside the building, or from inside. There would have been far fewer casualties had the emergency services responded when the first reports of fire were received. The 40 minute delay was fatal.

 

Here's the point you are missing in all of this.  Russia was "stoking the violence" in a very, very deliberate way.  This is the Russian method established for many previous conflicts... stir up the pot, throw in some grenades, and watch for an excuse to use military force to "reestablish order".  Russia tried to do this in Ukraine on a large scale and eventually had to settle only for Donbas because it's activities, including the Trade Union tragedy, did not produce something good enough to invade.  Through its' media, through its government special services (FSB), through it's relationship with ultranationalist organizations, and eventually it's military.  This was never a civil war... it was always a war of aggression directed by the Kremlin.

 

Quote

International law doesn't mean nothing when people are being targeted on mass, be it on "accident" or a tactic to force rebel elements to give up on the cause. Russia will keep supporting the DPR/LPR, if a 3rd assault by the Ukrainian armed forces takes place. For now, its an artillery duel over the borders. Hopefully it will not escalate further, because if it does it will be another tragic loss of life. The only way to stabilize the area, is if DPR/LPR are recognized. It is too late to even offer a re-election. Too many people have been killed.

Russia does not support the DPR/LPR.  The DPR/LPR supports Russia.  As long as Russia is willing and able to keep this conflict going, it will.  There is no solution to this war until Russia changes its mind or can no longer sustain the war effort.

Steve

[Sublime]

Lmao vlad i will admit the crimea river is actually not a bad joke for a non native english speaker. Tho sburkes idea was awesome

Only problem.is i think if NATO announced they were bldg Rammstein AFB pt 2 in Ukr the Russ would "flip their sh*t"

[Kinophile]

And still no counter evidence to a Russian BUK shooting down a Dutch airliner and flinging women and children,  real vacationers  flying on holiday, across several Km2 to impact the ground at high speed. 

Btw,  it's quite probable many of those children were fully alive and aware as they fell.

Screaming. 

Into the ground. 

 

This kind of detail is why I consider Putin a piece of ****.

BTW I have the same opinion of Bush and Blair. It's not an anti-Russian thing,  it's an anti-Human Piece of **** thing. 

But hey he's given you an an imaginary enemy, no matter how empty and farcical it is as theatre. So he can do no wrong.

I'm done reading your state vomited garbage.

Edited June 11, 2016 by kinophile

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

55 minutes ago, kinophile said:

And still no counter evidence to a Russian BUK shooting down a Dutch airliner and flinging women and children,  real vacationers  flying on holiday, across several Km2 to impact the ground at high speed. 

Btw,  it's quite probable many of those children were fully alive and aware as they fell.

Screaming. 

Into the ground. 

 

This kind of detail is why I consider Putin a piece of ****.

BTW I have the same opinion of Bush and Blair. It's not an anti-Russian thing,  it's an anti-Human Piece of **** thing. 

But hey he's given you an an imaginary enemy, no matter how empty and farcical it is as theatre. So he can do no wrong.

I'm done reading your state vomited garbage.

I think I'm with kinophile, as much as I've participated enthusiastically in this sort of discussion before.  

I don't fear Russia.  I don't hate Russia.  I just lack all respect for it after the last few years.  The sheer stupid blind denials of realities that even violently anti-western groups accept from Russia is frankly galling.  I have seen for real honest holocaust deniers who have better wired positions than what I've seen presented here as "the Truth" from Russian posters.

The world isn't perfect.  No government or nation is innocent.  But broadly speaking we are all a community.  Increasingly over the decades while we still have our friction and tension, we have actually grown closer together. The world is still scary, but it is less of a lonely place.

The Russian state wants no part of this however.  And is content to try to breath life back into the skeleton that was once its empire.  Frankly I don't care what Russia does to Russians, (oh, excuse me, actual Russians, inside internationally recognized Russian.  If Russians in Eastern Europe are so fond of Putin perhaps he can take them back to the motherland), I'd just like it if their BUKs, cluster bombs, mercenaries, terrorists, and the like all stayed on their side of the international border they agreed to recognize.  There's nothing that has come out of Russia (or, at least, nothing the state did not try to suppress) that has made the world a genuinely better place in decades, and frankly I am no longer interested in hearing the baying of jackasses trying to convince me the Sudatenland cries for liberation again.

I'll obviously be kicking around to make fun of the Armata or talk GI about things, but I have nothing but contempt for the current Russian government and its actions, and I will fully support any efforts to keep Eastern Europe free of Russian tyranny,

Your country tried this before.  It only brought you to your knees.  Hopefully you and your countrymen catch on before your children eat the bitter fruit you are planting.   

[VladimirTarasov]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

You have absolutely none of this correct.

1.  OSCE refused to send election monitors because the referendum itself was illegal under international law.  Therefore it refused to take part in an illegal activity.  However, it is probable that Russia would not have allowed them to enter any way.

2.  Russia refused to allow OSCE military monitors into Crimea.  When OSCE observers attempted to enter Crimea they were shot at by "self defense forces" (i.e. Russian special forces, Russian created militias, and Crimean organized criminals) which the Russian Federation had 100% control over.

Your first point; that's what I said, under Ukrainian law the Crimean referendum was illegal, so OSCE monitors were not allowed (not permitted as I said)

Your second point; OSCE on March 10th was invited, and they did not come to monitor the results. So you'll send military monitors instead? 

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

3.  The referendum did not have an option for "no".  This makes the referendum invalid because how can you ask the entire population what they want and only give them one option (in three flavors)?

100% incorrect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014 go to the picture of the Ballot and next to it in english it says what the choices are.

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Actually, it does.  When a government rules through force and not through the rule of law it loses its legitimacy.  If the government will not change to the will of the people then force is a legitimate option.  Most nations that exist today are the result of violence.  The Soviet Union came after a long and bloody fight against the Tzar and then each other.  Modern Russia came about after bloodshed caused the collapse of the Soviet Union.  It also used bloody force to put down a challenge to its authority in 1993, not to mention the two very bloody Chechen Wars.

Sure yes if someone like the Tzar is starving the people, putting them through a war which killed hundreds of thousands for no reason, then you may have a revolt. But Yanukovich's only mistake was to appose the EU deal.

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Although it is extremely unclear when Russia started setting up the infrastructure within Crimea to support an eventual invasion, it was without a doubt before Yanukovych fled to Russia.  Within hours of Yanukovych fleeing Kiev there was a "self defense force" in Crimea.  Even though the leadership was Russian (Girkin led the forces and he is GRU Colonel) and I am sure many foot soldiers were as well, there definitely was a large number of Ukrainians.  Before the crisis started the presence of armed groups within Crimea was already known. IIRC the estimate was there was about 2000+ armed and trained men outside of the control of the Ukrainian government.  It was these men and Berkut who paved the road for the Russian military invasion.

Russia had a base it rented there with thousands of troops, I'm sure Yanukovich told Putin he will be fleeing to Russia, and that's when troops were given their objectives. Russia was allowed to have 25,000 troops, and 132 armored vehicles in Crimea. These units were the bulk that were used, so it was not Berkut who paved the road.

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The difference is Kosovo became independent, Crimea was invaded and annexed by a neighboring state.  Also, the country of Yugoslavia ceased to exist, so it makes sense that each state retained its own infrastructure.  When Czechoslovakia broke up they divided everything proportional to population (i.e. Slovakia did not pay Czech Republic).  This is not the case with Crimea.  Crimea was "stolen" under international law and the Ukrainian state still exists.  Russia can claim no legitimacy without compensation.  And of course Ukraine would have to accept the payment and therefore the status of Crimea as Russian.

I'll give you this one, but Russia isn't suing Ukraine over gas debt it has which is worth a lot of money, of course other then the usual threats too.

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

IIRC they were striking forces entering Luhansk and were flying over the city as part of the bomb run.  In any case, the ZSU-23 was there and it appears the SU-25 was attempting to attack it.  This is not the "indiscriminat" attack that Russian propaganda turned it into.  Russian media doesn't seem to have a problem with Russian aircraft cluster bombing civilian areas in Syria, so obviously it has a double standard.

People also turned their eyes when NATO was using DU and cluster munition in Iraq, Russian forces are striking areas where terrorists have been occupying for years. Of course I still don't think that one loss of innocent life is right, and if it happens I indeed feel sorry for the victims.

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

According to Russian military and Russian media not a single Syrian citizen has been killed by Russian airstrikes.  Does that sound like there is any chance of the Russian military being held accountable for war crimes?

Well its propaganda at work, obviously not intentionally citizens have been killed. US also hides the true figures of innocence killed from operations, how ever I'm 100% sure it isn't intentional as the US government has goals not psychotic blood thirsts. And I say this from sources of strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan, where innocents have been killed by air strikes. (not saying on purpose as the US uses precision weaponry way more than Russia can afford to)

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

This was NEVER a civil war.  The military conflict started with a GRU Colonel (Girkin), who had just helped illegally seize Crimea, moved through Russian territory and entered Ukraine fully armed with about 50 operatives.  They linked up with organized crime elements and stormed police stations to get more weapons.  Further weapons, munitions, and money came in from Russia from various Russian ultranationalist groups.  Money also came from Ukrainian oligarchs who saw more to gain from joining up with Russia than facing the chance of losing their power with the new Kiev government.  This is what started the conflict, nothing else.  It was never a civil war.

Steve, as this being your forum I appreciate the fact you let me argue on here, I know of other forums where you get instantly banned even though the moderators talk politics but with that out of the way, This is a very cloudy subject and I can provide links and evidence you'll consider them false. You'll provide links and evidence and I'll consider them false. Although yes Ukrainian oligarchs indeed supported the DPR/LPR but I'd think this because they were sympathetic, and also probably to gain some points from Russia. Rebels were also armed by oligarchs in Russia, who sent equipment and clothing directly from surplus shops. The Russian government of course also did arm them, train them, and advise them. I'm not denying that Russian volunteers, or Russian citizens were fighting in Donbas, although the Donbas army (I'm calling it an army you call them a terrorist organization) is around 30,000 active troops and a large reserve force. Which people have signed up for by the way.

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Again, that is the way Russian propaganda paints it.  In reality Russian citizens were in Ukraine to create problems.  This is documented and you don't seem to either accept or challenge this information.  Instead you ignore it.

As for Odessa, it was a tragedy for sure.  But do you know why the attack happened and the fire was set?  Because pro-Russian activists shot at pro-Ukrainian activists with an AK while being protected by the police.  Two pro-Ukrainians were killed as a result

There was an account of a guy leading the group that brought out an AK, and his claim was they were provoked by the opposing group which also had a weapon. Now who am I to believe here? I believe none because I'm sure the truth is in between. But if you are saying this justifies the killing of over 40 plus and injuring of way more I don't understand why you would. And this is why I ignore it, it's because my sources show me otherwise your sources show you otherwise. If I wont agree and you wont agree on mine I see no point in going on about it.

So Steve, I'd prefer talking about military related topics more so than politics. and once again I appreciate you letting me argue on here with you. Definitely can't wait till you release some modules for CMBS.  I am getting fatigued from political arguments on every military related forum I'm on, although arguments like this help me to see events less bias, and that is why they are good.

 

[VladimirTarasov]

2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

The Russian state wants no part of this however.  And is content to try to breath life back into the skeleton that was once its empire.  Frankly I don't care what Russia does to Russians, (oh, excuse me, actual Russians, inside internationally recognized Russian.  If Russians in Eastern Europe are so fond of Putin perhaps he can take them back to the motherland), I'd just like it if their BUKs, cluster bombs, mercenaries, terrorists, and the like all stayed on their side of the international border they agreed to recognize.  There's nothing that has come out of Russia (or, at least, nothing the state did not try to suppress) that has made the world a genuinely better place in decades, and frankly I am no longer interested in hearing the baying of jackasses trying to convince me the Sudatenland cries for liberation again.

I'll obviously be kicking around to make fun of the Armata or talk GI about things, but I have nothing but contempt for the current Russian government and its actions, and I will fully support any efforts to keep Eastern Europe free of Russian tyranny,

Your country tried this before.  It only brought you to your knees.  Hopefully you and your countrymen catch on before your children eat the bitter fruit you are planting.   

Russia is currently on the path of building itself, we are no Soviet Union anymore. Russia has greatly improved since the 1990s, and most of this is due to Putin. I myself can say I admire him, and am glad to have him as a president. Although, of course he is not an angel, but a politician with a set of goals in his mind. If you say that Russian arguments about Ukraine are less valid than denying the holocaust then I have no clue what to say.

As for us planting bitter fruit for our children, I don't think we are. If we will have to face sanctions and hatred to achieve goals of Russian interests so be it. We've survived as an ethnicity over hundreds of years, and we will continue to. However, I enjoy having "Western" friends and learning their culture and languages. And contrary to what the media shows, Russians and Europeans or Americans get along. And I'm glad politics have not done anything in that aspect.

[Sublime]

-walls begin shaking, a deep throated faraway rumbling is more felt than heard-

"He cant keep letting it ride like this! Its gonna explode! We cant keeep the thread open like this!"

" Damnit Steve! What are you doing?!?

---Anrgily the coal stoker stops to wipe his brow in the hell of the BFC forum steam room, shakes his fist at the sky and begins shovelling again ---

 

 

 

Ps Vlad maybe the US govt lowballs estimates on civilian casualties but we do say "yeah hey some civilians were killed by us. We.re truly sorry and heres x." Not "Russia Stronk! Hit 100 Percentile Targetage With No Dead Women Or Children With Guns!" Theres a real difference in even acknowledging you.ve killed even one citizen by mistake is a hundred billion times better than the " we have killed any civilians!" line which is such laughable bull that its insulting to be told.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Sublime

[VladimirTarasov]

3 hours ago, kinophile said:

And still no counter evidence to a Russian BUK shooting down a Dutch airliner and flinging women and children,  real vacationers  flying on holiday, across several Km2 to impact the ground at high speed. 

Btw,  it's quite probable many of those children were fully alive and aware as they fell.

Screaming. 

Into the ground. 

 

This kind of detail is why I consider Putin a piece of ****.

BTW I have the same opinion of Bush and Blair. It's not an anti-Russian thing,  it's an anti-Human Piece of **** thing. 

But hey he's given you an an imaginary enemy, no matter how empty and farcical it is as theatre. So he can do no wrong.

I'm done reading your state vomited garbage.

Kinophile let's be honest here, there are 3 plausible causes for this downing,

1. Separatist crew without being attached to any Russian Military units shot this down assuming it was a Ukrainian military aircraft.

2. Ukraine downed it to blame separatists.

3. A Russian battery with access to Russian command in order to receive the order to shoot it down did it.

Now from common sense, the 1st one makes the most sense out of it. This does not make the Russian military responsible for it if it is true. There were also Ukrainian air defense battalions near the area as well. And Russian military AD was near by as well, although I'm not sure if there were BUK units near enough to bring it down it is still possible. No matter all the links you show me there will always be a cloud around the incident. And take my word on it, if the Separatists did down it I will condemn them same as anyone else, for taking out a plane at that altitude flying at high speed toward the Russian border. But this will not change the fact that the Ukrainian military has committed murder in Donbas, be it accidental or not there have been a very large amount of people killed by their actions. And that is not to say Separatists have not but there's is far less, as they were mostly on the defensive, and according to them against a government they didn't get a say in. And most people I've seen from Donetsk (be it on video or person) agree with the cause. And then there are whole peoples who don't want any of it to happen, which support neither side. I was watching a Vice video (which I don't anymore because I'm annoyed with some guy named Simon on there ) when the Separatists take the town she supports them, when the Ukrainians take the town she supports them. And in most cases this is what is happening in Donbas.

[Kinophile]

4 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Kinophile let's be honest here, there are 3 plausible causes for this downing,

1. Separatist crew without being attached to any Russian Military units shot this down assuming it was a Ukrainian military aircraft.

2. Ukraine downed it to blame separatists.

3. A Russian battery with access to Russian command in order to receive the order to shoot it down did it.

Now from common sense, the 1st one makes the most sense out of it. This does not make the Russian military responsible for it if it is true. There were also Ukrainian air defense battalions near the area as well. And Russian military AD was near by as well, although I'm not sure if there were BUK units near enough to bring it down it is still possible. No matter all the links you show me there will always be a cloud around the incident. And take my word on it, if the Separatists did down it I will condemn them same as anyone else, for taking out a plane at that altitude flying at high speed toward the Russian border. But this will not change the fact that the Ukrainian military has committed murder in Donbas, be it accidental or not there have been a very large amount of people killed by their actions. And that is not to say Separatists have not but there's is far less, as they were mostly on the defensive, and according to them against a government they didn't get a say in. And most people I've seen from Donetsk (be it on video or person) agree with the cause. And then there are whole peoples who don't want any of it to happen, which support neither side. I was watching a Vice video (which I don't anymore because I'm annoyed with some guy named Simon on there ) when the Separatists take the town she supports them, when the Ukrainians take the town she supports them. And in most cases this is what is happening in Donbas.

You assume I give a damn anymore about what you say on this subject.

Done done and done.

 

Edited June 12, 2016 by kinophile

[VladimirTarasov]

6 minutes ago, kinophile said:

You assume I give a damn anymore about what you say on this subject.

Done done and done.

 

Well okay... no harsh feelings.

[Sublime]

Or 4.  A Russian crew on a Russian Buk site excited being near the front for the first time or maybe drunk or maybe kust dumb see an aircraft screaming towards them at high altitude on radar. " Its the US Navy SEALs we were told had overthrown the govt! Theyre coming for Sir Putler! Fire!"

And unfortunately then you have terrible things that happen like this. This whole mess is why playing around with armies and weapons like life is a game is an awful business.

[VladimirTarasov]

1 minute ago, Sublime said:

Or 4.  A Russian crew on a Russian Buk site excited being near the front for the first time or maybe drunk or maybe kust dumb see an aircraft screaming towards them at high altitude on radar. " Its the US Navy SEALs we were told had overthrown the govt! Theyre coming for Sir Putler! Fire!"

And unfortunately then you have terrible things that happen like this. This whole mess is why playing around with armies and weapons like life is a game is an awful business.

God forgive but that made me spill water on my laptop... But seriously, I hope God eases the pain of the families of the victims. I know what it is like to lose family, and it is horrible.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Your second point; OSCE on March 10th was invited, and they did not come to monitor the results. So you'll send military monitors instead? 

Better military monitors to document, and hopefully prevent, the armed thugs from preventing pro-Ukrainians to vote than to have no monitors at all.  But Russia wanted no monitors because it knew it's behavior was criminal and would continue to be criminal.  That is the ONLY reason to not have monitors.  Or do you know of a different reason to not have monitors?

The truth is Russia agreed to a deal to have Ukraine's conflict monitored by OSCE.  It is the agreement that has OSCE members in Donbas right now.  The problem was after the deal was made Russia stated that Crimea was not part of the deal because, in Russia's eyes, it was already part of Russia and therefore not a part of Ukraine.  Even though the referendum had not happened!  When OSCE monitors attempted to enter Ukraine they were shot at.  Unarmed monitors of an organization Russia belongs to.  You don't see that as a problem?

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

100% incorrect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014 go to the picture of the Ballot and next to it in english it says what the choices are.

I see the choices and the translations.  Option 1 = join Russia, Option 2 = leave Ukraine.  Where is Option 3 = stay with Ukraine?  It is not there, is it?

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Sure yes if someone like the Tzar is starving the people, putting them through a war which killed hundreds of thousands for no reason, then you may have a revolt. But Yanukovich's only mistake was to appose the EU deal.

You're kidding, right?  Have you seen his mansion and the corruption of his regime?  Have you read anything about the Ukrainian judicial system at the time?  The reason Ukrainians wanted more ties with the West was to get rid of the corruption and physical abuse.  When Yanukovych rejected this path he left Ukrainians with no option.  But then again you are happy to live in a corrupt dictatorship, so I think we will just have to disagree on this point.  However, Ukraine's people are the ones to decide this, not Russian.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Russia had a base it rented there with thousands of troops, I'm sure Yanukovich told Putin he will be fleeing to Russia, and that's when troops were given their objectives. Russia was allowed to have 25,000 troops, and 132 armored vehicles in Crimea. These units were the bulk that were used, so it was not Berkut who paved the road.

You are again exposing your ignorance of what happened.  Berkut and "self defense forces" (including Russian special forces) blocked the land access to the mainland, cut off communications, and seized the airport in Simferopol before VDV forces landed.  They also took over the Parliament building and kicked out the elected government, which is something Russians seem to think is a bad thing except for when it's in Crimea.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I'll give you this one, but Russia isn't suing Ukraine over gas debt it has which is worth a lot of money, of course other then the usual threats too.

Ukraine did offer to pay it back to some extent.  However, Russia refused to negotiate a restructuring like the West did.  What Russia is going to do now is uncertain.  Russia has not made any effort to negotiate paying Ukraine for taking Crimean property.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

People also turned their eyes when NATO was using DU and cluster munition in Iraq,

This is true and I agree with Human Rights groups that this type of munition should be banned.  However as far as I know there was no use of them over densely populated areas by US or British forces.  Russia seems to have used them on dense residential neighborhoods as well as open ground.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Russian forces are striking areas where terrorists have been occupying for years.

Civilian areas are still civilian areas when occupied by enemy forces.  Which is why they should not be attacked with weapons that are more likely to kill civilians than military targets.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Well its propaganda at work, obviously not intentionally citizens have been killed. US also hides the true figures of innocence killed from operations, how ever I'm 100% sure it isn't intentional as the US government has goals not psychotic blood thirsts. And I say this from sources of strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan, where innocents have been killed by air strikes. (not saying on purpose as the US uses precision weaponry way more than Russia can afford to)

Yes, for sure all nations downplay their forces causing civilian deaths.  In the free world this information gets out fairly quickly so they can't outright lie.  However, Russia denies causing ANY deaths while completely misrepresenting and fabricating stories about deaths caused by Ukrainian forces.  Of course Russia takes no responsibilities for Donbas at all because it denies it is there.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Steve, as this being your forum I appreciate the fact you let me argue on here, I know of other forums where you get instantly banned even though the moderators talk politics but with that out of the way, This is a very cloudy subject and I can provide links and evidence you'll consider them false.

Most of the details are cloudy, but the actions are not.  I spent 2-6 hours a day EVERY DAY watching the events in Ukraine unfold.  I looked at all sources of information, including the sudden appearance of very organized Novorussian "news" organizations. I know what I saw and Russia has lied about everything from the start.  It is still lying today.

Plus, you keep forgetting (or ignoring) that what Russia did in Donbas it has done in a dozen other places in almost identical ways.  In fact, Girkin and Bezler (among others) were directly responsible for many of those similar actions in the Caucuses and Transnistria.  Unlike you, as things started happening in Ukraine I was not surprised.  It was expected years before it happened because Russia likes to repeat itself.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

You'll provide links and evidence and I'll consider them false. Although yes Ukrainian oligarchs indeed supported the DPR/LPR but I'd think this because they were sympathetic, and also probably to gain some points from Russia. Rebels were also armed by oligarchs in Russia, who sent equipment and clothing directly from surplus shops. The Russian government of course also did arm them, train them, and advise them. I'm not denying that Russian volunteers, or Russian citizens were fighting in Donbas, although the Donbas army (I'm calling it an army you call them a terrorist organization) is around 30,000 active troops and a large reserve force. Which people have signed up for by the way.

I have not called the DPR/LPR a "terrorist force", though they fit the definition just as ISIS does (ISIS is also large, organized, and people have signed up for).

Plus, you are already admitting to the basic facts... there would be NO WAR in Donbas if it were not for the Russian government.  Not only arms and munitions, but also supplying military forces.  Including "volunteers".

Did you know that according to Russian law it is illegal to fight in a foreign conflict?  So technically every Russian who fought in Donbas is a criminal according to Russian law.  How many of them have been arrested?  Zero.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

There was an account of a guy leading the group that brought out an AK, and his claim was they were provoked by the opposing group which also had a weapon. Now who am I to believe here? I believe none because I'm sure the truth is in between. But if you are saying this justifies the killing of over 40 plus and injuring of way more I don't understand why you would. And this is why I ignore it, it's because my sources show me otherwise your sources show you otherwise. If I wont agree and you wont agree on mine I see no point in going on about it.

No, the killings were not justified.  I am saying the "oh, the poor innocent pro-Russians were murdered by the blood thirsty Ukrainians" is a total lie.  The pro-Russians drew first blood.  And if you were watching events as closely as I was you would have seen "Boatsman" shooting his AK at Ukrainians before the fire happened.  Meaning, the evidence was not faked after.  There's video of him shooting people and the deaths of the people he shot are documented.

Again, the fact is that the unrest in Ukraine was created by Russia and made worse by Russian media.  It was part of a deliberate act of the Russian government to destabilize Ukraine, not to protect ethnic Russian civilians.  It was never a civil war, always a war of aggression.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

So Steve, I'd prefer talking about military related topics more so than politics. and once again I appreciate you letting me argue on here with you. Definitely can't wait till you release some modules for CMBS.  I am getting fatigued from political arguments on every military related forum I'm on, although arguments like this help me to see events less bias, and that is why they are good.

Yes, I am done with this as well.  I will give you the last word if you like, but I want to emphasize the primary point:

Russia is waging a war of aggression on Ukraine.  This never was and still is not a civil war.  The Russian state sponsored killing in Donbas will continue until Russia determines it is not in Russia's interests to keep it going.  The interests of Ukrainians (even the pro-Russian ones) has never, and will never, be a consideration for Kremlin strategy.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I think I'm with kinophile, as much as I've participated enthusiastically in this sort of discussion before.  

I don't fear Russia.  I don't hate Russia.  I just lack all respect for it after the last few years.  The sheer stupid blind denials of realities that even violently anti-western groups accept from Russia is frankly galling.  I have seen for real honest holocaust deniers who have better wired positions than what I've seen presented here as "the Truth" from Russian posters.

I can understand where Vladimir is coming from.  I think he is a good person and has similar beliefs about right and wrong as do you and I.  Which is why he can not bring himself to admit that his country is ruled by a dictator waging a murderous war of aggression against a nation that he has a personal tie to.  He's already had to change his view that the Russian government and military was not involved at all, but he is doggedly clinging to the lie that this is a civil war.  Because if he admits it isn't a civil war then, by default, he has to admit that his government is murdering and destroying a place where he has family and friends.  I can understand that being difficult to do.

Quote

Your country tried this before.  It only brought you to your knees.  Hopefully you and your countrymen catch on before your children eat the bitter fruit you are planting.   

Sadly, I think Russia has passed the point of no return.  At best if it quits the war in Donbas AND oil prices shoot up then maybe in 10-15 years it can be back to where it was 3-4 years ago.  That's best case scenario.  Most likely scenario (historically speaking) is the death of the Russian state as we know it.  This outcome does not make me happy, it makes me very sad.  It will be very messy and it will spill over into Europe and therefore US.

Steve

[kraze]

On 09.06.2016 at 10:31 PM, Battlefront.com said:

In defense of the average Russian, the ability to not recognize the plain truth is a result of almost 100 years of psychological warfare by the state against its people.  Critical thinking has been actively discouraged as a state policy of the Soviet Union and the former republics that still walk that path (Russia is not alone).  This is compounded by deliberate efforts to confuse people into not knowing what is and isn't real.  That is greatly aided by the fact that most Russians only get their news from state controlled media, which is not truthful.

Let's also not forget that some people are beyond logic and reason no matter what system of government and culture they grew up with.  A glance at the US Presidential contest clearly shows that ignorance and illogical beliefs are not unique to Russia.

I'm considering that too, but then again - even some people on this here forum know their military tech well and know its origins and still keep blindly asking for more proof despite even russian-state controlled media constantly doing slips showing russian T72B3 tanks driven by asians, marines at DAP, and even a russian general commanding troops at Debaltsevo?

I mean I would be optimistic if it was any other place where an average guy wouldn't know how to tell SosnaU and AK-100.

Of course another case can be that they indeed realize the truth, it's just that living every day and knowing that your army invaded another country and murders ukrainians daily while every guy ruling you supports that - is much tougher than just closing your eyes and believing that evil Obama (replace with whoever in a few months) is murdering poor russian speaking miners on a 5% of a territory of a country where half of population speaks russian (while not touching the rest) using nazis suddenly teleported straight from '39. But that does not make my point any less valid.

[kraze]

15 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I also wont deny that Berkut used force, although obviously they were given a reason too. Although kidnapping and murders would fall into a whole other category, it could be SBU, it could be a false flag op, mafia related, another group that is very radical doing it. A lot of factors play into these issues, although this does not give people a right to throw Molotovs and use extreme violence to topple the government. 100 protestors did die, although atleast 15 Berkut police died, and around 70 of them wounded. And protestors did not die from Berkut only, out of no where a sniper opens up on crowds and even on police.

Good thing you forgot to mention that before snipers "suddenly" opened fire there were a few dozen berkuts gunning down protesters using AKs, while the less armed guys were retreating. But hey that does not fit into the nice picture of russia stronk, saving the day.

Clearly state police murdering a hundred protesters in one day and beating up, kidnapping them and destroying property 2 months before the first molotov cocktail was even thrown is not enough to consider government non-legit. I mean in a country where every single police commander, every single big judge was put into his place by yanukovich & co, replacing anyone who was there before 2010 that totally was "false flag" haha.

Edited June 12, 2016 by kraze

[Sublime]

Or maybe Peaky Blinders answered it in season 3. Tommy asks the Russian agent women "wtf is wrong with you russians? Why are you guys playing all these f'd up weird games?"

She replies "I think in Russia we were bored and now we.re here and we dont know how to stop"

[Sgt Joch]

15 hours ago, kinophile said:

And still no counter evidence to a Russian BUK shooting down a Dutch airliner and flinging women and children,  real vacationers  flying on holiday, across several Km2 to impact the ground at high speed. 

Btw,  it's quite probable many of those children were fully alive and aware as they fell.

Screaming. 

Into the ground. 

 

This kind of detail is why I consider Putin a piece of ****.

BTW I have the same opinion of Bush and Blair. It's not an anti-Russian thing,  it's an anti-Human Piece of **** thing. 

But hey he's given you an an imaginary enemy, no matter how empty and farcical it is as theatre. So he can do no wrong.

I'm done reading your state vomited garbage.

A noble sentiment to be sure. Unfortunately civilians die in wars all the time. I doubt the women and children incinerated at Dresden or Hiroshima or the passengers of Iran Air 655 suffered any less.

What is happening in the Donbass is a tragedy, but on the canvas of the past century, it is a very minor conflict. 100,000+ civilians died in Iraq, 100,000+ have died in Syria, even the South Sudan civil war which no one ever talks about has resulted in at least 50,000+ civilian deaths.