Jump to content

Separatist push/Ukraine shove back


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, IMHO said:

Why do you think I put the link to say this was right? :) Quite the opposite, there's no chance Alawites could ever rule Sunnis.

My apologies for the knee-jerk reaction, as I've been conditioned by other forum members constantly resorting to 'whataboutism'.

16 minutes ago, IMHO said:

And they needed Chechens

I'm not on top of this. :huh:

18 minutes ago, IMHO said:

May be they did conspire :)

The way I see it there was a last minute deal brokered by Turkey that saved the defenders from senseless loss of life, though Turkey did of course have its own agenda in wanting to use more FSA fighters against ISIS and the YPG. Al-Nusra obviously made public its dissatisfaction with this deal with the assassination of the Russian ambassador. The guy in the video complains of Turkey refusing to give them a 'digger' - I think he means a 'mole' - to dig a 5 km. tunnel through the siege, but I can't see how it would have been feasible to hide such an operation from the RuAF. For all practical purposes, Aleppo fell the night the US election results came in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 880
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

you've been down this road before. I know folks want an update from Steve about the patch but in all likelihood comments like yours will draw his attention sooner.  He has a low tolerance for Russian

Russia definitely has ulterior motives in Ukraine. The Donbass has been so extensive that rebuilding/integrating it into Russia would be a huge economic drain on Russia. If they really wanted to "prot

16th March SMM OSCE UAV spotted Russian EW systems R-330Zh ("Zhytel") and newest "Tirada-2", which only in this year will go into service, but already succsessfully taken from "coal mine" on Donbas.

Posted Images

51 minutes ago, Machor said:

My apologies for the knee-jerk reaction, as I've been conditioned by other forum members constantly resorting to 'whataboutism'.

No offense taken :)

51 minutes ago, Machor said:

I'm not on top of this. :huh:

The guy on the video was very bitter that international conspiracy was to turn Aleppo from a Sunni city into a Shia one. In reality it would have been pretty disastrous for the prospects of coming to a kind of peace in future - had looked too much like a religious war. To address this Aleppo should be controlled by Sunnis - no Alawites and no Shia militia. One option is Sunni Kurds, but Turkey must have objected plus I'm not sure what are the relationships between Syrian Arab Sunnis and Kurd Sunnis. Another option is Syrian Turkoman / FSA-labeled groups but here Assad, Iran and Kurds must have objected. Assad and Iran don't like Turkey, for Kurds this will be the the end of their Eastern enclave - Turkoman and Syrian Sunni Arabs would have choked it plus again not sure Turkoman and Syrian Arabs are such good friends :) So Chechens come handy as they are Sunni but still can guarantee free passage of supplies to Western Kurds.

51 minutes ago, Machor said:

The way I see it there was a last minute deal brokered by Turkey...

Nope, right now everyone is dancing a very delicate dance - Russia, Turkey, Iran, Assad, Kurds. Assad is the least predictable though sometimes he's actively "motivated" in his unpredictability by Iranians that are using his unpredictability in their dealing with Turkey and Russia. He's and will be trying to carve out as much political future for himself and his family as possible though for Russia it's quite clear he'll need to go at some point of time. But Syrian Sunni Arabs are missing in the equation and they should come in a kind other that Al Qaeda / ISIS and their affiliates (taking the situation on the ground - the best that could be expected is they're renamed and promise to do no bad stuff anymore). So that's why it was so important to listen to grievances of Sunni Arabs and not to let Aleppo fall into Alawites / Shia hands.

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites

Georgia: an excerpt from the International Crisis Group report of November, 2004.

Politically Georgians and South Ossetians are divided by the former's claims to state territorial integrity and the latter's aspirations for national self-determination. President Saakashvili has made restoration of Georgia's territorial integrity his top priority. Following his highly symbolic inauguration oath at the grave of David IV in January 2004, he stated, "Georgia's territorial integrity is the goal of my life". He promised that South Ossetia and Abkhazia would be restored to Georgia before the presidential elections scheduled for 2009. Finding a solution to the South Ossetian issue is key for his credibility. Public opinion is unprepared to accept any solution that does not involve full reintegration of South Ossetia, and Saakashvili has done little to pave the way for any compromise.

ICG is a very respectable organization and hardly a tool of Russian propaganda but they saw these risks four years BEFORE the war broke out. And the timing is telling - Saakashvili promised to solve the problem by 2009 elections. He really tried to do it.

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2017 at 9:50 AM, DMS said:

They were living in the USSR with the great education, medicine, industry

False.

Life in the Soviet Union was not a socialist utopia and no amount of Pravda propaganda could change that. Poor quality ideologically tinted education, outdated medicinal practices (especially in dentistry), and USSR had pretty solid industry. 1/3 is still a failing grade.

On 2/6/2017 at 9:50 AM, DMS said:

They didn't vote for it,

False.

92% of people living on the Ukrainian SSR that voted, voted for Ukrainian independence. That is something called a 'landslide victory'. Where did you hear this drivel?

On 2/6/2017 at 9:50 AM, DMS said:

And than they were told that "In Ukraine all people must speak Ukrainian".

False.

Out of all the ill-informed things you said, that was one profoundly stupid statement. In Ukraine there is no obligation to speak Ukrainian unless you are a elected deputy speaking inside the parliament building. Literally like half the country speaks Russian. WTF are you actually talking about?

On 2/6/2017 at 9:50 AM, DMS said:

they didn't want it

False.

(see my second correction)

On 2/6/2017 at 9:50 AM, DMS said:

EU pushed them forward to get Ukrainian market.

False.

EU does not want Ukraine because it would lead to economic issues in the already fragile union. Besides, Ukraine cannot even join the EU. Also, Yanukovych was pro-EU before he got a little too greedy. There goes your 'Russia is innocent and not involved' conspiracy theory.

On 2/6/2017 at 9:50 AM, DMS said:

The root of that conflicts is unfair partition of the Soviet Union.

False.

The Russian government sanctioned and encouraged Ukrainian independence. The Ukrainian SSR gladly accepted Ukrainian independence. People residing on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR voted overwhelmingly for Ukrainian independence.

On 2/6/2017 at 9:50 AM, DMS said:

Local authorities didn't have a wisdom to agree with ethnical minorities, they demanded to obey.

False. 

Are you unaware that no one was "forced to obey" and the fact that the borders of Ukrainian SSR were created precisely with ethnic lines in mind (except for Crimea which was added by Khrushchev for logistical reasons, otherwise it would have been given to Crimean Tatars as apology for Stalin years or just given to Russian SFSR)?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically, don't believe what daddy Putin tells you (he has a tendency to lie).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2017 at 1:12 PM, DMS said:

Inequaty of the people by law is the most disquisting idea.

Ask Crimean Tatars about "inequality" and "law". :)

20 hours ago, DMS said:

But it is. There live Russian people, who speak Russian, who grew in Russian culture. You can't ignore it. Forced "ukrainization" - method of the first half of 20th century. It doesn't work.

Those 45% ethnic Russians arrived there in 1930s after genocide of Ukrainians by Stalin. Unlike "ukrainianization" Russification of minorities in the Soviet Union was an actual thing that had very real effects in Ukraine as I just mentioned. Again, no one is impeding on the rights of Ukrainian citizens in Donbass, you're pretending like Ukrainian government is there to "ukrainize" them. Russian state-owned media is convincing no one but you. Russian government lies are not a justification for Russian imperialism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Out of all the ill-informed things you said, that was one profoundly stupid statement. In Ukraine there is no obligation to speak Ukrainian unless you are a elected deputy speaking inside the parliament building. Literally like half the country speaks Russian. WTF are you actually talking about?

I suspect this is the root of the issue:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18725849

http://www.ibtimes.com/watch-your-tongue-language-controversy-one-fundamental-conflicts-ukraine-1559069

Not sure what the current position is.....Don't think it's worth killing each other over either way TBH. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I suspect this is the root of the issue:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18725849

http://www.ibtimes.com/watch-your-tongue-language-controversy-one-fundamental-conflicts-ukraine-1559069

Not sure what the current position is.....Don't think it's worth killing each other over either way TBH. 

My girlfriend's family says getting government forms in Russian (from Kharkiv Oblast) was immensely difficult even 10 years ago.  Oftentimes the forms would get, as they say, "lost" or delayed or were not available at all.  My read on this is that it's hardly a new issue and is pretty deep rooted from even Tsarist times.  She tells me Bulgakov writes about the Revolution that some Kievskites question who really speaks Ukrainian and whether anyone knows what it really is!  Language is a contentious issue in the region, regardless.

2 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Those 45% ethnic Russians arrived there in 1930s after genocide of Ukrainians by Stalin.

Regardless of the reason they're there (and many lived there before Stalin's time, just to say), barely anyone there is alive and actually moved there.  These people grew up and live in the area.  Isn't it an American ideal of your house is your home?  Manifest destiny and all that?  I mean, just because their fathers may have been placed there under different circumstances, they have no say in how their home works?  Same with the Tartars - it's a shame and is historically relevant, but why does something that happened, for example, a century ago discredit hundreds of thousands today?

3 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Life in the Soviet Union was not a socialist utopia and no amount of Pravda propaganda could change that. Poor quality ideologically tinted education, outdated medicinal practices (especially in dentistry), and USSR had pretty solid industry. 1/3 is still a failing grade.

Life in the West isn't a capitalist utopia either.  So what?  While I agree, medical care in the Eastern bloc had its problems, there's something you're missing.  In the USSR, people in Polevoy had access to medical care and education - something that they had never had before, and don't have now the USSR has collapsed.  There were a lot of problems in the USSR, and they definitely lagged behind in many areas, but it's almost a miracle they were able to provide social services on the scale that they did!

Sorry, it bothers me a little bit with this whole attitude that life in the Eastern Bloc was a life of groveling at the state as they feed you maggoty bread and force you to sing happy songs about cooperation.  It's not the dystopia George Orwell told you about...

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let's try to get this back on track or I'll have to shut the thread down.  I have no idea what the relevance is of who settled Donetsk has on this conflict any more than who settled Königsberg or who is now occupying it.  Also, the language and cultural issues are red herrings anyway.  One can not talk about how Russian speaking Ukrainians feel without first removing Moscow's influence over them so they can decide on their own.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

OK, let's try to get this back on track or I'll have to shut the thread down.  I have no idea what the relevance is of who settled Donetsk has on this conflict any more than who settled Königsberg or who is now occupying it.  Also, the language and cultural issues are red herrings anyway.  One can not talk about how Russian speaking Ukrainians feel without first removing Moscow's influence over them so they can decide on their own.

Steve

  1. First article is dated to 2012. Wasn't this before "Russian influence" supposed to happen?
  2. Getting back on track means stopping reposting BBC articles that put official position of Kiev in question or coming back to current events on the front? I remember you wrote you feel pro-Russian people selectively pick the facts that suit their needs.
Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IMHO said:
  1. First article is dated to 2012. Wasn't this before "Russian influence" supposed to happen?
  2. Getting back on track means stopping reposting BBC articles that put official position of Kiev in question or coming back to current events on the front? I remember you wrote you feel pro-Russian people selectively pick the facts that suit their needs.

Huh?  Russian influence NEVER CEASED.  Ukraine was never, ever allowed to be independent of Moscow's ultimate control.  This whole war is about maintaining that control.  Control which Russia has realized was slipping even before Maidan and at risk of diminishing very suddenly, which is why it plotted the war in Ukraine long before it happened.  It is why we (myself and a few others) accurately predicted this war several years before it happened.  We didn't come up with the backstory by accident.

What BBC article are you referring to and how is it relevant?

As for pro-Russians being selective... when I see pro-Russians overtly and totally admit that the Russian Federation is waging a war against Ukraine, including the use of it's direct controlled assets, then I will start thinking that person might have a chance of dealing with reality responsibly.  Then we'd have to cover things like MH-17, Crimean referendum, and the ousting of Yanukovych to see how far that reality based position is.

Until then, a person holding a pro-Russian position without admitting to these basic facts is an intellectually weak position to discuss what is going on.  It would be like trying to have a discussion about physics with someone who thinks the world is flat. 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

What BBC article are you referring to and how is it relevant?

6 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I suspect this is the root of the issue:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18725849

Not sure what the current position is.....Don't think it's worth killing each other over either way TBH. 

"Nearly 1,000 demonstrators clashed with scores of black-helmeted riot police in the capital Kiev, with both sides using pepper spray and law enforcement officials wielding batons to disperse the crowds. The protesters had gathered on the previous day, after the country's parliament unexpectedly passed a controversial law that granted official status to the Russian language in regions where it is predominantly spoken. [...] Russian, mother tongue of most people in east and south Ukraine, would get "regional language" status"

They were clashing with police in order not to let the Eastern and Southern Ukraine use Russian.

"People in the country's Russian-speaking east and south have a predictably different view on the matter. [...] They also bristle at the accusation - especially in the country's west, where Ukrainian is predominantly spoken - that they are any less Ukrainian than the rest of the country. [..] I speak Russian - what's the big problem? Why do people in the west get to say who is Ukrainian and who isn't? Ruslan, Taxi driver [...] They say that they are patriotic Ukrainians - just ones that speak another language - and they simply wish to have the right to speak their native tongue..."

That's BBC of two years before the war - I hope you won't call BBC Russian propaganda :)

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ukraine was never, ever allowed to be independent of Moscow's ultimate control. This whole war is about maintaining that control. Control which Russia has realized was slipping...

Ukraine was run by a Western-oriented people from Jan, 2005 to Feb, 2010.

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Again, no one is impeding on the rights of Ukrainian citizens in Donbass, you're pretending like Ukrainian government is there to "ukrainize" them. Russian state-owned media is convincing no one but you. Russian government lies are not a justification for Russian imperialism.

Really? May I quote :D

On 2/6/2017 at 9:05 PM, Haiduk said:

For this category I can offer only one - suitcase, station, Russia.

On 2/6/2017 at 10:26 PM, IMHO said:

Well, Haiduk, that's called ethnic cleansing.

On 2/6/2017 at 10:55 PM, Haiduk said:

Not ethnic. More mood-cleaning.

 

You may want to message Haiduk to stop being a Russian state-owned medium :D Has Ukraine considered setting up a Ministry of Truth? To coordinate "search and mood-clean" operations :D Since Ukrainian Deputy Minister of Defence Mr. Igor Pavlovsky in an interview to Ukrainian TV proudly said that Ukrainian forces are finally pushing DNR "meter by meter, step by step" after so many months of calm you seem to have a Ministry of Peace already :D

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Huh?  Russian influence NEVER CEASED.  Ukraine was never, ever allowed to be independent of Moscow's ultimate control.  This whole war is about maintaining that control.  Control which Russia has realized was slipping even before Maidan and at risk of diminishing very suddenly, which is why it plotted the war in Ukraine long before it happened.  It is why we (myself and a few others) accurately predicted this war several years before it happened.  We didn't come up with the backstory by accident.

 

Haha, I laughed at his first bulletpoint, loudly enough to draw raised eyebrows from the legal assistants in the cubicles outside. I've finally seen 'alternative facts' in the wild!

Thank you for responding to this bald-faced obtuseness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, IMHO said:

 

You may want to message Haiduk to stop being a Russian state-owned medium :D Has Ukraine considered setting up a Ministry of Truth? To coordinate "search and mood-clean" operations :D Since Ukrainian Deputy Minister of Defence Mr. Igor Pavlovsky in an interview to Ukrainian TV proudly said that Ukrainian forces are finally pushing DNR "meter by meter, step by step" after so many months of calm you seem to have a Ministry of Peace already :D

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

So far all you've presented is civil strife and dubious claims of self-determination. You've followed this up by raising the specter of 'ethnic cleansing will come' without a shred of clear evidence or a sign of clear intent asides from "The Ukranians don't like Russia all too much at present." Soon you will be expressing concerns for the Russian-speaking minority in Estonia, I am sure. So, regurgitating the propaganda you claim to despise, and alarmism. Charming.

Edited by Rinaldi
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rinaldi said:

Haha, I laughed at his first bulletpoint, loudly enough to draw raised eyebrows from the legal assistants in the cubicles outside. I've finally seen 'alternative facts' in the wild! Thank you for responding to this bald-faced obtuseness.

  1. Rinaldi, you take it too serious :) An efficient discussion has to include:
    1. The history of polls and elections to the national and regional parliaments
    2. Ownership map for serious national and regional business, at least high level financial KPIs
    3. Dependencies for these businesses - both for supplies and revenue generation
    4. National economy and international trade/capital flows
    5. Power structure - again regional and national level (oblast')
    6. Dynamics of internal politics
    7. Decision making structure, views of the participants and how both evolved
    8. Repeat point 4-6 for Russia and points 5-6 for select EU countries and US at least at a high level plus management strategies and views from World Bank group, IMF and ECB+EBRD
    9. Ukrainian military industry and stores
    10. Military balances and how they evolved
    11. The history of decisions on both sides - both overt and covert wherever there's information
    • Then it would be REAL analysis, interesting to go over. All of these crucially affect what's going on - trust me will you? But you can imagine all of these are way more fluid and uncertain matters. We have miles between us on a straightforward story of Georgia, what good discussion can we have on Ukraine case with all the turns and twists on both sides of the conflict? I can put on the table evolution of Georgian economy, military structure, military imports in equipment and stocks, scenarios for military exercises and what units played what roles, rotation of the Georgian troops in the peacekeeping forces, movement of the Georgian units immediately before the war and during the war, reports of peacekeeping commission on reconnaissance drones overflights of Ossetia and Abkhazia etc. But whatever I do - my feeling is I'll get "Georgia was within its rights to launch the offensive in August" in the end. Luckily for Ossetians - political establishment all over the world does not share this position :)
  2. Everyone knew that Georgia would attack sooner or later. The size of the war relative to the size of Georgian economy and military - intent and preparation were impossible to hide. And this knowledge was on a much more sound basis than "It’s just because this is what that bastard [Putin] has done before" - I quote Steve from somewhere else. Again, you can read Condolizza's memoirs, ICG and/or EU fact finding mission reports etc. if you want an executive summary.

PS Steve, please do not take offence. We do have different opinions but I certainly strive to stay within the limits of civility.

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rinaldi said:

Haha, I laughed at his first bulletpoint, loudly enough to draw raised eyebrows from the legal assistants in the cubicles outside. I've finally seen 'alternative facts' in the wild! Thank you for responding to this bald-faced obtuseness.

And as for the international and US views on whodunit in Georgia, one can look into Georgia military imports before and after the war and post-war career of Mr. Matt Bryza. :) It's actually quite funny whatever picture an establishment may present to public eye they still have to make decisions based on their true evaluation for nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest :)

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

False False False False False

No, true-true-true-true-true! :)) Do you think I will argue your every statement (very weak statements) to spam this thread with senseless and bad-english political discussions? You may believe that happy and eager pro-european Donbas people were slaved by Russian terrorists and specal agents, who made them to vote for independence and block UA army units. (Oh, sorry, there was no referendum, just Russian fake!) That is a level of ultra-patriotic facebook publics. Your comrade Haiduk is smarter, he thinks that ethnically Russian people must be restrained in their rights, as "victory over Russan-terrorist forces" is not enough. (Awfull, nazi solution of the problem, but at least he understands that problem exists)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, fair play then @IMHO. At least you defend yourself stoutly. I just do not believe Georgia is remotely analgous towards the situation in the Ukraine, frankly. To me, this is all the written-word equivalent of tossing sand in someone's eye and frankly, IMHO, I think you realize that too. Especially given that my response was in relation to the fact that you asserted the Ukraine hadn't been under Kremlin pressure or influence - not even remotely related to Georgia. But, because I fear my post got lost in translation, I'll bite...

In the former's case at the very least you can say that South Ossetia was, and had been, de-facto autonmous from Georgia for an extended period of time. The rest of who did what first is irrelevant to me personally in that situation. Georgia acted foolishly, impetously even, and things proceeded predictably.

The Donbass, and certainly Crimea, are not analgous. While I've previously stated there might be an argument for self-determination present I don't believe a bunch of fractious groups of unemployed cab drivers can really make it with too bold an assertion. Its clear the Donbass is as much an annoyance to Putin as it is to the rest of the international community :D Russia's duplicity with its eagerness to overtly 'protect "Russian minorities"' in something they want versus something they don't goes a far and long way to showing how they act consistently in bad faith.

This of course, is much ignoring the obvious counter-points that if the Donbass wanted to be free and autonomous they could've tried legal and constitutional recourses first, instead of starting a shooting war like oppurtunists. The reality is they wanted to be Russia, and Russia doesn't want an albatross around their neck. So now they've dreamnt up these half-arsed 'semi-autonomous regions' - not even a dubiously conducted plebiscite like in the Crimea. Sloppy ;) Unless you want to count less than a company (+) of armed rebels storming a council chamber and declaring an independant state. All this, of course, after hijacking a peaceful assembly that hardly numbered past one or two thousand, depending on whom you ask. The DNR was born in violent and illegal circumstances, and its legality is questionable from top to bottom. Its hardly a symbol of opressed vox populi by that nasty, dastardly government in Kiev :D 

Edited by Rinaldi
details
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Holien said:

leader's are being taken out by own side

By own side?! Yes, there is common Urkainian "version", that sounds like "they are killing themselves". They apply this version to anything, is it shelling of Donetsk or murders of DNR leaders. But I wouldn't give more than 5% probability to that. There were rumours about Mosgovoy, as he was in opposition to DNR goverment, But Giwi never was interested in politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rinaldi said:

Ha, fair play then @IMHO. At least you defend yourself stoutly.

Thank you for you words

1 hour ago, Rinaldi said:

The Donbass, and certainly Crimea, are not analgous

In no way they are

1 hour ago, Rinaldi said:

Its clear the Donbass is as much an annoyance to Putin as it is to the rest of the international community :D

Well... First and foremost it's a total mess for everyone :( Too much emotions, too many decisions made on spur of the moment. And if one thinks that it's a win for Russian side - it's not so. One needs to go deeper than simple square kilometres under control - there are no winners except for Ukrainian "far-right" politicians who won tickets to the Parliament.

But the real problem that I see here - Ukrainian leadership of all kinds is either inexperienced and/or incompetent or it has too short a planning horizon. What was the story of the agreement to stop hostilities. Ukraine lost 60% of their military might that was not particularly impressive right from the start (I rely on Poroshenko's to provide the number :)). Ukraine could have been totally overrun in a matter of days. It would have been an even worse scenario but it was a very possible one - not my words but the words of Ukrainian leadership of the times. So an agreement was signed to move the conflict from a theater of death and destruction to political dimension.

After the agreement it turned out that whoever is posing as a "leader" of Ukraine is no more than a moderator in the internal Ukrainian dialog where even the least important dudes have their own private armies at least matching Armed Forces of Ukraine. The guy who is the sponsor of current hostilities may simply order his "patriotic" battalion into the very center of Kiev to take over the head office of the biggest Ukrainian company - oil and gas monopoly - just because he does not like new management. Officially he has no right to complain - everything has been done to the Charter. But he used to control the company according to the intricate web of internal Ukrainian allegiances and tacit agreements with the PREVIOUS leadership (yes, I mean Yanukovich :)). And Poroshenko cannot do anynothing - no police operation, no charges brought - he just talks the guy to death over the night. Now what does this story tells to an any external party? Any agreement signed by the President of the Greater Ukraine is not worth the paper it's printed on. One should collect 20-30-40 signatures from Ukrainian side just to delude himself with an idea of having a text he may refer to in future. And these 20-30-40 people constantly change their minds, business plans, moods of the "constituencies" swing as well. That's not the way serious international agreements are made.

So last time Ukraine was trusted, but after that it blatantly broke its word - remembering Haiduk - if the agreement is implemented they will have a new revolution next morning. Now we have an erratic guy in White House, main EU sponsors have elections looming with no more faith in Ukraine's commitments than Russia and a history of EU not willing to enforce Ukraine to honour any political compromise. The talk how much progress was made in rebuilding the Ukrainian armed forces is pure PR stint, everyone watching knows the numbers - Ukrainian military imports and internal production is no great secret. And Ukrainian nationalists start to pull the tail of the tiger against such remarkable a backdrop - there's even a talk in Ukrainian mass media that a new offensive from Mariupol direction is in works. Right now there's no serious response from the opposition but if Ukrainian side pulls too hard - there might be no agreement next time. And everyone will be in a much deeper **** than now.

But for some reason Ukrainian leadership either does not understand or it does not care - either way, it's Ukrainian job to sort their mental problems. That's what is so dangerous about the current situation - not the game of pull and push over few hundred meters of land. But if this scenario happens - God forbids - everyone will start talking about Russian aggression :(

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IMHO said:

 either way, it's Ukrainian job to sort their mental problems.

Either way it's Russia's responsibility, both legally and morally, to stop waging war.  Only Russia can stop this war because only Russia keeps it going.  And it must be remembered that all those poor, dearly loved Russian speaking Ukrainians under Russia's puppet regimes are being used for Moscow's agenda.  If you think that the Russian government gives one tiny toss about the people of Donbas, you are more deluded than I thought.

As for the BBC article, you still don't get it.  Russian media and government policies, going back 100+ years, have created these tensions.  Not just in Ukraine, but in every other province of the former Russian Empire and Soviet Union. Maintaining, increasing, and exploiting those tensions is one of Moscow's biggest tools of state.  Which is why Russia is so fearful of losing this form of control... because it has NOTHING POSITIVE to offer in its place.

Look at the Baltics and see that as hard as it tries the Russian populations that were deliberately placed there to give Moscow control haven't been doing so well for it.  Sure, the Russian population hasn't been exactly happy to be reminded that they were the oppressors and murders of the Baltic peoples for multiple generations, but given the choice between living there and living in Russia... they chose to live there.  Given the choice between making the Baltics look more like Russia than the West, the choose to make them look more like the West. 

Russia is losing the propaganda war and with it it's control/influence over the politics of the former Soviet territories.  Ukraine is the most extreme case and Russia is losing very badly because the naked aggression and deliberate pain/suffering it is pushing into Ukraine every day is more powerful than the garbage that comes in from Russian media.  Russia lost the war in Ukraine in Winter/Spring of 2014 because it turned the majority of previously ambivalent or supportive Ukrainians against it (and I include a lot of ethnic Russians in that statement).  It lost because Ukraine didn't collapse despite all of its efforts.  Best it can do is fighting a delaying action.

Oh, and nice dodge for my response to your question about selective facts and logic.  It did not go unnoticed.  I'll repost that bit again:

As for pro-Russians being selective... when I see pro-Russians overtly and totally admit that the Russian Federation is waging a war against Ukraine, including the use of it's direct controlled assets, then I will start thinking that person might have a chance of dealing with reality responsibly.  Then we'd have to cover things like MH-17, Crimean referendum, and the ousting of Yanukovych to see how far that reality based position is.

Until then, a person holding a pro-Russian position without admitting to these basic facts is an intellectually weak position to discuss what is going on.  It would be like trying to have a discussion about physics with someone who thinks the world is flat. 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, some pro-Russian guys have turned this topic about tactical questions in field of useless political flame and whataboutism. And continuing to do that even after administrator's warning. Alas, typical picture for discussion boards and social networks, when Russians are appearing.  

Steve, can you clean all flame from here ? Or really, shut it down.

Edited by Haiduk
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Marwek77 aka Red Reporter said:

Sorry Haiduk, but most flame was brought here from you...

Really ? Сount my political posts and political posts of three of you - two pages about Georgia, even some about Syria, fairytales about "USSR paradise" etc.

Edited by Haiduk
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...