Ukraine General

[ProfTournesol 956]

Support yes, but seriously, NATO notices an ant move 2 cm towards Ukraine, but it doesn't have enough evidence to accuse Russia of military presence. I mean come on.

If they can't prove it, nobody can.

Well, they notice a lot of movements across the border, but that's probably numerous package tours of active Russian servicemen on holidays eager to see how beautiful Ukrainian girls are.

[aleksadragutin 9]

Well, they notice a lot of movements across the border, but that's probably numerous package tours of active Russian servicemen on holidays eager to see how beautiful Ukrainian girls are.

No, the press announced that it was Russians crossing the border, but the satellite images that are released are inconclusive.

[Tonci87 163]

Because the military doesn´t want to disclose how good (or bad) their satellites really are. You will never see an image made by a new military satellite.

[oxmox 73]

As far I remember, the funny thing about one of the NATO satellites images was that the vehicles did drive towards the russian boarder :D

After the collaps of the Soviet union the east european countries got into NATO as soon as they bloody could. Not because Nato desperately wanted to expand, but because those countries were fed up with Russia counquering, exploiting and opressing them again and again. Something wich many of those people putting the blame on NATO are only too happy to forgett. And everything Putin does now only makes NATO stronger. I really can´t see how anybody can blame NATO for the current events.

After the collaps there were promises from persons in authority of the west, from leading politicians, that NATO is not going to expand. And exactly the opposite did happen, not only did the NATO expansion happening but also rocket systems were installed only some years ago and the public was told it is allegedly against a threat from Iran. We dont want to see another "Cuba Crisis", when actually US nuclear rockets were installed in Turkey along the boarder of the Sovjetunion removing any possibility of retaliation and later the Sovjets did threatening with deploying nuclear rockets in Cuba.

Countries and even such who are already close at the caspian sea were encouraged to join EU and NATO countries. There are always two parties in an agreement not only one. The Crimea incident, an area with the strategically important harbour Sevastopol to gain acces to the south, was not surprising it was foreseen. Iam not sure what is up with the east Ukraine, maybe they want to have a buffer zone and destabilize the country so it is not able to join NATO, confronted with rockets at their doors and close to their harbour. The ressource markets play probably a role aswell, without the pressure from the US ,like Vicepresident Bieden said, there would have been maybe no sanctions. Russia is actually an important economical partner for Europe and it took decades of hard work for a peaceful interaction in Europe.

Pentagon Says No Evidence Of Alleged Russian Military Incursion Into Ukraine

The Pentagon said that there is no evidence to confirm an alleged Russian military incursion into Ukraine, as claimed by Kiev's military Friday, when Russia was accused by Ukraine of sending dozens of tanks and artillery into the eastern regions of the country.

“I don't have any independent operational reporting that would confirm that report, that these formations have crossed the border,†RIA Novosti, a Russian news agency, quoted Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby as saying at a press briefing on Friday.

http://www.ibtimes.com/pentagon-says-no-evidence-alleged-russian-military-incursion-ukraine-1721106

Could not find any other bigger western media sources reporting about this.....

Edited November 8, 2014 by oxmox

[beastcat 14]

http://youtu.be/9jdfhIZASG8

Edited November 9, 2014 by beastcat

[surpher 1]

(BBC) Heavy bombardment in rebel-held Donetsk

An eyewitness in the city said the shelling was the worst in more than a month, lasting almost eight hours.

It appeared to be coming from both rebel and government positions.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said its observers had seen a column of vehicles and heavy guns in rebel-held areas around Donetsk.

"More than 40 trucks and tankers" were seen on a road east of Makiivka, the monitors said, adding that 19 were large vehicles towing howitzer artillery systems and "containing personnel with dark green uniforms without insignia".

(BBC) Nervous Kazakhstan 'sensitive' about Ukraine question

Russian President Vladimir Putin's portrayal of himself as a defender of ethnic Russians has prompted many to wonder whether Kazakhstan is next on the hit list.

Such fears are intensified by some Russian politicians who occasionally make remarks about "taking back" northern Kazakhstan amid growing anti-Russian sentiment there.

(The Guardian) Russia Today: why western cynics lap up Putin’s TV poison

The channel broadcasts in English, Arabic and Spanish and can reach 600 million people. It claims to have surpassed a billion hits on YouTube, and will add German- and French-language channels. For the supposedly pariah leader of a country whose population is collapsing and mafia economy stagnating, Putin has the best publicity money can buy.

Anyone who writes critically about him soon learns the price of lese majeste. BuzzFeed revealed that state-sponsored Russian trolls maintain a Stakhanovite regime of tweeting and commenting on hostile news pieces as they spread the Kremlin’s message across the web. (Hello down there in the comments, by the way. Hope the sanctions aren’t hurting the pay cheques.)

(Bellingcat) Origin of the Separatists’ Buk: A Bellingcat Investigation - (PDF)

The report is split into three sections. The first examines the open source evidence relating to the movements of the Buk in eastern Ukraine on July 17th, the second presents evidence that the Buk filmed and photographed on July 17th originated in Russia and was part of a convoy headed towards the Ukrainian border in late June, and the third looks at the activity of vehicles seen in the same convoy after July 17th.

[ProfTournesol 956]

"More than 40 trucks and tankers" were seen on a road east of Makiivka, the monitors said, adding that 19 were large vehicles towing howitzer artillery systems and "containing personnel with dark green uniforms without insignia".

They go on a camping party.

[negah 26]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29912055

Two teenagers died and four were wounded when an artillery shell hit a school playing field as they played football in eastern Ukraine.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/11/08/385268/school-shelled-from-ukraine-army-side/

“The shelling was made from artillery from the direction and distance, which no doubt are at location of the Ukrainian military near the airport and the settlement of Peski,†Andrey Kelin told Russia's ITAR-TASS news agency on Saturday.

Kelin accused Ukraine of trying to fabricate proofs of non-involvement in the attack. He said the Ukrainian diplomats claimed at an OSCE meeting on Thursday that the shelling had been made from the opposite direction in the east, where pro-Russia forces are in control.

Meanwhile, the OSCE said in a report on Friday that shells “were fired from a location northwest†of the school and were the result of high-angle fire.

[beastcat 14]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29912055

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/11/08/385268/school-shelled-from-ukraine-army-side/

U@W - Strange impact near School 63 proof that Ukraine fired it?

Even with the new more detailed assessment, this shell still could not have come from NW Ukrainian side.

The fact that DIFFERENT shell types had been used, as indicated by the OSCE-report, is proof that MULTIPLE sources fired into this location simultaneously in a coordinated attack. This may also mean that they fired FROM DIFFERENT LOCATIONS and directions. Yet it is hard to believe that Ukraine would fire simultaneously onto the SAME civilian area as the Russians do! If this shell came from Russian side, ALL of them came from Russian side... even if they may have come from another direction.

U@W - Rocket that hit School No63 did not come from Peski

What does that mean? It means it has been a COORDINATED attack with several 'sources' involved. And they all fire INTO THE SAME AREA... That means this area has been CHOOSEN, PREDETERMINED. Different ordinances had to be set up, aimed, and fired almost simultaneously (within a period of a couple of minutes).

It was NOT a random attack!

It is hard to imagine that the Ukrainians synchronise such and attack WITH the Russians. Either these shells came from the Ukrainians or they came from the Russians. If it is clear that one shell came from the Russians, ALL came from the Russians...

In the first blog about this, it is already clear that one shot came from the Russian side. It means this one was ALSO fired by the Russians. And it is no problem for them at all to fire close from the front-line TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE it was fired by Ukraine.

[surpher 1]

Fake ASCE observer Dragana Trifkovic with Batmen Rapid Response Group in Luhansk.

[beastcat 14]

Separatist with 2S4 Tyulpan shells. 240 mm. Training takes half a year.

Oh yeah, and the OSCE apparently can't tell apart a Kraz from a Ural. I remember we had a similiar problem in this thread a while ago.

Pro-russia something in Berlin.

Edited November 9, 2014 by beastcat

[oxmox 73]

Did the Ukraine wan´t to join Nato? No, they just wanted to get better relations with the EU.

Did the nordics think that they should join Nato? No, they were fine, but they are definatelly considering it now.

I did not want to highjack the other thread and therfore Iam crossposting it. Just adding some links to get some overview.

Ukraine's Orange Revolution in 2004 swept away a pro-Russian government and replaced it with one that looks to the West for support and now wants to join Nato. Medvedev warns on Nato expansion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7312045.stm

NATO launches ‘Intensified Dialogue’ with Ukraine/2005

http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2005/04-april/e0421b.htm

Ukraine seeks Nato relationship/2005

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/feb/22/usa.politics

Bush backs Ukraine and Georgia for Nato membership

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/01/nato.georgia

Ukraine–NATO relations

Ukraine applied to join the NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008.

--> Plans for Ukrainian membership to NATO were shelved by Ukraine following the 2010 Ukrainian presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych was elected President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#cite_note-2

Finland & Sweden

They are not considering it just now, there were thoughts already in the past but after the conflict in Georgia a possible NATO membership was even more plausible.

Finland and Sweden revive debates on NATO membership/2008

http://euobserver.com/defence/26664

Neutralitaet Ade - 2008

http://www.welt.de/welt_print/article2377793/Neutralitaet-ade-Finnen-und-Schweden-naehern-sich-der-Nato.html

Edited November 9, 2014 by oxmox

[Tonci87 163]

That is exactly my point. I mean if Putin wanted to prevent a Nato expansion then he would be doing a really bad job at it. Therefore his goal can´t be to prevent NATO getting stronger.

So what are Putins goals?

To establish a new Russian empire?

To raise his popularity inside Russia so that he can somehow manage to stay in power after his term ends?

What else?

[oxmox 73]

That is exactly my point. I mean if Putin wanted to prevent a Nato expansion then he would be doing a really bad job at it. Therefore his goal can´t be to prevent NATO getting stronger.

So what are Putins goals?

To establish a new Russian empire?

To raise his popularity inside Russia so that he can somehow manage to stay in power after his term ends?

What else?

During a visit to the Pentagon, the commander, Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, echoed........

......"Moscow followed that blueprint after the war with Georgia in 2008, establishing enclaves in Abkhazia and South Ossetia to ensure that the territorially compromised nation could not join NATO. It did the same earlier with Transnistria, a breakaway territory of Moldova where Russians have been stationed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/world/europe/donestk-luhansk-ukraine-vote-zakharchenko-plotnitsky.html?_r=1

Putin goals are probably to prevent an advancement further into their own sphere of interests without too many NATO countries at russians doors...

Edited November 9, 2014 by oxmox

[x3kj 1247]

Pentagon Says No Evidence Of Alleged Russian Military Incursion Into Ukraine

who is supposed to see through this whole clusterfuck? Maybe they have evidence and just withheld it for better times? Who knows...

Maybe they just want to play this game of ordering new sanctions longer because it hurts russia quite a bit and it doesnt need own troops. Only loser is russia's economy , german industry and the worst the ukrainian people. But since when did geopolitics care about people? :j:

[batto 17]

Putin goals are probably to prevent an advancement further into their own sphere of interests without too many NATO countries at russians doors...

I believe Putin's only goal now is to save his face. The rest is just theater.

[surpher 1]

(The Guardian) Russia Today threatened with Ofcom sanctions due to bias

Russia Today, or RT, was summoned to a meeting with Ofcom after it was found guilty of breaching the code governing UK broadcasters in a ruling published on Monday.

The regulator flagged up four separate reports, all broadcast in March this year, all dealing with the situation in Ukraine.

(BBC World Service Radio) "Russia's seething resentment of the West"

(SputnikNews) Major New Media Brand ‘Sputnik’ Goes Live November 10

Sputnik, a major new media brand with modern multimedia centers in dozens of countries, will go live November 10. All of Sputnik’s multimedia centers located in major world capitals will maintain their own websites and broadcast from local radio stations.

RIA Novosti links in this thread will most likely be broken now.

Edited November 10, 2014 by surpher

[mistyronin 1181]

Putin goals are probably to prevent an advancement further into their own sphere of interests without too many NATO countries at russians doors...

If that were to be truth, he is doing just the opposite. I sometimes think that Putin works for the C.I.A.

Because he is destroying all Russia's reputation and reducing it's area of influence, turning all its neighbors in enemies.

I believe Putin's only goal now is to save his face. The rest is just theater.

That sounds more like it. Putin is trying by all means to keep in power. Creating a "foreign" evil to blame for all Russia's problems.

Even if that means that most of Russia's neighbors will turn to NATO.

[beastcat 14]

[surpher 1]

(Vedomosti) The Kremlin has no strategy in relation to the DNR and LC only tactic

Russia has driven itself into a corner, and the Kremlin has no coherent strategy, a set of random short-term tactics. The Russian leadership can not allow the actions that would be regarded by Russian public opinion (On which it relies, paradoxically) as a betrayal of the rebels. Russian media have created hysteria in society, which deprives the Russian policy towards Ukraine flexibility.

(FT) Russia is bigger problem than Isis for Obama

Most experts still dismiss the nuclear scenarios as far-fetched. It is more common to worry that Mr Putin may launch an all-out conventional war in Ukraine – or encourage uprisings by Russian-speakers in the Baltic states, which are members of Nato. If Russia then intervened in the Baltic states and Nato did not respond, the Kremlin would have achieved the huge prize of demonstrating that the western military alliance is a paper tiger.

Edited November 10, 2014 by surpher

[Dwarden 1125]

yes but there is this risk that NATO will not ignore it and actually squash the 'uprising and and incurse into NATO countries' w/o mercy

it may even end with note to Russia pointing that quite some of NATO has nuclear arsenal too, not just Russia

as result, NATO will be stronger, gets more members and Russia and it's paper pacts will dissolve ...

considering how Russia helped his Syrian ally to 'not resolve fanatics problem'

the question is not what Russia gains by new territory and new Allies ...

the key is question is, what those territories and Allies gains from Russia in return

[ProfTournesol 956]

If that were to be truth, he is doing just the opposite. I sometimes think that Putin works for the C.I.A.

Because he is destroying all Russia's reputation and reducing it's area of influence, turning all its neighbors in enemies.

That sounds more like it. Putin is trying by all means to keep in power. Creating a "foreign" evil to blame for all Russia's problems.

Even if that means that most of Russia's neighbors will turn to NATO.

I absolutely agree. Putin doesn't give a damn about Russia, he's only trying to maintain himself at the head of the mafia system he has built, as the godfather of it. If another ruler will take over Russia, Putin would be jailed immediately for corruption, and probably murder of several opponents and journalists.

[oxmox 73]

Putin knows how far he can go alone due to his roots as an intelligence officer. Already the NATO commander reports how russia followed a successful blueprint which prevented other nations to join NATO and you get the impression that he isnt doing that bad if you look into the past how russia put spokes into the wheel.

The "Oil Weapon" was one of the major reasons why at the end the Sovjetunion did collapse, it did lead to a total bankrupt because the Sovjetunion had to consume all his gold reserves relying too much on the ressource markets and needed foreign currency. There is a very interesting ARTE documentary called "Das Öl-Zeitalter" where Gorbatschov actually did talk about this in an interview. Also russian economic nowadays relies a lot on just ressources. I can recommand to watch the documentary, very eye opeining in general when it comes to geopolitics & ressources in the world.

Das Öl-Zeitalter (The Oil Age) available in german & french language:

Cheap oil will win new Cold War with Putin - just ask Reagan

The son of President Ronald Reagan says the world should learn from his father's secret deal with Saudi Arabia to drive down oil to end the Cold War and stop Vladimir Putin in his tracks

It was the collapse in oil prices engineered by Saudi Arabia, which literally bankrupted the old Soviet Union and ripped up the post-war map of Eastern Europe that had been brutally created in the aftermath of Adolf Hitler’s downfall by the equally ruthless Joseph Stalin.

"Oil was the only thing the Soviets had in the 1980s that anyone in the rest of the world wanted to buy, besides ICBMs and H-bombs, and they weren't for sale.

"Since selling oil was the source of the Kremlin's wealth, my father got the Saudis to flood the market with cheap oil.

"Lower oil prices devalued the ruble, causing the USSR to go bankrupt, which led to perestroika and Mikhail Gorbachev and the collapse of the Soviet Empire.â€

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11220027/Cheap-oil-will-win-new-Cold-War-with-Putin-just-ask-Reagan.html

Edited November 10, 2014 by oxmox

[aleksadragutin 9]

Putin knows how far he can go alone due to his roots as an intelligence officer. NATO commander talks already followed a successful blueprint which prevented other nations to join NATO and you get the impression that he isnt doing that bad if you look into the past to pus spokes into the wheel.

The "Oil Weapon" was one of the major reasons why at the end the Sovjetunion did collapse, it did lead to a total bankrupt because the Sovjetunion had to consume all his gold reserves relying too much on the ressource markets and needed foreign currency. There is a very interesting ARTE documentary called "Das Oelzeitalter" where Gorbatschov actually did talk about this in an interview. Also Russias economic nowadays relies a lot on just ressources. I can recommand to watch the documentary, very eye opeining in general when it comes to geopolitics & ressources.

Cheap oil will win new Cold War with Putin - just ask Reagan

The son of President Ronald Reagan says the world should learn from his father's secret deal with Saudi Arabia to drive down oil to end the Cold War and stop Vladimir Putin in his tracks

It was the collapse in oil prices engineered by Saudi Arabia, which literally bankrupted the old Soviet Union and ripped up the post-war map of Eastern Europe that had been brutally created in the aftermath of Adolf Hitler’s downfall by the equally ruthless Joseph Stalin.

"Oil was the only thing the Soviets had in the 1980s that anyone in the rest of the world wanted to buy, besides ICBMs and H-bombs, and they weren't for sale.

"Since selling oil was the source of the Kremlin's wealth, my father got the Saudis to flood the market with cheap oil.

"Lower oil prices devalued the ruble, causing the USSR to go bankrupt, which led to perestroika and Mikhail Gorbachev and the collapse of the Soviet Empire.â€

He's forgetting natural gas, the only thing stopping Europe of taking further actions.

[oxmox 73]

He's forgetting natural gas, the only thing stopping Europe of taking further actions.

Yeah, in the meanwhile Russia has the biggest gas ressources in the world which is needed on the market.

Edited November 10, 2014 by oxmox