Ukraine General

[beastcat 14]

I don't see this as a one-way break up. Let's not forget that NATO and Sowjet Union had an agreement in 1990 that NATO would NOT expand further east. Yet the NATO did not keep it's word.

Things like these make me tired going to this thread. All the time people bring up exactly the same points' date=' they get refuted, then there is no response, but after a while the exact same points are being brought up again. Whats the point?

Now, to this supposed promise:

Since I'm way to lazy to answer these russian propaganda claims (Yes, they are fabrications of russian propaganda, no matter how you twist and turn it), I'll just let NATO answer:

Claim: NATO leaders promised at the time of German reunification that the Alliance would not expand to the East

Fact: No such promise was ever made, and Russia has never produced any evidence to back up its claim.

Every formal decision which NATO takes is adopted by consensus and recorded in writing. There is no written record of any such decision having been taken by the Alliance.

Moreover, at the time of the alleged promise, the Warsaw Pact still existed. Its members did not agree on its dissolution until 1991. Therefore, it is not plausible to suggest that the idea of their accession to NATO was on the agenda in 1989.

This was confirmed by the former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev himself. This is what Mr Gorbachev said on 15 October 2014 in an interview with Rossiiskaya Gazeta and Russia Beyond The Headlines:

"The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either."

If I remember this video correctly, the man does a great job of explaining how the russian propaganda works.

You get hundreds of ridiculous claims by the russian media and something sticks something doesn't. Then you get people going "Well yeah, those are russian tanks, but what about the blackwater mercenaries?" or "Well yeah, it is indeed an annexation according to international law and it never had any legitimacy, but the people on the Maidan were all US CIA agents and all 3 million of them got 50$ and 20 Nuland cookies an hour! Therefore the government is illegitimate" and shit like that. And no matter how many claims you destory, there is always another retarded propaganda conspiracy theory or whatever.

Edited December 10, 2014 by beastcat

[oxmox 73]

I did post this in the russian thread recently, maybe some did not see it. There were discussions and agreements, but in 1990 and thats actually the year Gorbatschov is talking about, there were not any promises or treaties with the Sovjetunion since the Warsaw Pact did still exist. It is not clear what was going on in the following years in the recent interview with him.

NATO east expansion: Agreements between Genscher & Baker 1990

Here is a video about Foreign Ministers Genscher & Baker and agreements between both about the NATO east expansion in 1990. But like I mentioned in my last post, promises or treaties in 1990 about NATO east expansions are a myth created by the media, says Gorbatschov. But there were talks and agreements about it shown in the video.

Edited December 10, 2014 by oxmox

[Heeeere's johnny! 51]

Thanks, I was just going to quote Wikipedia, but unfortunately, the critique on the NATO east expansion is only in the german article.

EDIT:

I'll post it anyways:

Ein zunächst geheimgehaltener und 2009 veröffentlichter Aktenvermerk über eine Äußerung Genschers vom 10. Februar 1990 zum sowjetischen Außenminister Eduard Schewardnadse lautet: „BM (Bundesminister): Uns sei bewusst, dass die Zugehörigkeit eines vereinten Deutschlands zur Nato komplizierte Fragen aufwerfe. Für uns stehe aber fest: Die Nato werde sich nicht nach Osten ausdehnen.“ Genscher erinnerte sich, was 1956 beim Ungarn-Aufstand passiert war: Teile der Aufständischen hatten verkündet, sie wollten dem westlichen Bündnis beitreten, und hatten Moskau damit den Vorwand für ein militärisches Eingreifen geliefert. Da es um die DDR ging, fügte Genscher ausdrücklich hinzu: „Was im Übrigen die Nichtausdehnung der Nato anbetreffe, so gelte dieses ganz generell.“

Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO-Osterweiterung#Kritik_an_der_Osterweiterung

Translation:

A note, firstly kept secret and published 2009, about a statement made by Genscher (german foreign minister at that time) from Febuary 10th 1990 to the sowjet foreign minister Eduard Shevardnadze said: "FM (Foreign Minister): We are aware that the NATO membership of a united Germany will raise complicated issues. But clear to us is this: The NATO will not extend to the east." Genscher remebered what happened in 1956 during the riot in Hungary: Some of the insurgents had declared, they wanted to join the western alliance, and had given Moscow the pretense for a military intervention. As it was about the GDR, Genscher explicitly added: "Besides, regarding the non-expansion of the NATO, this applies generally."

Edited December 10, 2014 by Heeeere's Johnny!
Added Wikipedia link

[ProfTournesol 956]

Any of those lame arguments on Russia's reaction to the so called NATO expansion don't justify what's happening in Ukraine, as much as 9/11 doesn't justify what happened in Irak.

[beastcat 14]

I did post this in the russian thread recently, maybe some did not see it. There were discussions and agreements, but in 1990 and thats actually the year Gorbatschov is talking about, there were not any promises or treaties with the Sovjetunion since the Warsaw Pact did still exist. It is not clear what was going on in the following years in the recent interview with him, Gorbatschovs statement is about 1990.

NATO east expansion: Agreements between Genscher & Baker 1990

Here is a video about Foreign Ministers Genscher & Baker and agreements between both about the NATO east expansion in 1990. But like I mentioned in my last post, promises or treaties in 1990 about NATO east expansions are a myth created by the media, says Gorbatschov. But there were talks and agreements about it shown in the video.

Discussing it is not equal to a treaty. I can say now that I'm going to give you 500$, but you can't go to court because I didn't give you the money. But this of course still raises some questions concerning claims from NATO. (Although the NATO article talks about 1989, not 1990)

Edited December 10, 2014 by beastcat

[Heeeere's johnny! 51]

Discussing it is not equal to a treaty. I can say now that I'm going to give you 500$, but you can't go to court because I didn't give you the money. But this of course still raises some questions concerning claims from NATO. (Although the NATO article talks about 1989, not 1990)

That's true, but we're not talking law here, we're talking about relationships. Making an agreement on that level and later not keeping it is a dick move in global scale and makes the NATO lose a lot of credibility. I do not wonder Russia is very pissed by that.

[Tonci87 163]

Things like these make me tired going to this thread. All the time people bring up exactly the same points, they get refuted, then there is no response, but after a while the exact same points are being brought up again. Whats the point?

Exactly. It´s soo stupid. Let´s establish a few things up front.

Nato never promised to not expand to the east.

The Warschaw pact countries did everything they could to join Nato after the Soviet Union had disbanded because they didn´t want to get conquered by the Russians again.

Who rapes a woman is guilty. There are no excuses. "She had it coming" is really the most stupid thing you can say or think to defend that and exposes some really fucked up morale of yours. If you talk shit and I come around and give you a good beating then I am guilty of that. "You had it coming" is not an excuse.

And yes it is true that the RUssian propaganda works in the way that they spread as much bullshit and halftruths as possible. Something will stick. Just look at how many different stories they created about the downed civilian airplane.

@Heeeere's Johnny! That is pretty naive thinking. Nothing is agreed upon between states&governments (especially not governments that had a pretty bad relationship for half a century) without beeing signed by both parties. And Russia did know that just as much as everybody else.

[mistyronin 1181]

That's true' date=' but we're not talking law here, we're talking about relationships. Making an agreement on that level and later not keeping it is a dick move in global scale and makes the NATO lose a lot of credibility. I do not wonder Russia is very pissed by that.[/quote']

You talk like if Eastern European countries were owned by Russia or something...

Each country has it's own government, and if they decide to join NATO to protect their country from Russia's imperialistic and expansionist wet dreams, they have the right to do so.

And of course the Russian Gov. can be pissed off by that, but they should learn that we are already in the 21st century.

[Heeeere's johnny! 51]

@Heeeere's Johnny! That is pretty naive thinking. Nothing is agreed upon between states&governments (especially not governments that had a pretty bad relationship for half a century) without beeing signed by both parties. And Russia did know that just as much as everybody else.

I know, today it seems naive, but if you read the Wikipedia article on the NATO East Expansion (german) and the sources, you'll see why they did not consider writing that down in a contract in 1990 since the Warsaw Pact still existed at that time. They never even considered the NATO could get the opportunity to expand upon "east block countries".

[beastcat 14]

That's true' date=' but we're not talking law here, we're talking about relationships. Making an agreement on that level and later not keeping it is a dick move in global scale and makes the NATO lose a lot of credibility. I do not wonder Russia is very pissed by that.[/quote']

Well first of all, its not really an agreement. He said that they "agreed", which is a different thing. We could agree that the moon has to be nuked and that would be the end of it or we could do an agreement, which would have to be in written form (otherwise it would have no meaning), that we have to nuke the moon, obliging us to actually nuke the moon. I hope that made sense.

But not only that, they "agreed" during the times of the soviet union and the warsaw pact, neither of which still exist, making this even less significant.

Edit: Oh and I remember some article by NATO about this "agreeing" thing, but can't find it anymore. If somebody has a link, please share.

Edit2: I just read the quote you posted on the previous page and heres my two cents:

They are talking about expanding NATO on top of Warsaw Pact territory and taking it over, not about expanding NATO on independent territory.

Genscher erinnerte sich, was 1956 beim Ungarn-Aufstand passiert war: Teile der Aufständischen hatten verkündet, sie wollten dem westlichen Bündnis beitreten, und hatten Moskau damit den Vorwand für ein militärisches Eingreifen geliefert.

Edited December 10, 2014 by beastcat

[Heeeere's johnny! 51]

Each country has it's own government, and if they decide to join NATO to protect their country from Russia's imperialistic and expansionist wet dreams, they have the right to do so.

Well, partly true. To join the NATO, a state has to be invited first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Article_10

So, if NATO had kept what they agreed on, they wouldn't have invited former Warsaw Pact states.

Well first of all, its not really an agreement. He said that they "agreed", which is a different thing.

It made sense, I'm sorry, didn't take that much care. But yeah, you're right, they agreed without an agreement.

[surpher 1]

(NATO) NATO-Russia relations: the facts

Claim: NATO leaders promised at the time of German reunification that the Alliance would not expand to the East

Fact: No such promise was ever made, and Russia has never produced any evidence to back up its claim.

Every formal decision which NATO takes is adopted by consensus and recorded in writing. There is no written record of any such decision having been taken by the Alliance.

Moreover, at the time of the alleged promise, the Warsaw Pact still existed. Its members did not agree on its dissolution until 1991. Therefore, it is not plausible to suggest that the idea of their accession to NATO was on the agenda in 1989.

This was confirmed by the former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev himself. This is what Mr Gorbachev said on 15 October 2014 in an interview with Rossiiskaya Gazeta and Russia Beyond The Headlines:

"The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either."

[oxmox 73]

Exactly. It´s soo stupid. Let´s establish a few things up front.

Nato never promised to not expand to the east.

Well and this is exactly not clear for me in the meanwhile, even after it was revealed that the media did spread a myth. The interview with Gorbatschov and his statement is about 1990 i.e. 2+4 treaties and during the time the Warsaw Pact did still exist, you have to be carefully here since its about a certain time. At the end there is no treaty or anything on paper. It is the question what agreements (i mean in agreement about and not a treaty) or discussions did happen in the years after.

Edited December 10, 2014 by oxmox

[Sgt.Spoetnik 10]

Beast, i am not mad but sad about it,its crazy fucked up situation when people off the same country or even same group off ppl start killing each other because the dont like their point, and one go right and the other go left and the start shoot each other,reminds me off the wild west, and both sides puth more oil on the fire.

so far ive seen only one side trowing everything on the fire while the other side try to not go at it like that(West vs East)the lies,dis-information and propaganda is at a mindblowing rate,and those that blame Russia still dont get it, and yeah Russia may be not perfect,but ours,yours western goverment is just as bad, just look at(what we know for so long) the revelations of the torture by the CIA.

question is why we all still keep puthing ppl into boxes and say those are bad, those are kinda bad, and those we can work with?

but for those that only believe what their beloved leaders and propaganda media tells them and believe,i say to them,get your heads out of the ground and see wat the fuck really going on, i am repeating this every time but its needed, WHO profits off all this,before,today and tomorow? those that have money,and love to get more never mind the sorrows,blood or losses that come with it,so long they can get the profits it will continue.

Sry to say this, its not E vs W, its them vs us! and for those that still dont want to believe it, lets talk in 10years and see who's right or not!

this go's for Ukraine,middle-east,africa,europe, america(north and west) and all other places in the world where ppl are beeing killed, enslaved or abused for money and profit; and you all know what i am talking about,you all seen it happen during your lives,but you still go with one side hoping it will rescue you;it wont, mayby think of your and their children and grandchildren that have to come behind us, you really want them to go live in a world like this?!

I can keep going but only when you learn and understand this you can see it, Money keeps the world spinning,and greed will always be there to kill and opress!

for links use the freaking net to learn,not to watch BS or crap(but il try to get something that you wont attack) btw read 1984 by orwell and look,see and understand ;)

peace

[beastcat 14]

Beast, i am not mad but sad about it,its crazy fucked up situation when people off the same country or even same group off ppl start killing each other because the dont like their point, and one go right and the other go left and the start shoot each other,reminds me off the wild west, and both sides puth more oil on the fire.

so far ive seen only one side trowing everything on the fire while the other side try to not go at it like that(West vs East)the lies,dis-information and propaganda is at a mindblowing rate,and those that blame Russia still dont get it, and yeah Russia may be not perfect,but ours,yours western goverment is just as bad, just look at(what we know for so long) the revelations of the torture by the CIA.

question is why we all still keep puthing ppl into boxes and say those are bad, those are kinda bad, and those we can work with?

but for those that only believe what their beloved leaders and propaganda media tells them and believe,i say to them,get your heads out of the ground and see wat the fuck really going on, i am repeating this every time but its needed, WHO profits off all this,before,today and tomorow? those that have money,and love to get more never mind the sorrows,blood or losses that come with it,so long they can get the profits it will continue.

Sry to say this, its not E vs W, its them vs us! and for those that still dont want to believe it, lets talk in 10years and see who's right or not!

this go's for Ukraine,middle-east,africa,europe, america(north and west) and all other places in the world where ppl are beeing killed, enslaved or abused for money and profit; and you all know what i am talking about,you all seen it happen during your lives,but you still go with one side hoping it will rescue you;it wont, mayby think of your and their children and grandchildren that have to come behind us, you really want them to go live in a world like this?!

I can keep going but only when you learn and understand this you can see it, Money keeps the world spinning,and greed will always be there to kill and opress!

for links use the freaking net to learn,not to watch BS or crap(but il try to get something that you wont attack) btw read 1984 by orwell and look,see and understand ;)

peace

I don't really understand what this has to do with what I posted and your previous posts. The video where they are exposing propaganda with actual proof you called "the worst piece of propaganda crap ive seen so far", without at least trying to back up your claim. They are doing a professional job at exposing propaganda and they have been pretty reliable so far.

The airport video you called a lie, again, without backing up you claim. Oh and about who controls the airport, the separatists are constantly going "Oh yeah, now we actually really honestly took the airport, not like the last hundred times" for the past months and every time it turned out to be false, so unless you have some actual evidence that they control it don't go around calling everything you don't like a lie and propaganda.

Now, as for what you just posted, well, I'm sorry, but I don't get the point. What of all of those things justifies russia's war? This is again a thing that has been discussed hundreds of times. It doesn't matter what the "west" did or didn't, because it does not justify russia to do the same and worse. And I'm not really a big fan of "them" against us arguments. Who is "them"? Aliens? Jews? Obama?

And I don't know about you, but I have never been killed, enslaved or abused for money, I live a happy life, my household earns more than 5x the average income in russia (At least according to wikipedia), I have everything I need and I can still afford a lot of weed and other crap. So if life is like you describe in Belgium I highly advice you to go somewhere else.

And as for 1984, I read it and I found really scary parallels to Russia and the Soviet Union, so if anything it reminded me why I avoid that shithole like the plague (And no, I'm not being russophobic, I'm ethnic russian myself).

[ProfTournesol 956]

Indeed. Some should travel a little more to see how happy they are to live in Western Europe.

[beastcat 14]

À Propos, looks like the russians are going to have a really shitty life really soon (Yes, even shittier than now):

Click to go Russia Thread

Edited December 10, 2014 by beastcat

[Sgt.Spoetnik 10]

Prof,lets see how long it will take for your elected leaders to go beg to the IMF for loans your grandchildren will pay for!

looks like the russians are going to have a really shitty life really soon

you enjoy that dont you, you will feel it to soon in not so free Germany!

btw cant help it if you cant open your minds and eyes, you wanne stay blind and in the dark beeing fed shit like mushrooms go ahead and enjoy,it will end soon enough.

[beastcat 14]

Prof,lets see how long it will take for your elected leaders to go beg to the IMF for loans your grandchildren will pay for!

you enjoy that dont you, you will feel it to soon in not so free Germany!

btw cant help it if you cant open your minds and eyes, you wanne stay blind and in the dark beeing fed shit like mushrooms go ahead and enjoy,it will end soon enough.

http://youtu.be/VtxzhpCXwmA

[mistyronin 1181]

looks like the russians are going to have a really shitty life really soon (Yes, even shittier than now)

I'm afraid the Russian population will have to suffer the deep incompetence and selfishness of their leaders.

I do really hope that Russia gets soon a proper, serious and intelligent president, it's been practically decades since the last one.

[oxmox 73]

From the Washington Post...(only parts of the content posted without order)

Rethinking the cost of Western intervention in Ukraine

No one will fight for eastern Ukraine except the Ukrainians and presumably the Russians.

Ukraine needs to find a way to live with Russia in peace. NATO should reassure the Russians and caution the Ukrainians by announcing it will not expand to Ukraine, or for that matter, to Georgia. The E.U. should engage Putin in how to settle the crisis, doubling down on the cease-fire the Russian leader helped broker, not escalating the conflict. The hawks should stand down.The human costs are already mounting. It is utterly irresponsible to destroy a country in the name of supporting it, as is happening in Ukraine. Samantha Power has it wrong: Americans aren’t tired of humanitarian intervention; they are tired of its consequences. It is time for taking a sober look at the misconceptions that got us here.

Crimea has been annexed by Russia. More than 4,000 people have lost their lives in the civil war in Ukraine, with more than 9,000 wounded and nearly a million displaced. This month, the Kiev government acknowledged the de facto partition of Ukraine by announcing it was ending all funding for government services and social benefits including pensions and freezing all bank accounts in the eastern districts that are in revolt.

--> (this is another interesting interview, I will post it maybe later serperately) Recently, 91-year-old former secretary of state Henry Kissinger has seconded this counterargument and perspective on the crisis. In an interview in leading German magazine Der Spiegel, which inexplicably received little attention in the U.S. media, Kissinger argued forcefully that the annexation of Crimea “was not a move toward global conquest.†He disputes Hillary Rodham Clinton’s charge that Putin is like “Hitler moving into Czechoslovakia.†Kissinger holds the West partially responsible for escalation and the deteriorating situation, suggesting that Europe and the United States underestimated the “special significance†of Ukraine for Russia. “It was a mistake not to realize that.â€

Kissinger notes that while the West need not and should not recognize the annexation of Crimea, “nobody in the West has offered a concrete program to restore Crimea. Nobody is willing to fight over eastern Ukraine. That’s a fact of life.â€

On the other hand, Kissinger points out that Russia is a vital U.S. partner in resolving crises from Iran and Syria to the dangers of nuclear arsenals. He suggests that the West might weigh those real security concerns before more posturing and escalation over Ukraine.

The Ukrainian economy is near collapse with nowhere near the billions needed to rebuild it at hand. How Kiev or the cut-off eastern regions will provide heating and electricity to their beleaguered people as winter approaches remains to be seen.

The European Union and the United States have imposed sanctions on Russia, with threats of more to come. Many observers have rightly suggested that we are witnessing the beginnings of a new Cold War. U.S. and NATO forces are being dispatched to buck up the purportedly nervous Baltic nations, now part of NATO’s security guarantee. Meanwhile, the sanctions have added to Europe’s economic woes. Vladi***mir Putin’s popularity has soared within Russia, even as the nation’s economy has suffered. European unity has begun to fray, with several countries worried about the effect of sanctions on their own economies, and officials questioning the sanctions’ effectiveness.

Ukrainians demonstrated against Yanukovych because they wanted to align with the West and democracy. Putin, as portrayed by Hillary Rodham Clinton among others, is an expansionist Hitler who has trampled international law and must be made to “pay a big price†for his aggression. Isolation and escalating economic sanctions have been imposed. Next, if Senate hawks such as John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have their way, Ukraine will be provided with arms to “deter†Putin’s “aggression.â€

But this perspective distorts reality. Although there is no question that Russia has contributed to the tensions in the region, what has unfolded was predictable and preventable. As experts such as Princeton University and New York University professor emeritus Stephen F. Cohen have argued, the West should have understood that an attempt to bring Ukraine into an exclusive arrangement with the E.U. would spark deep, historical divisions within the country and itself and provoke a Russian reaction. (Disclosure: Cohen and I are married.) In fact, as University of Chicago professor John J. Mearsheimer concludes in Foreign Affairs, “the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis.â€

In the face of Russian warnings and despite agreements to the contrary, over the past two decades the United States has expanded NATO to Russia’s border. The E.U. has similarly grown, seeking to incorporate Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics into its economic and political sphere. The Russians have warned repeatedly that they consider expansion of NATO a threat and have clearly drawn the line against trying to incorporate the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Ukraine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-rethinking-the-cost-of-western-intervention-in-ukraine/2014/11/25/b92f8496-741a-11e4-9c9f-a37e29e80cd5_story.html

Edited December 11, 2014 by oxmox

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yep. But the girl who wrote that article (quoted as "opinion") is saying the same thing again and again. It may meet what some here think, but that's nonetheless only a point of view. Not much factual things there.

Edited December 11, 2014 by ProfTournesol

[oxmox 73]

Another interesting read.....

This is the Kissinger interview from the international version of the Spiegel magazine:

Interview with Henry Kissinger: 'Do We Achieve World Order Through Chaos or Insight?'

The interview is a lot longer, only some sentences copied to see the suprising direction he goes.

KISSINGER. … But if the West is honest with itself, it has to admit that there were mistakes on its side. The annexation of Crimea was not a move toward global conquest. It was not Hitler moving into Czechoslovakia.

SPIEGEL. What was it then?

KISSINGER. One has to ask oneself this question: Putin spent tens of billions of dollars on the Winter Olympics in Sochi. The theme of the Olympics was that Russia is a progressive state tied to the West through its culture and, therefore, it presumably wants to be part of it. So it doesn’t make any sense that a week after the close of the Olympics, Putin would take Crimea and start a war over Ukraine. So one has to ask oneself, Why did it happen?

SPIEGEL. What you’re saying is that the West has at least a kind of responsibility for the escalation?

KISSINGER. Yes, I am saying that. Europe and America did not understand the impact of these events, starting with the negotiations about Ukraine’s economic relations with the European Union and culminating in the demonstrations in Kiev. All these, and their impact, should have been the subject of a dialogue with Russia. This does not mean the Russian response was appropriate.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-henry-kissinger-on-state-of-global-politics-a-1002073.html

Edited December 11, 2014 by oxmox

[mistyronin 1181]

I think Kissinger shouldn't talk about foreign issues, after all the things he messed up.

BTW the Russian Defense recognizes officially that Russian soldiers are conducting missions inside Ukraine.

- - -

( Al Jazeera ) Ukraine president pleads for troop withdrawal

Poroshenko makes appeal to Moscow a day after an official Russian presence in eastern Ukraine was confirmed by the OSCE.

Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko has publicly asked Russia to withdraw its troops from his country, the day after a Russian general said a small Russian military mission in eastern Ukraine was there at the invitation of Kiev.

This Russian generals have a giant sense of humor...

( ITAR TASS ) Russian military assisting in settlement of eastern Ukraine conflict — General Staff

The Russian General Staff chief said that the mission’s task “is to provide assistance jointly with the OSCE to the conflict sides - the Ukrainian troops and local militias - to find compromise solutions for the deescalation of tension and pullout of troops from the contact line.â€

“The main goal is to stop the shelling of residential districts in which innocent civilians are killed,†Gerasimov said.

Edited December 11, 2014 by MistyRonin
orthography

[Sub-Human 10]

For anyone still doubting Russian involvement in Ukraine: http://prof-eug.livejournal.com/419793.html