Ukraine General

[aleksadragutin 9]

McCain is such an asshole.

[nodunit 397]

Using lawmakers to make a bill to sell weapons...that seems a weee bit like neglecting and abusing that particular power.

Our senators should listen to the countries in the area that don't want this to escalate...but yaknow, more chances to get some more dosh from the arms race, far as I see it this is a European problem not a US problem, and our politicians should stop pretending to care about lives when they don't, they really don't.

[aleksadragutin 9]

I'm just amazed that he had drawn a conclusion from the cluster bomb incident along the lines of "We should send them more weapons to stop this from happening". What kinda logic is that? The stupidest idea since inventing a machine gun to stop wars.

[Dwarden 1125]

analogy of past events to actual events:

"don't worry Czechoslovakia ... Germany is only wanting the Sudetenland and no it's not occupation ... "

as always... the aggressor fears only prey which can cripple or kill him ... atm. the prey is weak

[Tonci87 163]

McCain is such an asshole.

I fully agree!

That guy just loves to sell weapons so that his friends in the industry can make a shitton of money. He will use every excuse to make that happen

[oxmox 73]

It is alright to discuss the point if arming the Ukraine would be useful or not, but the tone of the statements by the US Senator is irritating and sometimes an insolence.

i.e. ""If the attitude of the German government to look at, one might think that she does not know or does not care that people are being slaughtered in Ukraine." I mean Hollande and Merkel are working their asses off to try at least a new peace deal, what is currently the role of MCCain or the USA when it comes to such negotiations ?

When I read articles which describe that a Senator applies so much pressure on Obama i.e. "U.S. lawmaker will write legislation requiring the US to send weapons to the Ukraine, when Obama does not send weapons", I wonder why the position of the US President is so weakened. Is Obama the President or a jumping jack ?

Anyway, it seems there exist already a transatlantic split in the political opinions. Many countries in Europe did find a consensus rather not to arm the Ukraine, the US tends to the opposite. The question is who benefits from such a decision, Europe including Russia can only loose if the conflict escalates wheras the US is far away from the clashes and the economical impacts.

Edited February 6, 2015 by oxmox

[jakerod 254]

Many countries in Europe did find a consensus rather not to arm the Ukraine, the US tends to the opposite. The question is who benefits from such a decision, Europe including Russia can only loose if the conflict escalates ...

What do they/you mean by escalates? Ukraine is getting beat back. If they lose and Ukraine is taken, I feel like that is a lose for Europe as it puts Putin in a better position to impose his will on the rest of Europe. Hell, even if Ukraine splits that is still a loss for Europe. I don't like this trend of "let's let Russia do what it wants because letting madmen who don't give a damn about national sovereignty take whatever the hell they please will lead to a better future for us". Don't get me wrong he isn't some bond villian sitting in his volcano base plotting to destroy the world but he clearly doesn't give a damn about attacking other nations. Why would letting him "rule" another country be a good thing?

[mistyronin 1181]

McCain is such an asshole.

He mainly wants to be the center of attention. He is butthurt because he didn't make it to presidency.

[aleksadragutin 9]

What do they/you mean by escalates? Ukraine is getting beat back. If they lose and Ukraine is taken, I feel like that is a lose for Europe as it puts Putin in a better position to impose his will on the rest of Europe. Hell, even if Ukraine splits that is still a loss for Europe. I don't like this trend of "let's let Russia do what it wants because letting madmen who don't give a damn about national sovereignty take whatever the hell they please will lead to a better future for us". Don't get me wrong he isn't some bond villian sitting in his volcano base plotting to destroy the world but he clearly doesn't give a damn about attacking other nations. Why would letting him "rule" another country be a good thing?

There really is no way for whole Ukraine to be taken, and even if it is, what would this actually mean for the US? Maybe a slight change in geography class which no one follows anyway. The only people who will lose in this conflict are those who live there, cause no matter who wins, their lives will never be the same. The rest of Europe will pretty much stay the same. Besides Europe really does not wan't to go to war, unlike the US.

[jakerod 254]

The rest of Europe will pretty much stay the same.

I don't see how it could. Putin keeps showing aggression against his neighbors and already a lot has changed. If Ukraine falls, or if it is split, occupied or whatever I think a lot will change. The Nordic and Baltic countries have seemed quite nervous in the past few months.

Besides Europe really does not wan't to go to war, unlike the US.

And that is what is really messed up. No one should want war but if Putin won't stop doing this kind of crap I think it is better for Europe to end it now. They're the ones who are most threatened by Putin doing whatever he wants. I don't know how they would end it but ideally through negotiations and not war. However, there is already a war. I feel like it would be better for Europe/US to join in with Ukraine now while Putin is still claiming that they have no Russian troops there. If Europe/US steps in I think it might scare Putin into withdrawing his equipment and troops which means Ukraine is then free to liberate the rest of the country.

[mistyronin 1181]

The fact is that, IMO this situation is quite similar to what happened in Czechoslovakia in 1938.

The World already allowed Putin to be successful in his annexation of parts of Georgia, that's why he was encouraged to try the same scheme in Crimea, and now in Eastern Ukraine. Putin won't stop until he is stopped; and the stakes are rising by the moment.

Besides Europe really does not wan't to go to war, unlike the US.

In fact the USA has been trying to avoid any major war for decades. So no, they don't really want either.

The only one who is interested in one is Putin. As that keeps him in power and rises his self-esteem.

[maturin 12]

Besides Europe really does not wan't to go to war, unlike the US.

Once again, the astounding cartoonish ignorance, assuming that every US administration has the same politics as Bush. And even Bush would have stopped at nothing to avoid a disastrous war with Russia.

The US had essentially no hand in starting this conflict. US foreign policy was oriented in exactly the opposite direction, with the Reset that Putin rejected in order to rescue his own flagging popularity with the same old cheap anti-Americanism.

It is in fact Europe that holds most of the responsibility, on the part of the West. Maidan was about the EU. If you haven't noticed, the US isn't a member. And it was not even Western Europe, but the new EU members such as Poland and the Baltics who pushed for the Association Agreement and supported Maidan (not materially in any important way) most enthusiastically. Because these are states who always seek to demonize and provoke Russia because of their recent colonial past, to enhance their status within Europe.

By comparison, all these Western states are just bystanders, not really understanding the risks and forces at play, especially when it comes to the opportunistic paranoid vengeful Chekist in the Kremlin.

But I know that you have a deep-seated psychological need to blame bourgeois Atlanticist imperialists for the fact that Russia is butchering a fraternal people and destroying a historical relationship that has lasted over a millennium. And all of it because of a silly fraud, against a junta that doesn't exist, an imaginary threat to Russian speakers and Sevastopol, and Nazis who would have been packed off to jail after a few weeks. And the country is ecstatic at the bloodshed. Ðикогда не будете братьÑми. ПоздравлÑÑŽ ваÑ.

Edited February 7, 2015 by maturin

[oxmox 73]

Two days ago the following was reported about the new peace initiative by Merkel & Hollande and this seems probably a tricky point:

"Minsk-Plus" as a new agreement in conversation

---> The federal government denied on Thursday night that negotiation of a cease-fire in Kiev text wasnt the issue to grant separatists a much larger territory......

However, it seems unlikely that a ceasefire along the old line of demarcation can endure. That is why diplomats are already talking about a deal Minsk-Plus. According to estimates from Kiev, the separatists have now occupied up to 1500 square kilometers more territory.

SZ Newspaper

Poroshenko rejects change of territorial lines enshrined in Minsk pact

(Reuters) - Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said on Saturday he could not accept any changes to the so-called "demarcation lines" laid out in the Minsk peace agreement with pro-Russian separatists.

"The Minsk protocol is not a buffet in the Bayerischer Hof hotel," Poroshenko said, referring to the location of the Munich security conference where he was speaking.

He said the deal could only work if all 12 elements of the agreement, sealed last September in the Belarus capital, were respected. Since the agreement, rebels have made big territorial gains in eastern Ukraine, fuelling doubts about whether they will ever respect it in its current form.

"If you take just line, ceasefire and nothing more it would be simply no peace," Poroshenko said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/07/us-ukraine-crisis-poroshenko-minsk-idUSKBN0LB0MA20150207

Doesnt really sound positive in relation to the peace initiative efforts, the Ukraine itself is demanding arms for their military since a longer time.

It would be very bad if this conflict escalates into an arms race and open proxy war between the US and Russia, like european politicians fear ......

Edited February 7, 2015 by oxmox

[mistyronin 1181]

To me are a bit weird these negotiations, Putin will never respect the terms, he has never done. He just wants more, and more and more.

No matter how much the EU or the Ukrainian Gov. try.

Besides the obvious fact that Putin has 0% credibility.

Edited February 7, 2015 by MistyRonin

[oxmox 73]

To me are a bit weird these negotiations, Putin will never respect the terms, he has never done. He just wants more, and more and more.

Ah common, such definitions are overblown.

Not only Putin is here the reference person, there are more involved.

It is a geopolitical conflict mixed with internal problems between the east and west Ukraine.

The long military conflict did probably drive even more a wedge between the already originally devided country.

Edited February 7, 2015 by oxmox

[mistyronin 1181]

Not only Putin is here the reference person, there are more involved.

Putin is the one that sent Yanukovich and later give him protection when he was ousted.

Putin is the one that sent undercover troops to take Crimea, and organized a fake referendum ( he recognized himself ).

Putin is the one that sent the FSB and other guys undercover to create havoc in Eastern Ukraine ( Strelkov already confessed it ).

Putin is the one that sends men and equipment to the pro-Russians. For instance the ones that started the latest crisis in January.

It's not so much about geopolitics but about Putin's interests to keep in power for as long as he can and take as much as he can.

Neither the Ukrainian Gov. nor the EU had any interests in a war where they could lose more than win.

[oxmox 73]

Putin is the one that sent Yanukovich and later give him protection when he was ousted.

Putin is the one that sent undercover troops to take Crimea, and organized a fake referendum ( he recognized himself ).

Putin is the one that sent the FSB and other guys undercover to create havoc in Eastern Ukraine ( Strelkov already confessed it ).

Putin is the one that sends men and equipment to the pro-Russians. For instance the ones that started the latest crisis in January.

It's not so much about geopolitics but about Putin's interests to keep in power for as long as he can and take as much as he can.

Great and do you know anything else than only about Putin, do you read only Putin Newspaper and books ?

What about taking away the blinders and look left and right.....

[mistyronin 1181]

Great and do you know anything else than only about Putin, do you read only Putin Newspaper and books ?

Of course, but in this case is clear. And that teach us that European Govs. don't seem to have learn anything from the beginning of WW2.

[oxmox 73]

Of course, but in this case is clear. And that teach us that European Govs. don't seem to have learn anything from the beginning of WW2.

I think you miss a lot of points, the case like you describe isnt that clear. Sorry this is not my opinion.

Dont be naive to think that people learn from history, it wont repeat exactly but similar when it comes to the causes.

Edited February 8, 2015 by oxmox

[maturin 12]

Putin is the one that sent Yanukovich and later give him protection when he was ousted.

Putin is the one that sent undercover troops to take Crimea, and organized a fake referendum ( he recognized himself ).

Putin is the one that sent the FSB and other guys undercover to create havoc in Eastern Ukraine ( Strelkov already confessed it ).

Putin is the one that sends men and equipment to the pro-Russians. For instance the ones that started the latest crisis in January.

It's not so much about geopolitics but about Putin's interests to keep in power for as long as he can and take as much as he can.

Neither the Ukrainian Gov. nor the EU had any interests in a war where they could lose more than win.

No, he had a valid point. Putin is only the decisionmaker.

Taking over Crimea was most likely something organized by a group of hardliners in the Kremlin. They then presented their work to Putin, who momentarily wavered on whether to accept their "present," hearing arguments from the other factions such as that led by Medvedev. He ultimately chose to annex Crimea, but wavered momentarily, stating that Russia would not take over the peninsula.

And to my knowledge, Strelkov has never admitted any ties to the Kremlin. In any case, it should be quite obvious that the war in Donbas developed haphazardly out of the efforts of many different nationalist groups, Russian fascists, a tiny number of actual Ukrainian citizens and many some semi-independent special forces groups. And for many months, the equipment that flowed to the separatists probably had very little to do with the Kremlin. The same parties of nationalists, plus local governments, regime-friendly businessmen and independent military commanders were more than capable of keeping the supply lines open. We never saw any state-of-the-art stuff (T-72B3, Pantsir, etc) equipment for quite some time. Even the Buk was probably just mothballed somewhere until this year.

Putin is just a leader and a politician. He directs opinions of a political constituency that already exists. If not him, someone else would be in his place making the same decisions.

[aleksadragutin 9]

Once again, the astounding cartoonish ignorance, assuming that every US administration has the same politics as Bush. And even Bush would have stopped at nothing to avoid a disastrous war with Russia.

The US had essentially no hand in starting this conflict. US foreign policy was oriented in exactly the opposite direction, with the Reset that Putin rejected in order to rescue his own flagging popularity with the same old cheap anti-Americanism.

It is in fact Europe that holds most of the responsibility, on the part of the West. Maidan was about the EU. If you haven't noticed, the US isn't a member. And it was not even Western Europe, but the new EU members such as Poland and the Baltics who pushed for the Association Agreement and supported Maidan (not materially in any important way) most enthusiastically. Because these are states who always seek to demonize and provoke Russia because of their recent colonial past, to enhance their status within Europe.

By comparison, all these Western states are just bystanders, not really understanding the risks and forces at play, especially when it comes to the opportunistic paranoid vengeful Chekist in the Kremlin.

But I know that you have a deep-seated psychological need to blame bourgeois Atlanticist imperialists for the fact that Russia is butchering a fraternal people and destroying a historical relationship that has lasted over a millennium. And all of it because of a silly fraud, against a junta that doesn't exist, an imaginary threat to Russian speakers and Sevastopol, and Nazis who would have been packed off to jail after a few weeks. And the country is ecstatic at the bloodshed. Ðикогда не будете братьÑми. ПоздравлÑÑŽ ваÑ.

You misunderstood me. I ment to say that the US does not really care about the Ukrainians, and that it does not feal the need to stop this war. They'l fight to the last Ukrainian (as someone joked). And the US did have a role to play in this conflict. Everyone forgets that the rebelion was a reaction to the revolution in Kiev.

---------- Post added at 01:54 ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 ----------

I don't see how it could. Putin keeps showing aggression against his neighbors and already a lot has changed. If Ukraine falls, or if it is split, occupied or whatever I think a lot will change. The Nordic and Baltic countries have seemed quite nervous in the past few months.

And that is what is really messed up. No one should want war but if Putin won't stop doing this kind of crap I think it is better for Europe to end it now. They're the ones who are most threatened by Putin doing whatever he wants. I don't know how they would end it but ideally through negotiations and not war. However, there is already a war. I feel like it would be better for Europe/US to join in with Ukraine now while Putin is still claiming that they have no Russian troops there. If Europe/US steps in I think it might scare Putin into withdrawing his equipment and troops which means Ukraine is then free to liberate the rest of the country.

Easy for you to say that war is better, you don't live here.

[jakerod 254]

You misunderstood me. I ment to say that the US does not really care about the Ukrainians, and that it does not feal the need to stop this war. They'l fight to the last Ukrainian (as someone joked). And the US did have a role to play in this conflict. Everyone forgets that the rebelion was a reaction to the revolution in Kiev.

---------- Post added at 01:54 ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 ----------

Easy for you to say that war is better, you don't live here.

When did I say war was better? I said that there is already war and that I think it is better it ends quicker and in favor of Europe and not the aggressors. Or would you rather have to worry about your village getting shelled by GRADs for the next decade?

[beastcat 14]

BloombergView - Europeans Laugh as Lavrov Talks Ukraine

You can use the translated CC captions. Not quite sure if thats the original audio but you get the idea. :D

[Rydygier 1317]

When did I say war was better? I said that there is already war and that I think it is better it ends quicker and in favor of Europe and not the aggressors.

A sad fact. Now, if we listen why eg US don't want to sent weaponry, we can determine two schools of thinking about the situation and how to make it end ASAP:

First, standing behind an official US explanation of rearming refusal, is that rearming is like extinguishing the fire with gasoline (and is consistent with the logic in the Russian comments about eg Polish ideas of arming Ukraine, although due to completely other reasons - "we can't sent enough to equal Russian military power so it's pointless") - so it will not help, but will result with escalation, giving Russia an excuse to engage openly in the full strength. So negotiations only.

Second, shared eg by part of Polish politicians, is opposite - basing on, what we know about Russia from our mutual history, we need to make for Russia Ukraine involvment too costly (which of course doesn't require making Ukraine army equally strongly armed as Russian) ASAP. What makes the conflict potentialy and factualy escalating is leaving Putin a freedom of doing whatever he want. And he'll push forward as long he encounter strong enough resistance, as that's in the nature of imperial mentality - they not need any excuse to escalate, but a serious reason to stop. Negotiations - yes, but to negotiate efficiently one has to be strong enough.

Which one, if any, is a good way, as one can see, depends on true Russia (Putin's in fact) motivations and intentions. As apparently seems, Russia's policy is completely sunk into and based on persistent lies (even more that usually any policy is) and propaganda built on them, hard to say, act or not. And as consequences of mistake are possibly huge, is easier to make a mistake by not doing anything (also easier to refuse taking responsibility later - after all "we have done nothing wrong") than by resolute actions. That's usual mechanism behing hesitating till too late, so I'll not expect any decisive moves (none was made so far, sanctions wasn't IMO anyhow bold move, rather opposite, even, if will prove to be effective, which is doubtful as for ending the conflict - and even sanctions seems to bee too bold for EU, there are continous doubts) - Russia IMO may count on it. Anyway, hard for any solution, in the "madman with the button" situations.

What I expect, at the end, if any soon (not real one of course), is "ending" the war (but not Russia ambitions for the future) by: Europe, however divided and no longer truly united (EU in decay, as whole western Europe, NATO in crisis), cowardly, with marginal, futile resistance and Ukraine forced to be silent, recognizes Crimea as rightfully Russian (admitting this way, the only final law and "justice" is defined by the strong according to their will) + enough autonomy for Donbass to satisfy Russia's ambitions, all covered by some pitiful justification, that will become a subject of worldwide jokes. Of course Russia, that "never was involved" officialy will stay not a side in this conflict, but some providential peacemaker and will get, whatever it want at the moment, just like in Jalta, ensured again, its ways are well chosen, efficient, so should keep current angle in the future. Meanwhile Russia is economically deep in the goo due to sanctions, what sparks potentially more internal and external tensions in the region giving Putin another excuse to expand an Empire or to demand support (unlikely). Russian society has even more screwed, than now. Nothing unusual there, sadly. Ukraine after all that is full of tensions and hatred too, which makes situation far from stable and very far from fair. New conflicts seem to escalate inevitably soon after and will rot whole region by decades at least. So, Russia, as the only one, who was decidedly pushing towards its goals, will get some prize, while no real winner here, only losers.

This anticipation makes me sick, but IMO it's most likely turn of events.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Rydygier

[ProfTournesol 956]

Force estimates :

A group of US think-tanks has given estimates of the troop strengths in the combat zone, in a new report. It is based on recent discussions with Nato and Ukrainian officials.

The report quotes Ukrainian sources as saying "the total number of Russian troops and separatist fighters in the Donbas came to 36,000, as opposed to 34,000 Ukrainian troops along the line of contact.

"They believed that Russian forces made up 8,500 to 10,000 of the 36,000."

However, the report also notes that Nato gives a very different assessment of Russian troop numbers in Donbas.

Nato estimates that up to 1,000 GRU personnel (Russian military intelligence) and Russian officers are helping the rebels, according to the report.

But Nato says the troops have not been operating as organised Russian army units.

These estimates contrast with those of a Russian military analyst, Ilya Kramnik, who said last September that Ukrainian troops outnumbered the rebels two-to-one. He gave the figures as 20,000 to 25,000 on the rebel side, against 45,000 to 50,000 Ukrainian troops.