Ukraine General

[aleksadragutin 9]

It seems the rebels are still trying to get the airport under their control.

Maybe they found some ground attack aircraft in their garage.

[beastcat 14]

Maybe they found some ground attack aircraft in their garage.

Although I also have a pair of SU-24s in my garage, I doubt they will be able to use the airport, since its completely destroyed, including the runway.

There has been a proposal to ban the Simpsons, Futurama, South Park, Spongebob and Disney cartoons in Russia.

Gazeta - Moscow official proposes to ban "The Simpsons" and hairy monsters [i cant get Google Translate to work]

Edited September 30, 2014 by beastcat

[surpher 1]

(GlobalVoices) New Document Leak Reveals Scope of Collaboration Between Moscow and Donetsk

Anonymous Ukrainian hackers have leaked a cache of documents revealing the interactions between separatists in eastern Ukrainian and a Russian far-right political party.

Here are just a few items RuNet Echo has turned up, while investigating the data leak. (A note to readers: no, that last item isn't a joke.)

A scanned image of the passport of Denis Pushilin, the ex-chairman of the DNR.

The budget for an information campaign to be conducted in Donetsk.

A memo from the DNR detailing a request to deliver fuel along a hidden route under the Russia-Ukraine border.

A plan to get a Tolstoyan fable elected to a seat in the Ukrainian parliament.

[negah 26]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-crimes-and-atrocities-committed-by-ukraines-armed-forces-and-national-guard/5390016

As described in the video, Ukraine’s National Guard which is supported and financed by the West is controlled by Neo-Nazis with Nazi emblems.

Documented in the video, war crimes are being committed by both the Ukrainian Army and the Ukrainian National Guard.

In the media’s coverage of unfolding atrocities directed against civilians in Eastern Ukraine, the words Nazi, Fascist or Neo-Nazi are a taboo. They have been eliminated from the anthology of investigative reporting.

[beastcat 14]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-crimes-and-atrocities-committed-by-ukraines-armed-forces-and-national-guard/5390016

lol, I hope you do realize that Global Research is a conspiracy website (Founded by a Mr. Chossudovsky btw).

Parts of the video are from Chechnya, Georgia btw and are stuff done by the official russian army.

"The rebels wouldn’t kill their own parents, wives, and children since over 90% of the rebels are made up of local citizens."

These claims are always interesting, because for some reason russians, chechens, transnistrians and so on are much more prone to getting killed than these locals.

The rest is so stupid, its not even worth commenting.

After the pic with the daughter of Borodai with an AK inside a supermarket we get this:

Edited September 30, 2014 by beastcat

[negah 26]

So nazi symbolic used by that national guard brigade is also pure imagination?

Just as the fact that civilians were killed by the ukrainian air strikes and artillery shelling?

[beastcat 14]

So nazi symbolic used by that national guard brigade is also pure imagination?

Just as the fact that civilians were killed by the ukrainian air strikes and artillery shelling?

No, it's no secret that there are some neo-nazis fighting for Ukraine, just as its no secret that actual fashists, neo-nazis, communists, war criminals, mass murderers, russian secret service guys, mercenaries, chechens and so on are fighting for Russia.

Does that mean that the army and government is neo-nazi? No, because they are only a tiny part of the entire army.

And yes, people have died due to army shelling, but incompentense is not a war crime and unlike the russians the army is not deliberately targeting civilians.

Oh and about the SU-24, yes its horrible, but lets be realistic and honest, what did the people think would happen if they stand around the main separatist base with highly armed guys around them?

I don't know about you, but I would stay the fuck out of there.

[krycek 349]

Looking at how West dealt with Ukraine crisis,I wonder how many of those western Nato countries would actually respond if Article 5 was triggered.I know Ukraine isn't in Nato,but one must wonder if West will actually be prepared(or even want to)to fight/die for their "third world and eastern" neighbours.

The combined Nato firepower and air superiority would probably obliterate russian forces,but in worst case scenario I wonder if Eastern Europe wouldn't be abandoned just to keep their huge business deals in energy/other natural resources and pamper Putin ass in case he goes ballistic with his nuke toys.Especially when looking at how popular nationalism has become in this economic climate.

In such a scenario it's not that hard to believe that maybe many from those western countries wouldn't give a rat's ass about E.Europe or do everything they can not to trigger Article 5.Maybe only the US would have a more active role in the countries where the Missile Shield is placed.

[surpher 1]

(BBC Monitoring) TV uses crash pictures in 'mass grave' reports

The website of Russian TV channel REN TV has been using images of victims of the MH17 Malaysian airline disaster to illustrate reports about the alleged discovery of "mass graves" in east Ukraine.

[aleksadragutin 9]

Looking at how West dealt with Ukraine crisis,I wonder how many of those western Nato countries would actually respond if Article 5 was triggered.I know Ukraine isn't in Nato,but one must wonder if West will actually be prepared(or even want to)to fight/die for their "third world and eastern" neighbours.

The combined Nato firepower and air superiority would probably obliterate russian forces,but in worst case scenario I wonder if Eastern Europe wouldn't be abandoned just to keep their huge business deals in energy/other natural resources and pamper Putin ass in case he goes ballistic with his nuke toys.Especially when looking at how popular nationalism has become in this economic climate.

In such a scenario it's not that hard to believe that maybe many from those western countries wouldn't give a rat's ass about E.Europe or do everything they can not to trigger Article 5.Maybe only the US would have a more active role in the countries where the Missile Shield is placed.

Well Europe is heavily dependent on Russia, where as US is not. I wouldn't be surprised if Germans do nothing, but the US has it's head up in the clouds and does not give a f*** about interests of it's European allies.

[Tonci87 163]

Nah, not even the US would risk a direct confrontation with the Russians, the outcome would be too unpredictable.

[aleksadragutin 9]

Nah, not even the US would risk a direct confrontation with the Russians, the outcome would be too unpredictable.

You're right, the US picks only on those who can't fight back.

[ProfTournesol 956]

It's up to European countries to deal with Russia, the US cannot - and shouldn't - deal with all the BS happening on earth. Sadly Europe is weak, i don't see much country able to do anything. France and UK are already militarly involved abroad, the other European countries have close to no military power. What's left ? Germany, quite unwilling to do anything.

[mistyronin 1181]

Nah, not even the US would risk a direct confrontation with the Russians, the outcome would be too unpredictable.

Agree. The US would never start a war against Russia. And it would be really unlikely that they started any war that conflicted with European interests.

Both the US Gov and European Govs depend a lot on the public opinion, unlike the Russian Federation.

[ballistic09 241]

You're right, the US picks only on those who can't fight back.

... Or maybe those who won't trigger the start of world war III, resulting in mutually assured destruction for all parties involved? :j:

Don't be intentionally dense, it makes you look like nothing but a mindless troll.

[aleksadragutin 9]

... Or maybe those who won't trigger the start of world war III, resulting in mutually assured destruction for all parties involved? :j:

Don't be intentionally dense, it makes you look like nothing but a mindless troll.

Anyone capable of defying US is also capable of starting WW3. Deal with this as you may, but US is only good for bullying smaller countries.

[ProfTournesol 956]

While Russia is dealing with Ukraine, Georgia and other powerful countries :rolleyes:

[mistyronin 1181]

Anyone capable of defying US is also capable of starting WW3. Deal with this as you may, but US is only good for bullying smaller countries.

USA bullies small countries. Interesting.

How many countries have the USA alone bullied? ( by alone, I mean no coalition nor UN mandate )

How many countries has Russia alone bullied?

And what's more interesting...

How many countries have the USA invaded and annexed?

How many countries has Russia invaded and annexed?

It's not the same to punish someone according to certain international laws in agreement with a lot of countries than just act in your own will because you want...

[Tonci87 163]

Don´t mind him, his view of the world is quite wicked.....

[oxmox 73]

Its easy to find a lists about the US, at least the officials ones wheras there seems no lists specific for russia except for the former USSR. If you dig deeper you will find aswell informations.

(not sure if the lists are complete but hopefully it will help you guys with more infos)

Timeline - United States military operations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

Countries annexed by the United States is listed under "territorial acquisitions"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_territorial_acquisitions

List of Invasions - worldwide countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions

Military Occupations - worldwide countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations

Military Occupations - Soviet Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupations_by_the_Soviet_Union

List of Wars involving Russia/CCCP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia

Edited October 1, 2014 by oxmox

[mistyronin 1181]

(not sure if the lists are complete but hopefully it will help you guys with more infos)

They are not. For example in the list of invasions omits Chechnya ( which after the first Chechen war was an independent country ).

If you want an interesting exercise, let's start after the creation of the UN ( 1948 ). Which is the world referee. In which council different countries have veto power ( Russia, China, UK, France and the USA ).

And list after that how many invasions and annexations happened unilaterally ( illegal according to international right and by a single country ).

Obviously invasions due to UN SC mandate or with a wide consensus ( more than 10 countries ) are not the same as illegal and criminal invasions.

Or it's the same when a Law enforcement officer breaks in a house with a judge order or a burglar that breaks in with malicious and selfish intentions.

Also interesting to note which country used the veto right more times:

Edited October 1, 2014 by MistyRonin

[aleksadragutin 9]

They are not. For example in the list of invasions omits Chechnya ( which after the first Chechen war was an independent country ).

If you want an interesting exercise, let's start after the creation of the UN ( 1948 ). Which is the world referee. In which council different countries have veto power ( Russia, China, UK, France and the USA ).

And list after that how many invasions and annexations happened unilaterally ( illegal according to international right and by a single country ).

Obviously invasions due to UN SC mandate or with a wide consensus ( more than 10 countries ) are not the same as illegal and criminal invasions.

Or it's the same when a Law enforcement officer breaks in a house with a judge order or a burglar that breaks in with malicious and selfish intentions.

Also interesting to note which country used the veto right more times:

http://www.thirdcoastactivist.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/un_vetoes.jpg

The Chechen wars are an internal operation. And while US didn't directly annex any territories, it caused the separation of many of them into so called "independent" countries, which are heavily dependent on US politics. If you sum up territories taken away by the US and it's allies, you'll see that it's way more than Russia took. Another thing are the territories occupied by the US but never really annexed. And then there's the ethics of all US and NATO interventions.

And please explain how an invasion could be legal at all. Let's not start with 1948, let's start with the new world order (1990-).

---------- Post added at 07:19 ---------- Previous post was at 07:14 ----------

While Russia is dealing with Ukraine, Georgia and other powerful countries :rolleyes:

There is evidence that Georgia started the conflict, and Russia fought for lands that were rightfully theirs. US on the other hand has the urge to fly thousands of km away from it's border to deal their brand of justice.

Not gonna comment on Ukraine cause the whole deal is still foggy.

Could you also name any Russian intervention other than in Georgia? (Those within it's territory do not count)

Edited October 1, 2014 by aleksadragutin

[Tonci87 163]

Why shouldn´t those within its own territory count? If a state separates then he is no longer inside their territory.

[negah 26]

Why shouldn´t those within its own territory count? If a state separates then he is no longer inside their territory.

So according to you, ukrainian army is now intervening into the separatist territories, who are now no longer inside Ukraine. Since I dont remember there was any UN mandate allowing Ukraine to intervene into that territories.

Gongratulations, you have just branded Ukraine criminal for to their "illegal" (again according to your logic) military operation.

Oh wait I forgot something, its only Russia and China who arent allowed to do it.

BTW, calling someone's point of view "wicked", just because its not like yours, is rather inappropriate. It can be compared to people calling other people heretics, because their beliefs are different.

Edited October 1, 2014 by negah

[mistyronin 1181]

And please explain how an invasion could be legal at all. Let's not start with 1948, let's start with the new world order (1990-).

Because there is an international legislation, there are also international tribunals, an international parliament ( UN ), and international executive power ( the UN SC ), etc. You should know better than anyone as Serbia has been affected by all of them.

And inside the international law one of the principles is the one of self-determination of nations ( the right to decide their future, and that goes for Kosovo, Chechnya, and half of the World's countries ).

Funny thing is that to authorize those international UNSC mandates / decisions, China and Russia had to vote yes or abstain. So neither Russia or China found any issue on that.

BTW neither the US nor its allies took away any territory, in the case of Kosovo which I guess you refer, was the people of Kosovo who in their own right and according to international standards decided their own fate.

If they had prefered to stay inside Serbia, no one would have cared. But then again, why to launch an independence campaign in the 90s if you want to remain inside...