Ukraine/Crimea

Russian invasion force arrives in Lugansk:
And then they go home.
 
Apparently the rebels showing off stuff they've wrecked. I'm thinking the US is probably not unhappy to see all this old soviet hardware being junked. It will make a lucrative market for all of their newfangled US gear.
 
Not at all surprising but an interesting turn of events. This wasn't just a small group of guys walking around, they were part of an armoured column. Most certainly they'd have GPS systems telling them exactly where they were. But even if not, they claimed local pro-Russian Ukrainians were with them and they'd sure as shit know where they were. But who knows, that may have been all scripted.

But either way this is a secret war for Russia and with secret wars come secret funerals.

Kremlin is Caught Putting Boots on the Ground in Ukraine

As a result of this secrecy, Russian servicemen are dying in Ukraine anonymously, relatives in Kastroma said. Their families do not receive any compensation or any moral support from the state. The families grew especially upset, after they saw photographs of a secret funeral in Pskov of Russian paratroopers killed on the Ukrainian battlefield. Neither the last names of the fallen, nor the place and date of their deaths were pronounced at the funeral.
Click to expand...

Russian state media will do a fine job of keeping this out of prime time, but Russians will eventually know all about this. The bad news for Ukraine is that this only makes it that much more important that Putin wins this war.
 
Nato is to deploy its forces at new bases in eastern Europe for the first time, in response to the Ukraine crisis and in an attempt to deter Vladimir Putin from causing trouble in the former Soviet Baltic republics, according to its secretary general.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the organisations's summit in Cardiff next week would overcome divisions within the alliance and agree to new deployments on Russia's borders – a move certain to trigger a strong reaction from Moscow.
Click to expand...

The horsefeathers spewing from all sides in this imbroglio is quite something.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/26/nato-east-european-bases-counter-russian-threat
 
Has Putin finally met his match in Valentina Melnikova?

Russian Moms Denounce Putin’s Not-So-Secret Ukraine Invasion

Today, in an exclusive interview, Melnikova sounded absolutely furious. She said she was "personally humiliated as a citizen of the Russian Federation by our commander-in-chief's pure, direct crime.” Putin is “violating not only international laws, not only the Geneva Convention, [he] also is breaking Russian Federation law about defense,” she told The Daily Beast, “and as for Vladimir Shamanov [commander-in-chief of the Russian airborne troops], we should be too disgusted to even mention his name - he forces his servicemen to fight in a foreign state, Ukraine, illegally, while mothers receive coffins with their sons, anonymously.”
Click to expand...

Will it be enough to give pause to Putin or will she just dissapear?
 
Robert said:
The horsefeathers spewing from all sides in this imbroglio is quite something.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/26/nato-east-european-bases-counter-russian-threat
Click to expand...
NATO is effectively doing nothing. Russia has complained about NATO encroachment for years, now they might actually be a slightly encroached, at least for a while. But really, NATO should move some hardware into Ukraine itself. I'm pretty certain Putin would never pick a fight with a nation that had a chance to fight back and a few M1A1's in Kiev would likely make him back off on the spot. But NATO could never be so bold.
 
NATO is effectively doing nothing.
Click to expand...

Deary me - such a hopelessly one-eyed view.
And yet you rail against others falling for propaganda.
 
What propaganda specifically? NATO has for the most part been reactionary here where as Russia has military personnel and equipment inside Ukraine in what can only be called an invasion in slow motion. NATO is moving some military jets and units from western parts of Europe to the Eastern parts. But nothing that NATO has done is a real threat to Russia because the overall numbers of US hardware is the same. What we haven't seen are US carrier groups moving towards Russia. What we haven't seen are M1A1's loaded into Galaxy transporters and dropped off in Poland. We haven't seen US marine and paratrooper divisions redeployed into eastern Europe either. Not only that, Obama has cut back the Tomahwak and Hellfire missile programs - hardly the sign of a nation preparing for a major war. For NATO to react militarily they'd need to build up some serious presence there and that would take time. If Russia rolled it's tanks into Kiev right now NATO would have no chance to do anything about it, they are completely unprepared for that. Kiev is very much on their own and they know it. And so does Russia.
 
Last edited:
I think Anne Applebaum makes a compelling case.

Putin has invaded Ukraine. Is it hysterical to prepare for total war with Russia? Or is it naive not to?

But Novorossiya will also be hard to sustain if it has opponents in the West. Possible solutions to that problem are also under discussion. Not long ago, Vladimir Zhirinovsky—the Russian member of parliament and court jester, who sometimes says things that those in power cannot—argued on television that Russia should use nuclear weapons to bomb Poland and the Baltic countries—“dwarf states,” he called them—and show the West who really holds power in Europe: “Nothing threatens America, it’s far away. But Eastern European countries will place themselves under the threat of total annihilation,” he declared. Vladimir Putin indulges these comments: Zhirinovsky’s statements are not official policy, the Russian president says, but he always “gets the party going.”

A far more serious person, the dissident Russian analyst Andrei Piontkovsky, has recently published an article arguing, along lines that echo Zhirinovsky’s threats, that Putin really is weighing the possibility of limited nuclear strikes—perhaps against one of the Baltic capitals, perhaps a Polish city—to prove that NATO is a hollow, meaningless entity that won’t dare strike back for fear of a greater catastrophe. Indeed, in military exercises in 2009 and 2013, the Russian army openly “practiced” a nuclear attack on Warsaw.
Click to expand...
 
Robert said:
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/26/russia-admits-soldiers-in-ukraine
Click to expand...

Yes. But by now they have been sent home just like Russia send all of the Ukrainian soldiers home that flee into Russia.
Mike won't be surprised that I find the Russian admission and explanation unsurprising. What I DO find surprising is the fact that we know the US has satellites and spy planes over the area and still doesn't have much luck finding Russians in Ukraine.
We know that there are Russian volunteers in Donbas, but there are also British and Spanish and Serbian volunteers in Donbas. There are also volunteers on the Ukrainian side.
I am not surprised that the Donbas forces are better organized and better fighters because they are fighting for their homeland. The Ukrainian troops are conscripts who are fighting for Oligarchs because they've been forced to. The right wing brigades are actually much more enthusiastic, of course, because they mostly just want to kill Russians which is a large part of the population in the east.
 
Glaucus said:
NATO is effectively doing nothing. Russia has complained about NATO encroachment for years, now they might actually be a slightly encroached, at least for a while.
Click to expand...
Come on Mike. Can you actually be so unobservant? Look at some maps some time. You think the US hasn't been looking for a way to get bases all they way up to Russia? Do you think that the coup in Kiev didn't have that as part of it's purpose up front? It was pretty much a win/win play. Put Ukraine into hands loyal to US/EU and if Russia doesn't object, put in a base; if Russia objects, use it as an excuse to put in a base.
NATO has been moving in on Russia ever since the wall came down. To say they haven't is either dishonest or ignorant.
 
Glaucus said:
For NATO to react militarily they'd need to build up some serious presence there and that would take time. If Russia rolled it's tanks into Kiev right now NATO would have no chance to do anything about it, they are completely unprepared for that. Kiev is very much on their own and they know it. And so does Russia.
Click to expand...
And Russia knows that. They could take the country in a week, maybe two, and no-one could stop them. Yet - oddly they don't. Putin even had the Russian parliament rescind his permission to invade Ukraine. But NATO is talking about putting together a 10,000 strong strike force for rapid deployments in Eastern Europe - still not much in terms of stopping a Russian invasion but it would be effective against the separatists.
Kiev and its financial backers would really like to get that coal region back under it's control but the people that live there? Not so much.
But the route to Russia is through isolation. The US will leverage ISIS to take away Syria and Russia's Mediterranean port. Then they may get back to Iran and take them away from Russia too (perhaps while occupying Russia with a full on war in Ukraine?). China may be a tougher nut to crack as China recognizes the threat from Washington and has been war gaming with Russia recently. They are trying to strengthen their cooperation at the moment.
They understand that America's pursuit of full-spectrum dominance and its ambition to be sole hegemon of the planet is not just rhetoric.
The people who wrote that the goal should be 'maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests.' and their followers didn't just die or go away or stop believing this. Russia is one of those rivals.
But perhaps the day will come when all of your dreams come true, Mike, and the US IS the owner of the planet and all of those "bad" leaders have been removed (except the dictators who make money for us) and at that point, I'm sure, the dick heads at the top of the system will suddenly realize that the time has come to let "the people" realize the ideal of Democracy and dismantle that police state they've been working on.
 
And Russia knows that. They could take the country in a week, maybe two, and no-one could stop them. Yet - oddly they don't.
Click to expand...

He's even said as much:
According to the account, Barroso asked Putin about the presence of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Nato says there are at least 1,000 Russian forces on the wrong side of the border. The Ukrainians put the figure at 1,600.

"The problem is not this, but that if I want I'll take Kiev in two weeks," Putin said, according to La Repubblica.

The Kremlin did not deny Putin had spoken of taking Kiev, but instead complained about the leak of the Barroso remarks.
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-could-conquer-ukraine-capital-kiev-fortnight
 
And here's yet more of NATO "effectively doing nothing":
Nato is to create a 4,000-strong "spearhead" high-readiness force that can be deployed rapidly in eastern Europe and the Baltic states to help protect member nations against potential Russian aggression, according to Nato officials.

Leaders from the 28 Nato countries are expected to approve the plan at the alliance's summit in Wales when the Ukraine crisis tops the agenda on Friday.

The Nato secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said the force, drawn on rotational basis from Nato allies, could be in action at "very, very short notice".

Rasmussen described it as a mixture of regular troops and special forces that could "travel light but strike hard". It would be supported by air and naval forces as needed.

He declined to say how many troops would be engaged but Nato officials said it would number around 4,000 and would be expected to deploy to any alliance member country within 48 hours..

"It is so that we are ready should something nasty happen," a senior Nato official said.

Russia is likely to view the creation of the high-readiness force as an aggressive move.
Click to expand...

Not provocative at all.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Come on Mike. Can you actually be so unobservant? Look at some maps some time. You think the US hasn't been looking for a way to get bases all they way up to Russia?
Click to expand...
No, and I don't think Russia has been their main objective. If it were, they'd have bases right up to Russia and they wouldn't be selling Russia war ships either. If you used your brain to think once and a while you might figure that out on your own.

Do you think that the coup in Kiev didn't have that as part of it's purpose up front?
Click to expand...
What's going on in Kiev is about Kiev moving away from Russia and NATO/EU are its best options at the moment. Ukraine itself isn't much of a prize for the EU/NATO and I don't think the US wants Ukraine just to at Russia. Even if they wanted to get at Russia they would just go ahead and get at Russia.

It was pretty much a win/win play. Put Ukraine into hands loyal to US/EU and if Russia doesn't object, put in a base; if Russia objects, use it as an excuse to put in a base.
Click to expand...
They could just as easily put in bases in some of the other Eastern European nations that recently joined NATO and have ben asking for bases - but have been denied. Ukraine itself could have been fast tracked into NATO but hasn't. In fact, it was slow-tracked and is unlikely to enter as NATO charters forbid nations with territorial disputes to enter NATO. And that's kinda what Putin has made sure of when he took Crimea, it pretty much makes it impossible for Ukraine to ever be part of NATO unless they give up Crimea and possibly all of Eastern Ukraine.

NATO has been moving in on Russia ever since the wall came down. To say they haven't is either dishonest or ignorant.
Click to expand...
No, you're just an idiot.

However, now Russia is doing things and what you say NATO has been doing is exactly what they need to do. They need to build lots of bases around Russia and redeploy the navies and air defences to box them in (and France REALLY needs to cancel the sale of the two war ships and they should keep any down payments too). But that's never gonna happen, at least not while Obama is in command. He's too busy cancelling Tomahawks and Hellfires and maybe the A10-Warthogs, exactly the kind of weapons they'd need when "moving in on Russia".
The fact is Russia's main threat isn't the US or NATO but China. Russia is screwing itself over long term here.
 
Glaucus said:
No, and I don't think Russia has been their main objective. If it were, they'd have bases right up to Russia and they wouldn't be selling Russia war ships either. If you used your brain to think once and a while you might figure that out on your own.
Click to expand...
OR they'd be working on GETTING bases right up to Russia. You see, being an objective means they haven't done it yet. It means they want to do it and are finding ways to do it. Now, determining intentions isn't always straight forward, but sometimes they just write this stuff down and more or less tell you.
What's going on in Kiev is about Kiev moving away from Russia and NATO/EU are its best options at the moment.
Click to expand...
What's going on in Kiev is about some guys making some money, some other guys getting to shoot "the kind of people who aren't real Ukrainians" and the vast majority of people getting screwed. That's what spreading "Democracy" (TM) is all about. Same old same old. Even sent US politicians to give speeches to the protesters. Nothing wrong with that. If Russia sent politicians to give speeches to anti-American protesters in Mexico, why that's just normal free speech and empathy for a people's cause.
Ukraine itself isn't much of a prize for the EU/NATO and I don't think the US wants Ukraine just to at Russia. Even if they wanted to get at Russia they would just go ahead and get at Russia.
Click to expand...
Ukraine isn't much of a prize ... but it must be because it's not about getting at Russia, besides, Russia is so obviously OK with it that we clearly aren't "getting at Russia" because if we wanted to that's what we would be doing and Russia would be complaining, right? So ... clearly.

They could just as easily put in bases in some of the other Eastern European nations that recently joined NATO and have ben asking for bases - but have been denied. Ukraine itself could have been fast tracked into NATO but hasn't. In fact, it was slow-tracked and is unlikely to enter as NATO charters forbid nations with territorial disputes to enter NATO. And that's kinda what Putin has made sure of when he took Crimea, it pretty much makes it impossible for Ukraine to ever be part of NATO unless they give up Crimea and possibly all of Eastern Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Check ... A ... Map!

However, now Russia is doing things and what you say NATO has been doing is exactly what they need to do. They need to build lots of bases around Russia and redeploy the navies and air defences to box them in (and France REALLY needs to cancel the sale of the two war ships and they should keep any down payments too).
Click to expand...
But first they had to fill the front pages and prime time news with a series of scary stories (that would then turn out to be nothing of the sort but not to worry because here comes another one) to convince people that it was what was needed and even .. to convince people to send their kids to help it happen. Are yours old enough yet? Will you be signing them up when they are? Is that the level of your commitment to this?

He's too busy cancelling Tomahawks and Hellfires and maybe the A10-Warthogs, exactly the kind of weapons they'd need when "moving in on Russia".
The fact is Russia's main threat isn't the US or NATO but China. Russia is screwing itself over long term here.
Click to expand...
I presume you'll be voting for Harper them. He's pretty hostile towards Russia. Sounds like he's your man in the next election.

Now, given how Stalin/Hitler/Saddam/Gadaffi/Assad Putin is, are you ready to go with a first strike nuclear attack to sort him out? Or will you need a few more weeks of scary news.
Also, have you noticed how America is leading this but Europe is hurting from it?[/quote]
 
No, no need to vote for Harper. I think any PM from any party wouldn't stand for what Russia is doing. I'm pretty confident Trudeau isn't and that's who I'll vote for. Harper is kinda over the top with Russia, Canada can't really back itself up really and Canada needs to worry about the Arctic, which may lead to some confrontation with Russia.
At any rate, no I don't think we need a war with Russia. I think Putin is exploiting what he perceives is a weak (and perhaps too honest) US president. Obama telegraphed early on that the US is gonna do nothing about Ukraine militarily so Putin decided that he's willing to take on any economic sanctions (that will affect others more than him personally) and use Ukraine for his own political gain (this is definitely not good for Russia or Russians, but that's how he's selling it). Obama was wrong to just sit back and do nothing, he should have been a lot more ambiguous about what he was prepared to do and not do. Obama is the kind of guy you want to play poker against because he shows you his hand every time. Putin didn't waste that opportunity and cashed in. Putin on the other hand has done a great job of creating confusion and playing Europeans against each other. Obama should have done that, and it could have easily been done by using the same tactics: say one thing and do another.

But first they had to fill the front pages and prime time news with a series of scary stories
Click to expand...
No they didn't need to first fill the headlines with anything, they could just have gone and done it because those Eastern European nations have been asking for bases for years. All they'd need to do is give in to their demands and boom, bases in Poland, Latvia, Romania, etc. However they didn't because NATO has been compelled to honour the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997, which Russia has now breached and NATO is no longer required to abide by. For many people in those Eastern European nations NATO are the good guys and Russia is the bad guys and that's a historical fact. These nations, like Ukraine and Georgia, want to move away from Russia's influence because Russia's influence has been nothing but toxic and destructive. And I see nothing at all wrong with the fact that NATO wishes to help them move away from Russia's bad influence and it is very much their good fortune that NATO is willing to do that.
 
Glaucus said:
a weak (and perhaps too honest) US president.
Click to expand...
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

No they didn't need to first fill the headlines with anything, they could just have gone and done it
Click to expand...
As they could have done with Iraq and Libya - but that's not how it's played because naked agression is still against the law and people recognize it. Leaders still have to go through elaborate pantomimes of propaganda like stating flatly that so and so has weapons of mass destruction or that so and so has invaded somewhere - and re-stating this over and over again even when actual evidence is lacking. By simply repeating it as if it were true and them building the case on that people will assume it is true. That was Iraq WMDs and that is Russian aggression in Ukraine. You can no longer question it because it's part of the narrative that "everyone knows" just like WMDs, the existence of God, Israel's right to exist, etc. You have to set up the appearance of arighteous case so that at least your own civilians don't revolt when they realise where their money is going. You also have to spread the blame around so that if it turns out you were wrong you can say - "well, everyone thought that - it's just an intelligence failure". You also need to be able to create encouragement and an excuse for your allies. The US could just go in and do it, they always could, but they don't because it would expose them for what they are.

However they didn't because NATO has been compelled to honour the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997,
Click to expand...
Which that drunk Yeltsin thought meant that NATO couldn't move into the Russian sphere but the US never saw as binding in that way. Shortly after this act NATO decided it was a good time to bomb Yugoslavia (humanitarianly) including getting a nice big giant base out of the deal.

These nations, like Ukraine and Georgia, want to move away from Russia's influence because Russia's influence has been nothing but toxic and destructive.
Click to expand...
But Donbas doesn't. That geographical area has more in common with Donbass in Russia than with Kiev and the people are more Russian so guess who they would ally with. But what they want doesn't count because ... well, let's just say that we would only support people who want to separate from our enemies.

Now here's a bunch of Putin loving Veteran US Intelligence Professionals writing to Merkle (who may or may not be resigning to seek a senior EU position) to let her know their opinion on this matter.

"If the photos that NATO and the U.S. have released represent the best available “proof” of an invasion from Russia, our suspicions increase that a major effort is under way to fortify arguments for the NATO summit to approve actions that Russia is sure to regard as provocative."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top