Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.

Ren2k7

WakeUp wrote: »

it happened in 1966 France pulled out of Nato command. it wasnt until 40 years later when Sarkozy arrived that France became a fully fledged member. had a French journalist in the 60s suggested such a thing you would have probably called them a lunatic too right. things change. change happens all the time who knows what the future holds.

Did France withdraw fro NATO and enter into an alliance with the Soviet's back in the '60s? No.

Ren2k7

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

Ok, your trying again to be smart but I'm afraid not working.
Nato are saying they going to build up divisions all along eastern europe, if you watched the news you know this..
Will nato go into ukraine, don't know but think they should in peace keeping role and answer is apparent to why
Sanctions aren't working ith russia and won't
Asked you before how would you deal with russia

Unfortunately only a few "rapid deployment" brigades will be sent to Central and Eastern Europe under NATO command, numbering roughly a few thousand. These forces are designed around quick reaction. But the problem isn't so much the units themselves (no doubt they are extremely proficient and capable). The problem is the reaction time of the politicians at NATO's Brussels HQ to any crisis. Because as we have already seen speed and haste aren't something the Western alliance does all that well.

Ren2k7

Sobko wrote: »

Surely it should be the UN that goes in as peace keepers not Nato. Since when has Nato been considered neutral?

Russia would veto any UN peacekeeping force deployment to Ukraine. They can't veto a NATO mission OTOH......

Ren2k7

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

Peacekeepers in Ukraine would dis-fuse the situation there and let people close to civil war towns take a breath from it .
The brits and Americans are talking more sanctions which so far only hurt regular people in russia but wont stop putin .
The russian muppets in ukraine will continue taking town by town unless something is done more than sanctions .

Peacekeepers couldn't be mere observers like our troops in the Leb who only fire when fired upon and generally just observe Hezbollah and the IDF take pot shots at each other. Any mission to Donbass would need the appropriate authorisation to actually maintain the peace, ideally by going right into the Russian controlled sector of Ukraine and forcefully eject the "rebels" and their Russian backers. Unfortunately the only force capable of doing that would be NATO backed up by the United States military.

KELTICKNIGHTT

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Unfortunately only a few "rapid deployment" brigades will be sent to Central and Eastern Europe under NATO command, numbering roughly a few thousand. These forces are designed around quick reaction. But the problem isn't so much the units themselves (no doubt they are extremely proficient and capable). The problem is the reaction time of the politicians at NATO's Brussels HQ to any crisis. Because as we have already seen speed and haste aren't something the Western alliance does all that well.

Very true, eu are very slow at doing anything specially with germany in there.
Thats why if eu did decide to do something, might be too late as they move so slow with everything.

Ren2k7

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

Very true, eu are very slow at doing anything specially with germany in there.
Thats why if eu did decide to do something, might be too late as they move so slow with everything.

Not only would it be too late but also too little as well. But then the EU isn't designed for direct confrontation with outside entities. People seem to forget it's still very much an economic union despite roughly 20 years of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, along with a diplomatic corps (the EEAS), a "defence department" (the European Defence Agency) and a military staff, like the US Joint Chiefs and the Russian General Staff.

KELTICKNIGHTT

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Not only would it be too late but also too little as well. But then the EU isn't designed for direct confrontation with outside entities. People seem to forget it's still very much an economic union despite roughly 20 years of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, along with a diplomatic corps (the EEAS), a "defence department" (the European Defence Agency) and a military staff, like the US Joint Chiefs and the Russian General Staff.

The only country russia afraid of is America.
Ukraine needs help and soon before its too late, the russian muppets will continue to take town by town unless stopped.

WakeUp

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

Nato are saying they going to build up divisions all along eastern europe, if you watched the news you know this..
Will nato go into ukraine, don't know but think they should in peace keeping role and answer is apparent to why
Sanctions aren't working ith russia and won't
Asked you before how would you deal with russia

well now. Ive asked you a number of questions that you have yet to answer where as Im attempting to answer yours as best I can from what I can make out of some of them. so tell you what you have a read a back and some of the questions Ive asked you answer please. then Ill think about answering your latest one.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Did France withdraw fro NATO and enter into an alliance with the Soviet's back in the '60s? No.

nope. but they still withdrew from the alliance a precedent has been set. its not in our interests to be at loggerheads with the Russians and its the Americans that are driving the sanction/wanting to arm Ukraine not the EU. the Americans in my opinion fear and want to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia its one of their biggest fears that we have closer ties. because it will weaken them. hence them taking the lead over Ukraine that will certainly and is causing a rift. why do you think the Americans are driving this because the empire loves us and wants to "protect" us. or they are our friends. nope its neither of those. the Americans have their own reasons and they dont care if both Russia and Europe burn to achieve them. and Europe will burn if this keeps going France and Germany are blocking all attempts at Ukrainian Nato membership and arming them for a reason. Britain doesnt want to arm them either. if certain EU politicians come to the conclusion that Washington or some of them have lost the plot and interests are not best served with them. things can change rapidly.

Unfortunately only a few "rapid deployment" brigades will be sent to Central and Eastern Europe under NATO command, numbering roughly a few thousand. These forces are designed around quick reaction. But the problem isn't so much the units themselves (no doubt they are extremely proficient and capable). The problem is the reaction time of the politicians at NATO's Brussels HQ to any crisis. Because as we have already seen speed and haste aren't something the Western alliance does all that well.

what good are a few thousand of whatever against a supposed Russian onslaught. that makes zero military sense. they arent a quick reaction force. they are a trip wire. nothing more.

KELTICKNIGHTT

WakeUp wrote: »

well now. Ive asked you a number of questions that you have yet to answer where as Im attempting to answer yours as best I can from what I can make out of some of them. so tell you what you have a read a back and some of the questions Ive asked you answer please. then Ill think about answering your latest one.



nope. but they still withdrew from the alliance a precedent has been set. its not in our interests to be at loggerheads with the Russians and its the Americans that are driving the sanction/wanting to arm Ukraine not the EU. the Americans in my opinion fear and want to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia its one of their biggest fears that we have closer ties. because it will weaken them. hence them taking the lead over Ukraine that will certainly and is causing a rift. why do you think the Americans are driving this because the empire loves us and wants to "protect" us. or they are our friends. nope its neither of those. the Americans have their own reasons and they dont care if both Russia and Europe burn to achieve them. and Europe will burn if this keeps going France and Germany are blocking all attempts at Ukrainian Nato membership and arming them for a reason. Britain doesnt want to arm them either. if certain EU politicians come to the conclusion that Washington or some of them have lost the plot and interests are not best served with them. things can change rapidly.



what good are a few thousand of whatever against a supposed Russian onslaught. that makes zero military sense. they arent a quick reaction force. they are a trip wire. nothing more.

Funny you say that, reading back through the thread you don't seem to answer questions but accuse others of not answer questions, funny that , so your using this option of your way throught thread, which suggests your a waste of time trying to ask you a question,
seems you been asked both by me and couple of others, you seem to take a sit on fence approach to russia in other words do nothing !!!

So here a question, do you support russia in its support of russians fighting civil war in ukraine

Here's another question.
If you don't support russia , How would you stop russians in ukraine in civil war.

AS far as nato rapid reaction force its better than what's there now plus you seem to think russia will take action with nato, I don't think so , russia won't take on nato as america would then get involved , won't happen .

WakeUp

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

Funny you say that, reading back through the thread you don't seem to answer questions but accuse others of not answer questions, funny that , so your using this option of your way throught thread, which suggests your a waste of time trying to ask you a question,
seems you been asked both by me and couple of others, you seem to take a sit on fence approach to russia in other words do nothing !!!

So here a question, do you support russia in its support of russians fighting civil war in ukraine

Here's another question.
If you don't support russia , How would you stop russians in ukraine in civil war.

ok its late and we can do this again tomorrow. There is a number of things I have asked you that you havent replied too. here is one of them...

you spoke about a "big picture"?...in eastern Europe....with regard to Russian intentions...

what is this big picture you speak of? explain it to me please. farewell for now.

KELTICKNIGHTT

WakeUp wrote: »

ok its late and we can do this again tomorrow. There is a number of things I have asked you that you havent replied too. here is one of them...

you spoke about a "big picture"?...in eastern Europe....with regard to Russian intentions...

what is this big picture you speak of? explain it to me please. farewell for now.

Are you really telling me you don't know big picture and you quote a article from someone from web, are you for real.
I asked you 2 questions, answer them and I answer you if your able too, ask shown in this thread you can't answer, your answer a question with a question. So answer my 2 question in my last post and I answer you.

cheers

WakeUp

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

Are you really telling me you don't know big picture and you quote a article from someone from web, are you for real.
I asked you 2 questions, answer them and I answer you if your able too, ask shown in this thread you can't answer, your answer a question with a question. So answer my 2 question in my last post and I answer you.

cheers

I dont have time for this now its late time for sleep I think. next time Im online Im going to take your posts apart sentence by sentence. night

KELTICKNIGHTT

WakeUp wrote: »

I dont have time for this now its late time for sleep I think. next time Im online Im going to take your posts apart sentence by sentence. night

Heres a little read for you when your back online to help you little with big picture as you put it which is your words, not mine :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

WakeUp

post 3278

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

now your ranting
anyone with cop on would see the big picture here , some don't !!!
everyone knows russia putin reasons why ukraine and eastern europe is on russia agenda , its people who live there know and tell others
russia tried simular before but didn't go according to plan,
its in europe interest as a whole russia doesnt if you need this explained to you then go on internet !!!
you haven't explained about nato nuclear war ???

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

Heres a little read for you when your back online to help you little with big picture as you put it which is your words, not mine :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

thats your first mistake. those were your words not mine its there in black and white for you too see. I asked you to explain to me what you meant when you said , quite condescendingly actually,anyone with cop on would see the big picture here? posting a wiki link of all things and telling me "to go read it" isnt really good enough. infact Ive seen other posters pulled up here for doing the exact same thing , your snide comment aside, perhaps it might be one rule for some one rule for others, posting a link and telling someone to go read it. quite the debating skills you have there.

KELTICKNIGHTT

WakeUp wrote: »

post 3278




thats your first mistake. those were your words not mine its there in black and white for you too see. I asked you to explain to me what you meant when you said , quite condescendingly actually,anyone with cop on would see the big picture here? posting a wiki link of all things and telling me "to go read it" isnt really good enough. infact Ive seen other posters pulled up here for doing the exact same thing , your snide comment aside, perhaps it might be one rule for some one rule for others, posting a link and telling someone to go read it. quite the debating skills you have there.

so its ok for you to post a link and not others , thats your excuse
Other posters ask you question where you then put a question forward but don't answer their question as here also..

heres another link , may give a little more a hint , I'm sure your able to read it , its not too long a read

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/21/us-ukraine-crisis-un-idUSKBN0KU2KU20150121

WakeUp

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

so its ok for you to post a link and not others , thats your excuse
Other posters ask you question where you then put a question forward but don't answer their question as here also..

heres another link , may give a little more a hint , I'm sure your able to read it , its not too long a read

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/21/us-ukraine-crisis-un-idUSKBN0KU2KU20150121

see heres the thing dude. Ive encountered your ilk before on this forum maybe even on this thread , that when they cant debate or are unable to answer something resort to whataboutery, fabricating things and making sh1t up just like did there. like I said its late and I need to sleep. Im going to take my time with you.

KELTICKNIGHTT

WakeUp wrote: »

post 3278




thats your first mistake. those were your words not mine its there in black and white for you too see. I asked you to explain to me what you meant when you said , quite condescendingly actually,anyone with cop on would see the big picture here? posting a wiki link of all things and telling me "to go read it" isnt really good enough. infact Ive seen other posters pulled up here for doing the exact same thing , your snide comment aside, perhaps it might be one rule for some one rule for others, posting a link and telling someone to go read it. quite the debating skills you have there.

Another link, give you a little more of hint to so called big picture
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/19/russia-a-threat-to-baltic-states-after-ukraine-conflict-warns-michael-fallon

Are you seeing a common theme here with regards russia !!

KELTICKNIGHTT

WakeUp wrote: »

see heres the thing dude. Ive encountered your ilk before on this forum maybe even on this thread , that when they cant debate or are unable to answer something resort to whataboutery, fabricating things and making sh1t up just like did there. like I said its late and I need to sleep. Im going to take my time with you.

weather or not you seen this link or others like it is not the point,
Theres a common theme with regards russia in links i gave you, you don't need to be a genius to see it dude
night

Ren2k7

Disgusting:

https://twitter.com/Conflict_Report/status/569744948196716544

Russia continues its armed aggression towards Ukraine. The ceasefire never begun, and yet we have the fiction of Western leaders pretending it did. Time for NATO to intervene, like it did to stop Russia's mates Serbia waging genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Gatling

They will just sit back and watch russian forcibly take ukraine back by any means necessary

Merkel and Hollande have proven themselves to be cowards and have no ability to stand up to putin.
wouldn't surprise me if in a couple of weeks they ask for sanctions to be eased

Lockstep

Sorry for the delay, didn't see your post before today.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

We all make our own assessments of certain media. Asking a poster to go and retrieve any dossier to prove an opinion he has developed over time is quite a taxing ask.

You said

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Citing The Economist as a credible authority on the Ukranian crisis is a bit like citing ExxonMobil on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq..

Not only has much of The Economist's coverage been continuously discredited as inaccurate or simply untrue, a magazine that goes around photoshopping a half-naked President onto an armoured tank is about has about as much journalistic credibility as a spotty-faced schoolboy.

The onus is on you to back this claim up. This is place to discuss and debate politics. It's not a blog for you to post your opinions (unless you can give coherent and sourced reasons for them)

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But if you are going to ask me for it, then ask me: don't demand.

I strongly suggest you read the forum charter. Debate standards are expected. If you make claims on this forum, you're expected to back them up. If you cannot provide them, don't expect your claims to be taken seriously.
Like the Charter states, "This is a Politics forum, not Liveline."

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What are you looking for here? My opinion on the The Economist's dodgy coverage is shared by Mark Adomanis, a well-regarded analyst (and critic) of Russian policy.

What am I looking for? Proof that "Citing The Economist as a credible authority on the Ukranian crisis is a bit like citing ExxonMobil on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq".

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I honestly don't know what will please you short of an qualitative study of The Economist's Ukranian coverage 2013-2015, because clearly if I only select random articles, it proves nothing.

What will please me? A source on your claim that the Economist cannot be trusted as a source on the Ukraine crisis.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Do you think you are making a realistic request here?

Yes. If you cannot source such statements, don't post them.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Did you read the article you asked for? I'm talking about the financial crisis, which you should have known if you read the link you asked for.

I asked for a source that the Economist is not a credible source on the Ukraine crisis. You provided me with an article on the coverage of Russia's financial crisis. No where in the article did it mention Ukraine except for that Ukraine had a higher rate of emigration than Russia.
So yeah, I'm not sure why you're providing me with links for irrelevent stuff.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Ireland is one such economy. The former Eastern bloc members of Euroland were not bailed out by the Eurozone as The Economist prophesised

Did they? Evidence?

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

in fact they contributed to bailing out the Western European economies, such as Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain who came a cropper.

All EU countries contributed to the bailout. Nonetheless, the Eastern European countries are net beneficiaries (not contributors) to the EU. So I dunno what your point is here.

Shurimgreat

I am convinced a number of pro Russian posters on here are the one person with multiple accounts. They all seem to share a similiar posting style particularly relating to an inability to provide sources to back up wild claims and exagerations.

Black Swan

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I am convinced a number of pro Russian posters on here are the one person with multiple accounts. They all seem to share a similiar posting style particularly relating to an inability to provide sources to back up wild claims and exagerations.

MOD REMINDER:
Please stay on topic and not stray into this all too personal territory. If you believe that a member is a re-reg or shill, then consider reporting them accordingly, don't post such in-thread. Thanks.

BoJack Horseman

A delegation from Ukraine will be meeting a Pentagon official on Monday, the official works in the area that approves or otherwise arms companies selling their wares to foreign nations.

http://www.defenseone.com/management/2015/02/pentagon-weapons-chief-meet-ukrainians/105819/

Ren2k7

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

A delegation from Ukraine will be meeting a Pentagon official on Monday, the official works in the area that approves or otherwise arms companies selling their wares to foreign nations.

http://www.defenseone.com/management/2015/02/pentagon-weapons-chief-meet-ukrainians/105819/

There are already fears Russia will open up a new front from the north and take Kharkiv in the event of the US arming Ukraine. Therefore any such arms deals will need to be done covertly, with plausible denial from the American end. The West needs to start taking on Putin at his own game.

Shurimgreat

Ukraine is perfectly within its right to purchase arms anywhere it wishes to defend the soverignty of its soil. Unfortunately Putin believes Ukraine is part of Russia and they have rights to nothing.

Any new fronts from Russia must be met with severe sanctions from the west.

Enough of the p*ssy footing around.

And keep France and Germany as far away from future negotiations as possible.

Gatling

Hopefully they get better equipment than the outdated and dangerous British army surplus saxon apc .
Which the Ukrainian army just took delivery of in the last week .

Morpheus

The west should just get their hands on a shedload of Kornet missiles, file the serial numbers off them and drop them off to the ukraine. Or better yet, get the israelis to fit the Trophy active protection system to the remaining ukraine front line tanks. technically THAT is defensive equipment.

Also with the number of munitions and weapons and heavy vehicle factories in the Ukraine how come they arent pumping out tanks and guns and shells and bullets?

BoJack Horseman

Morpheus wrote: »

Also with the number of munitions and weapons and heavy vehicle factories in the Ukraine how come they arent pumping out tanks and guns and shells and bullets?

A lot of the factories & raw materials were in Donetsk

The Ukrainian armed forces have been improvising new stuff & cannibalising old kit to keep going.

They are ridiculously out-tech'ed by the Russians.

gandalf

Well it's ok Putin says that war with Ukraine is "unlikely".

In his interview - his first extended comments since the ceasefire deal was agreed on 12 February - Mr Putin was asked if there was a real threat of war, given the situation in eastern Ukraine.

"I think that such an apocalyptic scenario is unlikely and I hope this will never happen," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31596634

Now given his utterances in the past I'd be very very nervous if I was the Ukrainian government.

Then again really they are at war with the Ukraine, they just aren't admitting it.