Ukraines PM - "We still remember well the Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany. "

BoJack Horseman

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The Phalanx is the only announced self-defence weapon which means their could and more than likely will be more. There are other weapon systems that can shoot down incoming missiles.

Not on the QE there won't be.
Its not equipped with any VLS & no space has been apportioned for any.

Longer range defence will be by carrier escort (probably a type 45), but they are untested against any of the hypersonic anti-ship missiles Russia has or is developing.

WakeUp

It appears the Lithuania government is on edge and starting to prepare its population for some sort of confrontation in the future.
_________________________________________________________________________

While most Americans discount the possibility of a major conflict with Russia, Europeans who have seen two great wars in the last century know better.

The country of Lithuania, much like its neighbors, is preparing for a full-out invasion by Russian forces and their government is issuing a survival manual to its citizens. Though the complete details have yet to be released, the manual, among other things, advises citizens to “keep a sound mind, don’t panic and don’t lose clear thinking.”

Lithuanian Defense Minister Juozas Olekas unveiled the 100-page public information pamphlet last Tuesday at a press conference in Vilnius. The book, “How to act in extreme situations or instances of war” aims to educate the country’s citizens on what to do in the case of an invasion.

The manual instructs Lithuanians how to “act during the organization of civil resistance, but also how to act under battlefield conditions,” in addition to containing information on governmental changes following a declaration of war and procedures for evacuating a building, according to Olekas.

The book suggests demonstrations and strikes or “at least doing your job worse than usual” as means of resisting foreign occupation. It also advises citizens to use social media to organize resistance and promotes staging cyber-attacks against the enemy.

A conflict is brewing and everyone knows it.On Wednesday Russia made two key strategic moves that show just how tense the situation has become. First, they began selling U.S. dollar reserves, effectively divorcing themselves from dollar hegemony in the region. Second, in a show of force directly aimed at E.U. leaders they cut off 60% of their gas supplies to Europe in the middle of winter.

Observing the actions of Russia, the Europeans, and the United States over the last year should make it obvious what is happening.

The world’s super powers are preparing for a global confrontation.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-17/russian-invasion-survival-manual-be-issued-citizens-european-union

BoJack Horseman

WakeUp wrote: »

It appears the Lithuania government is on edge and starting to prepare its population for some sort of confrontation in the future.

A couple of hundred Javelin anti-armour weapons & some GROM anti-air weapons are in the process of being procured.

The Javelin is one of the few man-portable weapons Russia would fear.
Its only €50m though, so a modest investment.

Dannyboy83

Russia preparing for war

http://rt.com/news/210307-russia-national-defence-center/
Russia is launching a new national defense facility, which is meant to monitor threats to national security in peacetime, but would take control of the entire country in case of war.
"The creation of NDCC was one of the biggest military projects of the past few years," Lt. General Mikhail Mizintsev, the NDCC chief, was quoted as saying by RT. He said that the centre will centralise all controls of both the military machine and the economy of Russia "in the interests of the war."

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/russia-could-soon-run-multiple-ukraine-sized-operations-131445412.html#mTZZJsU
Russia is working to develop within a few years the capability to threaten several neighbours at once on the scale of its present operation in Ukraine, a senior American general said.
Lieutenant-General Ben Hodges, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, told Reuters an attack on another neighbour does not seem like an immediate threat because Moscow appears to have its hands full in Ukraine for now.
But that could change within a few years, when upgrades sought by President Vladimir Putin would give Russia the ability to carry out up to three such operations at the same time, without a mobilisation that would give the West time to respond.

Estonian military intelligence chief Lieutenant-Colonel Kaupo Rosin told the meeting that an aggressive new military doctrine signed by Putin in December showed Moscow was "playing hockey while very many Western European countries are doing figure-skating".
Noting that it had taken weeks to convince some European countries that gunmen operating in Crimea were Russian soldiers, Rosin said Estonia could face a similar problem winning support under NATO's mutual defence clause if it were attacked.
"My problem would be to produce the necessary evidence."

Estonia has ordered $55 million worth of American Javelin anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) and launchers (CLU). This package includes training and technical assistance in addition to 120 launchers and 250 missiles. Estonia, and the other two Baltic States (Lithuania and Latvia) are recent NATO members and are stocking up on anti-armor weapons in light of Russian aggression in Ukraine. Estonia does not expect Javelin to stop a determined Russian invasion but to delay them long enough for NATO reinforcements to start arriving.

The Ministries of Defense in Poland and the three Baltic States have agreed on mutual cooperation to defend themselves against Russian aggression, according to the Latvian Ministry of Defense’s website.

“A meeting between the Baltic States Ministries of Defenses has led to a landmark agreement to coordinate operational programs within the region. This joint agreement amongst the Baltic States will prepare a blueprint for the nations in the possible event of military aggression,” the Gazeta.ru website reports.

Moscow pushing to increase Russian military presence in Belarus, Minsk pretends not to hear its calls.

http://belarusdigest.com/story/moscow-pushing-air-base-protecting-transport-infrastructure-belarus-security-digest-21114
On 23 December 2014, the defence ministers of Russia and Belarus met. The Russian side has again publicly voiced the idea of increasing its military presence in Belarus. At the same time, the wording of the statement was rather vague: to increase the number of aircraft and helicopters at an air force base in Belarus without specifying the legal status of this base.

It is unclear whether this wording was unintentional, or it was a result of Minsk' unwillingness to formalise legally the creation of a Russian base. It should also be noted that the Belarusian sources omitted the topic of build-up of Russia's military presence in Belarus. This phenomenon has already become tradition.

Iwasfrozen

WakeUp wrote: »

Whatever side of the discussion one happens to be on I think we can all agree that the situation is serious and cool heads are needed on all sides. there is just too much at stake and the Russians are not going to back down from their point of view they can't.

They very easily can, they have to realize they aren't a global power any more and they have no right to dictate to other nations what unions they may join. Once Russia has recognized and come to terms with this fact then we can start to see lasting peace in the region.

(International Business Times) Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, without necessarily taking sides with Russian President Vladimir Putin, told a German news magazine that NATO instigated the current Ukraine crisis because it had chosen to not adhere to the provisions of the Paris Charter of 1990, thus saying the dangling nuclear between the bloc and Russia is just a matter of time.

With both sides flaunting their respective nuclear arsenal, Gorbachev told German magazine Der Spiegel the world “will not survive the next few years” if either side lost its nerve in the current stand-off. “Moscow does not believe the West, and the West does not believe Moscow. The loss of confidence is catastrophic"
http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/01/gorbachev-nato-expansion-into-ukraine-risks-nuclear-war/

Gorbachev is a product of the Soviet system. He's still stuck in the days when Russia would make demands and the world would tremble. But Russia isn't the Soviet Union any more and the only danger is coming from a second rate power that wants to posture as a superpower.

Dannyboy83

Russian Military still has serious internal problems

In an upcoming report for the International Institute for Strategic Studies entitled "Russian Military Capabilities after 20 Years of Reform," Bettina Renz notes the military's difficulty in attracting conscripts and professionals is in large part due to the armed forces' reputation for hazing and harassment:

The 2014 edition of the International Institute for Strategic Studies "Military Balance" report notes the Russian armed forces only reached 80% of its planned strength for 2013 — even though the country's incursion into Crimea was close at hand.

This shortfall has been an area of concern for years, as the Russian military has failed to secure both adequate numbers of conscripts or enough contract professionals to fill various roles throughout the armed forces.

The brutality of dedovshchina undoubtedly discourages Russians from joining the military. According to a 2011 State Department report, incidents of hazing in the Russian military grew by 150% from 2009 to 2010. Reports of hazing ranged from beatings and sexual abuse to torture, enslavement, and in some cases death.

According to the State Department, Russian organization Committee of Soldiers' Mothers received 9,523 reports of extreme hazing and mistreatment in 2009 alone. The actual number of incidents is believed to be higher. Many instances of dedovshchina are not reported, since senior soldiers are often the perpetrators.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hazing-is-holding-back-russias-military-2014-5#ixzz3PC2DoEKk

Dannyboy83

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Once Russia has recognized and come to terms with this fact then we can start to see lasting peace in the region.

I'm extremely sceptical that's going to happen now, I think war is coming.
The Russians aren't even talking anymore, they're surging ahead on all fronts with improving their military capacity.

The Russians have free reign to do what they like in Belarus.
And I wouldn't rule out open war with Georgia.

I don't think there will be an open engagement in the Baltic tho, but some kind of a repeat of the tactics used in East Ukraine, with a secondary goal of destabilising the EU.

Gorbachev is a product of the Soviet system. He's still stuck in the days when Russia would make demands and the world would tremble. But Russia isn't the Soviet Union any more and the only danger is coming from a second rate power that wants to posture as a superpower.

I read his recent interview on DerSpeigel, it was more balanced than that excerpt in isolation would portray.
At the same time, he's living in denial - he said toppling Putin would be very dangeous and very stupid, but he thinks it's possible that Putin would just 'leave office'.

Gorbachev:....It is a mistake to try to get rid of Putin.

SPIEGEL: Why would it be a mistake?

Gorbachev: It's hopelessly stupid and highly dangerous. Putin should leave office at the end of his term. Unfortunately, the German idea is very different. It envisions the further tightening of sanctions until the Russians take to the streets and topple Putin.

Iwasfrozen

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I'm extremely sceptical that's going to happen now, I think war is coming.

The Russians aren't even talking anymore, they're surging ahead on all fronts with improving their military capacity.

I can see a Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine but I don't think they'd go as far as Kiev and certainly not as far as Lviv. The opposition to their occupation from the locals would be too strong.

The Russians have free reign to do what they like in Belarus.
And I wouldn't rule out open war with Georgia.

Neither would I.

I don't think there will be an open engagement in the Baltic tho, but some kind of a repeat of the tactics used in East Ukraine, with a secondary goal of destabilising the EU.

Open conflict in any NATO country isn't an option.

WakeUp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They very easily can, they have to realize they aren't a global power any more and they have no right to dictate to other nations what unions they may join. Once Russia has recognized and come to terms with this fact then we can start to see lasting peace in the region.

but they wont back down. are the Russians acting in a manner that would suggest to you this is indeed likely or taking place. be objective if you can in your answer. the Russians have started to dump US dollars, out of the blue they have stopped the flow of gas to Europe and told us that it is no longer going to transit through Ukraine it has to go through Turkey. how is that gas supposed to get to Europe now? 60% of supplies. if he isnt bluffing Putin just plunged the continent into an energy crisis at the start of Winter. there is fierce fighting raging around Donetsk around the international airport its pretty much gone and most things in the surrounding area. Im not quite sure what you think the Russians are going to come to terms with anytime soon all the signs, indications and actions point to the opposite.

Iwasfrozen

WakeUp wrote: »

but they wont back down. are the Russians acting in a manner that would suggest to you this is indeed likely or taking place. be objective if you can in your answer. the Russians have started to dump US dollars, out of the blue they have stopped the flow of gas to Europe and told us that it is no longer going to transit through Ukraine it has to go through Turkey. how is that gas supposed to get to Europe now? 60% of supplies. if he isnt bluffing Putin just plunged the continent into an energy crisis at the start of Winter. there is fierce fighting raging around Donetsk around the international airport its pretty much gone and most things in the surrounding area. Im not quite sure what you think the Russians are going to come to terms with anytime soon all the signs, indications and actions point to the opposite.

Do I think Russia will back down if the West does nothing? No. Do I think Russia can be dissuaded from further aggression by declaring Ukraine is under US protection while ramping up the regions defences and eventually allowing Ukraine to join NATO and the EU? Absolutely.

I would like to see the US come out and say Ukraine is under their protection an any invasion of Ukraine would be met with an international response. Once that line is drawn Putin can't cross it.

Gatling

While everyone is playing the worse game of top trumps ever.

Something to remember russia has never a major conflict bar chechzia how many attempts did that take exactly for the most part they got hammered by a bunch of local militais ,
Until they decide to scorch the earth literally.

The got hammered in Afghanistan their so called forgotten Vietnam.

I also remember the so called super submarine the Kursk how long did that last oh yeah one American torpedo from an apparent inferior us vessel .

Anybody who bigs up russian military might forget Nato and most European nations have well trained , well equipped and we'll paid professional armies unlike the poor trained , poor paid russian conscripts ,
They might push the Ukrainians to defeat but when other nations come to the fight with historic scores to settle and top of the range equipment russia can very well expect a kicking that they might never expect.
As much as Nato spending has fallen they still have excellent all around capabilities

WakeUp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do I think Russia will back down if the West does nothing? No. Do I think Russia can be dissuaded from further aggression by declaring Ukraine is under US protection while ramping up the regions defences and eventually allowing Ukraine to join NATO and the EU? Absolutely.

I would like to see the US come out and say Ukraine is under their protection an any invasion of Ukraine would be met with an international response.

and you think Ukraine becoming a member of Nato and the EU is somehow going to save them and improve the situation? that wont happen and if its looks like happening its game over for them if it isnt already now which personally I think it is myself. look at what is happening the Russians have just cut off our gas. they have already annexed Crimea. they are on record many times warning of nuclear war if Nato infringe on their border. you prepared for nuclear war over Ukraine. you might want to start asking yourself that question if you havent already.

Iwasfrozen

Gatling wrote: »

historic scores to settle

This is a major point, I don't people in Ireland realize how much the Russians are hated in Eastern Europe but then 70 years of unimaginably brutal rule would do that.

Iwasfrozen

WakeUp wrote: »

and you think Ukraine becoming a member of Nato and the EU is somehow going to save them and improve the situation? that wont happen and if its looks like happening its game over for them if it isnt already now which personally I think it is myself. look at what is happening the Russians have just cut off our gas. they have already annexed Crimea. they are on record many times warning of nuclear war if Nato infringe on their border. you prepared for nuclear war over Ukraine. you might want to start asking yourself that question if you havent already.

Do I think NATO membership will solve all of Ukraine's problems? No. But it will guarantee their independence. Which will help.

Do I think EU membership will solve all of Ukraine's problems? No. But it will help their economy and political stability. Which will help.

Neither EU or NATO membership will solve all of Ukraine's many problems but it will give them a new structure to cling to after divorcing themselves from mother Russia.

Will Russia launch missiles at Western nations if Ukraine joins NATO? No, of course not and any threats to the contrary are empty bluster. Putin knows that any use of Nuclear weapons would bring the exact same devastation right back on his country. He won't destroy his country for the sake of Ukraine. Russian nuclear weapons are operational but they are not actionable.

WakeUp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do I think NATO membership will solve all of Ukraine's problems? No. But it will guarantee their independence. Which will help.

Do I think EU membership will solve all of Ukraine's problems? No. But it will help their economy and political stability. Which will help.

Neither EU or NATO membership will solve all of Ukraine's many problems but it will give them a new structure to cling to after divorcing themselves from mother Russia.

Will Russia launch missiles at Western nations if Ukraine joins NATO? No, of course not and any threats to the contrary are empty bluster. Putin knows that any use of Nuclear weapons would bring the exact same devastation right back on his country. He won't destroy his country for the sake of Ukraine. Russian nuclear weapons are operational but they are not actionable.

The Russians will steamroll Ukraine before they have a chance to join nato if it looks like its on the cards they wont let that happen. You think the Russians are going to let Nato roll right up to their border within pissing distance of Moscow. they just wont . youre hedging against the Russians being prepared to use whatever means they have to defend what they perceive are their vital interests with no choice but to do so on the basis that the devastation will be returned. and not taking into consideration reality and facts on the ground currently and since the crisis began. youre also disregarding documented statements from Russian leaders, politicians and military people. thats a risky position to be taking a, very risky one.

BoJack Horseman

WakeUp wrote: »

The Russians will steamroll Ukraine before they have a chance to join nato if it looks like its on the cards they wont let that happen. You think the Russians are going to let Nato roll right up to their border within pissing distance of Moscow. they just wont . youre hedging against the Russians being prepared to use whatever means they have to defend what they perceive are their vital interests with no choice but to do so on the basis that the devastation will be returned. and not taking into consideration reality and facts on the ground currently and since the crisis began. youre also disregarding documented statements from Russian leaders, politicians and military people. thats a risky position to be taking a, very risky one.

Indeed, it assumes the Kremlin has rational sensible leadership.

These days, that cannot be assumed.
Egomania & incompetence hold too much sway.

Its a dangerous game assuming Russia won't play their whole hand & go for broke.

Putin is just stupid enough to try it.

pablomakaveli

WakeUp wrote: »

The Russians will steamroll Ukraine before they have a chance to join nato if it looks like its on the cards they wont let that happen. You think the Russians are going to let Nato roll right up to their border within pissing distance of Moscow. they just wont . youre hedging against the Russians being prepared to use whatever means they have to defend what they perceive are their vital interests with no choice but to do so on the basis that the devastation will be returned. and not taking into consideration reality and facts on the ground currently and since the crisis began. youre also disregarding documented statements from Russian leaders, politicians and military people. thats a risky position to be taking a, very risky one.

NATO are already at Russias border and closer to Moscow than Ukraine.

Iwasfrozen

WakeUp wrote: »

The Russians will steamroll Ukraine before they have a chance to join nato if it looks like its on the cards they wont let that happen. You think the Russians are going to let Nato roll right up to their border within pissing distance of Moscow. they just wont . youre hedging against the Russians being prepared to use whatever means they have to defend what they perceive are their vital interests with no choice but to do so on the basis that the devastation will be returned. and not taking into consideration reality and facts on the ground currently and since the crisis began. youre also disregarding documented statements from Russian leaders, politicians and military people. thats a risky position to be taking a, very risky one.

If America publicly backed Ukrainian territorial integrity an invasion plan would be off the table for Russia. They wouldn't risk a conventional war with the United States they would lose.

Regardless by the time NATO membership is on the table Ukraine may not be so easy to steamroll. The US are already sending 350 million US dollars worth of military equipment to the Ukrainian armed forces and you can expect a lot more before NATO membership becomes an issue.

I disregard statements from Russian politicians and military leaders on the use of nuclear weapons if Ukraine joins NATO as empty bluster because that's what it is. Putin will never launch nuclear weapons over Ukraine because he knows if he does he will invite the exact same devastation back on his own country. Putin won't destroy his country over Ukraine. Any threats to the contrary are just that, threats.

WakeUp

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed, it assumes the Kremlin has rational sensible leadership.

These days, that cannot be assumed.
Egomania & incompetence hold too much sway.

Its a dangerous game assuming Russia won't play their whole hand & go for broke.

Putin is just stupid enough to try it.

and what about the Ukrainian leadership are they of sound mind? or western policy/European security being driven put at risk by the Americans because of Ukraine is this a sensible approach or sensible leadership?

pablomakaveli wrote: »

NATO are already at Russias border and closer to Moscow than Ukraine.

so by road . from the Latvian border which I think your alluding too along the hobopckoe M9 to Moscow is 620 km. from the Ukrainian border along the knebckoe M3 to Moscow is 529 km. give or take 100km though Ukraine is closer.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If America publicly backed Ukrainian territorial integrity an invasion plan would be off the table for Russia. They wouldn't risk a conventional war with the United States they would lose.

Regardless by the time NATO membership is on the table Ukraine may not be so easy to steamroll. The US are already sending 350 million US dollars worth of military equipment to the Ukrainian armed forces and you can expect a lot more before NATO membership becomes an issue.

I disregard statements from Russian politicians and military leaders on the use of nuclear weapons if Ukraine joins NATO as empty bluster because that's what it is. Putin will never launch nuclear weapons over Ukraine because he knows if he does he will invite the exact same devastation back on his own country. Putin won't destroy his country over Ukraine. Any threats to the contrary are just that, threats.

so you believe he wont act if it looks like membership of Nato is actually on the table he will just let it happen? you think its a bluff then? Im just curious if thats what you think thats fair enough.

pablomakaveli

WakeUp wrote: »

so by road . from the Latvian border which I think your alluding too along the hobopckoe M9 to Moscow is 620 km. from the Ukrainian border along the knebckoe M3 to Moscow is 529 km. give or take 100km though Ukraine is closer.

In any case 100km isnt really significant. The fact is that NATO is already at Russias door, and has been for a few years and steamrolling the Ukraine wont change that fact.

Iwasfrozen

WakeUp wrote: »

so you believe he wont act if it looks like membership of Nato is actually on the table he will just let it happen? you think its a bluff then? Im just curious if thats what you think thats fair enough.

Yes, it's just bluff. I could see him maybe intervening in Eastern Ukraine for "humanitarian" reasons and Donetsk and Lugansk joining Russia. But any notion he would invade as far as Kiev never mind Lviv is completely bogus and the threat of nuclear weapons even moreso.

Personally I would like to see them hold a separate referendum in every oblast but I don't see that happening.

WakeUp

pablomakaveli wrote: »

In any case 100km isnt really significant. The fact is that NATO is already at Russias door, and has been for a few years and steamrolling the Ukraine wont change that fact.

True. but it isnt about distance its about access. there is one main road artery leading from Latvia directly to Moscow with open ground lakes and rivers either side of it for about 200km. try moving a mechanised army along that road and it would be obliterated from distance. Estonia is even less relevant much of its border with Russia is traversed by lake Peipus and lake Pskov really good natural defences for the Russians. and if they somehow managed to cross them they still wouldnt be getting anywhere near Moscow by road they would heading north again over open ground. Ukraine on the other hand has a number of arteries leading directly toward Moscow from different directions and branching off into eastern Russia and beyond. and then there is the Russian fleet based in Crimea. Ukraine in Nato is a different ball game and problem for the Russians altogether than having Latvia and Estonia on their border.

Dannyboy83

pablomakaveli wrote: »

In any case 100km isnt really significant. The fact is that NATO is already at Russias door, and has been for a few years and steamrolling the Ukraine wont change that fact.

Bear in mind, mid-range nuclear missiles have been stationed in Kaliningrad since December and the Russian MoD has said Russia will create a military surge during 2015 in Kaliningrad, Crimea and the Arctic.
So they already have a foot inside our front door.

The war is now contained in the Ukraine, but if Europe doesn't stand up to the bully in Ukraine, then all bets are off.

Europe must rearm. Pronto.

robindch

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The war is now contained in the Ukraine, but if Europe doesn't stand up to the bully in Ukraine, then all bets are off.

The war in Ukraine is not contained militarily, since Ukraine is unlikely to be able to defeat Russia militarily in the Donbas. Nor is it contained politically, owing to the weak and wavering political will across most of Europe.

The only containment at the moment happens is by virtue of Putin's unpredictable wish, and his wish alone, and that's a rather unpleasant place to be.

cerastes

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do I think Russia will back down if the West does nothing? No. Do I think Russia can be dissuaded from further aggression by declaring Ukraine is under US protection while ramping up the regions defences and eventually allowing Ukraine to join NATO and the EU? Absolutely.

I would like to see the US come out and say Ukraine is under their protection an any invasion of Ukraine would be met with an international response. Once that line is drawn Putin can't cross it.

Once that red line, like Syria? the thing is thats a dangerous thing for the US to be getting at a long way from its own doorstep, its nothing short of meddling. Creating an alliance and then let everyone get either drawn into a war or back down, its taking an awful chance someone wont back down or feels they need to act preemptively before they are cornered. Bloody wars have begun that way.

Gatling wrote: »

While everyone is playing the worse game of top trumps ever.

Something to remember russia has never a major conflict bar chechzia how many attempts did that take exactly for the most part they got hammered by a bunch of local militais ,
Until they decide to scorch the earth literally.

The got hammered in Afghanistan their so called forgotten Vietnam.

I also remember the so called super submarine the Kursk how long did that last oh yeah one American torpedo from an apparent inferior us vessel .

Anybody who bigs up russian military might forget Nato and most European nations have well trained , well equipped and we'll paid professional armies unlike the poor trained , poor paid russian conscripts ,
They might push the Ukrainians to defeat but when other nations come to the fight with historic scores to settle and top of the range equipment russia can very well expect a kicking that they might never expect.
As much as Nato spending has fallen they still have excellent all around capabilities

This wouldnt be an Afghanistan, besides I think it would get a lot of support from the Russian population if NATO try to set up any closer than they already have, The small Baltic states and Kalingrad oblast might be one thing, but the Ukraine! Thats already against what was proposed to the Soviets at the time about not extending NATO.
The Russian army got hammered by a motivated organised and a willingly brutal enemy in Chechnya at a time not long after the fall of the Soviet Union, at a time when they were at their weakest. I dont think they will be in that same situation, maybe being more organised than then but potentially more brutal.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is a major point, I don't people in Ireland realize how much the Russians are hated in Eastern Europe but then 70 years of unimaginably brutal rule would do that.

Were they hated? anymore than their own Govts who were mostly the focus of their peoples discontent and fear? other than two major incidents

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do I think NATO membership will solve all of Ukraine's problems? No. But it will guarantee their independence. Which will help.

Do I think EU membership will solve all of Ukraine's problems? No. But it will help their economy and political stability. Which will help.

Neither EU or NATO membership will solve all of Ukraine's many problems but it will give them a new structure to cling to after divorcing themselves from mother Russia.

Will Russia launch missiles at Western nations if Ukraine joins NATO? No, of course not and any threats to the contrary are empty bluster. Putin knows that any use of Nuclear weapons would bring the exact same devastation right back on his country. He won't destroy his country for the sake of Ukraine. Russian nuclear weapons are operational but they are not actionable.

Ukraine is a bit of a basket case, it wont help the EU and it wont solve their problems.
Nor do I think it will guarantee their independence, maybe speed the timeline to their demise.
Russia might not launch missiles at NATO, but if The Ukraine looks like trying to gain or being accepted as a NATO member who knows if Russia wont just strike them then> will NATO be prepared to launch missiles against another country capable of launching missiles back?
Its getting to a dangerous game of brinksmanship, How does the US react to any encroachment on its border?, thus far it doesnt, because it seems to box in other countries on theirs, its a very aggressive hostile approach to take.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

NATO are already at Russias border and closer to Moscow than Ukraine.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

In any case 100km isnt really significant. The fact is that NATO is already at Russia's door, and has been for a few years and steamrolling the Ukraine wont change that fact.

Im sure the Russians think any closer anymore is significant, so 100km is a big deal, not that its the distance, but the encroachment and containment.
Russia still likely has other non nuclear weapons too, chemical, biological.
central europe should have been the buffer, now its fighting over being the countries on Russias front door? hows that ever been considered a good idea.

Gatling

The most important thing in all of this is ukraine been a sovereign country has a rght to decide its own fate minus kremlin involment ,
If they want to be part of Europe then let them if they want to join Nato it's there decision ,,

Yanukovich was supposed to call for a referendum on removing russian troops and ships in savastople over 10 years ago when he was a literally a nobody who won elections ,
Then he's suddenly Putin's best friend for a decade till he's kicked out then the Russians invade and all hell breaks loose ,

And yet ukraine are the aggressors in all this ,
I'd love to see Putin's idea of a peace plan

pablomakaveli

Gatling wrote: »

The most important thing in all of this is ukraine been a sovereign country has a rght to decide its own fate minus kremlin involment ,
If they want to be part of Europe then let them if they want to join Nato it's there decision ,,

Yanukovich was supposed to call for a referendum on removing russian troops and ships in savastople over 10 years ago when he was a literally a nobody who won elections ,
Then he's suddenly Putin's best friend for a decade till he's kicked out then the Russians invade and all hell breaks loose ,

And yet ukraine are the aggressors in all this ,
I'd love to see Putin's idea of a peace plan

A lot of pro-Russian people on here don't seem to give a toss about Ukrainian soverignty which in this day and age is quite a disgraceful attitude harking back to the mid 20th century.

I do hope the West sticks to their guns and face down Russia because letting this attitude prevail will just see this century being a repeat of the last one.

Iwasfrozen

pablomakaveli wrote: »

A lot of pro-Russian people on here don't seem to give a toss about Ukrainian soverignty which in this day and age is quite a disgraceful attitude harking back to the mid 20th century.

I do hope the West sticks to their guns and face down Russia because letting this attitude prevail will just see this century being a repeat of the last one.

What amazes me is the people who are the most ardent "anti imperialists" are shouting that the West should have denied membership of NATO to nations that are within Russia's former "sphere of influence".

pablomakaveli

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What amazes me is the people who are the most ardent "anti imperialists" are shouting that the West should have denied membership of NATO to nations that are within Russia's former "sphere of influence".

I think it just a case of whoever opposes the US and the West is the good guy for some people even when it means countries like the Ukraine have to suffer for it.

Elmer Blooker

Gatling wrote: »

And yet ukraine are the aggressors in all this ,
I'd love to see Putin's idea of a peace plan

Yes, Ukraine ARE the aggressors - OSCE monitors demand that Kiev stop shelling. Even my dog could see this escalation coming when President Hollande said last week that sanctions could be lifted if an agreement could be reached at upcoming talks in Kazakhstan. Surprise surprise .... no agreement now!
http://investmentwatchblog.com/update-osce-monitors-demand-that-kiev-troops-stop-shelling/
* RTE News at one will be discussing the fighting around Donetsk shortly, this is going to be amusing, I bet that they will have nutter Edward Lucas giving his "expert" opinion as usual

edit: RTE news: It wasn't Edward Lucas but it was the usual lies - "rebels shelled a bus" last week ..... as usual no evidendce asked for or even provided. Russia providing support to rebels ............. ditto.

WakeUp

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I think it just a case of whoever opposes the US and the West is the good guy for some people even when it means countries like the Ukraine have to suffer for it.

What's a "good guy"? define that for me please. theres no such thing as good or bad guys only interests. or do you believe otherwise. what exactly is a good guy. Iwasfrozen posted a map of hundreds of US bases and military installations dotted around the globe are they the good guys? do those bases exist because they are right on? or because of their interests?...Cerastes also makes some good points that have yet to be addressed I would be interested to hear them too. what's a good guy.

Iwasfrozen

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Yes, Ukraine ARE the aggressors - OSCE monitors demand that Kiev stop shelling. Even my dog could see this escalation coming when President Hollande said last week that sanctions could be lifted if an agreement could be reached at upcoming talks in Kazakhstan. Surprise surprise .... no agreement now!
http://investmentwatchblog.com/update-osce-monitors-demand-that-kiev-troops-stop-shelling/
* RTE News at one will be discussing the fighting around Donetsk shortly, this is going to be amusing, I bet that they will have nutter Edward Lucas giving his "expert" opinion as usual

edit: RTE news: It wasn't Edward Lucas but it was the usual lies - "rebels shelled a bus" last week ..... as usual no evidendce asked for or even provided. Russia providing support to rebels ............. ditto.

I would expect giving back the land Putin stole would facilitate peace talks don't you think?

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Yes, Ukraine ARE the aggressors - OSCE monitors demand that Kiev stop shelling. Even my dog could see this escalation coming when President Hollande said last week that sanctions could be lifted if an agreement could be reached at upcoming talks in Kazakhstan. Surprise surprise .... no agreement now!
http://investmentwatchblog.com/update-osce-monitors-demand-that-kiev-troops-stop-shelling/
* RTE News at one will be discussing the fighting around Donetsk shortly, this is going to be amusing, I bet that they will have nutter Edward Lucas giving his "expert" opinion as usual

edit: RTE news: It wasn't Edward Lucas but it was the usual lies - "rebels shelled a bus" last week ..... as usual no evidendce asked for or even provided. Russia providing support to rebels ............. ditto.

So in your eyes the little green men, there tanks
, heavy artillery , little green men my apologies russian infantry units currently in east ukraine aren't aggressors,
Eastern Ukraine that's never had any issues in the past no civil unrest or a history of armed rebellion against Kiev .
Suddenly find an army

Are not aggressors in any which way

listermint

Gatling wrote: »

So in your eyes the little green men, there tanks
, heavy artillery , little green men my apologies russian infantry units currently in east ukraine aren't aggressors,
Eastern Ukraine that's never had any issues in the past no civil unrest or a history of armed rebellion against Kiev .
Suddenly find an army

Are not aggressors in any which way

Nah sure they are all locals, Got all the gear from the local Aldi.

pablomakaveli

WakeUp wrote: »

What's a "good guy"? define that for me please. theres no such thing as good or bad guys only interests. or do you believe otherwise. what exactly is a good guy. Iwasfrozen posted a map of hundreds of US bases and military installations dotted around the globe are they the good guys? do those bases exist because they are right on? or because of their interests?...Cerastes also makes some good points that have yet to be addressed I would be interested to hear them too. what's a good guy.

I was referring to what a lot of these people see as the good guy i.e whoever is giving America grief. Just look at a lot of pro-Russian posters on this site who harp on about how great Russia and Putin is.

I'm not saying your wrong but this seems to be the outlook of these people.

Elmer Blooker

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I would expect giving back the land Putin stole would facilitate peace talks don't you think?

you should watch this interview with the PM of the Donetsk PR. These ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine don't exist you see, they are whats known as "unpeople" - our free and impartial western media deny that there is an indigenous resistance to the Kiev fascists and the conflict is because of 'Russian aggression"
Watch it, I dare ya! Very interesting especially at 3:00 - "they'll be burning books next" As for the American and German arms found, well thats to be expected
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7rfbFPiGSI#t=86

Iwasfrozen

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

you should watch this interview with the PM of the Donetsk PR. These ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine don't exist you see, they are whats known as "unpeople" - our free and impartial western media deny that there is an indigenous resistance to the Kiev fascists and the conflict is because of 'Russian aggression"
Watch it, I dare ya! Very interesting especially at 3:00 - "they'll be burning books next" As for the American and German arms found, well thats to be expected
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7rfbFPiGSI#t=86

I would actually have no problem with holding individual referendums in each Ukrainian oblast that would solve the problem of majority ethnic Russian oblasts being in Ukrainian territory. Zakharchenko is quite an animated and entertaining character but his quib about concentration camps in Ukraine falls a bit flat considering the Russians were no stranger to the concept.

cerastes

pablomakaveli wrote: »

A lot of pro-Russian people on here don't seem to give a toss about Ukrainian soverignty which in this day and age is quite a disgraceful attitude harking back to the mid 20th century.

I do hope the West sticks to their guns and face down Russia because letting this attitude prevail will just see this century being a repeat of the last one.

I dont see that, what I see is states far away seemingly trying to manipulate a situation right on the doorstep of a large power, that still has a lot of capabilities. I agree let the Ukraine make their own decisions, but I dont agree they should be allowed join the EU or NATO, I dont see how either the EO or Ukraine are fit for each other or improve each others lot, as for NATO, well that just antagonises Russia, in that scenario it is better for Russia to enagage them while they aren't or at least oppose and try prevent them doing such a thing, why wouldnt a neutral (or at least, not specifically aligned or in an alliance with NATO) Ukraine that can play one side off against the other to some extent not be better for the Ukraine?
They might get concessions every which way.

Russia not doing anything the US or the UK have done themselves. It reminds me of something I read about Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands, she said something about not being seen to do anything at a time when they were perceived and probably were weak, due to civil unrest at home, military action against Argentina not only fostered some form of patriotic unity but showed their adversaries in the Warsaw pact they were a credible force capable of doing what they did at a long reach, what would they be capable of on their own doorstep, no doubt they had support from the US under the table, but they were willing to go it alone before anything could be proposed in talks. To not do anything, I recal that she said she thought would make them appear an unwilling adversary and an easier target and possibly embolden the Warsaw pact.

Russia doing the same now (defending their interests) and it is the same as what their opposite numbers have been willing to do for a long time also, Im not saying one side is better or worse than the other, but when you start messing about on the doorstep of a country, you cant expect them to not try deal with it, while they still can, if it boxes them in in the future. That and a feeling of uncertainty what might happen in Russia makes me think a limited military invasion even partway into Ukraine could happen however unlikely even I thought it might be, I didnt expect what occurred in Crimea and it happened. But if the West pushes the economic angle to much, then surely a Russian even limited invasion would throw western economies into turmoil at the least?

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I think it just a case of whoever opposes the US and the West is the good guy for some people even when it means countries like the Ukraine have to suffer for it.

I dont think so, I certainly dont think Russia is any better in many ways than other large powers, they have their own interests in mind. I dont think they have been as overtly hostile as the US has, whgo has fought wars that may affects its influence a long way from its doorstep having significant sovereignty concerns, why is Russia doing the same on its doorstep worse?

If anything, I wonder what is there beyond this that I cant know or see?
Why is the US doing this? only thing I can come up with is its dealing with Russia economically while it can and while it can still threaten militarily even if it wont do that, before China gets stronger, China has no interest in undermining its own interests and cant or wont challenge the US now as directly. If the US doesnt deal with Russia now, it could be left facing a stronger China economically and militarily in the future and still be dealing with Russia. Maybe thats all a wrong assesment.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I was referring to what a lot of these people see as the good guy i.e whoever is giving America grief. Just look at a lot of pro-Russian posters on this site who harp on about how great Russia and Putin is.

I'm not saying your wrong but this seems to be the outlook of these people.

I havent seen it recently, I have not seen anyone harp on about Putin, maybe before I started making a few posts again? Id made posts before and I didnt see it.
Would the US tolerate, Russia supporting or intervening in secession of Texas or direct support in Mexico or Quebec? somewhere close to or inside their borders of significant interest to them?

pablomakaveli

cerastes wrote: »

I dont see that, what I see is states far away seemingly trying to manipulate a situation right on the doorstep of a large power, that still has a lot of capabilities. I agree let the Ukraine make their own decisions, but I dont agree they should be allowed join the EU or NATO, I dont see how either the EO or Ukraine are fit for each other or improve each others lot, as for NATO, well that just antagonises Russia, in that scenario it is better for Russia to enagage them while they aren't or at least oppose and try prevent them doing such a thing, why wouldnt a neutral (or at least, not specifically aligned or in an alliance with NATO) Ukraine that can play one side off against the other to some extent not be better for the Ukraine?
They might get concessions every which way.

Russia not doing anything the US or the UK have done themselves. It reminds me of something I read about Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands, she said something about not being seen to do anything at a time when they were perceived and probably were weak, due to civil unrest at home, military action against Argentina not only fostered some form of patriotic unity but showed their adversaries in the Warsaw pact they were a credible force capable of doing what they did at a long reach, what would they be capable of on their own doorstep, no doubt they had support from the US under the table, but they were willing to go it alone before anything could be proposed in talks. To not do anything, I recal that she said she thought would make them appear an unwilling adversary and an easier target and possibly embolden the Warsaw pact.

Russia doing the same now (defending their interests) and it is the same as what their opposite numbers have been willing to do for a long time also, Im not saying one side is better or worse than the other, but when you start messing about on the doorstep of a country, you cant expect them to not try deal with it, while they still can, if it boxes them in in the future. That and a feeling of uncertainty what might happen in Russia makes me think a limited military invasion even partway into Ukraine could happen however unlikely even I thought it might be, I didnt expect what occurred in Crimea and it happened. But if the West pushes the economic angle to much, then surely a Russian even limited invasion would throw western economies into turmoil at the least?

You say let the Ukraine make their own decisions but in the next sentence you say they shouldn't be allowed join the EU or NATO. Ukraine should be free to do as they please. If they want to join those organizations what right has Russia or any other country to say no.

Also the Falklands at first glance seems like a similar case but it wasn't. Argentina invaded a territory that they think they are entitled to against the wishes of the local populace who had no desire then or now to be part of Argentina. Now Thatcher might have seen other benefits to military intervention but at the heart of it was defending a territory and populace under their protection.

I dont think so, I certainly dont think Russia is any better in many ways than other large powers, they have their own interests in mind. I dont think they have been as overtly hostile as the US has, whgo has fought wars that may affects its influence a long way from its doorstep having significant sovereignty concerns, why is Russia doing the same on its doorstep worse?

If anything, I wonder what is there beyond this that I cant know or see?
Why is the US doing this? only thing I can come up with is its dealing with Russia economically while it can and while it can still threaten militarily even if it wont do that, before China gets stronger, China has no interest in undermining its own interests and cant or wont challenge the US now as directly. If the US doesnt deal with Russia now, it could be left facing a stronger China economically and militarily in the future and still be dealing with Russia. Maybe thats all a wrong assesment.

Well for one both the US and Europe know the cost and have paid it well from letting tyrannical states run rampant on neighbouring countries. Letting Russia have their way with the Ukraine could potentially lead to bigger problems down the road for the US and Europe which is why it's better to nip it on the bud.

I havent seen it recently, I have not seen anyone harp on about Putin, maybe before I started making a few posts again? Id made posts before and I didnt see it.
Would the US tolerate, Russia supporting or intervening in secession of Texas or direct support in Mexico or Quebec? somewhere close to or inside their borders of significant interest to them?

It's hasn't been as evident in this thread but previous threads on Ukraine have had it.

And with regard to Texas or Quebec well if the people of those regions did legitmately wanted to secede then they should be allowed to do so especially if done peacefully and in a democratic manner.

But that's not happening so it's not really relevant.

The reality is if some of the regions in Ukraine had seceded peacefullyusing the democratic process than no one would have an issue or would have reason to. However instead we have the situation where it's been done under the barrel of a Russian gun. And thats why the rest of Europe and the US is putting Russia under pressure.

BoJack Horseman

cerastes wrote: »

Would the US tolerate, Russia supporting or intervening in secession of Texas

I'd imagine the planning for the Kremlin backed 'peoples republic of Houston' uprising is around the same priority as the plans for dealing with a unicorn epidemic.

Both are just as likely.

cerastes

pablomakaveli wrote: »

You say let the Ukraine make their own decisions but in the next sentence you say they shouldn't be allowed join the EU or NATO. Ukraine should be free to do as they please. If they want to join those organizations what right has Russia or any other country to say no.

YES, let them make their own decisions for their own country, joining the EU or NATO isnt a Ukrainian decision solely, they may be able to request admission, but they cant just decide they will join of themselves. Personally I think they should be in neither, especially the latter and not the former until things improve in the EU and The Ukraine economically and in this situation, what benefit of rushing it through?
Russia has a right to say they dont approve, not to stop them, but I think other countries in the EU should be able to see and say the Ukraine cant join and stop it if they believe there is good reason why they shouldnt. Turkey has effectively been declined, they may even have given up on the idea.
What advantage does it present to the EU to admit the Ukraine?


Also the Falklands at first glance seems like a similar case but it wasn't. Argentina invaded a territory that they think they are entitled to against the wishes of the local populace who had no desire then or now to be part of Argentina. Now Thatcher might have seen other benefits to military intervention but at the heart of it was defending a territory and populace under their protection.

Im not talking about the right or wrong of the Argentinians, just the stance and view taken by the British PM at the time, that to not face off to Argentina may have made them look weak and unwilling to fight, at a time when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact could see how willing they were to fight tenaciously. For Russia to do nothing now when it still could, could make them look weaker, if they cant or wont risk backing up their position, whats to stop any strength they have being further eroded?

Well for one both the US and Europe know the cost and have paid it well from letting tyrannical states run rampant on neighbouring countries. Letting Russia have their way with the Ukraine could potentially lead to bigger problems down the road for the US and Europe which is why it's better to nip it on the bud.

The Soviet Union (Russia primarily) paid it most of all, besides, many
a nation and people has been trod under the boots of US/European tyranny, they arent the only ones, but are among the most prolific.



It's hasn't been as evident in this thread but previous threads on Ukraine have had it.

And with regard to Texas or Quebec well if the people of those regions did legitmately wanted to secede then they should be allowed to do so especially if done peacefully and in a democratic manner.

But that's not happening so it's not really relevant.

The reality is if some of the regions in Ukraine had seceded peacefullyusing the democratic process than no one would have an issue or would have reason to. However instead we have the situation where it's been done under the barrel of a Russian gun. And thats why the rest of Europe and the US is putting Russia under pressure.

If Texas wanted to secede, I doubt very much it could, it has already been rebutted by the Federal Govt, Not so certain about Quebec, but if Russia was giving financial support or arms, do you not think the Federal Govt would not call up the National Guard or other US military forces?

The reality is, no way they could have seceded without arms or support and it doesnt matter how peacefully anyone tries, generally speaking, without arms no one does, and the number of times this has been done can be counted up to very quickly, Im trying to think of some more than the one I know (Czech/Slovakia) which was more a peaceful split, other than that? Slovenia, left with a military force and some anti tank battles, off the top of my head, I cant think of any, Im sure there are some/plenty.

cerastes

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'd imagine the planning for the Kremlin backed 'peoples republic of Houston' uprising is around the same priority as the plans for dealing with a unicorn epidemic.

Both are just as likely.

I agree, but in the event such a thing occurred, however unlikely (in this case as likely as the epidemic you suggest) would the US act any differently to Russia? If some other nation supporting a fight against those which it is allied to on its doorstep?

Iwasfrozen

cerastes wrote: »

. I agree let the Ukraine make their own decisions, but I dont agree they should be allowed join the EU or NATO,

Do you not see how you've literally just contradicted yourself in one sentence?

"Ukraine should be allowed to make their own decisions as long as that decision is not to join NATO or the EU"

By that definition independence is meaningless.

Iwasfrozen

By the by anyone else notice how weird the name "Donetsk people's republic" is? Are these people actually communist or just nostalgic?

cerastes

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you not see how you've literally just contradicted yourself in one sentence?

"Ukraine should be allowed to make their own decisions as long as those decision is not to join NATO or the EU"

I didnt say that. Who are you quoting? what I said is above that AND different.
I said, The Ukraine is and should be free to do what it wants, that is make decisions in its own country, as nice as it would be that any country doesnt have to consider what a powerful neighbour wants, there are better ways to proceed.
But
They cannot demand to join the EU and just be admitted nor do I think they should be admitted, certainly not under the current circumstances, same for NATO membership.

Being denied membership to the EU (do they qualify?) isnt an interference in their right to do what they want in their own country. Im not saying that they shouldnt join because Russia doesnt want them to, Im saying I dont see what benefit it is to the EU, especially the urgent and pressing need, when there looks like there is rampant corruption, better they are monitored and change and qualify for admission later. Right now, I think other EU countries should be declining them, thats not an interference in their decisions.

pablomakaveli

cerastes wrote: »

YES, let them make their own decisions for their own country, joining the EU or NATO isnt a Ukrainian decision solely, they may be able to request admission, but they cant just decide they will join of themselves. Personally I think they should be in neither, especially the latter and not the former until things improve in the EU and The Ukraine economically and in this situation, what benefit of rushing it through?
Russia has a right to say they dont approve, not to stop them, but I think other countries in the EU should be able to see and say the Ukraine cant join and stop it if they believe there is good reason why they shouldnt. Turkey has effectively been declined, they may even have given up on the idea.

Thing is Ukraine was already on the road to EU membership before Yanukovych pulled the plug which led to the protests which started the whole Ukraine crisis. It was only a matter of time. As to regards joining NATO Russias actions have only given Ukraine further reason to join and NATO more reason to accept them.

Im not talking about the right or wrong of the Argentinians, just the stance and view taken by the British PM at the time, that to not face off to Argentina may have made them look weak and unwilling to fight, at a time when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact could see how willing they were to fight tenaciously. For Russia to do nothing now when it still could, could make them look weaker, if they cant or wont risk backing up their position, whats to stop any strength they have being further eroded?

And why do they need to show this strenght at all? They weren't at any risk of invasion and up until a few years ago Russian relations with the West had improved greatly. Again Russias actions have made it worse.

The Soviet Union (Russia primarily) paid it most of all, besides, many
a nation and people has been trod under the boots of US/European tyranny, they arent the only ones, but are among the most prolific.

You make them sound like innocent victims. They steamrolled there way to Germany and kept the countries they conquered under their thumb for 50 years. Not to mention the many times they crushed uprisings in those years. They were also happy to divide Poland with Nazi Germany so they were no angels themselves.

What advantage does it present to the EU to admit the Ukraine? If Texas wanted to secede, I doubt very much it could, it has already been rebutted by the Federal Govt, Not so certain about Quebec, but if Russia was giving financial support or arms, do you not think the Federal Govt would not call up the National Guard or other US military forces?

The reality is, no way they could have seceded without arms or support and it doesnt matter how peacefully anyone tries, generally speaking, without arms no one does, and the number of times this has been done can be counted up to very quickly, Im trying to think of some more than the one I know (Czech/Slovakia) which was more a peaceful split, other than that? Slovenia, left with a military force and some anti tank battles, off the top of my head, I cant think of any, Im sure there are some/plenty.

They'd be right to call up National Guard if the Texans were attacking the other US states yes but Russia arent even being attacked internally. They're getting involved in a foreign country. But in any case Russia supplying money to Texans or Quebecois for armed insurrection is too far fetched to give serious consideration to.

And actually peaceful secessions do work and have worked recently. South Sudan and Montenegro are two recent examples. Scotland could have seceded from the UK peacefully last year and chose not too.

WakeUp

10 to 15 days training then off to war you go lads good luck. looks likes the Ukrainians are preparing for a major offensive in the east with fierce fighting already taking place there as it is.

________________________________________________________________________

50,000 servicemen will be drafted to the frontline in eastern Ukraine

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has issued a decree mobilising 50,000 servicemen to the frontline in eastern Ukraine.

Those eligible will receive notice papers calling them to service as soon as the Ukrainian parliament approves the measure.

The Ministry of Defense plans to draft healthy men and women, preferably with military experience. Tank operators, artillerymen, reconnaissance scouts and messengers aged 25 to 60 are in high demand.
http://uatoday.tv/politics/president-petro-poroshenko-issued-a-decree-about-military-mobilization-402754.html

__________________________________________________________________________

Things look very bad today and very intensive combat operations, in particular artillery strikes, are reported everywhere in Novorussia. At the very least, in the following locations:

1) Donetsk Airport: the Ukrainians attacked with a fairly large concentration of armor and under heavy artillery fire. As for tonight (local time) all of these attacks have been successfully repelled but intelligences sources are reporting a sharp rise in the number of tanks and armored vehicles all around the Donestk airport. The Novorussians are expecting attacks from Peski and Avdeevka.

2) The Ukrainian artillery has opened for almost everywhere along the front. The Ukrainian airforce has also dropped several 500kg bombs from high altitude on the city of Gorlovka.

3) Novorussian units are returning fire and the outskirts of Mariupol have come under Novorussian artillery attacks.

4) The Chairman of the Novorussian Parliament, Oleg Tsarev, has declared that his sources indicate that the Ukrainian plan submitted to Poroshenko looked at a spectrum of options: the best one was to totally free Novorussian from all Novorussians, the minimal one was to cut-off Donetsk from Luganks and both of these cities from the Russian border.

5) Plenty of US made weapons have been recovered in the New Terminal of the Donestk airport.

6) There are reports that the Ukrainian forces are attempting to encircle Debaltsevo.

7) Putin's spokesman Dmitrii Peskov has declared that the Ukrainian side had rejected all Russian offers and presented no counter-proposals. He concluded that the Ukrainians have chose the option of going to war.

8) Please click here for an high res updated map of combats.

9) The Ukrainians are now accusing the Novorussians of using "super-weapons" in Peski. No, no nuclear devices (as the Ukie defense minister claimed were used south of Lugansk), but heavy-flame throwers of the Buratino TOS-1 type. The Ukies speak of a "bloodbath in Peski" which, as J.Hawk, the translator for ForRuss noticed, is a sure sign of panic.

10) Initial reports seem to indicate the the Novorussian military has entered the town of Peski.

11) The head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the NAF, General Petrov, has declared that the Ukrainians have resumed ballistic missile strikes and that several Tochka missiles were fired today.

12) Zakharchenko has declared that "we are now engaged in a heavy counter-attack operation from Mariupol to Gorlovka".

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.ie/

Gatling

Wonder what all these American weapons supposed found in the airport at donesk by rebels who aren't in the airport

Dannyboy83

WakeUp wrote: »

7) Putin's spokesman Dmitrii Peskov has declared that the Ukrainian side had rejected all Russian offers and presented no counter-proposals. He concluded that the Ukrainians have chose the option of going to war.

Freudian slip from Peskov.

cerastes

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Thing is Ukraine was already on the road to EU membership before Yanukovych pulled the plug which led to the protests which started the whole Ukraine crisis. It was only a matter of time. As to regards joining NATO Russias actions have only given Ukraine further reason to join and NATO more reason to accept them.

Why? they have been shown to have institutional levels of corruption, what do they bring to the EU?

And why do they need to show this strenght at all? They weren't at any risk of invasion and up until a few years ago Russian relations with the West had improved greatly. Again Russias actions have made it worse.

Putting NATO this far seems too much for the Russians, it was never meant to incorporate anything further than east germany, the Russians seem to see this as deceit. It was certainly never intended to include The Ukraine.

You make them sound like innocent victims. They steamrolled there way to Germany and kept the countries they conquered under their thumb for 50 years. Not to mention the many times they crushed uprisings in those years. They were also happy to divide Poland with Nazi Germany so they were no angels themselves.

I never made them sound like innocent victims, you said it was the US and European countries that have experience with letting states act like this like they solely suffered,in reality those places have done the same to many other countries (Gt Britain: spin the globe and put your finger down, Belgium:Congo, US: South America,Asia and so on. The Soviet Union (mainly Russia) suffered pretty badly at the hands of Nazi Germany, I never said this makes them innocent, they themselves had agreements with that State, split Poland with them, I havent said Russia is any different to these states, you are suggesting they are, Im saying they act the same and worse when it suits them.



They'd be right to call up National Guard if the Texans were attacking the other US states yes but Russia arent even being attacked internally. They're getting involved in a foreign country. But in any case Russia supplying money to Texans or Quebecois for armed insurrection is too far fetched to give serious consideration to.

And actually peaceful secessions do work and have worked recently. South Sudan and Montenegro are two recent examples. Scotland could have seceded from the UK peacefully last year and chose not too.

There has been decades of fighting in Sudan,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14069082

Montenegro would never have happened without NATO, Kosovo likewise which didnt secede with agreement and isnt recognised by other states with their own internal divisions, where the newly formed state has seceded without agreement of the original main state.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ELI112A.html