Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Military Crisis in Ukraine

2,480 replies to this topic
Raavi
  • Raavi

    Mornings are for coffee and contemplation

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • European-Union
  • Best Moderator 2016
    Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#2431

Posted 14 October 2015 - 03:42 PM

Nothing is forgotten. This report was by the Dutch Safety Board (OVV), the criminal inquiry by the JIT is still very much ongoing. Dutch chief prosecutor Westerbeke even stated earlier that whilst as of yet no one has officially been branded a suspect they do have individuals of "special interest" in their sights. 


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#2432

Posted 14 October 2015 - 03:49 PM

And they established that the area from which the Buk was fired was under separatist control..


GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    -

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#2433

Posted 12 February 2016 - 05:12 PM

 

this stupid cold war 2.0 thing, again largely created by the US.

I don't recall US special forces conducting covert invasions of the sovereign territory of European states in the last couple of years, but unlike you I'm not a Kremlin apologist.

 

Crimea was 2 decades in the making, it didn't come out of a vacuum. It was a result of the U.S. ignoring Russia's interests and concerns, and feeling it could do what it wanted after the Cold War. The U.S. expanding NATO, stationing missile defence systems everywhere, pushing Kosovan independence, undertaking the Iraq War and then especially getting heavily involved in the Ukraine situation, were obviously going to antagonise Russia. If the U.S. is going to disregard written and unwritten rules, then obviously so is Russia. You can't have your cake and eat it. 

  • Eutyphro likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Tämän Maailman Ruhtinaan Hovi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2434

Posted 12 February 2016 - 06:52 PM

Given the other thread had returned to being about the US election I've split your post off into the Ukraine thread.

Crimea was 2 decades in the making, it didn't come out of a vacuum.

Depending on whom you listen to, it's a lot longer than that. You can trace it back to about 1953 when Khrushchev gifted Crimea to the Ukraine, a decision that many Russian hardliners over the years have lamented. But the actual invasion was purely an attempt to preserve Russian military power in the Black Sea. Claiming it's a culmination of post Soviet history misses the most obvious justification- that the Sevastopol base is Russia's only naval gateway to the Mediterranean and North Africa, and it's continued existence was reliant on the goodwill of a Ukrainian administration hostile to the Kremlin.

It was a result of the U.S. ignoring Russia's interests and concerns

Except this doesn't really categorise the 1999-2004 period of Russian-Western relations. The assertion that Russian behaviour is some kind of a reaction to American interference in their previous areas of hegemony simply doesn't hold water when you actually look at the causus belli for the ongoing hostilities. Excluding the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko and the Second Chechen War, both of which are certainly contributing factors but the former of which isn't about Russian hegemony and the latter NATO doesn't care about, the major events marking the downturn in relations are pretty Rusocentric. The 2007 cyber attacks on Estonia, the Azbakhia conflict which was fought largely to prevent Georgia joining NATO, Dagestan, Crimea, Donbass. I mean, the US placated Russia very publicly by cancelling plans to deploy ABM missile shields in Poland which is something you cite as a cause for Russian concern, so literally makes no sense.

The U.S. expanding NATO

That's not how NATO works; statements like this really do bely how little you actually know.

stationing missile defence systems everywhere

As above, cancelled due to pressure and military grandstanding from the Kremlin.

pushing Kosovan independence

Conversely, enabling Kosovar self-determination. Unless you support the notion of Kosovans being kept under the boot of an ultranationalist Serbian regime just so Russia can maintain continued influence in the Balkans?

undertaking the Iraq War

I don't see how this is relevant to Russia at all?

and then especially getting heavily involved in the Ukraine situation

I'm sorry but this is simply utter sh*te. NATO was completely uninvolved in events in Ukraine and for the most part still is. Lots of apologists like to assert that the revolution was somehow at the behest of NATO, Europe or the US but this is completely without evidential basis.

A defence of Russian aggression on "sphere of influence" grounds is logically no different from defending China's attempts to seize the entire South China Sea under their illegal Nine-Dash Line policy. Or defending the last Ethnocentric European neutered great power, stuck in economic turmoil after losing a conflict and apparently surrounded by aggressors and seeking to control land beyond their borders as part of a policy to unite people of a particular ethnic identity.
  • Irviding likes this

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#2435

Posted 18 August 2016 - 12:50 PM

So... this appears to be happening. Tension is rising between Ukraine and Russia again. Russia is accusing Ukraine of sabotage in Crimea, Ukraine is saying 'bullsh*t', Russia responds by saying they were terrorist attacks, killing two Russian officials in Crimea.

Beyond the dangerous game this appears to be, I don't actually know what to make of it. Is Moscow trying to force Kiev's hand in Eastern Ukraine with the rebels? Hell, speaking of which, how is that going? As far as I know, it has pretty much resulted in a stalemate.[1] Both sides appear to lack the proper resources to fully repel or retake the opponent.

I mean, Moscow can't be interested in Crimea, they already got that. So perhaps they want to stress Kiev to move its forces away from its Eastern positions to a more defensive posture around Crimea?

I am confident that Putin is not interested in a full scale war with Ukraine, hell even a small war. So I am certain he is using this as a ploy for something else.

[1] Although, while little significant is happening, there are still fightings going on, civilians and soldiers die each month.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Tämän Maailman Ruhtinaan Hovi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2436

Posted 18 August 2016 - 04:42 PM

I think it's part of Russian strategic policy at the moment. Hybrid warfare, use of political disinformation and media conflict to further their strategic aims. We've seen them disrupt the Ukrainian power grid, attack the US political system and leak information, continue to supply Ukrainian rebels with advanced electronic warfare equipment and second senior figures to them as "leaders". At the same time we see them normalising relations with Turkey, effectively letting them bomb Kurds fighting against Assad and IS whilst both Russia and Syria turn a blind eye. I've given up trying to work out what their long game is, other than to cause a bit of a kerfuffle.

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#2437

Posted 18 August 2016 - 05:09 PM

I've given up trying to work out what their long game is, other than to cause a bit of a kerfuffle.

Dominating their region, as opposed to the US goal of dominating the entire world.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Tämän Maailman Ruhtinaan Hovi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2438

Posted 18 August 2016 - 05:22 PM

They do claim "their region" as everything from the Chinese border to either the German border or the edge of Ireland depending on which Russian figure you're talking about, though.

And why must every response you ever have on the subject be a tu quoque?

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#2439

Posted 18 August 2016 - 06:36 PM

To put it into a meaningful context. Apart from that, what Stu said was right. Considering the threat of missile defence systems being placed by the US, Russia needed the Crimean military base. If they lost it it would make them a sitting duck militarily.

Their region is Eastern Europe, the Baltic states, central Asia, and some parts of the Middle East. Probably even some I forgot. But there are  probably some Russian hawks which claim they should go for world domination. But Russia lost a lot of it's traditional backyard, just like the US and Canada have become quite isolated on the American continent. Over time these traditional 'backyards' get sick of hatred for their imperialist dominator and that's a good thing.


make total destroy
  • make total destroy

    living in the world no different from a cell

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Not Very Punk 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#2440

Posted 18 August 2016 - 07:17 PM

But Russia is also an imperial power..?


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#2441

Posted 18 August 2016 - 07:44 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 18 August 2016 - 07:46 PM.

But Russia is also an imperial power..?

 

Of course they are.


make total destroy
  • make total destroy

    living in the world no different from a cell

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Not Very Punk 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#2442

Posted 18 August 2016 - 07:51 PM

How then is Russia acting on it's own imperial ambitions a good thing?


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#2443

Posted 18 August 2016 - 08:01 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 18 August 2016 - 08:03 PM.

Russia is a very malignant actor, but in the case of the threat of the US placing a missile defence system near their borders which makes them sitting ducks, them looking towards a scenario of losing their base in Crimea, them having a US sponsored hostile regime on their border that came into power through a takeover and not through election, which alienated Russian speaking Ukranians etc.. In those circumstances they have some case for self defence. Not self defence as under international law, but as by reasonable circumstance. Though all of their actions, sponsoring militants in eastern Ukraine, and taking over Crimea, are illegal under international law and should be condemned on that basis, they aren't as aggressive as many actions the US itself partakes in or sponsors. Sivispacem accuses me of a tu quoque, but he doesn't see that his anti Russian mainstream media position is the biggest tu quoque of all. Condemning Russia and not looking at our own influence and actions which are a big aspect of the context in which Russia acts.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Tämän Maailman Ruhtinaan Hovi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2444

Posted 18 August 2016 - 08:56 PM

Apart from that, what Stu said was right. Considering the threat of missile defence systems being placed by the US, Russia needed the Crimean military base.

This isn't even remotely true. Russia's desire to maintain a Crimean naval base has nothing to do with missile defence; it's sole purpose is to serve to project Russian strategic power into the Balkans and Central Europe. Quite literally its only purpose is imperialistic.

Their region is Eastern Europe, the Baltic states, central Asia, and some parts of the Middle East.

I don't think most of Eastern Europe, or any of the Baltic countries, want to be in the Russian sphere of influence. Nor do I think we should be promoting the idea that Russia is entitled to such a sphere simply by virtue of having invaded most of these countries in the past. Russia is basically doing what just about every other imperial powers did at their collspse- frantically scrabbling to maintain strategic dominance. It's just it seems to be happening 25 years after most of their empire became independent.

In those circumstances they have some case for self defence. Not self defence as under international law, but as by reasonable circumstance.

This is, frankly, utter nonsense. Relations between the West and Russia were pretty rosy until Russia started attempting to reestablish its sphere of influence. The assertion that their behaviour is a response to NATO expansionism or recent events in Ukraine is pretty much entirely without merit. At best it's apologism, at worst outright historical revisionism.

they aren't as aggressive as many actions the US itself partakes in or sponsors.

I think this is pretty debatable.

Sivispacem accuses me of a tu quoque, but he doesn't see that his anti Russian mainstream media position is the biggest tu quoque of all.

Eh? I accuse you of tu quoque because you commit tu quoque every time anyone offers an analysis of Russian actions, by drawing comparisons with the actions of other states which are totally irrelevant. You may not like having this labeled as tu quoque but it kind of is, and a feeble attempt to return the accusation isn't somehow going to change that.

We don't need to caveat any discussion of Russian strategic policy or involvement in global events with a list of equally bad things other states have done. It adds nothing to the actual discussion and isn't even topical.

Sometimes I genuinely wonder whether you're one of the Trolls from Olgino.

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#2445

Posted 18 August 2016 - 09:16 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 18 August 2016 - 09:21 PM.

 

This isn't even remotely true. Russia's desire to maintain a Crimean naval base has nothing to do with missile defence; it's sole purpose is to serve to project Russian strategic power into the Balkans and Central Europe. Quite literally its only purpose is imperialistic.

 

So you don't think considering the vast amount of NATO bases in the area, and the plan to make a missile defense system right on their border which nulls Russia's important offensive abilities, such a military bases is imporant for Russia from a defensively oriented perspective? I think that's quite obvious.
 

 

I don't think most of Eastern Europe, or any of the Baltic countries, want to be in the Russian sphere of influence. Nor do I think we should be promoting the idea that Russia is entitled to such a sphere simply by virtue of having invaded most of these countries in the past. Russia is basically doing what just about every other imperial powers did at their collspse- frantically scrabbling to maintain strategic dominance. It's just it seems to be happening 25 years after most of their empire became independent.

 

Compare it to the Monroe doctrine. The Monroe doctrine, that the US has a right to Latin America, is still relevant. But just as many of Russia's 'backyard' wants nothing to do with them, Latin America and the Caribbean are starting to replace the Organization of American States with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, excluding Canada and the United States, and have set up their own central bank BancoSur to be independent of the World Bank and the IMF which has a strong US bias. Similar developments.
 

 

This is, frankly, utter nonsense. Relations between the West and Russia were pretty rosy until Russia started attempting to reestablish its sphere of influence. The assertion that their behaviour is a response to NATO expansionism or recent events in Ukraine is pretty much entirely without merit. At best it's apologism, at worst outright historical revisionism

 

Haha, the merit is obvious, but you ignore it.
 

Sometimes I genuinely wonder whether you're one of the Trolls from Olgino.

 

Disagreeing with you doesn't automatically make one a troll. You don't have a monopoly on the truth.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Tämän Maailman Ruhtinaan Hovi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2446

Posted 18 August 2016 - 09:35 PM

So you don't think considering the vast amount of NATO bases in the area

Russia didn't take particular issue with the expansions in 1999 and 2004, though they obviously weren't exactly ecstatic with the latter. Very little has changed since then; moreover it's the prerogative of sovereignty states to join whatever alliances they wish. Russia simply resents the fact that most European nations want to seek closer strategic ties with the EU and Western bloc than their old imperial master. And that's neither surprising nor unreasonable.

and the plan to make a missile defense system right on their border which nulls Russia's important offensive abilities

It really does surprise me to see people parroting this narrative without any consideration of its merit. Russia's primary offensive capability is via nuclear submarines which can be anywhere in the world; their land-based ballistic missile capabilities are largely short-range, tactical weapons designed to be used in theatre. The proposed missile shield does not, in any way, nullify Russia's first strike capability or strategic nuclear deterrent and therefore does not limit any of their offensive capabilities.

In fact, it's questionable whether it could be applied to Russian missiles at all as interception is done during terminal strike phases and unless land-based missiles were fired at close neighbouring states, missiles would still be in high suborbital flight when passing through the shield.

such a military bases is imporant for Russia from a defensively oriented perspective?

I can't think of any defensive justification for Crimea. Russia already possesses access to the Black Sea through their strategic bases in Novorossiysk; Sevastopol merely enhanced their ability to strike Westward into Central Europe and the Mediterranean.

Haha, the merit is obvious, but you ignore it.

Assertion != Fact. You're simply imprinting your own personal views on a nation state without any actual consideration of their strategic policy. It's fine to hypothesised these things but you can't really claim to authoritatively understand Russian justification for behaviours unless you're a subject matter expert or are citing someone who is.

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#2447

Posted 18 August 2016 - 10:13 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 18 August 2016 - 10:34 PM.

Russia didn't take particular issue with the expansions in 1999 and 2004.

 

Because of the naivety of Yeltsin that NATO was not an allegiance opposed to Russian interest, which has clearly shown to be false in recent history in the case of South Ossetia. Yeltsin even though Russia would join NATO. But NATO has shown itself to be an organization aimed at opposing Russian interests.
 

It really does surprise me to see people parroting this narrative without any consideration of its merit. Russia's primary offensive capability is via nuclear submarines which can be anywhere in the world; their land-based ballistic missile capabilities are largely short-range, tactical weapons designed to be used in theatre. The proposed missile shield does not, in any way, nullify Russia's first strike capability or strategic nuclear deterrent and therefore does not limit any of their offensive capabilities. 

 
In fact, it's questionable whether it could be applied to Russian missiles at all as interception is done during terminal strike phases and unless land-based missiles were fired at close neighbouring states, missiles would still be in high suborbital flight when passing through the shield.

 

So against nuclear powers missile defence systems are powerless and useless, and are only useful against non nuclear powers? The US intends to build it for no purpose. I don't think that's true, though as you say I'm not an expert concerning arms. The consensus seems to be that missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic make Russia a sitting duck for military attacks.
 

I can't think of any defensive justification for Crimea. Russia already possesses access to the Black Sea through their strategic bases in Novorossiysk; Sevastopol merely enhanced their ability to strike Westward into Central Europe and the Mediterranean.

 

It could very well be prestige, but I do think Crimea is an important military base for Russia.
 

Assertion != Fact. You're simply imprinting your own personal views on a nation state without any actual consideration of their strategic policy.

 

Well, it's kind of boring and annoying when you assert I'm some sort of pro Russian undercover troll, when I time and time again criticize Russia for breaking international law and blame the Russian sponsored rebels for MH17, assert they are set up by Russia, agree RT is propaganda etc... But here it is oke to post that Putin is like Hitler without any context, though being cynical of US foreign policy puts you on the warned members list. When have you criticized American foreign policy, the US breaking international law, the US illegally murdering and torturing people all over the world, the US supporting human rights abusers worldwide? I could say 'you are the real tu quoque master and undercover troll', and I'm the one trying to be balanced and fair, but I just don't tend to stoop so low unless when I have to, you see?

 

It's these kinds of personal attacks that poison the discussion.

 

It's fine to hypothesised these things but you can't really claim to authoritatively understand Russian justification for behaviours unless you're a subject matter expert or are citing someone who is.

 

How about good ol Mearsheimer? Or Stephen Cohen.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Tämän Maailman Ruhtinaan Hovi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2448

Posted 19 August 2016 - 08:39 AM

Because of the naivety of Yeltsin that NATO was not an allegiance opposed to Russian interest, which has clearly shown to be false in recent history in the case of South Ossetia.

Eh? NATO had exactly no involvement in any of the Russian-Georgian conflicts, all of which predate the existence of NATO in their origins. In fact, it could be reasonably argued that these conflicts were manufactured through social change brought about by the Soviet policies of mass deportation.

Georgia sought membership of NATO throughout the mid noughties as a response to Russian military involvement in what they saw as a domestic issue- the sovereignty of Azbakhia and Ossetia. Rather like the situation in Ukraine, Russia spent years directly and militarily supporting an ethnic independence movement; unlike in Ukraine this was done through sponsored ethnic cleansing which turned Azbakhia from a primarily ethnic Georgian entity into a primarily ethnic Russian one. Given this, is it really surprising they sought NATO membership?

The 2008 war was inarguably one of imperialism. Russia wished to secure a de facto enclave inside Georgia, and has in effect done so by forcibly building military bases on lands it has gained control over through the invasion of thr region.

Of course, a war of aggression like this could no longer be fought if Georgia was a NATO power. Nor could Russia interfere with internal conflicts in a more covert manner. As senior figures in the Russian government have consistently made clear, any state with a Russian ethnic minority must not perform actions seen to be detrimental to Russia's interest- to do so apparently entitles and invites Russia to military intervention.

But NATO has shown itself to be an organization aimed at opposing Russian interests.

In 1982 perhaps. But no NATO power has ever interfered militarily, either directly or indirectly, with sovereign territories under Russia's de jure control. NATO maintains a wariness of Russian strategic policy because NATO's Eastern members maintain a wariness of Russia's strategic policy, and with good reason given Russia's behaviour.

So against nuclear powers missile defence systems are powerless and useless, and are only useful against non nuclear powers?

No, against submarine-based ICBMs which could be anywhere- the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic, Mediterranean- and striking towards the US or Northern Europe, the proposed AEGIS/Standard SM-3 defence system is largely useless. Against shorter range ballistic missiles targeted on East and Central Europe, or intermediate-range missiles launched towards Europe from the Korean peninsula or the Middle East, where missiles will be in their terminal flightpath, the SM-3 system will be highly effective.

As it currently stands no part of the proposed missile shield is designed for interception of ballistic missiles with a reach beyond the intermediate. In fact the prposals for deployment of more effective ABM systems was scrapped entirely in 2009 due to Russian concerns.

As I said, the only Russian missiles that are threatened by the shield are low-yield tactical/theatre level missiles, generally road based, which were initially developed to strike at NATO bases in Germany, Norway and Turkey from the bases in the Warsaw Pact ally states. Which are now sat along the Russian border, pointed towards Europe. Which in itself is a pretty interesting thing, because while NATO does permit tactical nuclear weapon sharing, it does not have a nuclear force on Russia's borders in a permanent state of readiness for tactical strikes, as is the case with the Russian Strategic Missile Troops. Moreover, Western nuclear weapons at bases in countries surrounding Russia and available under sharing programmes are air-launched and therefore much more vulnerable to interception than ballistic missiles. In fact, no NATO power possesses mobile land-based nuclear weapons of any kind.

The US intends to build it for no purpose.

Nice straw man.

The consensus seems to be that missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic make Russia a sitting duck for military attacks.

The consensus amongst whom? Certainly not anyone with an actual understanding of the solution that's deployed, Russia's nuclear arsenal and the current state of active nuclear deterrence between Russia and NATO powers.

Well, it's kind of boring and annoying when you assert I'm some sort of pro Russian undercover troll

Except I never asserted such a thing, merely suggested your insistence on simply resirting to tu quoque fallacy every time anyone discussed Russia's strategic aims is rather reminiscent of them.

But here it is oke to post that Putin is like Hitler without any context

Where?

When have you criticized American foreign policy

On numerous, disparate and varied occasions. Suggesting otherwise is utterly ridiculous as just about any contributor to D&D will tell you.

How about good ol Mearsheimer? Or Stephen Cohen.

The irony of quoting an offensive realist in the context of aggressive conflict notwithstanding, you must appreciate Mearsheimer's interpretation of events is shaped by the underlying tenet that all powers aggressively pursue hegemony and dominance in order to create security for themselves. He was pretty much the sole person arguing for Ukraine to maintain their nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to Russian aggression, and he sees Ukraine as a buffer between Russia and the West rather than a partner to it.

Stephen Cohen is commonly regarded by other regional experts as a Kremlin apologist. He's also demeaned his position as a figure of authority by blindly parroting Russian propaganda which has been unequivocally demonstrated to be factually untrue even after the fact. I don't think many will disagree fundamentally with his notion that the West needs to engage with Russia but his casting of the entirety of post-1991 relations being interpreted as an embarrassing victory over Russia is a narrative that quite literally only he seems to support.

acmilano
  • acmilano

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011

#2449

Posted 28 September 2016 - 08:37 PM

https://www.theguard...laysia-airlines

 

International investigation seems to find evidence that Buk missile that downed MH-17 came from village inder pro-Russian control.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Tämän Maailman Ruhtinaan Hovi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2450

Posted 28 September 2016 - 08:40 PM

Nice to see Russia still coming up with weird and wonderful hypothetical scenarios in which they aren't to blame despite the mounting wealth of evidence-based analysis demonstrating pretty much unequivocally they are. That's a special kind of delusional.
  • Street Mix likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#2451

Posted 28 September 2016 - 08:57 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 28 September 2016 - 09:49 PM.

https://www.theguard...laysia-airlines

 

International investigation seems to find evidence that Buk missile that downed MH-17 came from village inder pro-Russian control.

 

That was already established a year ago in the Dutch investigation..
 

And they established that the area from which the Buk was fired was under separatist control..


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#2452

Posted 30 September 2016 - 12:32 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 30 September 2016 - 12:36 PM.

A lot has happened concerning MH17 recently. Last monday Russia handed in their radar information at the time the disaster happened. A radar expert from a Dutch technical university says the radar information has been tampered with.

 

On wedsnesday the Joint Investigation Team presented their conclusion which everybody who closely followed already pretty much knew, with absolute certainty from where the Buk was fired, who were in control of the area, and the nature of the type of Buk. The investigation actually did research in Finland with types of Buk's and with absolute certainty concluded it came from Russia, and also that it was fired from Russian seperatist ground, which has been known for a year.

 

They also know who was in charge in the area, and have about 100 people involved in their scope, and have enough information to start an MH17 tribunal. Because Russia vetoed a UN tribunal, it will have to be different kind of tribunal. Today, the Dutch government has rebuked the Russian ambassador after "casting doubt on the integrity, professionalism and independence of the investigation, which is unacceptable". http://uk.reuters.co...KKCN1201CM?il=0

  • sivispacem likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Tämän Maailman Ruhtinaan Hovi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2453

Posted 30 September 2016 - 03:31 PM

The Buk testing using Finnish missiles is probably the most interesting aspect of the whole thing, given their armed forces operate numerous generations of Buk missile. Far more believable than the analysis produced by the government owned manufacturer. The movements and stuff had been pretty conclusively studied by Bellingcat before then.

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#2454

Posted 30 September 2016 - 05:54 PM

Yeah, anyone who knew Bellingcat knew the truth already. Even before of Bellingcat, the photos and videos of the vehicle transporting the Buk were on the internet and in this topic. I see a lot of the recent developments I posted are actually reported in acmilano's Guardian article.

I'm kind of impressed with the Joint Investigation Team and how they are handling the case and pushing it forward. The only criticism is the amount of time already passed, but I didn't expect them to arrive at such specific conclusions, and strong intentions to bring to trial those responsible, whose names also can also be easily found on the internet.

 

MH17 is such a shameful case for Russia, and how they are still denying the facts is embarrassing. I remember when they spread lies about Ukranian fighter jets being responsible. That has been so thoroughly debunked that they can't spread that lie anymore. From day one of the incident their number one priority has been to spread disiniformation. What a bunch of scumbags.

  • Street Mix and sivispacem like this

Twilight Sky
  • Twilight Sky

    Driftin' at the apex, sliding into 1rst.

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 May 2014
  • United-States

#2455

Posted 02 October 2016 - 05:38 AM

I told my fiance who is Finnish, that it must really suck for any country to share a border with Russia. There's always the uncertainty on rather or not they are planning something...

  • Street Mix likes this

cj2000
  • cj2000

    Homeboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • None
  • Best Conversion 2016 [GTA: Underground]

#2456

Posted 13 January 2017 - 11:18 AM

the US is f*cked up :lol:

 

but most people are still too comfortable to riot.

if our economic inequality continues on its current trend, we could certainly see very similar demonstrations at some point in our neck of the woods.

Rioting in USA is dangerous, Obama can send a drone to kill the riot.


Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#2457

Posted 13 January 2017 - 11:50 AM

the US is f*cked up :lol:
 
but most people are still too comfortable to riot.
if our economic inequality continues on its current trend, we could certainly see very similar demonstrations at some point in our neck of the woods.

Rioting in USA is dangerous, Obama can send a drone to kill the riot.


But will he?

cj2000
  • cj2000

    Homeboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • None
  • Best Conversion 2016 [GTA: Underground]

#2458

Posted 13 January 2017 - 12:02 PM

 

 

the US is f*cked up :lol:
 
but most people are still too comfortable to riot.
if our economic inequality continues on its current trend, we could certainly see very similar demonstrations at some point in our neck of the woods.

Rioting in USA is dangerous, Obama can send a drone to kill the riot.

 


But will he?

 

Now? Don´t think so, as he´s finally leaving.


Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#2459

Posted 13 January 2017 - 12:32 PM

 

 

 

the US is f*cked up :lol:
 
but most people are still too comfortable to riot.
if our economic inequality continues on its current trend, we could certainly see very similar demonstrations at some point in our neck of the woods.

Rioting in USA is dangerous, Obama can send a drone to kill the riot.

 


But will he?

 

Now? Don´t think so, as he´s finally leaving.

 

 

Yes, FINALLY he is leaving, the madman! How dare he recover the economy from the disaster that was Bush! That asshole turned America into a real sh*thole and the laughing stock of the world! Trump will make it all great again, because America was great, and with a black man as president it is no longer great. It must be made great again. And the only person capable of doing that is the orange manchild. Finally America gets the president it needs.

 

Right? That's more or less your train of thought?

  • Triple Vacuum Seal likes this

cj2000
  • cj2000

    Homeboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • None
  • Best Conversion 2016 [GTA: Underground]

#2460

Posted 13 January 2017 - 12:44 PM

 

 

 

 

the US is f*cked up :lol:
 
but most people are still too comfortable to riot.
if our economic inequality continues on its current trend, we could certainly see very similar demonstrations at some point in our neck of the woods.

Rioting in USA is dangerous, Obama can send a drone to kill the riot.

 


But will he?

 

Now? Don´t think so, as he´s finally leaving.

 

 

Yes, FINALLY he is leaving, the madman! How dare he recover the economy from the disaster that was Bush! That asshole turned America into a real sh*thole and the laughing stock of the world! Trump will make it all great again, because America was great, and with a black man as president it is no longer great. It must be made great again. And the only person capable of doing that is the orange manchild. Finally America gets the president it needs.

 

Right? That's more or less your train of thought?

 

I am really not a fan of Bush, but even he was a better president than Obama.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users