Military Crisis in Ukraine

[K^2]

Didn't know Reuters and NY Daily News were pro Russia...

 

Is there any news site you can link me to that suits your partiality on the subject so that it won't disturb you when I post news about it?

 

Fearing simple facts reported by hundreds of sources?

Are you intentionally trying to play obtuse, or is that the real deal? Do you honestly think that propaganda consists predominantly of lies? Nonsense. If someone's lying, it's easy to point to the lie. RT was showing real footage from Maidan. Were these lies? Of course not. It's real footage. Good propaganda consists of solid facts. Carefully selected solid facts.

 

A good news agency will report all the facts. Dishonest media picks and chooses. Like you do. Do you need me to go and get a selection of news reports from the same sites that completely contradicts the view point you are trying to push, or are you capable of doing this yourself?

 

If you want to report the news, go ahead and take a fair selection. If you are going to be picking only the news stories that agree with your view point, be so kind as to p*ss off.

[sivispacem]

Now western medias claim that Putin is planning world domination.

 

I really doubt it. In this day and age no sane person would think world domination even possible. I mean in the era of Hitler, yes, then it could have happened, but these days people are just too independent to ever submit under a single ruler.

And Putin knows this very well.

 

So no, he's not after world domination, he just wants to make Russia better and stronger nation.

He's not so much after world domination as a reconstruction of the Soviet Union as a single state. Which, if you live in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Baltic or East Asia, basically the same thing.

 

He did effectively say "I want to rebuild the Soviet Union from all of her ex-satellites" during his speech the other day.

[Creed Bratton]

Some people just don't learn. Like the people haven't suffered enough under the USSR regime.

[Doc Rikowski]

EDIT: forget it. Just wasting my time.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Doc Rikowski

[ACR]

Red bear is rising again...

[I<3GTAV]

This is going to be the start of another 50 year long Cold War, I can already tell.

[gtamann123]

This is going to be the start of another 50 year long Cold War, I can already tell.

I would rather have another 50 years of cold war level tensions than all out WW3

[Eutyphro]

Unless protesters had somehow managed to get hold of the armour, weapons and equipment of the Ukrainian Berkut squads, snuck into buildings with armed military guards and set up at vantage points on secure military and government facilities that, as far as we are aware, were only accessible to members of the security forces, that theory is, as the Guardian outlines, nothing more than a conspiracy. No evidence, based on conjecture and second-hand information, illogical, impractical, fails Occam's Razor.

The reporting about IDF members being involved in the protests is certainly interesting, though not at all surprising. After all, Moscow had been shipping members of the FSB and Alpha Units over the border to act as agent provocateurs so the idea that ethnic Ukrainians from elsewhere might return to assist in resisting state-sponsored violence in response to peaceful protest isn't enormously shocking.

 

I don't find it particularly surprising that people associated with the old regime are claiming that the shootings were orchestrated by the protesters. No-one disputes the fact that there were armed individuals in the protest movement, the question is what role, if any, they had in the mass shootings. All the footage seen anywhere, regardless of source, primarily shows individuals in police armour armed with semi-automatic SVD and SVDS rifles, firing from higher vantage points down into the crowded square.

I find the idea that the snipers were members of the Russian security services far more compelling than the idea they were foreign mercenaries or protesters. That at least explains the access to military grade equipment and weaponry, as well as how they were able to gain access to military and police facilities to use as vantage points.

 

I wonder though, what interest did the Russians have in escalating the violence, and in making the protesters believe that the government was using sniper fire on them? And why would they get access to government buildings to fire at Ukranian police? That just seems like a false flag operation that opposes the Russian interest.

 

And when you call the protesters peaceful when saying "state-sponsored violence in response to peaceful protest", you seem to be forgetting about the violent rioters.

Edited March 21, 2014 by gtaxpert

[gtamann123]

So a question for you guys who understand the situation better than me. Is there any situation or scenario where Russia invades Ukraine and The US or the rest of NATO does not get involved? And we just let them fight it out themselves. Or would a Russian invasion of Ukraine basically mean automatic NATO involvement?

[Frank Brown]

So a question for you guys who understand the situation better than me. Is there any situation or scenario where Russia invades Ukraine and The US or the rest of NATO does not get involved? And we just let them fight it out themselves. Or would a Russian invasion of Ukraine basically mean automatic NATO involvement?

 

Ukraine isn't a member of NATO, They aren't obligated to assist the Ukrainians. Right now it's just a guess as to what anyone would do if Russia happened to invade.

[Eutyphro]

Or would a Russian invasion of Ukraine basically mean automatic NATO involvement?

 

The chance of NATO getting involved against a nuclear power like Russia is extremely small. It is far too dangerous concerning world peace, and populations in western countries would not allow it. China would oppose it too.They would just give Russia severe sanctions (which would hurt Europe's trade with Russia a lot, and would hurt Europe's access to gas).

 

Nobody has ever won a war with Russia. It was the historic mistake of both Hitler and Napoleon. Starting a war with Russia is sheer madness.

Edited March 21, 2014 by gtaxpert

[sivispacem]

I wonder though, what interest did the Russians have in escalating the violence, and in making the protesters believe that the government was using sniper fire on them? And why would they get access to government buildings to fire at Ukranian police? That just seems like a false flag operation that opposes the Russian interest.

It's been quite clear for some time that the majority of Ukrainians, particularly those in the more liberal West of the country, were not supportive of the change in direction towards Russia at the expense of greater European integration. It's no secret that Russia has directly involved herself in domestic and international conflicts by deploying agent provocateurs to instigate internal strife. They did in Estonia in 2007, though much of that was conducted in cyberspace; they did and still do in Georgia; they have in the North Caucus and they did throughout the Cold War.

 

There's no doubt that the majority of the shooting was conducted by people wearing Russian-made military body armour, armed with Russian semi-automatic sniper rifles (mostly SVD and SVDS rifles). Large numbers of Ethnic Russian who were members of the Berkut police special operations group were bussed into Kiev from the East of the country; the same parts of the country with pro-Russian sentiments and where we have seen Russian individuals- including self-admitted Muscovites- involved in protests against the new regime. The shootings were, according to the publicly release information primarily conducted from vantage points on the roofs of buildings controlled by the Ukrainian police. Some of the wounds were reported as being caused by 12.7x108mm rounds, which are only operationally deployed in sniper rifles by Russian special forces units and internal security troops and are neither available for purchase by civilians nor deployed by the Ukrainian or any European military..

[Eutyphro]

 

I wonder though, what interest did the Russians have in escalating the violence, and in making the protesters believe that the government was using sniper fire on them? And why would they get access to government buildings to fire at Ukranian police? That just seems like a false flag operation that opposes the Russian interest.

It's been quite clear for some time that the majority of Ukrainians, particularly those in the more liberal West of the country, were not supportive of the change in direction towards Russia at the expense of greater European integration. It's no secret that Russia has directly involved herself in domestic and international conflicts by deploying agent provocateurs to instigate internal strife. They did in Estonia in 2007, though much of that was conducted in cyberspace; they did and still do in Georgia; they have in the North Caucus and they did throughout the Cold War.

 

Fair enough, but in this case according to your hypothesis they were provoking violence in a nation with a government that was following Russian interests. That just seems self contradictory to me.. Why would Russia fire at Ukranian police officers, from Ukranian government buildings, to provoke them into switching from rubbber to steel bullets, and murder protestors with snipers making the protestors think the government was using snipers to kill them.. It just seems full of contradictions. It seems like the only one that would profit from such a false flag would be the United States and Ukranian right wing opposition.

 

There's no doubt that the majority of the shooting was conducted by people wearing Russian-made military body armour, armed with Russian semi-automatic sniper rifles (mostly SVD and SVDS rifles). Large numbers of Ethnic Russian who were members of the Berkut police special operations group were bussed into Kiev from the East of the country; the same parts of the country with pro-Russian sentiments and where we have seen Russian individuals- including self-admitted Muscovites- involved in protests against the new regime. The shootings were, according to the publicly release information primarily conducted from vantage points on the roofs of buildings controlled by the Ukrainian police. Some of the wounds were reported as being caused by 12.7x108mm rounds, which are only operationally deployed in sniper rifles by Russian special forces units and internal security troops and are neither available for purchase by civilians nor deployed by the Ukrainian or any European military..

 

 

I would love to see a source for this, because it sounds like major proof for your view on this.

 

It just seems as though my intuitions are opposed to your view on this, but I don't have any proof myself on who conducted the sniper attacks. There seems to be a consensus among everybody that it were not Ukranians though.

Edited March 22, 2014 by gtaxpert

[K^2]

There's no doubt that the majority of the shooting was conducted by people wearing Russian-made military body armour, armed with Russian semi-automatic sniper rifles (mostly SVD and SVDS rifles). Large numbers of Ethnic Russian who were members of the Berkut police special operations group were bussed into Kiev from the East of the country; the same parts of the country with pro-Russian sentiments and where we have seen Russian individuals- including self-admitted Muscovites- involved in protests against the new regime. The shootings were, according to the publicly release information primarily conducted from vantage points on the roofs of buildings controlled by the Ukrainian police. Some of the wounds were reported as being caused by 12.7x108mm rounds, which are only operationally deployed in sniper rifles by Russian special forces units and internal security troops and are neither available for purchase by civilians nor deployed by the Ukrainian or any European military..

To be fair, if you are part of Ukrainian military or interior forces, you are going to be equipped with Russian-made armor and Russian-made weapons. So overwhelming majority of these forces were, almost certainly, Ukrainian. But as you point out, they definitely got support from Russia.

 

And yes, majority of Berkut forces used in Maidan would have been made up of Crimean and Eastern Ukrainian units. Bringing in riot police or interior forces from different regions is standard practice everywhere, because they are less likely to hesitate to use force when they know that they have no friends or relatives in the crowd. But it is important to note that no Western units have been used. In fact, a number of units have refused to go to Kyiv after being ordered to do so.

 

I would not say that Eastern Ukraine is overwhelmingly pro-Russian, but Berkut units would not consist of best and brightest. They consist of people who follow orders, and the governments of Eastern regions were definitely pro-Russian, thanks to combination of corruption and Russian political and economic pressure on the region.

 

 

I would love to see a source for this, because it sounds like major proof for your view on this.

Which parts specifically? I can probably track down most of these, but you might have to trust my translation on some of them. The sniper rounds, though, there were actual pictures of. I can almost certainly track these down.

[Eutyphro]

 

I would love to see a source for this, because it sounds like major proof for your view on this.

Which parts specifically? I can probably track down most of these, but you might have to trust my translation on some of them. The sniper rounds, though, there were actual pictures of. I can almost certainly track these down.

 

There seems to be a consensus that the snipers were a false flag operation made up of non Ukranian special forces. Even former opposition and current interior minister said so. http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fkorrespondent.net%2Fukraine%2Fpolitics%2F3314742-krovoprolytye-v-ukrayne-sprovotsyrovala-neukraynskaia-tretia-syla-avakov

 

What supports this is that the snipers were firing at police forces on the ground. So I thought the point sivispacem was making was that these were Russian forces. I thought his reasoning was aimed at proving the Russians were responsible, so I was interested in the factual background of the reasoning.

Edited March 22, 2014 by gtaxpert

[Dingdongs]

 

Or would a Russian invasion of Ukraine basically mean automatic NATO involvement?

 

The chance of NATO getting involved against a nuclear power like Russia is extremely small. It is far too dangerous concerning world peace, and populations in western countries would not allow it. China would oppose it too.They would just give Russia severe sanctions (which would hurt Europe's trade with Russia a lot, and would hurt Europe's access to gas).

 

Nobody has ever won a war with Russia. It was the historic mistake of both Hitler and Napoleon. Starting a war with Russia is sheer madness.

 

I don't agree with that assessment. Hitler didn't lose the war with Russia because "Russia", he lost the war with Russia because he totally f*cked up and ran the operation like a jackass. The US and NATO could win a war with Russia.

[Punisher.]

The US and NATO could win a war with Russia.

 

 

Nobody wins in war.

[Frank Brown]

 

The US and NATO could win a war with Russia.

 

 

Nobody wins in war.

 

 

As 'philosophical' as that sounds, I think most people say we won against fascist oppression and dictatorship in the second world war, and that the United States won independence in the 18th century, etc.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Vlynor

[Clem Fandango]

 

As 'philosophical' as that sounds, I think most people say we won against fascist oppression and dictatorship in the second world war, and that the United States won independence in the 18th century, etc.

 

The latter example is fair enough, but the former seems tinged with jingoism.

[sivispacem]

 

 

I would love to see a source for this, because it sounds like major proof for your view on this.

Which parts specifically? I can probably track down most of these, but you might have to trust my translation on some of them. The sniper rounds, though, there were actual pictures of. I can almost certainly track these down.

 

There seems to be a consensus that the snipers were a false flag operation made up of non Ukranian special forces. Even former opposition and current interior minister said so. http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fkorrespondent.net%2Fukraine%2Fpolitics%2F3314742-krovoprolytye-v-ukrayne-sprovotsyrovala-neukraynskaia-tretia-syla-avakov

 

What supports this is that the snipers were firing at police forces on the ground. So I thought the point sivispacem was making was that these were Russian forces. I thought his reasoning was aimed at proving the Russians were responsible, so I was interested in the factual background of the reasoning.

 

A consensus amongst whom, though? Not amongst any of the professional analysts from the likes of Stratfor. It's worth pointing out that the source you've posted is primarily a Russian language one, although Ukrainian, and therefore is liable to lean towards favouring the Russian side in all of this.

 

Of course, K^2 is correct in terms of Berkut forces being armed and equipped with Russian weapons and materiel- my point was specifically the presence of individuals armed with Russian weaponry that is neither available for general sale, nor used operationally by any other military. I'm primarily referring to the KSV 12.7 rifles I've already alluded to, which were used to fire on protesters, but this also extends to the fact that some of the "local" defence forces who immediately "appeared" in Crimea after the protests peaked were armed with AN-94 rifles, which are only deployed to the Russian Alpha units and some other Spetsnaz and interior ministry forces. The idea that these shootings are a false flag is fairly infeasible given the difficulty in Western powers (or Ukraine for that matter) actually obtaining, and therefore arming provocateurs with, these weapons. Logistically, the only way that these weapons could have got into the hands of Ukrainian individuals would be if Russia supplied them, and Russia wouldn't supply the protesters but would the Berkuts and pro-Russian self-defence forces.

 

Also, I never actually said that the snipers were Russian. I said that I felt that the argument that they were Russian was more compelling than the idea they were false flag operators- which is completely without empirical basis. It wouldn't be the first time that Russia supplied paramilitary forces to act as provocateurs in an internal conflict in a neighbouring country, as I've already pointed out. As for the shooting at police and other security staff, I don't find that particularly surprising given that some police officers were siding with the protesters; additionally, actually triangulating sniper fire and accurately determining it's place of origin is surprisingly difficult, particularly in an urban environment. We know that, as well as the police marksmen, there were armed anti-government protesters in the crowds. Engaging moving targets in high population density urban environments is basically a sniper's nightmare.

[Svip]

As 'philosophical' as that sounds, I think most people say we won against fascist oppression and dictatorship in the second world war, and that the United States won independence in the 18th century, etc.

 

If by 'United States won', you mean France's help and Britain's negligence helped the United States win, then sure!

 

I'd also argue that Prussia won the Second Schleswig, the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian War, in their bid for German unification. Those were very effective wars orchestrated by Bismarck.

 

They say war never changes, but my! has war changed.

[sivispacem]

In fact, there are some pretty damn clear victors in the vast majority of post-WWII conflicts.

 

First Indochina War

Arab-Israeli War

Greek Civil war

Malayan Emergency

Algerian War

Basque Conflict

Angolan War of Independence

Six Day War

Football War

Indo-Pakistan Wars

Chadian-Libyan Conflict

Soviet war in Afghanistan

Iran-Iraq War

Falklands War

Sri Lankan Civil War

Siachen War

Persian Gulf War

Ten Day War

Croatian War

Algerian Civil War

Cenepa War

First Chechen War

Russia-Georgian War

Northern Mali Conflict

[GTA_stu]

Nobody has ever won a war with Russia.

 

Tell that to the Finns, and the Japs, and the Turks, and the French, and the Brits, and the Afghans, and the Chechnyans, and the...

 

You can see where I'm going with this.

[sivispacem]

And the Austrians, and the Chukchi, and the Axis powers during the First World War (so Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, the Ottomans), the Finns have already mentioned but to clarify they defeated the Russians three times in 30 years, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, Poland, Israel by proxy, Eritrea by proxy, Tajikistan and Sardinia.

[Clem Fandango]

Tajikistan and Sardinia.

You think you'll win this by making up countries?

[Svip]

And the Austrians, and the Chukchi, and the Axis powers during the First World War (so Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, the Ottomans), the Finns have already mentioned but to clarify they defeated the Russians three times in 30 years, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, Poland, Israel by proxy, Eritrea by proxy, Tajikistan and Sardinia.

 

They were called the Great Powers during the First World War. They are not similar to their later regimes.

 

 

Tajikistan and Sardinia.

You think you'll win this by making up countries?

 

 

You don't know much history, do you? Tajikistan is a modern republic in Central Asia. Sardinia - or Sardinia-Piedmont as I prefer to call it - was the leading power in Italian unification in the 19th century. With help from the French, Sardinia-Piedmont secured Lombardia from Austria, through war Two Sicilies and with help from Prussia Venezia along with Rome in the end.

 

Sardinia-Piedmont was one of the participants in the Crimean War in the 1850s, where Russia was defeated by France, Britain and the Ottomans (in addition to Sardinia-Piedmont).

Edited March 22, 2014 by Svip

[Mr. House]

 

 

Tajikistan and Sardinia.

You think you'll win this by making up countries?

 

 

You don't know much history, do you?

You don't know much sarcasm do you?

Edited March 22, 2014 by Myron

[sivispacem]

 

And the Austrians, and the Chukchi, and the Axis powers during the First World War (so Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, the Ottomans), the Finns have already mentioned but to clarify they defeated the Russians three times in 30 years, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, Poland, Israel by proxy, Eritrea by proxy, Tajikistan and Sardinia.

They were called the Great Powers during the First World War. They are not similar to their later regimes.

 

Actually they were called the Central Powers, but your point still stands.

"Great Power" is a generic term for geopolitically powerful states.

[Svip]

Actually they were called the Central powers, but your point still stands.

 

Right. I confused myself.

[Eutyphro]

 

 

Or would a Russian invasion of Ukraine basically mean automatic NATO involvement?

 

The chance of NATO getting involved against a nuclear power like Russia is extremely small. It is far too dangerous concerning world peace, and populations in western countries would not allow it. China would oppose it too.They would just give Russia severe sanctions (which would hurt Europe's trade with Russia a lot, and would hurt Europe's access to gas).

 

Nobody has ever won a war with Russia. It was the historic mistake of both Hitler and Napoleon. Starting a war with Russia is sheer madness.

 

I don't agree with that assessment. Hitler didn't lose the war with Russia because "Russia", he lost the war with Russia because he totally f*cked up and ran the operation like a jackass. The US and NATO could win a war with Russia.

 

Maybe.. But he still succeeded in causing a way bigger amount of Russian casualties than there were German ones.. The US and NATO could win a war with Russia, if they want to take the risk of destroying the world and humanity because of a nuclear backlash along the way.

 

 

Tell that to the Finns, and the Japs, and the Turks, and the French, and the Brits, and the Afghans, and the Chechnyans, and the...

 

You can see where I'm going with this.

 

I guess I worded that in a stupid and inaccurate way. What I meant was that noone has ever succeeded in causing regime change in Russia by completely taking over. Which I'm not completely sure of either I guess..

 

It's worth pointing out that the source you've posted is primarily a Russian language one, although Ukrainian, and therefore is liable to lean towards favouring the Russian side in all of this.

 

So the current Minister of Interior, and former part of the opposition, literal quotes of him, are pro Russian? That makes no sense..

Edited March 22, 2014 by gtaxpert