Military Crisis in Ukraine

[sivispacem]

Actually, it doesn't conclude that Berkut forces didn't shoot protesters. The only conclusion that can really be reached is that there's a lack of consensus, with different reports coming from both the Ukrainian parliamentary commission and 3rd April government inquiry.

 

In fact, the statements made by Gennady Moskal have been largely repurposed by the conspiracy theory movement. His original statements seem to suggest he believed that the shootings may have been instigated by Berkut or Interior Ministry forces acting as agent provocateurs inside the protest movement.

 

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/731428

(In Russian, in fact Russian state media)

 

Direct Google Translate:

 

Any person could infiltrate in the ranks of the protest movement under the guise of fight against incumbent authorities, he told a news conference. In his view, a theory is not ruled out that officers of the Ukrainian Security Service or the Interior Ministry as their supporters posing as activists could have been shooting.

So even the original pro-Russian source concedes that his comments imply he believed that provocateurs may have been responsible.

 

But of course, if you want to imply it was a false flag attack you ignore comments like that.

 

It's interesting to note the only people reporting your conclusion seem to been the Russian press. I can't find reference to it anywhere in other sources. What's more, K^2's comments about the conclusions are quite telling. Why are the comments of a pro-revolution, anti-Berkut parliamentary figure on the subject only being reported in the Russian press? Surely he's the last person you'd be expecting to speak solely to the Russian media on the subject?

 

If also handily seems to ignore the wealth of first-hand evidence from medics in particular which describe numerous individuals they treated as being shot with AKM rifles as carried by Berkut.

 

http://m.vice.com/en_uk/read/medics-of-the-maidan

 

Reddit thread, unsure of date but rebuts claims made primarily in the Russian media that Berkut never shot directly at protesters. Image links probably NSFW.

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1yfik5/medic_gets_shot_by_sniper_in_kyiv/

 

Reddit thread from 20th showing Berkut with assault rifles and sniper rifles firing into crowdscrowds. Includes a translation of a Ukrainian government announcement effectively authorising lethal force against protesters

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1yfm59/ukraine_video_of_police_shooting_ak47_and_sniper/

 

The main individual who makes the claim Berkut weren't involved in the shooting was...an ex Berkut commander. But he also claimed that the police never shot at protesters despite there being footage showing them doing just that so is he a trustworthy source?

 

I mean, RT, the propaganda engine of the Russian government, shows Berkut doing just that.

 

 

 

Forgive me if I don't tend to take the word of "sketchy blogs" at face value.

[Eutyphro]

There's not a lack of consensus, the april 3rd 'investigation' was a 'preliminary investigation'. As in, it wasn't an investigation at all, it was pulling a conclusion before actual research had been done. The parliamentary commission that was installed to do the real research then concluded from forensic evidence that it were not Berkut forces who massacred these people. There is no recent news on the parliamentary commission though. Supposedly Gennady Moskal says they can't go on with it because important documents have since been destroyed.

http://24tv.ua/home/showSingleNews.do?u_kiyevi_znikla_vsya_dokumentatsiya_shhodo_rozstrilu_nebesnoyi_sotni__moskal&objectId=444889

 

Any person could infiltrate in the ranks of the protest movement under the guise of fight against incumbent authorities, he told a news conference. In his view, a theory is not ruled out that officers of the Ukrainian Security Service or the Interior Ministry as their supporters posing as activists could have been shooting.

So even the original pro-Russian source concedes that his comments imply he believed that provocateurs may have been responsible.

But of course, if you want to imply it was a false flag attack you ignore comments like that.

 

The point is, they have no f*cking clue who did it, but forensic evidence shows it was not Berkut. Off course you can have conspiracies about some covert force and imagine anything about them you want, the main point is, no conclusive evidence has identified who did it, and they were not dispatched government forces.

Edited July 28, 2014 by gtaxpert

[sivispacem]

So, it the "it wasn't Berkut" conclusion is a valid one you'll be able to provide a source that isn't either the Russian media or cited directly from the Russian media?

 

Translation of above article:

 

In Kiev gone all documentation regarding the shooting Yevromaydanu participants. This was stated by MP, chairman of the parliamentary commission of inquiry into killings Square, Gennady Moskal.

 

According to him, the Ministry of Interior destroyed all documentation and hilzoteku.

Earlier, Moskal said that Interior Ministry confirmed that the location of the "Golden Eagle" missing weapons, which probably killed members protest in the Maidan.

So it implicates the Yanukovych regime in destroying evidence, and claim that Moskal-who not 5 minutes ago you were claiming stated that the Berkut were not responsible for the shootings- though that the "missing" weapons the interior ministry claim were recovered were likely to have been those used in the massacre had been found.

 

Interesting that the Ukrainian article you posted is dated after the ITAR-TASS particle that claims that the weapons didn't match. So on the 13th Russian media apparently cites Moskal as saying that the Berkut weapons didn't match those used in the shooting but on the 20th May the Ukrainian media cite him as saying that the interior ministry have found the weapons suspected to have been used by the Berkut in the shooting?

 

Doesn't that strike you as a little contradictory?

[Eutyphro]

It is clear Moskal has an anti Yanukovych bias. He was one of the people concluding Yanukovych's forces committed the massacre before actual research. That doesn't mean someone biased can't do legitimate research, which is then destroyed, which he then blames on someone, maybe again coming from a certain bias. That is not impossible. If the current Kiev government could conduct a research pointing to Berkut I'm sure they could've had it done. They are the ones in power.

So now 'cited from Russian media' equals that it is bullsh*t? So the Telegraph is pro Russian biased? It is not my fault english speaking media don't or barely (one instance) report certain things, because they are biased themselves.

Edited July 28, 2014 by gtaxpert

[sivispacem]

"Cited from Russian state media" does generally equal bullsh*t when the issue at hand is one important to Russian domestic and foreign interests, yes. The Russian state media is one of the most heavily controlled in the world and has a long and colourful history of making up utter nonsense, particularly regarding conflicts in which Russian interests are involved. Donetsk, Crimea, Georgia, Dagestan, Kosovo, Chechnya...all the way back to the Six Day War and beyond the Russian media have simply invented fictitious reports to reinforce government policy. There's a reason they languish at the bottom of press freedom indices.

 

The Telegraph itself is not biased but the bit you're quoting from is dedicated to showing the news as reported elsewhere in the world. They're simply reporting external analyses, not supporting them as viable hypotheses.

 

An argument of "whose press is more biased and less accurate" involving Europe and Russia is only going to end one way. It helps that Russia extensively restricts access by citizens to independent media and analysis; that's part of how they keep blatant lies from being uncovered by their citizens. It's arguably one of the most oppressive societies on earth.

 

The rest of your post is pure speculation devoid of anything material. For allegations of a cover-up to be anything other than a conspiracy theory, they need substsntucr evidence not based on conjecture and supposition which can be reasonably argued is merit-worthy. A test routinely failed by theories of this nature.

[Eutyphro]

Well, I don't speak Ukrainian, so I can't go into Ukranian media to see whether reports are legitimate. This makes me depend on Russian, European and American media. When something is only reported in Russian media, I do have doubts, but when it gets reported in English media as well I assume it is correct, because English and Russian media have opposite biased standpoints.

Anyone can make up their own mind about what they want to believe.

Edited July 28, 2014 by gtaxpert

[sivispacem]

Which is fair and reasonable, but it's always worthwhile looking into how it's reported in the Western media. Aggregation of other news stories is becoming more and more common, and the distinction between news reporting, aggregation and comment shouldn't be under-emphasised.

 

I don't speak Ukrainian either but Google Chrome's translate function does a pretty sterling job of making it readable.

[Eutyphro]

Supposedly this is a report by BBC Russia where eye witnesses say they saw a Jet fighter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro

In the light of the overwhelming evidence against seperatists this doesn't change my mind, but I'm interested what you guys think about it.. You can use Youtube for subtitles.

Now that I look at it again, what is clear that none of these people say 'I saw', which makes me think they are repeating Russian propaganda. There are other clips of eye witness reports that did not report seeing jet fighters.

[sivispacem]

The transcripts posted elsewhere don't even make sense. A fighter aircraft flying directly underneath MH17, which is what the witnesses claim they saw, wouldn't be capable of shooting it down. Also, it's notoriously difficult for people, particularly civilians, to accurately gauge altitude, speed, heading and location of aircraft. And as you quite rightly say, no-one actually says the aircraft fired a shot.

 

Also, the video is still available:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/blogs/2014/07/140725_blog_editors_bbc_story_republished.shtml

 

But as usual the conspiracy whack-jobs are up in arms, claiming it's a cover-up and all manner of other utter bullsh*t.

 

Very similar to the reports around TWA800, where numerous people claimed to see totally contradictory things that included what they interpreted as a missiles launch. Sadly the media always likes to humanise stories by using eyewitnesses on complex issues like this, despite the fact they're very often mistaken. Or fabricated.

[make total destroy]

The response from conspiracy theorists has--as per usual--largely been this:

 

It was all just a distraction from Gaza, which obviously worked flawlessly.

[Kampioen]

 

 

Russia is sending their own investigators to the crashsite because the currents ones aren't objective enough according to them. Is this a f*cking joke?! If there's one side that hasn't been objective at all it's the Russians. Surely Ukraine can ban them from entering Ukraine or something?

 

No, the Ukrainian government doesn't control the crash site and the large parts of the border with Russia. Russia can send in whatever and whomever they want.

 

Are you saying this from a legal standpoint? Because that's not right according to the United Nation's International Civil Aviation Organization, nor does any country have to allow anybody in. Russia has no say in this investigation. And just because rebels have a hold of the crash site doesn't mean it's not Ukraine's land. I've posted it before but here you go...

 

ICAO convention required the state in whose territory the accident had taken place (Ukraine) to conduct an investigation together with the country of registration (Malaysia), the country whose air traffic control the aircraft was flying under (Ukraine), as well as the aircraft's manufacturer (Boeing/ America).

 

 

I was talking from a practical standpoint. Of course legally Russia has no say in anything in Ukraine. But Russia doesn't seem to give a f*ck. Plus, Russia is a permanent member of the UN security council. I don't know how permanent that is but it has a veto and can therefore prevent any UN endorced miliatry action against it. I would imagine there are some regulations for this situation though because surely the UN realizes that even permanent members can get out of line.

[poklane]

Supposedly this is a report by BBC Russia where eye witnesses say they saw a Jet fighter

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro

 

In the light of the overwhelming evidence against seperatists this doesn't change my mind, but I'm interested what you guys think about it.. You can use Youtube for subtitles.

 

Now that I look at it again, what is clear that none of these people say 'I saw', which makes me think they are repeating Russian propaganda. There are other clips of eye witness reports that did not report seeing jet fighters.

It's just uttter bullsh*t and lies because they know they f*cked up badly.

Also, the Netherlands and Ukraine now have a treaty that allows us to use firearms in Ukraine.

[DarrinPA]

 

I was talking from a practical standpoint. Of course legally Russia has no say in anything in Ukraine. But Russia doesn't seem to give a f*ck.

How is it practical for Russia to be involved when they have already covertly invaded and openly annexed part of the country, and are now responsible for firing rockets into Ukraine?

 

Plus, Russia is a permanent member of the UN security council. I don't know how permanent that is but it has a veto and can therefore prevent any UN endorced miliatry action against it. I would imagine there are some regulations for this situation though because surely the UN realizes that even permanent members can get out of line.

Military action and the flight investigation are two very different things. But yes, as a member they have to follow the rules which I posted previously.

 

ICAO convention required the state in whose territory the accident had taken place (Ukraine) to conduct an investigation together with the country of registration (Malaysia), the country whose air traffic control the aircraft was flying under (Ukraine), as well as the aircraft's manufacturer (Boeing/ America).

 

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

[K^2]

Russia is a permanent member of UN Security Council with a right to veto because they have enough nukes to start WWIII. So is every country with that capability. It reflects nothing about the actual standing of the country in international community.

 

And Russia has been interfering with investigation in every way possible, including by assisting in hiding and/or destroying the evidence. The fact that they are required to follow certain protocols with this investigation means absolutely nothing. If Russia decides to get boots on the ground on MH17 site, they'll simply say that they recognize DPR's sovereignty, and therefore, by ICAO convention allowed on the ground. They've done it in the past. Both in Ukraine and in Georgia.

[Kampioen]

 

 

I was talking from a practical standpoint. Of course legally Russia has no say in anything in Ukraine. But Russia doesn't seem to give a f*ck.

How is it practical for Russia to be involved when they have already covertly invaded and openly annexed part of the country, and are now responsible for firing rockets into Ukraine?

 

Plus, Russia is a permanent member of the UN security council. I don't know how permanent that is but it has a veto and can therefore prevent any UN endorced miliatry action against it. I would imagine there are some regulations for this situation though because surely the UN realizes that even permanent members can get out of line.

Military action and the flight investigation are two very different things. But yes, as a member they have to follow the rules which I posted previously.

 

ICAO convention required the state in whose territory the accident had taken place (Ukraine) to conduct an investigation together with the country of registration (Malaysia), the country whose air traffic control the aircraft was flying under (Ukraine), as well as the aircraft's manufacturer (Boeing/ America).

 

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

 

 

That's not what I meant either. I simply meant that it is possible for Russia to send in whatever and whomever they want, not that it would be a good thing for them to do.

 

As for the second part, see K^2's post. I'd go so far as to speculate that Russia could even invade larger parts of Ukraine, without even using the argument that they recognise the DPR's sovereignty, and still not face any UN endorced military retribution.

 

Does anyone know if there are any guidelines in place for what the UN should do if a permanent member of the security council fails to abide by UN rules to the extent where they become a major threat to global peace and security? Would they be stripped of their permanent membership?

[DarrinPA]

That's not what I meant either. I simply meant that it is possible for Russia to send in whatever and whomever they want, not that it would be a good thing for them to do.

 

 

Does anyone know if there are any guidelines in place for what the UN should do if a permanent member of the security council fails to abide by UN rules to the extent where they become a major threat to global peace and security? Would they be stripped of their permanent membership?

I see, I guess I misunderstood your remarks earlier. I do agree that Russia can send anybody simply because nobody is stopping them, which doesn't make it right.

 

The idea of the UN stopping Russia is a difficult situation. I believe that is why we are hearing about the choices NATO can implement. According to RT, Ukraine forces are going to take part in a military exercise with NATO in Poland. I don't know if it's true though.

[Kampioen]

 

That's not what I meant either. I simply meant that it is possible for Russia to send in whatever and whomever they want, not that it would be a good thing for them to do.

 

 

Does anyone know if there are any guidelines in place for what the UN should do if a permanent member of the security council fails to abide by UN rules to the extent where they become a major threat to global peace and security? Would they be stripped of their permanent membership?

I see, I guess I misunderstood your remarks earlier. I do agree that Russia can send anybody simply because nobody is stopping them, which doesn't make it right.

 

The idea of the UN stopping Russia is a difficult situation. I believe that is why we are hearing about the choices NATO can implement. According to RT, Ukraine forces are going to take part in a military exercise with NATO in Poland. I don't know if it's true though.

 

 

That's one possible course of action I suppose, that's more or less what NATO did under America's leadership in Iraq, that wasn't approved by the UN either. Personally I'm not big on western intervention in Ukraine, I would only use this as a very last resort and not even if parts of eastern Ukraine were annexed by Russia.

[lil weasel]

I wonder what would have happened it Russian or other World Power had interfered with the American Civil War, as Obama is doing with the Russian/Ukrainian situation?

[Svip]

I wonder what would have happened it Russian or other World Power had interfered with the American Civil War, as Obama is doing with the Russian/Ukrainian situation?

 

As a reference, the British, the Americans and the French all intervened in the Russian Civil War. So there. But I guess they don't tell you about that at American schools? (Not that they do here either, but I just thought I'd make a stereotypical and unnecessary America joke.)

 

Seriously, though, it was pretty sh*tty to be Russian in the aftermath of the First World War.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Svip

[Kampioen]

I wonder what would have happened it Russian or other World Power had interfered with the American Civil War, as Obama is doing with the Russian/Ukrainian situation?

 

Obama hasn't really interfered that much, I wouldn't be surprised if some countries actually did intervene in the civil war to a similar extent as Obama is doing now. I don't know this, but I can imagine that the British did impose sanctions on one or both of the sides then.

[lil weasel]

 

I wonder what would have happened it Russian or other World Power had interfered with the American Civil War, as Obama is doing with the Russian/Ukrainian situation?

real

[...] I can imagine that the British did impose sanctions on one or both of the sides then.

 

My post was in regard to Obama's speech that had just finished.

Actually, the British did interfere, under threat of the U.S., with C.S.S. Alabama.

[Kampioen]

 

 

I wonder what would have happened it Russian or other World Power had interfered with the American Civil War, as Obama is doing with the Russian/Ukrainian situation?

real

[...] I can imagine that the British did impose sanctions on one or both of the sides then.

 

My post was in regard to Obama's speech that had just finished.

Actually, the British did interfere, under threat of the U.S., with C.S.S. Alabama.

 

 

Damn, missed it. What did he say? I've never heard of the C.S.S. Alabama to be honest.

[ddyoung]

 

 

 

Damn, missed it. What did he say? I've never heard of the C.S.S. Alabama to be honest.

 

Probably means USS Alabama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Alabama_(SSBN-731)

[K^2]

Do you guys have a problem with reading comprehension? He was talking about Civil War. CSS Alabama is the ship in question. And yes, CenMan, you missed the whole thing, but missing something because you weren't born yet is a valid excuse.

 

Sorry if this is coming out a bit mean. It just baffles me how someone can misread something that badly and not go back and re-read the post being replied to.

[Kampioen]

Do you guys have a problem with reading comprehension? He was talking about Civil War. CSS Alabama is the ship in question. And yes, CenMan, you missed the whole thing, but missing something because you weren't born yet is a valid excuse.

 

Sorry if this is coming out a bit mean. It just baffles me how someone can misread something that badly and not go back and re-read the post being replied to.

 

I'm not American (or British for that matter) either. But I read the wikipedia article so now I know.

[Eutyphro]

http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-map/?standalone=1

 

Map by the WSJ with pictures and locations of the debris of the plane. It looks to be coherent with the missile exploding near the cockpit and being shot from where the US government says it was.

Edited July 31, 2014 by gtaxpert

[Xanbukka]

There's not a lack of consensus, the april 3rd 'investigation' was a 'preliminary investigation'. As in, it wasn't an investigation at all, it was pulling a conclusion before actual research had been done. The parliamentary commission that was installed to do the real research then concluded from forensic evidence that it were not Berkut forces who massacred these people. There is no recent news on the parliamentary commission though. Supposedly Gennady Moskal says they can't go on with it because important documents have since been destroyed.

 

http://24tv.ua/home/showSingleNews.do?u_kiyevi_znikla_vsya_dokumentatsiya_shhodo_rozstrilu_nebesnoyi_sotni__moskal&objectId=444889

 

 

Any person could infiltrate in the ranks of the protest movement under the guise of fight against incumbent authorities, he told a news conference. In his view, a theory is not ruled out that officers of the Ukrainian Security Service or the Interior Ministry as their supporters posing as activists could have been shooting.

So even the original pro-Russian source concedes that his comments imply he believed that provocateurs may have been responsible.

 

But of course, if you want to imply it was a false flag attack you ignore comments like that.

 

The point is, they have no f*cking clue who did it, but forensic evidence shows it was not Berkut. Off course you can have conspiracies about some covert force and imagine anything about them you want, the main point is, no conclusive evidence has identified who did it, and they were not dispatched government forces.

Not to feed anyone's (conspiracy theories) but it looks very familiar, to work a (company I knew very well) does, where ever it's called. They take governmental bids, to do the dirty work, the paying party can't have their military, or police do. The world is no where near as civil, as anyone has been led to believe. They specialize in assassinations, or a handful of other tactics, mainly aimed at causing an "accident" so one party, can blame another, to start a war, political dividing rod, or regime swaps.

 

Personally I can sympathize with the real people of Ukraine, watching the real owners, pick them apart, like my people had done to them back in the late 1800's...... Makes one wonder, in 2014, has anyone really learned anything. Still bartering territory and made up borders, on the backs and blood of the little people, every time.

[sivispacem]

The f*ck are you on about?

[Max]

it looks very familiar, to work a (company I knew very well) does, where ever it's called. They take governmental bids, to do the dirty work, the paying party can't have their military, or police do.

Well, that's me convinced. Do they have a Graduate scheme? I didn't see this company on Milkround.

[Doc Rikowski]

Well thought words written by Robert Parry

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/07/29/blaming-russia-flat-fact