Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[prisonermonkeys]

Our government appears visibly unhappy with the talk of a cease-fire. It's obvious that they wanted to be the ones to bring Putin to heel (as if they could).

 

[Rage Racer]

Well it would appear that the Russian states view on gay rights is being repeated in Crimea.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-in-crackdown-on-lgbt-community-9709289.html

I knew that the 'Russian homophobia' topic will come up in this thread sooner or later.

Well, the Ukrainian states view on LGBT is the same. The new mayor of Kiev, Vitaliy Klitschko (the boxer in the past, known as Dr. Ironfist, and one of the 'revolution' leaders), has urged the activists to cancel the planned gay parade in the city.
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyi...nity-to-cancel-gay-parade-in-kyiv-354722.html

And Ukrainian society has the same view on homosexuality as Russian, believe me. The only difference is that their government (including the 'bloody dictator' Yanukovych) had never signed any anti-gay-propaganda laws.
If you think Russia is the most homophobic country in the former Soviet Union, you're wrong.

 

[doblocruiser]

France just halted the delivery of the first Mistral to Putin , just because Hollande wants to jumps through hoops for Obama

http://www.lefigaro.fr/internationa...france-recule-sur-la-livraison-du-mistral.php

Question:
Several stated that the Ukranian gouvernment was bombing their own people, deliberately avoided to mention in general press within Europe. Any truth in this?

 

[Dotini]

France just halted the delivery of the first Mistral to Putin , just because Hollande wants to jumps through hoops for Obama

http://www.lefigaro.fr/internationa...france-recule-sur-la-livraison-du-mistral.php

Question:
Several stated that the Ukranian gouvernment was bombing their own people, deliberately avoided to mention in general press within Europe. Any truth in this?

Civilian non-combatants are being killed when Ukraine shells buildings in cities with artillery. This is decried as a war crime when Assad does this in Damascus or Aleppo, but goes virtually unmentioned when Poroshenko does it in Donetsk or Luhansk. It's a typical example of arrogance, a double standard, or hypocrisy. We had a President (Nixon) who said, "When the President does it, it's legal."

France will have to deliver that ship, or pay back well over 100 billion euros to Russia for breach of contract.

 

[Rage Racer]

Question:
Several stated that the Ukranian gouvernment was bombing their own people, deliberately avoided to mention in general press within Europe. Any truth in this?

I'd link you with some evidence of that, but there are lots of NSFW content...

 

[Dotini]

Our government appears visibly unhappy with the talk of a cease-fire. It's obvious that they wanted to be the ones to bring Putin to heel (as if they could).

In my opinion, Victoria Nuland and Catharine Ashton bought and paid for a coup d'etat which would safely deliver an intact Ukraine to the EU and NATO.

Now, faced with the prospect a broken and failed state unable to repay their partisan investment, naturally Western governments are going to reject any cease fire or peace plan between Kiev and the Russian supported rebels.

 

[doblocruiser]

Thanks Dotini and Rage Racer!

So it means that Marine Le Pen is (again) completely right on this subject.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Now, faced with the prospect a broken and failed state unable to repay their partisan investment, naturally Western governments are going to reject any cease fire or peace plan between Kiev and the Russian supported rebels.

Oh, this is quite separate to that. Our government has been pushing Russia hard - some might say too hard - since MH17. Our Prime Minister was the first to accuse Russia of having direct involvement in that incident, and our Foreign Minister has been lobbying to the UN and NATO at every opportunity. I have suspected that this would happen for a while now: that they would be unhappy with *any* ceasefire agreement, regardless of who brokered it or how, because they want to be the ones to get the better of Russia as they think it will improve their standing both domestically and on the international stage.

It's not our place or our job to do this. I think that because of it, we come across as a child who keeps butting into an adults' conversation.

 

[Scaff]

Thanks Dotini and Rage Racer!

So it means that Marine Le Pen is (again) completely right on this subject.

No. It means may be right, with may being the operative word. That is unless you now consider opinion and conjecture to be the same as proof.

 

[Rage Racer]

The DPR officials say the 'ceasefire' means nothing for them. The vice-PM of DPR - Andrey Purgin - called the Kiev's intentions 'impossible' as long as Ukrainian troops are located on the territory of Donetsk People's Republic.

Dmitry Peskov (Putin's press secretary) stated that Poroshenko and Putin did not arrange any ceasefire, because Moscow 'is not a side in this conflict'. He said, the presidents have discussed steps that "might lead to a ceasefire between the militias and Ukrainian troops".

Meanwhile, the rebels ("Armed Forces of Novorossiya") have started the assault of Mariupol. Ilovaysk is already under their control.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Poroschenko says a cease-fire will be signed today.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Cease-fire has been confirmed, and it appears to be holding.

 

[Rage Racer]

So, the representatives of Novorossiya (including the DPR PM Zakharchenko) and Ukraine (including the former president Kutchma) have signed a cease-fire agreement. This caused a lot of whining from both sides - Ukrainian patriots curse Poroshenko for "betrayal and talking to terrorists", Russian patriots curse Putin for not hitting Ukraine enough. Let's think, what is this done for?

Option one: there'll be no truce, this is just a veil, words for the public, covering the real intentions of AFN (Armed forces of Novorossiya). The previous actions of RF - supply of the rebels and words about peace meanwhile (kind of "soft power") - speak for that. But, in other hand, if the cease-fire breaks, the world will blame Novorossiya for this - what's the reason then?

Option two: AFN want to use the cease-fire to take a break before further advance. This option takes place in any case: people are not robots, and the vehicles need repair, too. For example, the Operation Bagration in the WWII and a few months of Soviet troops standing near Warsaw. In other hand, it's obvious that Ukrainians will use this break, too (like in the first cease-fire), but this time, they seem to be switching the roles.
Now, about Mariupol. According to the positive info - the AFN have taken a few blocks in the city, to the negative - they were still advancing in the suburbs. Anyway, after the agreement, Mariupol will be either given up without a fight, or finished - as well as the Donetsk airport and the salients - because those who are sitting in the AFN headquarters are not idiots.

Option three: this is the end of the advance, the conflicts with Ukraine will be solved diplomatically from now on.
Probably the best option for Russia (in short-term perspective), but leaving Novorossiya next to a half-insane state (and leaving the other regions of the Ukrainian southeast) exposed is probably not the best idea, and many of the militias won't like it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Ladies and gentlemen, give it up for the comedy stylings of Rage Racer!

My favourite part was when he accused the Ukraine of being a country full of madmen, but going by his ramblings, you could be forgiven for thinking that he is Ukrainian if we were to use his definition.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[Rage Racer]

So, it's finally the first night when people of Donetsk and Luhansk can sleep peacefully, without being shelled. Surprising, but some refugees are starting to go back from Russia. It's the first really working cease-fire.

Ladies and gentlemen, give it up for the comedy stylings of Rage Racer!

My favourite part was when he accused the Ukraine of being a country full of madmen, but going by his ramblings, you could be forgiven for thinking that he is Ukrainian if we were to use his definition.

What's wrong again?
Am I reading about how funny I am from someone who was talking about some 'Ukrainian evidence' of Russian governmental presence (particulary - 'invasion') in Eastern Ukraine, but failed to reveal any?
Ukraine is now really mad. If you ever talked to those pro-war Ukrainians who believe their propaganda, you would agree with me. Not fully mad, though (there are many people who don't care about politics, and a small bit of people opposing Kiev's actions).

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What's wrong again?

The same thing as always - you have repeatedly acted as if Russia has the right to interfere with the sovereignty of other nations without consequence, denied evidence that has been presented based on proof that is as specious as you claim the original evidence to be, and insisted that the only way to fully resolve the conflict is for Kiev to give up and allow Moscow to do as they please as is (supposedly) their right, and be thankful for it. Your attitude essentially encapsulates the attitude of the Kremlin as a whole.

 

[Grayfox]

I have a feeling this is the next act.
Act 10. The war.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Except for the whole "cease-fire" thing. With "cease" meaning "stop" and "fire" meaning "shooting".

 

[Liquid]

But there are fresh reports of shelling near Donetsk airport. Let's see how this develops.

Prelim report

 

[Dotini]

The same thing as always - you have repeatedly acted as if Russia has the right to interfere with the sovereignty of other nations without consequence, denied evidence that has been presented based on proof that is as specious as you claim the original evidence to be, and insisted that the only way to fully resolve the conflict is for Kiev to give up and allow Moscow to do as they please as is (supposedly) their right, and be thankful for it. Your attitude essentially encapsulates the attitude of the Kremlin as a whole.

I think Rage Racer has an important role to play in the debate. Nobody's opinion is without some bias.

I agree with him that the current conflict was started by a coup d'etat in Kiev, although I would add that the violation of the US/Russian agreement to limit NATO to 12 (not the current 28) is at the root of it.

Was there a right for the coup to topple the elected government? Was there a right for Russia to support Russians in the Russian birthplace? There is something to be said for the "Game of Thrones" approach to these questions, i.e., that power is what it is. While intellectuals natter over rights, men of action make facts on the ground - on both sides. At the end of the day, might makes right, and history is a test of will and strength. Little men with thick glasses on the side of the victors will later write about the justifications and the caveats. In general, the US rules the world; of that there is zero doubt. Right now, Russia is in the dog house. That will change when it suits us.

One of the great virtues of GTP forums is the global membership, with many points of view represented. It's something to be proud to be a part of.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Was there a right for the coup to topple the elected government?

It depends. Revolution has long been a catalyst for social change. The question is whether or not the revolution is justified. Many of the people in the protests were unhappy with corruption in a government that they felt no longer represented their interests, so in that regard, the revolution could be justified. But at the same time, the interim government did the wrong thing, trying to govern when they should have called for elections. All they did was alienate the people who would become the separatists as much as the previous government had alienated them.

Was there a right for Russia to support Russians in the Russian birthplace?

Politically, certainly. Economically, maybe. But militarily? No. I don't see how "the right to support Russians in the Russian birthplace" can reasonably extend to "the right to arm and equip Russians in the Russian birthplace" or "the right to invade a sovereign state".

 

[Rage Racer]

The same thing as always - you have repeatedly acted as if Russia has the right to interfere with the sovereignty of other nations without consequence

The West has the right to interfere with any country's regime and back any rebels and coups they want, but Russia doesn't? Is that what you mean?

denied evidence that has been presented based on proof that is as specious as you claim the original evidence to be

What is that evidence you're talkng about? This is not the first time I'm asking you to show that 'evidence', but you keep ignoring that again.
Text from Ukrainian news like "we've just killed 100000 Russian soldiers commanded personally by Putin" is not evidence.

and insisted that the only way to fully resolve the conflict is for Kiev to give up and allow Moscow to do as they please as is (supposedly) their right, and be thankful for it.

The only way for Kiev to resolve the conflict is to stop shooting their own citizens, put the guns aside and start talking to the representatives of the self-proclaimed republics. I don't like the idea of Ukraine's dissolution, although Novorossiya wants complete independence - it would be better for them to get over their pride and stay in federalized Ukraine with extended autonomy. But, when people get shelled and bombed, they get less likely to wish living in that state that bombs them. Rockets and shells cannot unify a country. Yugoslavia guarantees that.

Your attitude essentially encapsulates the attitude of the Kremlin as a whole.

I wouldn't be approving Putin's actions for nothing - I didn't even vote for him. I think, Kremlin is doing what any proper government should be doing in that case.

All they did was alienate the people who would become the separatists as much as the previous government had alienated them.

How did the previous government 'alienate' the interim one? (or Ukrainian people, who you mean?)

Politically, certainly. Economically, maybe. But militarily? No. I don't see how "the right to support Russians in the Russian birthplace" can reasonably extend to "the right to arm and equip Russians in the Russian birthplace" or "the right to invade a sovereign state".

Why not to equip people who want to protect themselves from a govt running nuts?
And where's the 'invasion', again?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And where's the 'invasion', again?

That's right. I forgot. It wasn't an invasion. It was a multi-national ensemble of heavily-armed boy scouts who crossed the border to help a little old lady across the street, whether she liked it or not.

It's nonsense like this that threatens to undermine whatever point you were trying to make. There has been plenty of photographic evidence of soldiers in the Ukraine, but you deny that they exist at all, then defend the actions of the Kremlin in something you just said that they didn't do.

 

[Rage Racer]

There has been plenty of photographic evidence of soldiers

But where? I'm probably blind. Could you please post any?

Or any man with AK-74 is a Russian soldier from now on?
I like your phrase "look like Russians, act like Russians". You still didn't answer, how do Russians look and act according to you.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And you didn't answer how you can claim that the Kremlin's actions are justified whilst denying that they are doing anything at all.

 

[VolkswagenX]

That's right. I forgot. It wasn't an invasion. It was a multi-national ensemble of heavily-armed boy scouts who crossed the border to help a little old lady across the street, whether she liked it or not.

It's nonsense like this that threatens to undermine whatever point you were trying to make. There has been plenty of photographic evidence of soldiers in the Ukraine, but you deny that they exist at all, then defend the actions of the Kremlin in something you just said that they didn't do.

Can you show some actual evidence? Saying you have seen it over and over is not the same as showing it to us. And can you please reply to what rage racer actually said?

 

[Rage Racer]

And you didn't answer how you can claim that the Kremlin's actions are justified whilst denying that they are doing anything at all.

Actually, I don't deny that RF supports the Novorossian rebels, but I don't see any invasion of actual Russian military happening. These are different things.

 

[Dotini]

Was there a right for the coup to topple the elected government?

It depends. Revolution has long been a catalyst for social change. The question is whether or not the revolution is justified. Many of the people in the protests were unhappy with corruption in a government that they felt no longer represented their interests, so in that regard, the revolution could be justified.

I'm delighted that you say the ends can justify the means.

You say that revolution - coup d'etat - can be justified when "many" people feel unhappy with corruption in a government, no matter the legitimacy of the elected government or the laws currently standing in place.

Now the next question is whether is whether the ends can justify the means not just in Ukraine, but in Britain, Australia and the US. Or maybe the ends can only justify the means where and when we with the power select that it should? In other words, I'm looking for traces of even-handedness - or hypocrisy - in the pursuit of regime change both at home and abroad. I'm looking to see if we apply our principles honestly and fairly, or if we use our principles as a plausible lie to shield rather lower motives.

 

[Rage Racer]