welshbairn Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 They've found the car the gunmen used, number plate is 'CIA 1'. Allegedly. Seriously though, the march in his memory on Sunday could be interesting. I wonder if there will be any US government officials handing out cookies at this one? More likely FSB handing out truncheon blows. The march was planned before his death to protest Russia's involvement in the war in Ukraine. Thankfully Putin's taken personal control over the murder investigation so I'm sure all the protesters will be reassured and sleep peacefully in their beds until a patsy's been found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 More likely FSB handing out truncheon blows. The march was planned before his death to protest Russia's involvement in the war in Ukraine. Thankfully Putin's taken personal control over the murder investigation so I'm sure all the protesters will be reassured and sleep peacefully in their beds until a patsy's been found. The march was initially cancelled after the shooting but permission has been given for it go ahead in commemoration. A cynic might suggest there is a risk of another Kiev situation, where a few innocent bystanders are shot at for no apparent reason by 'government forces'. Putin has had a busy few days after being outed as Jihadi John, I doubt he had time to organise an assassination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/germany-concerned-about-aggressive-nato-stance-on-ukraine-a-1022193.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/germany-concerned-about-aggressive-nato-stance-on-ukraine-a-1022193.html Breedlove is a dangerous lunatic of the highest order. NATO's strategy is to "release clear, accurate and timely information regarding ongoing events." He also wrote that: "As an alliance based on the fundamental values of freedom and democracy, our response to propaganda cannot be more propaganda. It can only be the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB-Scotland Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 For any Putin apologist/contrarian-for-the-sake-of-it type trying to down-play Russia's responsibility for/involvement in the war - explain why Nadiya Savchenko is still being held in prison in Moscow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 ...or explain away what is reported in this Vice News clip: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 The reporter asks the most important question of all in that video - if what they are reporting is true, why isn't there more evidence of it? If the Ukraine side had anything concrete at all you can guarantee they'd be shouting it from the rooftops. They'd certainly have no reason to resort to faking photos. Also, why would Ukrainian army chiefs themselves come out and state they're not fighting against Russian army units? They of all parties involved have more reason than anyone to push the opposite view. They say there are some Russian nationals fighting with militias, as there are Polish, Hungarians etc, which is consistent with the reports of handfuls of them being killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB-Scotland Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Something concrete like say, a video of a captured battalion being interviewed confirming their identities, before being handed back over to Russia in a prisoner swap? (FWIW, I do think Ukraine has on occasion exaggerated the numbers of Russian troops in certain places out of desperation for help) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Something concrete like say, a video of a captured battalion being interviewed confirming their identities, before being handed back over to Russia in a prisoner swap? (FWIW, I do think Ukraine has on occasion exaggerated the numbers of Russian troops in certain places out of desperation for help) I don't doubt there are Russian soldiers there fighting unofficially, it's not really surprising that they'd want to fight when the ethnic Russians in Ukraine are being wiped out by their own government who label them terrorists for protecting their homes. There are loads of videos of 'captured servicemen', some may be genuine but most are fake or at least unverifiable (and there are plenty of questionable ones released by the other side, too). I'd like to think military and political policy is based on something a bit more official than youtube videos anyway. At the end of the day, it wouldn't matter to Kiev and Nato if it was proven beyond doubt that Russia had no involvement in the conflict whatsoever. They're already fabricating non-existent threats to other nations, including ourselves, just to keep the demonisation campaign ticking over for their longer-term goal of regime change in Moscow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB-Scotland Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I don't doubt there are Russian soldiers there fighting unofficially, it's not really surprising that they'd want to fight when the ethnic Russians in Ukraine are being wiped out by their own government who label them terrorists for protecting their homes. Nothing's ever not happened more than this. I genuinely don't even know where to start. Wiped out? Go on, have a go explaining. The video in question was all over international media and verified by the Russians themselves, who claimed the battalion had crossed the border by accident. How about the Russian soldiers who have accidentally posted on Russian social media website VKontakte with their location settings turned on and showing they were in Ukraine, with other posts making it clear they were sent away on duty as opposed to 'volunteering'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 So have the rebels been shelling their own cities? Why on Earth would they do that? Either that or you think the civilian casualties are acceptable collateral damage in the fight against 'terrorists'. I didn't think this needed any explaining - maybe you could explain how Kiev hasn't been the main aggressor? You will probably want to leave out the bit about the neo-nazi groups fighting on the front lines who openly describe Russians as sub-human. I know the case you mean about the 'lost' troops. Well that accounts for 10 of them, any evidence of the other 8990 Poroshenko claimed invaded at one point? And the columns of tanks? I'd have thought it'd be hard not to see a column of tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB-Scotland Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Erm, yes. The rebels do not have any of their 'own' cities, and that is where the Russian narrative of an organic, civilian-driven uprising falls apart. Polls in the East have found that typically 80-90% of people wish to stay with Ukraine. The support shown towards the Ukrainian soldiers whenever they have liberated a city would seem to validate that, as would the pro-Maidan protests held in cities like Donetsk during the revolution a year ago. I myself have just come home from Kyiv where I met a lot of people who had moved from Odessa, Kherson, Donetsk, even Crimea, to avoid the war, all of whom were 100% behind the Ukrainian army, and scoffed at the idea that Russia has meaningful support in the region. So, it's a mixture of that and civilians being caught in the cross-fire, as happens in all wars, but heightened here due to Russ- I mean the rebels human-shield tactics of shooting from inhabited apartment blocks. Human Rights Watch uploaded a video in which they confirmed that the attack on Mariupol came from rebel-occupied territory, are you disagreeing with them? How many troops do you want it proven that Russia has sent to Ukraine before you accept we have concrete evidence, exactly? Are you suggesting that Russia sent 1 solitary battalion... or that they really did get lost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 ...or explain away what is reported in this Vice News clip: It does not prove a "ghost army" is fighting in Ukraine, All it proves is that some of the people fighting there are Russian's which no one has ever denied. If it was true it would be as clear as day and plastered 24/7 over ever news outlet. I would also be skeptical of what's reported in Vice given it's buyout by Time Warner last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB-Scotland Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 It's a covert military operation, and given Russia's incompetent and unsubtle tendencies, the current levels of exposure of it are just about in keeping with what you'd expect. The existence of volunteer soldiers does make it somewhat easy to blur the lines, but not enough apparently, with the captured battalion, posts on social media by Russian soldiers, testimonies of the Soldiers Mothers charity, Russian army commander Strelkov's interview in which he came clean about large parts of the operation etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Erm, yes. The rebels do not have any of their 'own' cities, and that is where the Russian narrative of an organic, civilian-driven uprising falls apart. Polls in the East have found that typically 80-90% of people wish to stay with Ukraine. The support shown towards the Ukrainian soldiers whenever they have liberated a city would seem to validate that, as would the pro-Maidan protests held in cities like Donetsk during the revolution a year ago. I myself have just come home from Kyiv where I met a lot of people who had moved from Odessa, Kherson, Donetsk, even Crimea, to avoid the war, all of whom were 100% behind the Ukrainian army, and scoffed at the idea that Russia has meaningful support in the region. So, it's a mixture of that and civilians being caught in the cross-fire, as happens in all wars, but heightened here due to Russ- I mean the rebels human-shield tactics of shooting from inhabited apartment blocks. Human Rights Watch uploaded a video in which they confirmed that the attack on Mariupol came from rebel-occupied territory, are you disagreeing with them? How many troops do you want it proven that Russia has sent to Ukraine before you accept we have concrete evidence, exactly? Are you suggesting that Russia sent 1 solitary battalion... or that they really did get lost? That's certainly an interesting perspective. Would the 90% of people in the east who want to stay in Ukraine be the same 90% who voted for the pro-Russian president who was overthrown in the illegal coup? Or didn't that happen either? Human shield tactics The 'rebels' are locals, they live in the areas the government troops have been attacking. There is literally endless footage available of the aftermath of shelling of residential areas with the locals showing their anger towards Poroshenko and his government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB-Scotland Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 'Illegal coup' Nice way to describe a revolution. Yes, I would say that Yanukovych-voters don't all want Ukraine divided into two with a big chunk handed over to Russia. Particularly as I have spoken to several in that exact position. Bit of a strange question, that. The rebels/Russians don't only live in those areas, they fire from within them, often shooting from the balconies and windows of apartment blocks. Do you propose that the army doesn't fire back? Also, why did you avoid my point about Mariupol? Do you accept that the rebels/Russians attacked that massively pro-Ukrainian city? We have a bizarre chicken-egg scenario here - the rebels/Russians took over these cities, without any particularly strong support from the native people; the army is fighting to regain them, and unfortunately that means civilian casualties. Are you suggesting that the army just randomly started massacring areas with a high ethnic Russian population, THEN some brave rebels decided "enough is enough", and that heroic, selfless members of the Russian army decided voluntarily to intervene and stop this oddly unknown massacre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I refuse to believe you're not aware that it was an American-backed coup. There's really very little argument about that anymore, such is the amount of conclusive proof readily available. Even a prominent CIA boss recently called it the most blatant coup in history. These ethnic Russian areas immediately made it clear they didn't recognise the new, illegitimate government in Kiev, and announced their intent to secede. They held referendums on self-rule last May with Donetsk 89% in favour and Luhansk 96% in favour. Rather than exercise any form of democratic process, Kiev labelled them terrorists and sent the army in. Who said anything about handing territory to Russia? The Russians turned down the breakaway republics' request to join them early on. As for the Mariupol incident - I've not seen the HRW video, but it seems they claim the rockets were fired from the east. This contradicts every other available source I've seen, from news media on both sides and local eyewitness accounts, all of which are in agreement that the attacks were from the north and northwest. As with many things we will probably never know for sure, but you can be sure that if there was actual evidence it was the rebels it would have had blanket coverage instead of the usual, suggestive speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I refuse to believe you're not aware that it was an American-backed coup. There's really very little argument about that anymore, such is the amount of conclusive proof readily available. Even a prominent CIA boss recently called it the most blatant coup in history. These ethnic Russian areas immediately made it clear they didn't recognise the new, illegitimate government in Kiev, and announced their intent to secede. They held referendums on self-rule last May with Donetsk 89% in favour and Luhansk 96% in favour. Rather than exercise any form of democratic process, Kiev labelled them terrorists and sent the army in. Who said anything about handing territory to Russia? The Russians turned down the breakaway republics' request to join them early on. As for the Mariupol incident - I've not seen the HRW video, but it seems they claim the rockets were fired from the east. This contradicts every other available source I've seen, from news media on both sides and local eyewitness accounts, all of which are in agreement that the attacks were from the north and northwest. As with many things we will probably never know for sure, but you can be sure that if there was actual evidence it was the rebels it would have had blanket coverage instead of the usual, suggestive speculation. That's not true, the reason they sent the army in was when the IMF loaned Ukraine their SDR's. One of the conditions imposed on them was that they must reclaim the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Poreshenko is just a puppet in all this. He does whatever the powers that be tell him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Illegal coup is what the (russian side) believe and that wont change, remeber we were told old Ukrainian government started the violence in the square ..and as i posted previously the revolutionaries have now admited it was their militia that fired first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB-Scotland Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I refuse to believe you're not aware that it was an American-backed coup. There's really very little argument about that anymore, such is the amount of conclusive proof readily available. Even a prominent CIA boss recently called it the most blatant coup in history. These ethnic Russian areas immediately made it clear they didn't recognise the new, illegitimate government in Kiev, and announced their intent to secede. They held referendums on self-rule last May with Donetsk 89% in favour and Luhansk 96% in favour. Rather than exercise any form of democratic process, Kiev labelled them terrorists and sent the army in. Who said anything about handing territory to Russia? The Russians turned down the breakaway republics' request to join them early on. As for the Mariupol incident - I've not seen the HRW video, but it seems they claim the rockets were fired from the east. This contradicts every other available source I've seen, from news media on both sides and local eyewitness accounts, all of which are in agreement that the attacks were from the north and northwest. As with many things we will probably never know for sure, but you can be sure that if there was actual evidence it was the rebels it would have had blanket coverage instead of the usual, suggestive speculation. By the end, when the people had basically forced out the president, yes the Americans got involved and handed over power, but it pretty much fell into their lap and they just put the finishing touches on what was inevitably happening anyway. Not to make it sound like they did it for any kind of good/selfless reason, by the way, obviously they have their own agenda against Russia, but you're understating what the people accomplished. To say 'These ethnic Russian areas immediately made it clear they didn't recognise the new, illegitimate government in Kiev,' is a complete exaggeration, large numbers of people in the East supported the Maidan anyway, and to try to give those 'referendums' any credibility is laughable, considering that 1) they were clearly such a sham that anyone against the Russian-orchestrated pseudo-state didn't bother voting 2) one of the sets of results came back with a total of 101% 3) Russia's track-record in elections 4) the complete lack of any respected independent observers. The Ukrainian army had gone in well before that point, regardless. I'd probably be more likely to trust HRW and their visual explanations of their conclusions over media(and, Kremlin pseudo-media aside, what must be a very small handful of media outlets, as I don't recall seeing such reports). But if that's not enough for you, how about Alexander Zakarchenko announcing the attack on Mariupol had commenced soon before the bombings took place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.