It appears Russia is in the process of sending thousands of troops into Ukraine. The US is now considering sending lethal aid. I think it is time.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.640247
http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.640247
More Ukrainian Events
- Thread starter Yazata
- Start date
Why quote an Israeli newspaper, instead of Bloomberg, NYT, CNN, etc.?
The latter sources are starting to break free of their Mossad brainwashing and are no longer interfering with Putin's efforts to bring world peace and harmony.
I still find it odd that these russians aren't being filmed. Theirs also little sabotage being done to acces roads to Russia. And no official assasin attempts against their leaders. considering how many kill amongst themself it's odd the Ukraine army doesn't get in on the action.
apart from that they could set up refugee camps all over the country and blow up the cities water treatment plants the people seem mobile enough to travel and a city won't last 3 days without water the people get distributated all over the country and even if they take small arms they cant take tanks and cannons. The situation should become much more manageable from that point on. Nobody gets killed and the infrastructure stays relativly unharmed; all mayor armory can be taken with little trouble or without civilian casualties.
Apart from that why not give them some extra rights who really cares perhaps the state shouldn't be able to denouce a language more then 50% speak and further liberties could be depended on how they depended they are. You want to manage your own economy Sure the moment you feel confertable enough not to be a red state go ahead (Donetsk and Luhansk are special economy zones).
apart from that they could set up refugee camps all over the country and blow up the cities water treatment plants the people seem mobile enough to travel and a city won't last 3 days without water the people get distributated all over the country and even if they take small arms they cant take tanks and cannons. The situation should become much more manageable from that point on. Nobody gets killed and the infrastructure stays relativly unharmed; all mayor armory can be taken with little trouble or without civilian casualties.
Apart from that why not give them some extra rights who really cares perhaps the state shouldn't be able to denouce a language more then 50% speak and further liberties could be depended on how they depended they are. You want to manage your own economy Sure the moment you feel confertable enough not to be a red state go ahead (Donetsk and Luhansk are special economy zones).
This isn't about any of those things. This is a Russian land grab. The "separatists" are led, financed, supplied, and directed by Putin. According to the "separatist" leader, they are mostly staffed by vacationing Russian troops. I am not sure who is the titular leaders of the separatists at this time. But the original separatist leader was a Russian state security officer as was the military commander.
maybe but Ukraine isn't really flaunting captured Russian troops or doing much damming reporting like showing bodies being cremated. Both sides are unreliable so the truth is somewhere in the middle probably. I'm yust saying if theirs thousands of them they should be able to interview them. That said they could do some silly concession of rights that are yust plain Obvious and anything more important could be written in such a way that it will never happen. For example you want to be able to collect taxes sure but it's still ukranian currency and your lending is limited by a reserve fixed by the goverment, therefore they cant either print money or make debts the goverment isn't confertable with. The only wa for it to gain influence would be by massive investments from Russia (and not in the rest of the country) witch the EU would counteract meaninga large flow of money into the country. And frankly the EU can outspend Russia.
Short answer Ukrain needs to talk and the donbass in it's current form get's the rights to some pretty words whilst they get strapped in a position in wich they can't manauver or loose. If that doesn't work get the civilian population out. If the civilians are out you can stop water and electricty afther that theirs many ways they coulds piss of the russians like blowing up the roads toward Russia (something they should have done last year). And basicly expose russian personel
Short answer Ukrain needs to talk and the donbass in it's current form get's the rights to some pretty words whilst they get strapped in a position in wich they can't manauver or loose. If that doesn't work get the civilian population out. If the civilians are out you can stop water and electricty afther that theirs many ways they coulds piss of the russians like blowing up the roads toward Russia (something they should have done last year). And basicly expose russian personel
Time for WWIII? Oh sure, let's get that started, why not.
Well let's hope it doesn't go that far. But it is a very real possibility. You need to understand what the stakes are. Putin has violated trust. His is repeating the steps which led to WWII. Putin's aggressive behavior will inevitably result in a confrontation with the West. So the question before the West is quite simple, do we confront Putin now or later. I think our experiences with Hitler taught us now is preferable to later. Putin is rebuilding his military. Putin is preparing for war with the West. Does the West want to confront a weaker or a stronger Putin? My choice would be weaker.
Obama will be meeting with Merkel on Monday, so I expect there will be some announcement next week on lethal weapons. The US is looking at tightening sanctions. Europe has extended sanctions. But Putin has escalated his land grab. So clearly something else must be done. I think the US and allied nations plan to make Putin's stay in Ukraine very expensive.
Putin isn't Hitler and war with Russia is not at all inevitable. We are provoking war by denying centuries of Russian domination of the region. If we continue down this mistaken path, we will learn the lessons that Hitler and Napoleon learned when they did the same.
You need to beef up on your history.
You need to beef up on beef, because it will be the end of history if we continue provoking Russia. It's insanity.
In dried form (Jerky) as there will not be electricity following WWIII.
Did I say he was Hitler or war with Russia is inevitable? No, you are using a straw man. I did say and have said on multiple occasions, Putin is doing the same things Hitler did prior to WWII. And that is a simple fact, wither you want to admit it or not, that fact hasn't been lost on Western leaders. Appeasement didn't work for Chamberlain, and it hasn't worked with Putin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
When Putin invaded, occupied and annexed portions of Georgia, the world objected, but did little else. Now we find Putin doing the same thing in Ukraine. The only thing Putin respects is strength. Putin is a bully. I have seen many in my lifetime. How do you figure that we are provoking war? We didn't invade Ukraine or Georgia? Putin did. Using your argument, France, Poland and the US provoked WWII. Colonial powers once dominated the globe. The United Kingdom once dominated North America, so are we to allow a return to colonialism? Using your argument hegemony is sacrosanct, and that simply isn't the case. Russia has on numerous occasions recognized Ukraine as a separate state and has recognized the same Ukrainian borders it has routinely violated (e.g. Trilateral Statement).
So you think if the West doesn't appease Putin and give him all that he wants, when he wants, we will repeat the mistakes of Hitler and Napoleon? Seriously? Spider do you know what those mistakes were? So you think the West should have stood by and watched Hitler invade his neighbors and kill millions more in his torture chambers. Ok, so you are a Nazi sympathizer. There is nothing the West has done which is even remotely similar to what Hitler or Napoleon did. Hitler invaded, annexed, and occupied neighboring states, just as Putin has done. Hitler used nationalism to become dictator, just as Putin has done. Putin has expanded his military, just as Hitler did. Napoleon overstretched his resources and that led to his downfall. None of that can be truthfully said of the West. However, it can be truthfully said of Putin. Putin is replicating what Hitler did and he is making the same mistakes. Putin is also spreading his military forces too thinly (e.g. using his strategic bombers to fly silly missions and pose no significant threat to those he is attempting to intimidate and which he cannot support because he has no global support facilities).
Putin has by comparison a very small army and even smaller navy. His military equipment is antiquated and mostly obsolete. Putin's resources are extremely limited.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...ies-in-europe-should-deter-russian-aggression
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/five-nato-weapons-war-russia-should-fear-10769?page=2
The US alone has more than double the manpower, active troops, and several fold more equipment (e.g. tanks, aircraft, naval vessels, etc.) and more effective modern equipment and technologies. And US and NATO troops are better trained and more experienced. So your notions that the West is somehow weaker, is just fiction. The West has two choices, anoint Putin dictator of the world, or stand up to him. And if we chose the latter, it is best to do it sooner rather than later. I prefer the later. I like my freedoms. I like living in the West. I don't want to live under a corrupt dictator. You obviously don't share my love of freedom.
Last edited:
While it is good to learn from history, we should also not make the mistake of applying a particular (appeasement) narrative to every single event. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union not too long ago (barely 20 years), and has been integral to soviet culture since the 13th century. Many of it's citizens speak Russian. They are also not a part of NATO. It's not so much like Hitler invading Czechoslovakia, it's more like Germany annexing Austria. I do not believe that Putin seeks to dominate Europe as Hitler did. I do not believe Putin is operating concentration camps.
You are presenting false choices.
We could support the Ukrainian rebels through non-military means (sanctions). But anything more is futile. Russia can defeat any army Ukraine can muster with conventional weapons. But if we were serious about defeating them, if the war got real, we would see threats of nuclear attacks which would basically call our bluff. We aren't going to suffer tens of thousands of potential American victims for Ukraine. And for what? Empty nationalism? It would be different if Russia invaded a NATO country, but he didn't and he won't. Russia's power guarantees it a measure of dominance, and there's nothing we can do about that apart from worldwide thermonuclear warfare.
Another straw man.
So using your "reasoning" again, India and the US should be colonies of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom, according to your line of thinking, has the right to invade and annex India and the US as well as its other colonies. Indian's speak English and of course we Americans speak English and share a common culture too.
That hair of distinction you are trying to slice between Czechoslovakia and Austria is so fine as to be nonexistent. In both cases the same dictator invaded an annexed those countries just as Putin has invaded and annexed portions of his neighbors using the exact same excuses Hitler used...the excuses you have repeatedly offered in this discussion.
You can and will believe what you want, regardless of the facts. Hitler told the UK and France he only wanted this country and that country for the reasons who have stated, promising he would not invade another just before invading another (e.g. Poland). And that is how WWII was born. Men like Hitler and Putin cannot just have one.
Did I say Putin was operating concentration camps? I didn't. You are back to your straw man argument again.
Oh, what is false about them?
Why would we want to support the so called "Ukrainian rebels"? Ukrainian "rebels" are Putin's men. We are and have been supporting the Ukrainian government with non-lethal aid. I don't know where you are getting your news, but the war is very real. People are dying every day on the Ukrainian battlefront. There is nothing "fake" about the Russian-Ukrainian War.
Where have you heard anyone say the US intended to defend Ukraine with troops on the ground? It certainly hasn't come from anyone of authority. President Obama has said on more than one occasion the US will not fight for Ukraine. It will not put troops on the ground in Ukraine to defend the country from Russia because it isn't a NATO member. So you are either ill-informed or are making stuff up.
Again, you can and I am sure will believe what you want. But that doesn't make it true. I am surprised that you fell you can speak for Putin now and with certitude and predict what he will and will not do. It is very clear, based on Putin's actions, Putin has global power desires. At some point, it needs to be made clear to Putin that it isn't acceptable to invade and annex neighboring states. Putin has clearly demonstrated he is not a reliable partner/leader and cannot be trusted. That is why investor money is fleeing Russia. The West cannot trust Putin with more military power; else there very well could be a WWIII at some future point in time. As a result of these sanctions Russia is a diminishing power. It isn't a growing power. And there is much we can do. The sanctions are good example of what can be done. Putin no longer has access to the foreign capital and technology he needs to build his military because of the sanctions that have been imposed on him. Arming Ukraine is a way to increase the costs of Putin's aggression, the same way we increased the costs of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan when we supplied Afghan war lords with arms.
This isn’t about Western nationalism. There are 28 NATO states. It kind of dilutes your notion of Western nationalism. This is about Putin’s resurrection of fascism and his dreams of global dominance. So while you don’t get it, Western leaders do.
PS: Russia's power rests mostly on its antiquated nuclear weapons which are rapidly becoming obsolete as the US has developed and deployed new antiballistic weaponry. Each branch of the US military (Coast Guard excepted) has developed new weaponry like laser guns. Most Russian nukes are land based an very vulnerable to attack. If it came to war, perhaps a few Russian nukes would get through and that is serious enough. But it would be a very unequal event for Mother Russia and Mother Putin.
Last edited:
Sorry I misspoke. By rebels I mean those that support the current regime which rebelled against the previous one.
The Ukrainians, do not deny a prior ID misstake: In 2001 the mainly Russian speaking Ukrainian army did use a burk to shoot down, by accident, a high flying Soviet passenger plane! Doing that requires a trained Burk battery team. Nor could they then blame that passenger plane's destruction on not yet existing "rebels."
In addition to the logic and reasons I gave in prior post 170, two paragraphs re-quoted at end of this post, there is now scientific analysis by the maker of the Burk missiles supporting the point of view that the Ukrainain forces, which did shoot done several other planes, did bring down MH17, again probably due to "ID error.":
Now it may make sense for Putin to supply Burk missiles and associated battery team training to them. The ones they had when MH17 was shot down were captured from a briefly over run Ukraine army base but not many Rebels, and certainly no Burk battery team, had been trained in how to fire them.
I am only guessing, but suspect that the 9H314M warhead used dense metal spheres, as the US did initially. US anti-air craft missiles now use segments of dense metal loops (parts of different rings around the HE) that are more likely to slice thru more critical parts of the target than balls would. The Russian 9M317M warhead probably does that too now. I.e. the puncture of an air craft's skin made by these two different metal warheads types is very different.
In addition to the logic and reasons I gave in prior post 170, two paragraphs re-quoted at end of this post, there is now scientific analysis by the maker of the Burk missiles supporting the point of view that the Ukrainain forces, which did shoot done several other planes, did bring down MH17, again probably due to "ID error.":
The evidence presented at the conference in three languages and many photographs is available for others to examine, if they doubt the Burk maker's analysis.http://news.yahoo.com/missile-maker-says-russia-did-not-shoot-down-145334005.html said:
When post 170 was written, the Rebels were being defeated, not the case today.
Now it may make sense for Putin to supply Burk missiles and associated battery team training to them. The ones they had when MH17 was shot down were captured from a briefly over run Ukraine army base but not many Rebels, and certainly no Burk battery team, had been trained in how to fire them.
I am only guessing, but suspect that the 9H314M warhead used dense metal spheres, as the US did initially. US anti-air craft missiles now use segments of dense metal loops (parts of different rings around the HE) that are more likely to slice thru more critical parts of the target than balls would. The Russian 9M317M warhead probably does that too now. I.e. the puncture of an air craft's skin made by these two different metal warheads types is very different.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm, so you believe Putin's arms manufacturer rather than the European powers who actually have the wreckage of MH17 and have actually examined the wreckage of MH17? Well at least you are consistent.
There really isn't new news there. That is what Putin has been saying from day one.
This is Ukraine's response:
"Ukrainian presidential spokesman Andriy Lysenko told RIA Novosti that Almaz-Antey's claims were "an attempt to cover [the truth] by pseudo scientific arguments," saying Ukraine has "received enough evidence" of Russia's involvement in the accident." http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/uk...ssile-type-owned-ukraine-russian-firm-n368296
And an older BUK system even if true, doesn't rule out the fact it was supplied by Mother Russia.
Last edited:
No it is not. He and Russian army airforce experts for a few years denied MH17 was destroyed by a Burk. They claimed Ukrainian Airforce shot it down with their cannons. - That is consistent with round puncture holes in the aluminum skin of the MH17. All who have examined those wholes agree they are basically round and definitely not the slot shaped wholes that all Burks made in Russian have had since 1999 would have made.
No one is denying Russia supplied Burks. All agree that more than two decades ago, Russia did supply the Burks of that era to all members of their western defense line, Ukrainians included. - They trained Ukrainian army and others to be Burk battery teams effective in the use of the Burk anti-air craft weapon system. The US still had squadrons of SAC bombers they were to be used against. (SAC = Strategic Air Command - I was well paid by SAC one summer to work on a "penetration aid." It was QRC -65 as I recall.*)
The round holes are consistent with either air craft cannon or with the early verision of the Burks supplied to the Ukrainians in large numbers long ago, but not with the Burks made in Russias after 1999.
This is not a question of who to belief but a conclusion that follows from the facts all accept. Especially that the holes in plane's skin are round.
*QRC = Quick Reaction Contract. SAC wanted the device we were making "yesterday" but paid us many thousands of dollars extra if we could deliver a proto-type in three months, which we did. My task was a simple part - design of the power system, but as nothing was known about the power requirements and some wires that might be needed had several months of delivery delay, I asked my boss: "What should I do." He replied:" This is a cost plus contract. Order 10 miles of any size you think you might need in four different colors!" So I did. I was the only directly employed person except my boss.
I got the job in a 10 minute "interview" that started with my soon to be boss handing me a pencil and paper pad and saying: "Draw circuit of a full wave bridge DC power supply". I did that quickly as had built several as radio ham W8IJM and had earned the first class FCC commercial license. (Worked at radio WCHS with it as "vacation replacement" for four adult employees as they took their 3-week summer vacations, while I was still in high school. ) Probably I was the youngest person to ever earn one via its tough four hour exam. Many fail on the first try, but I had studied and passed the first try. - Helped by WCHS's chief engineer who knew want types of questions were typical.
CGS labs was tiny - less than 15 people but had a unique device. - An electronically tunable inductor. (A DC winding could drive the iron core into near saturation but we had to scale it up for a 50 W jamming transmitter - the standard versions would tune the rapid scanning receiver and tell the transmitter what frequency to put a burst of noise on for a second - Russian fighter groups coordinated by voice.) All others working on SAC's job , about five, were also not full time employees. Those electrical engineers were "rented" from a NYC "technical body shop" at a cost of 400 dollars a day and got about 200 dollars of it.
We worked at least 60 hours per week - great pay for me as part was by law a triple time rate. Shortly after Sputnik was in a US known orbit, all six of use were out standing in the parking lot about an hour after dark - best seeing time. After five minutes of seeing nothing, one of the body shop engineers said: "I feel silly staring up that the stars." Our boss, quickly replied: "Me to, I just figured out I've already paid you about $3000 to do that!"
Last edited by a moderator:
Facts, what facts BillyT? All you have is yet another specious source, in this case Putin's arms manufacturer, making unfounded and unsupported statements which run contrary to facts and claims made by Western powers. From the start, Russia has blamed Ukraine for the shoot down. The facts as determined by the Western powers has determined the BUK was launched from Russian mercenary positions - remember those satellite pictures? Russia has launched a number of stories related to the shoot down, but none have come even close to being proven, including this one. Unlike Russia the Western version of events hasn't changed. And unlike you your Russian friends, the West has actually examined the physical evidence.