|
|
Meanwhile, there is a misplaced hope that talks in Geneva will be a chance for Russia to de-escalate matters in eastern Ukraine. I don't see Russia wanting to do that...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/world/europe/talks-a-chance-for-russia-to-step-back-on-ukraine.html?_r=0
In addition, the Ukrainian army's march on insurgent militias was promptly ended by drunken revelers.
SLOVYANSK, Ukraine — A military operation that the Ukrainian government said would confront pro-Russian militants in the east of the country unraveled in disarray on Wednesday with the entire contingent of 21 armored vehicles that had separated into two columns surrendering or pulling back before nightfall. It was a glaring humiliation for the new government in Kiev.
Though gunshots were fired throughout the day, and continued sporadically through the evening in this town that is occupied by pro-Russian militants, it was unclear whether anybody had been wounded.
One of the armored columns stopped when a crowd of men drinking beer and women yelling taunts and insults gathered on the road before them, and later in the day its commander agreed to hand over the soldiers’ assault rifles to the very separatists they were sent to fight.
And talk about saving face. meh
In Kiev, the Ministry of Defense initially denied that the armored vehicles had been captured. Then Sergei Sobolev, the acting head of the Fatherland Party in Parliament, claimed that the armored vehicles had flown Russian flags as part of an ingenious subterfuge to get through pro-Russian crowds.
Ukrainian news media quoted Mr. Sobolev as saying it was a “guerrilla approach” to infiltrate separatist-controlled areas through pro-Russian civilian mobs. Rather than a disastrous setback for Ukrainians, he said the appearance of Ukrainian military vehicles flying Russian flags was a “breakthrough” for the Ukrainian offensive, though it proved to be nothing of the sort.
Source
On April 17 2014 08:37 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2014 07:58 Itachii wrote:
Russia is full of shit, that is obvious. But what they are doing in terms of international talk is way beyond hypocrisy, it's just unreal.
I hope that they will get what they deserve someday, once again. They'll get to suffer like the ukrainians when they want to get rid of their own dictator. It's eventually going to happen again anyway. They'll even have the same guys that beat shit of out the ukrainians because all the berkut guys now make incredibly loyal putin puppets.
I agree with you lol, but you're grossly understating much of the 20th century alone in Russian history, which largely involved terrible, terrible damage and suffering hehe. Even the 1990s were a period of significant suffering. Take everything bad you know about the Great Depression, multiply it by a few times or more, and slap it on Russia. I'd imagine Deus Ex's New York City was a more pleasant place.
Still, I think any Russian leadership that isn't strictly prioritizing the economy is beyond stupid, especially if you're Putin with dreams of being at the level of Uncle Sam (lol).
But additionally, to be quite honest, as an American, I'm glad your idea of karma does not exist  . In particular, I think the greatest section of America, which unsurprisingly includes America's Finest City, is doing quite fine why thank you. We don't need any suffering here.
|
On April 17 2014 07:31 Ghanburighan wrote:
Follow up here:
Ukraine troops kill 3 assailants, wound 13Kiev (AFP) - Ukrainian troops repelled an overnight attack on their base in the southeast city of Mariupol, killing three of the assailants and wounding 13, Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said Thursday. Around 300 people mounted the attack using guns and petrol bombs on the interior ministry troops, none of whom was hurt, Avakov said on his Facebook page. Source
On April 17 2014 08:37 Derez wrote:
They'll get to suffer like the ukrainians when they want to get rid of their own dictator. It's eventually going to happen again anyway. They'll even have the same guys that beat shit of out the ukrainians because all the berkut guys now make incredibly loyal putin puppets.
While his international image is rubbish, you underestimate how well Putin is respected inside of Russia and other overzealous CIS nations.
Not to mention that as long as the likes of RussiaToday continue to demonise the West for all of their troubles, Putin will never, ever step down. Sensationalistic media sources like Fox aren't exactly helping to improving this perception either.
|
Nice article:
Conclusions:But now Europe, the United States and above all the Ukrainians need to learn to cope with masked warfare — the Russian term is maskirovka — which is designed to confuse not just opponents but also the opponents’ potential allies. As I’ve written, the West urgently needs to rethink its military, energy and financial strategies toward Russia. But more specific new policies will also be needed to fight the masked invasions that may follow in Moldova or, in time, the Baltic States if this one succeeds. Americans and Europeans should begin to rethink the funding and governance of our international broadcasters in order to counter the new war of words. We should also begin to reinforce the local police forces of the states that border the new Russian empire; NATO’s F-16s cannot fight thugs who are storming the town hall. This isn’t just about spending money: We need more special forces, more “human” intelligence, not just more ships and planes. Above all, we need to be prepared, in advance, for what may come. It’s a new world we are now entering, and we need new tools to cope with it. Source.
|
Seems a bit overboard to me.
All you need is good competent troops to beat up the masked troops, and standard intel to prove who they working for; or just troops. Since they aren't acting as soldiers, you're free to incarcerate them for what will generally be very long periods of time if they try anything violent (firing at police)
Nor does it really seem like all that new a style of fighting, it's little different than guerilla warfare in terms of tactics.
And needing more boots on the ground with less vehicles is nothing new either, that's been the case for decades.
|
Another issue, does Russia qualify as a State sponsoring international terrorism?
Here’s why Putin’s Russia qualifies as a state sponsor of terrorism. According to Section 2656f(d) of Title 22 of the United States Code: (1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country; (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; and (3) the term “terrorist group” means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism. There is overwhelming evidence of Russia’s direct and indirect involvement in the violence that rocked several eastern Ukrainian cities on April 12–13. Russian intelligence agents and spetsnaz special forces are directly involved; the weapons and uniforms worn by the terrorists are of Russian origin (a point made by the US ambassador to Kyiv, Geoffrey Pyatt); and the assaults on government buildings in Slavyansk, Mariupol, Makiivka, Kharkiv, Yenakievo, Druzhkivka, Horlivka, Krasny Lyman, and Kramatorsk were clearly coordinated by Russian intelligence. As EU High Representative Catherine Ashton delicately put it in a statement yesterday (pdf): I am gravely concerned about the surge of actions undertaken by armed individuals and separatist groups in various cities of Eastern Ukraine…. I reiterate the EU's strong support for Ukraine’s unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity and call upon Russia to do so as well. To this end, the Russian Federation is urged to call back its troops from the Ukrainian border and to cease any further actions aimed at destabilizing Ukraine. (Emphasis added.) Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Wesley Clark was more blunt, stating that the attacks were not spontaneous and represented the second stage of Russia’s plan to occupy Ukraine (the first being the occupation of Crimea). Does the behavior of the pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine involve “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets”? Obviously. Does this violence involve “citizens or the territory of more than one country”? Yes, it does. The violence therefore qualifies as international terrorism, and its perpetrators are obviously “terrorist groups.” QED. By the way, the European Union’s far more detailed definition of “terrorist acts” should dispel any lingering doubts one may have had that the violence in eastern Ukraine qualifies as terrorist: “Terrorist acts” mean intentional acts which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or international organization and which are defined as an offence under national law. These include: attacks upon a person's life which may cause death; attacks upon the physical integrity of a person; kidnapping or hostage taking; causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility; seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport; manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives, or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, participating in the activities of a terrorist group, including by supplying information or material resources, or by funding its activities in any way, with knowledge of the fact that such participation will contribute to the criminal activities of the group. In order for these acts to constitute terrorist acts, they must be carried out with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, or unduly compelling a Government or an international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act, or seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization. In light of Russia’s direct and indirect promotion of international terrorism in eastern Ukraine, Russia obviously qualifies as a “state sponsor of terrorism” and, after formally being declared as such, must be immediately subjected to the sanctions the United States is legally bound to impose on state sponsors of terrorism. (Naturally, the EU should follow suit.) Here’s the State Department: Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions. Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are four countries designated under these authorities: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. Source.
***
Putin's Q&A
***
SBU published another tape recording of a Russian officer providing instructions to separatists:
Source.
***
And yesterday's question has been answered:
Nvm:
|
On April 17 2014 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:Another issue, does Russia qualify as a State sponsoring international terrorism? Show nested quote +Here’s why Putin’s Russia qualifies as a state sponsor of terrorism. According to Section 2656f(d) of Title 22 of the United States Code: (1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country; (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; and (3) the term “terrorist group” means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism. There is overwhelming evidence of Russia’s direct and indirect involvement in the violence that rocked several eastern Ukrainian cities on April 12–13. Russian intelligence agents and spetsnaz special forces are directly involved; the weapons and uniforms worn by the terrorists are of Russian origin (a point made by the US ambassador to Kyiv, Geoffrey Pyatt); and the assaults on government buildings in Slavyansk, Mariupol, Makiivka, Kharkiv, Yenakievo, Druzhkivka, Horlivka, Krasny Lyman, and Kramatorsk were clearly coordinated by Russian intelligence. As EU High Representative Catherine Ashton delicately put it in a statement yesterday (pdf): I am gravely concerned about the surge of actions undertaken by armed individuals and separatist groups in various cities of Eastern Ukraine…. I reiterate the EU's strong support for Ukraine’s unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity and call upon Russia to do so as well. To this end, the Russian Federation is urged to call back its troops from the Ukrainian border and to cease any further actions aimed at destabilizing Ukraine. (Emphasis added.) Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Wesley Clark was more blunt, stating that the attacks were not spontaneous and represented the second stage of Russia’s plan to occupy Ukraine (the first being the occupation of Crimea). Does the behavior of the pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine involve “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets”? Obviously. Does this violence involve “citizens or the territory of more than one country”? Yes, it does. The violence therefore qualifies as international terrorism, and its perpetrators are obviously “terrorist groups.” QED. By the way, the European Union’s far more detailed definition of “terrorist acts” should dispel any lingering doubts one may have had that the violence in eastern Ukraine qualifies as terrorist: “Terrorist acts” mean intentional acts which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or international organization and which are defined as an offence under national law. These include: attacks upon a person's life which may cause death; attacks upon the physical integrity of a person; kidnapping or hostage taking; causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility; seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport; manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives, or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, participating in the activities of a terrorist group, including by supplying information or material resources, or by funding its activities in any way, with knowledge of the fact that such participation will contribute to the criminal activities of the group. In order for these acts to constitute terrorist acts, they must be carried out with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, or unduly compelling a Government or an international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act, or seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization. In light of Russia’s direct and indirect promotion of international terrorism in eastern Ukraine, Russia obviously qualifies as a “state sponsor of terrorism” and, after formally being declared as such, must be immediately subjected to the sanctions the United States is legally bound to impose on state sponsors of terrorism. (Naturally, the EU should follow suit.) Here’s the State Department: Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions. Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are four countries designated under these authorities: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. Source. *** Putin's Q&A https://twitter.com/PaulSonne/status/456723324924878848https://twitter.com/PaulSonne/status/456712915110739968*** SBU published another tape recording of a Russian officer providing instructions to separatists: Source.*** And yesterday's question has been answered: https://twitter.com/danbbaer/status/456720504817471488Nvm: https://twitter.com/danbbaer/status/456723122255695872
rofl. a "United States Code" about international terrorism.
if russia qualifies, so does the US, btw.
imho both qualify and that's because the term itself is more then useless.
|
On April 17 2014 19:28 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2014 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:Another issue, does Russia qualify as a State sponsoring international terrorism? Here’s why Putin’s Russia qualifies as a state sponsor of terrorism. According to Section 2656f(d) of Title 22 of the United States Code: (1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country; (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; and (3) the term “terrorist group” means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism. There is overwhelming evidence of Russia’s direct and indirect involvement in the violence that rocked several eastern Ukrainian cities on April 12–13. Russian intelligence agents and spetsnaz special forces are directly involved; the weapons and uniforms worn by the terrorists are of Russian origin (a point made by the US ambassador to Kyiv, Geoffrey Pyatt); and the assaults on government buildings in Slavyansk, Mariupol, Makiivka, Kharkiv, Yenakievo, Druzhkivka, Horlivka, Krasny Lyman, and Kramatorsk were clearly coordinated by Russian intelligence. As EU High Representative Catherine Ashton delicately put it in a statement yesterday (pdf): I am gravely concerned about the surge of actions undertaken by armed individuals and separatist groups in various cities of Eastern Ukraine…. I reiterate the EU's strong support for Ukraine’s unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity and call upon Russia to do so as well. To this end, the Russian Federation is urged to call back its troops from the Ukrainian border and to cease any further actions aimed at destabilizing Ukraine. (Emphasis added.) Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Wesley Clark was more blunt, stating that the attacks were not spontaneous and represented the second stage of Russia’s plan to occupy Ukraine (the first being the occupation of Crimea). Does the behavior of the pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine involve “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets”? Obviously. Does this violence involve “citizens or the territory of more than one country”? Yes, it does. The violence therefore qualifies as international terrorism, and its perpetrators are obviously “terrorist groups.” QED. By the way, the European Union’s far more detailed definition of “terrorist acts” should dispel any lingering doubts one may have had that the violence in eastern Ukraine qualifies as terrorist: “Terrorist acts” mean intentional acts which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or international organization and which are defined as an offence under national law. These include: attacks upon a person's life which may cause death; attacks upon the physical integrity of a person; kidnapping or hostage taking; causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility; seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport; manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives, or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, participating in the activities of a terrorist group, including by supplying information or material resources, or by funding its activities in any way, with knowledge of the fact that such participation will contribute to the criminal activities of the group. In order for these acts to constitute terrorist acts, they must be carried out with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, or unduly compelling a Government or an international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act, or seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization. In light of Russia’s direct and indirect promotion of international terrorism in eastern Ukraine, Russia obviously qualifies as a “state sponsor of terrorism” and, after formally being declared as such, must be immediately subjected to the sanctions the United States is legally bound to impose on state sponsors of terrorism. (Naturally, the EU should follow suit.) Here’s the State Department: Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions. Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are four countries designated under these authorities: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. Source.*** Putin's Q&A https://twitter.com/PaulSonne/status/456723324924878848https://twitter.com/PaulSonne/status/456712915110739968*** SBU published another tape recording of a Russian officer providing instructions to separatists: Source.*** And yesterday's question has been answered: https://twitter.com/danbbaer/status/456720504817471488Nvm: https://twitter.com/danbbaer/status/456723122255695872 rofl. a "United States Code" about international terrorism. if russia qualifies, so does the US, btw. imho both qualify and that's because the term itself is more then useless.
The terms themself (Ie. USA has several different definitions in different laws! So much for coherency.) have always been too narrow or too broad and trying to make a single definition has failed for centuries. Occupation is iffy, even though the russians providing weapons to the separatists is pretty conspiratorial and a pretty significant part of the core definiton. Then again, CIA has done that countless times throughout history.
Using a more or less undefined term like terrorism is a red herring and talks right up Kremlin medias picture of western hate of all Russians and Ukraineans anywhere. "They are not terrorists they are freedom fighters, fighting in honour of their nation." That is the black and white of terrorism and the divisive language state-propaganda thrives on.
|
Too me this looks like a reverse Syria now, with west supporting "Syria" while Russia supports "rebels".
|
Focus on the implications and not the rhetoric. The closer Russia's actions are to us and eu definitions, the more likely that sanctions follow. It basically confronts France's choice to sell Mistral ships and UK providing financial services.
|
In addition, the Ukrainian army's march on insurgent militias was promptly ended by drunken revelers.
And here is something to genuinely criticize Western media on...
SLOVYANSK, Ukraine — A military operation that the Ukrainian government said would confront pro-Russian militants in the east of the country unraveled in disarray on Wednesday with the entire contingent of 21 armored vehicles that had separated into two columns surrendering or pulling back before nightfall. It was a glaring humiliation for the new government in Kiev.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/17/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/
At the same time, on the road toward Slaviansk, CNN's Phil Black encountered a heavily fortified and well-organized police checkpoint and saw signs of a large military buildup. Attack helicopters passed overhead while armored vehicles and troop carriers rumbled by.
But despite the heightened military activity, there has so far been no effort to move into the town itself. Pro-Russian protesters were digging in and consolidating their power.
"A military operation... [by] the Kiev government... unraveled in disarray... a glaring humiliation for Kiev..."
Pump up the drama over 9,000! Unravelation in disarrayment! Glariating of the humiliation! Which apparently hasn't stopped Kiev from putting some serious muscle (such as Kiev possesses) outside Slaviansk.
Kiev Kesytone Cop'd its initial deployment in one area (maybe more who knows) and got egg on its face, which has been magnified not grossly out of proportion but just a wee little bit at least. Because that's more dramatic. Helpless Kiev in the face of the scary bear can't even control the cubs. There's a strong theme in the reporting right now that it's already over, last Russian coming out the door turn off the Ukrainian lights please. That remains to be seen.
|
On April 17 2014 21:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Pump up the drama over 9,000! Unravelation in disarrayment! Glariating of the humiliation! Which apparently hasn't stopped Kiev from putting some serious muscle (such as Kiev possesses) outside Slaviansk.
Kiev Kesytone Cop'd its initial deployment in one area (maybe more who knows) and got egg on its face, which has been magnified not grossly out of proportion but just a wee little bit at least. Because that's more dramatic. Helpless Kiev in the face of the scary bear can't even control the cubs. There's a strong theme in the reporting right now that it's already over, last Russian coming out the door turn off the Ukrainian lights please. That remains to be seen.
I would say it is over yes. The west has shown it has no interest in stopping Russia and Russia is showing no interest in wanting to stop. The Ukraine is seemingly powerless to stop it although they are having more success then they did in the Crimea.
If this ends its most likely because Russia has reached there goal (whatever that maybe be).
|
With violence increasing it's either almost over or far from over, personally I think it is far from over.
|
On April 17 2014 21:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
With violence increasing it's either almost over or far from over, personally I think it is far from over.
The conflict itself is far from over but it seems to be a pretty much forgone conclusion considering how powerless the Ukraine is and how unlikely meaningful western aid is.
|
On April 17 2014 21:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2014 21:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
With violence increasing it's either almost over or far from over, personally I think it is far from over. The conflict itself is far from over but it seems to be a pretty much forgone conclusion considering how powerless the Ukraine is and how unlikely meaningful western aid is.
I'm quite sure "meaningful western aid" comes in the form of intelligence agents stirring trouble in West Ukraine.
On a separate note: I don't think Russia will invade Ukraine, although they might accept separatist regions who voluntarily accept annexation, if it does come to that. None of these areas are as significant to Russia as Crimea, and taking care of them is economically not feasible.
|
Keep in mind that Western aid doesn't have to (and in my opinion shouldn't) be overt. Can you imagine reactions after revealing such help? Calling Ukrainian government a Western puppet would no longer be completely baseless and Ukrainian reputation would suffer a lot because it would look like Ukraine can't control it's own territory without foreign help. It is in our interest to make Ukraine look strong and independent, even if that's not true.
|
Considering how compromised Ukrainian services are there is no covert help possible I think.
|
In recent weeks, international and Russian banks have slashed their growth projections for 2014, with the World Bank saying the economy could shrink by 1.8 percent if the West imposes more sanctions over Ukraine. By some accounts, more than $70 billion in capital has fled the country so far this year and the main stock market index fell by 10 percent in March — and a dizzying 3 percent just on Tuesday over fears of greater Russian involvement in Ukraine. Source.
|
Excellent Vice video of the `protests' in Donetsk. Discretion is advised, extreme violence and language. If you don't want to see that, skip to 6.38.
+ Show Spoiler [Hiding the bloody thumbnail] +
***
Contrast:
***
Also signs of warming to the idea of sending equipment to Ukraine from the West:
|
|
|
Great video. I recommend that anyone following this thread watch all of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
