|
|
I want to congratulate Poroshenko on making a caustic hardline speech that will only make the situation worse. Very unwise decision. But with that said, he sounds like the little kid in the elementary school yard thinking he's godmode because he's king of the sandbox that's filled with bugs and no one else cares to play in. Silly, but amusing. He's still not as dumb as Saakishvili, but it wouldn't surprise me if he eventually approached that point. He's already making mistakes.
On June 07 2014 23:19 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2014 23:06 sgtnoobkilla wrote:On June 07 2014 20:41 Ghanburighan wrote:
Also interesting statement by Putin. Note that these statements aren't to be taken as straightforward truth, but rather as a signal in the diplomatic game. Assuming Russian authorities follow through on this, it pretty much seals the fate of the separatists. Although the Kremlin probably only did this because they don't want any more incidents like Marinovka happening again (fighting there spilled across into Russian territory temporarily). Also, Putin says a lot. At this point his word isn't exactly a trustworthy source of information, since he apparently doesn't put any weight on it whatsoever. Like when the russian troops retreated from the eastern ukrainian border twice, but were still there.
Yes Putin says a lot. But politicians aren't trustworthy? Who would have guessed?
|
On June 08 2014 10:33 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
I want to congratulate Poroshenko on making a caustic hardline speech that will only make the situation worse. Very unwise decision. But with that said, he sounds like the little kid in the elementary school yard thinking he's godmode because he's king of the sandbox that's filled with bugs and no one else cares to play in. Silly, but amusing. He's still not as dumb as Saakishvili, but it wouldn't surprise me if he eventually approached that point. He's already making mistakes.
The Russian ambassador actually liked the speech and said it was "reassuring". What would you want Poroshenko to outline in his speech though?
|
On June 08 2014 10:33 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:I want to congratulate Poroshenko on making a caustic hardline speech that will only make the situation worse. Very unwise decision. But with that said, he sounds like the little kid in the elementary school yard thinking he's godmode because he's king of the sandbox that's filled with bugs and no one else cares to play in. Silly, but amusing. He's still not as dumb as Saakishvili, but it wouldn't surprise me if he eventually approached that point. He's already making mistakes. Show nested quote +On June 07 2014 23:19 Simberto wrote:On June 07 2014 23:06 sgtnoobkilla wrote:On June 07 2014 20:41 Ghanburighan wrote:
Also interesting statement by Putin. Note that these statements aren't to be taken as straightforward truth, but rather as a signal in the diplomatic game. Assuming Russian authorities follow through on this, it pretty much seals the fate of the separatists. Although the Kremlin probably only did this because they don't want any more incidents like Marinovka happening again (fighting there spilled across into Russian territory temporarily). Also, Putin says a lot. At this point his word isn't exactly a trustworthy source of information, since he apparently doesn't put any weight on it whatsoever. Like when the russian troops retreated from the eastern ukrainian border twice, but were still there. Yes Putin says a lot. But politicians aren't trustworthy? Who would have guessed?
Most at least try to not lie in a way that can be instantly proven untrue, and kinda roughly stick to deals at least for a while. Just saying one thing and instantly and obviously doing the opposite isn't that common amongst politicians afaik.
|
A few Russian media fakes.
Several Russian sources showed a Syrian girl as a victim of Donetsk airport bombing. Here Lifenews journalist tweets about it, the lower part of the pic is the real news from Syria
+ Show Spoiler +
Russian TV channel NTV showed a protest in Rome near Ukrainian ambassy protesting against EU medias giving fake information on events in Ukraine
+ Show Spoiler +
In reality it was
+ Show Spoiler +
|
While there's continued fighting in Slavyansk, the most cited article (by far) is this piece in Swedish where Markov (one of Putin's closes aides) threatens Finland and Sweden not to join NATO:
Will you join in and start World War III? Sergei Markov, Putin's personal envoy, discourages Finland from joining NATO and complaining about the "monstrous Russo phobia" in Finland. His greeting to the president Sauli Niinistö security seminar at Kultaranta is clear: Do not do anything that could harm our interests. If Finland would join NATO, you should first take your thinking cap. Do you want to be with and start World War III? Anti-Semitism started the Second World War, Russo-phobia may start a third. Finland is one of the most Russo-phobic countries in Europe, after Sweden and the Baltic countries, says Sergei Markov. He is Russian President's personal envoy and represents him in public. Read the rest with the help of Google Translate.
***
Germany gives the nod for France to sell Mistrals to Russia:
Germany has defended France’s plan to deliver a warship to Russia in October despite US criticism of the move. Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Wednesday (4 June) in Brussels that interruption of delivery might only come if the EU adopts “stage three” sanctions - economic sanctions - against Russia. But she said the EU is not launching stage three because Russia did not stop Ukraine’s 25 May presidential elections from going ahead. “The question of exports to Russia falls under stage three. About when to trigger stage three, if there is more destabilisation we have agreed, also myself bilaterally with the US President, that if elections take place we won't trigger stage three. We see elections have taken place successfully, but that there were also negative elements of destabilisation [in east Ukraine],” she noted. “If there is further destabilisation, yes, stage three - we've always said it,” she added. Source.
The Baltic states and Poland aren't saying much about it (if the US already complained, adding those voices means nothing) but they are internally furious at both France and Germany as those ships are intended to invade countries in the Baltic Sea.
|
On June 08 2014 23:14 Ghanburighan wrote:
The Baltic states and Poland aren't saying much about it (if the US already complained, adding those voices means nothing) but they are internally furious at both France and Germany as those ships are intended to invade countries in the Baltic Sea.
We have our own geopolitical mastermind here at TL. I don't know what kind of Tom Clancy novel you are living in but making statements such as the ones you just made are silly.
Countries are complicated multi-layered societies, not one-dimensional polar emo's that act how you want/imagine them to act... and you can't just take anything to do with anything and link it to imaginary invasion plans because 'that's how imaginary conflicts work.'
|
The deal with the French Mistralls is worth 1,7 billion $, it's 1/3 rd of all the money made by the naval military industry. Hundred if not thousands of jobs are at stake and by cancelling the deal France would have to pay alot, it's just not realistic to cancel it (and I'm not the advocate of selling weapons, it's just too big of a deal for France's economy).
|
On June 08 2014 08:00 Hazzyboy wrote:Exactly and Ukraine was part of Soviet Union and btw Ukraine had most concentration camps during WW II. Ur saying Ukraine wasn't part of Soviet union ? There were 15 members in Soviet Union but Russia is to blame I know it's very easy cuz Stalin was 'Russian' (sarcasm). Besides who wasn't a dickhead during WW II? UK proudly was the first country in history to give a 'bombing civilians' order during that very War and yet you never read it in ur history books. I studied accurate French books that actually are neutral and learn a lot from them. What I say is 'common sense' about little warmongers trying to pretend Russia is involved in Ukraine - if it was true you would see whole Ukraine follow Crimea's path in less than a week. When I read the title of 2 journalists arrested, I expected Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) to charge them to be suspects in terrorism bombing or smth not gathering 'intelligence' for Russian military. It's like me going to face Floyed Mayweather next week, so he accused me of scouting his training when in reality it doesn't matter cuz he will win. In one word - circus. P.S. Off-topic. Just found this masterpiece from Joseph Goebbels. He was the best propaganda politician during WW II and could be best of all time. Goebbels could kill a man and make everyone believe that it was a suicide. User was warned for this post
Holy fucking shit, never thought I would live the day where someone would, especially here on TL, for real attribute Katyn massacre to Nazi propaganda. It is as fucking obvious as holocaust is.
|
On June 08 2014 23:14 Ghanburighan wrote:While there's continued fighting in Slavyansk, the most cited article (by far) is this piece in Swedish where Markov (one of Putin's closes aides) threatens Finland and Sweden not to join NATO: Show nested quote +Will you join in and start World War III? Sergei Markov, Putin's personal envoy, discourages Finland from joining NATO and complaining about the "monstrous Russo phobia" in Finland. His greeting to the president Sauli Niinistö security seminar at Kultaranta is clear: Do not do anything that could harm our interests. If Finland would join NATO, you should first take your thinking cap. Do you want to be with and start World War III? Anti-Semitism started the Second World War, Russo-phobia may start a third. Finland is one of the most Russo-phobic countries in Europe, after Sweden and the Baltic countries, says Sergei Markov. He is Russian President's personal envoy and represents him in public. Read the rest with the help of Google Translate.
How dare those upstart IKEA-loving Swedes and rowdy alcoholic Finns consider joining NATO on their own accord!
Sarcasm aside it would be interesting to get some views from Finnish and Swedish TL users on this.
Even though this is just chest thumping rubbish coming from someone who ranks even lower than nuke-happy Zhirinovsky, the Kremlin is trying pretty hard to push the right buttons to appeal to pro-independence and neutrality sentiments in Finland and Sweden.
Only time will tell if those buttons are actually pushing them closer to the alliance. They know full well that the cost of them joining is a Baltic sea and Kola region completely under the control of NATO (and with that American subs and bases to boot).
|
On June 09 2014 00:05 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2014 23:14 Ghanburighan wrote:
The Baltic states and Poland aren't saying much about it (if the US already complained, adding those voices means nothing) but they are internally furious at both France and Germany as those ships are intended to invade countries in the Baltic Sea. We have our own geopolitical mastermind here at TL. I don't know what kind of Tom Clancy novel you are living in but making statements such as the ones you just made are silly. Countries are complicated multi-layered societies, not one-dimensional polar emo's that act how you want/imagine them to act... and you can't just take anything to do with anything and link it to imaginary invasion plans because 'that's how imaginary conflicts work.'
This is a strawman (considering Russia a "one-dimensional polar emo") as well as an ad-hominem. But more importantly, it's fallacious to say you can't make judgements about a country's intention for its military based on the hardware it purchases. If a country buys MRAPs, you can bet they plan on dealing with IEDs or mines. If a country buys aircraft carriers, they want to project force against land and sea targets far from home. If a country buys amphibious assault ships, you oughta take a look at who exactly they're trying to keep the capability to invade.
Russia's blue-water navy is dramatically inferior to the blue water capabilities of the West. So maybe they got landing craft so they can fight a war with China. But far more likely is the amphibious ships are intended to leverage short-range power against targets vulnerable to naval attack. Georgia, Crimea, and the Baltics are the obvious fits. They've attacked two. The only thing stopping them from harassing the third is the threat of NATO retaliation, and NATO isn't exactly presenting a "united front" about anything right now.
On June 09 2014 00:25 Acertos wrote:
The deal with the French Mistralls is worth 1,7 billion $, it's 1/3 rd of all the money made by the naval military industry. Hundred if not thousands of jobs are at stake and by cancelling the deal France would have to pay alot, it's just not realistic to cancel it (and I'm not the advocate of selling weapons, it's just too big of a deal for France's economy).
Which is why it's really unwise to sell significant arms to an imperialist dictatorship. There is money in doing immoral things; no-one has ever questioned that. But selling weapons to your enemy because you need the cash? That's immoral, but also simply short-sighted.
|
On June 09 2014 00:44 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2014 00:05 zeo wrote:On June 08 2014 23:14 Ghanburighan wrote:
The Baltic states and Poland aren't saying much about it (if the US already complained, adding those voices means nothing) but they are internally furious at both France and Germany as those ships are intended to invade countries in the Baltic Sea. We have our own geopolitical mastermind here at TL. I don't know what kind of Tom Clancy novel you are living in but making statements such as the ones you just made are silly. Countries are complicated multi-layered societies, not one-dimensional polar emo's that act how you want/imagine them to act... and you can't just take anything to do with anything and link it to imaginary invasion plans because 'that's how imaginary conflicts work.' Show nested quote +On June 09 2014 00:25 Acertos wrote:
The deal with the French Mistralls is worth 1,7 billion $, it's 1/3 rd of all the money made by the naval military industry. Hundred if not thousands of jobs are at stake and by cancelling the deal France would have to pay alot, it's just not realistic to cancel it (and I'm not the advocate of selling weapons, it's just too big of a deal for France's economy). Which is why it's really unwise to sell significant arms to an imperialist dictatorship. There is money in doing immoral things; no-one has ever questioned that. But selling weapons to your enemy because you need the cash? That's immoral, but also simply short-sighted.
Yeah I know, unfortunately France is the third seller of weapons in the world behind China and the US and when they sell weapons they don't rly care about morality or even alliances, even tough it's linked with the state it works just like a company which is generally completely amoral.
|
On June 09 2014 00:44 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2014 00:05 zeo wrote:On June 08 2014 23:14 Ghanburighan wrote:
The Baltic states and Poland aren't saying much about it (if the US already complained, adding those voices means nothing) but they are internally furious at both France and Germany as those ships are intended to invade countries in the Baltic Sea. We have our own geopolitical mastermind here at TL. I don't know what kind of Tom Clancy novel you are living in but making statements such as the ones you just made are silly. Countries are complicated multi-layered societies, not one-dimensional polar emo's that act how you want/imagine them to act... and you can't just take anything to do with anything and link it to imaginary invasion plans because 'that's how imaginary conflicts work.' This is a strawman (considering Russia a "one-dimensional polar emo") as well as an ad-hominem. But more importantly, it's fallacious to say you can't make judgements about a country's intention for its military based on the hardware it purchases. If a country buys MRAPs, you can bet they plan on dealing with IEDs or mines. If a country buys aircraft carriers, they want to project force against land and sea targets far from home. If a country buys amphibious assault ships, you oughta take a look at who exactly they're trying to keep the capability to invade. Russia's blue-water navy is dramatically inferior to the blue water capabilities of the West. So maybe they got landing craft so they can fight a war with China. But far more likely is the amphibious ships are intended to leverage short-range power against targets vulnerable to naval attack. Georgia, Crimea, and the Baltics are the obvious fits. They've attacked two. The only thing stopping them from harassing the third is the threat of NATO retaliation, and NATO isn't exactly presenting a "united front" about anything right now. Show nested quote +On June 09 2014 00:25 Acertos wrote:
The deal with the French Mistralls is worth 1,7 billion $, it's 1/3 rd of all the money made by the naval military industry. Hundred if not thousands of jobs are at stake and by cancelling the deal France would have to pay alot, it's just not realistic to cancel it (and I'm not the advocate of selling weapons, it's just too big of a deal for France's economy). Which is why it's really unwise to sell significant arms to an imperialist dictatorship. There is money in doing immoral things; no-one has ever questioned that. But selling weapons to your enemy because you need the cash? That's immoral, but also simply short-sighted.
So amphibious assault ships cannot be used if Russia is invaded first? Why would Russia invade the Baltic's by sea? It's a claim devoid of reality and I pointed it out.
Russia getting the ships to defend themselves from a possible NATO invasion is more plausible than an imaginary invasion of the Baltic's by sea of all things
|
On June 09 2014 00:58 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2014 00:44 Yoav wrote:On June 09 2014 00:05 zeo wrote:On June 08 2014 23:14 Ghanburighan wrote:
The Baltic states and Poland aren't saying much about it (if the US already complained, adding those voices means nothing) but they are internally furious at both France and Germany as those ships are intended to invade countries in the Baltic Sea. We have our own geopolitical mastermind here at TL. I don't know what kind of Tom Clancy novel you are living in but making statements such as the ones you just made are silly. Countries are complicated multi-layered societies, not one-dimensional polar emo's that act how you want/imagine them to act... and you can't just take anything to do with anything and link it to imaginary invasion plans because 'that's how imaginary conflicts work.' This is a strawman (considering Russia a "one-dimensional polar emo") as well as an ad-hominem. But more importantly, it's fallacious to say you can't make judgements about a country's intention for its military based on the hardware it purchases. If a country buys MRAPs, you can bet they plan on dealing with IEDs or mines. If a country buys aircraft carriers, they want to project force against land and sea targets far from home. If a country buys amphibious assault ships, you oughta take a look at who exactly they're trying to keep the capability to invade. Russia's blue-water navy is dramatically inferior to the blue water capabilities of the West. So maybe they got landing craft so they can fight a war with China. But far more likely is the amphibious ships are intended to leverage short-range power against targets vulnerable to naval attack. Georgia, Crimea, and the Baltics are the obvious fits. They've attacked two. The only thing stopping them from harassing the third is the threat of NATO retaliation, and NATO isn't exactly presenting a "united front" about anything right now. On June 09 2014 00:25 Acertos wrote:
The deal with the French Mistralls is worth 1,7 billion $, it's 1/3 rd of all the money made by the naval military industry. Hundred if not thousands of jobs are at stake and by cancelling the deal France would have to pay alot, it's just not realistic to cancel it (and I'm not the advocate of selling weapons, it's just too big of a deal for France's economy). Which is why it's really unwise to sell significant arms to an imperialist dictatorship. There is money in doing immoral things; no-one has ever questioned that. But selling weapons to your enemy because you need the cash? That's immoral, but also simply short-sighted. So amphibious assault ships cannot be used if Russia is invaded first? Why would Russia invade the Baltic's by sea? It's a claim devoid of reality and I pointed it out. Russia getting the ships to defend themselves from a possible NATO invasion is more plausible than an imaginary invasion of the Baltic's by sea of all things
Except that NATO is a defensive alliance not an aggressive one. So any possible NATO invasion of Russia can only be a result of Russian aggression on any member state. If Baltic states or any NATO member would uniterally decide to declare a war to Russia without any prior aggression from it, no other NATO member would help them wage war against it.
|
On June 09 2014 00:58 zeo wrote:
Russia getting the ships to defend themselves from a possible NATO invasion is more plausible than an imaginary invasion of the Baltic's by sea of all things
Remind me again when NATO last invaded a country?
And when was the last time Russia did?
Ps.
I missed your strait up lies and fabrications. There was a lack of humor to be found in this thread for a while.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I don't see the need for a discussion in this case.
France agreed to stop delivering the mistrals if stage three of sanctions hit. For stage three sanctions to hit, russia would've needed to prevent/interrupt/fiddle with the elections in may. They didn't. No stage three sanctions for now. Meaning those mistrals get on its way, as long as nothing else triggers stage three sanctions.
I absolutely don't care how fuming the US is, they knew that delivery would only be stopped on stage three. They agreed, i guess hoping that putin would act.Tough shit, he didn't. And while i agree that selling weapons to russia might not be the wisest of ideas, no american in here should give good advice to french people about who to sell weapons to and who not.
Not to mention, i do agree that the assessment of those mistrals being russias "door to the baltics" is kinda stupid. They could've done good enough without those mistrals, which btw don't have the capability to carry a whole invasion army just by themselves. If they didn't invade before they bought those mistrals, these won't be the tipping stone.
|
On June 09 2014 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:
Remind me again when NATO last invaded a country?
To be fair Yugoslavia was technically invaded by NATO even though it was done in a half-arsed (thanks France/Germany) way to stop them from massacring Bosnians and what not.
We're going off topic though:
EU Tells Bulgaria to Stop Work on Gazprom's South Stream ProjectBRUSSELS—The European Union has demanded Bulgaria suspend construction work on Russia's South Stream natural-gas pipeline project while it investigates the way contracts were awarded. With a design capacity of 63 billion cubic meters a year, the South Stream pipeline would carry around 12% of Europe's current annual gas consumption via the Black Sea. It is due to be completed by 2018. The pipeline would bring Russian gas to Europe largely circumventing Ukraine. The EU executive warned last year that South Stream couldn't proceed before it complied with EU legislation, including rules that limit pipeline ownership and require that other firms be permitted to distribute the gas. The EU wrote to Bulgarian authorities on Monday formally requesting information on how contracts were awarded for the pipeline work, a spokesman said Tuesday. The request is the start of a so-called infringement process that could eventually result in fines on Bulgarian authorities. Chantal Hughes, spokeswoman for Internal Markets Commissioner Michel Barnier said in a written statement that the EU's executive has "grounds to believe" that the bloc's internal market rules, "in particular those related to the award of public contracts are being breached." While discussions are taking place, and "until there is full compliance with EU law, we have also asked the Bulgarian authorities to suspend the project," Ms. Hughes said. Bulgaria has a month to reply. ..... Source
It'll be interesting to see how this will affect gas supplies considering it does go through Ukraine as well.
|
On June 09 2014 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2014 00:58 zeo wrote:
Russia getting the ships to defend themselves from a possible NATO invasion is more plausible than an imaginary invasion of the Baltic's by sea of all things Remind me again when NATO last invaded a country? And when was the last time Russia did? Ps. I missed your strait up lies and fabrications. There was a lack of humor to be found in this thread for a while.
Conventional invasions? 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, compared to the largest invasion of a sovereign country since Germany invaded Poland, the 2003 Iraq invasion by most of NATO. Crimea wasn't an invasion, the Crimean people who did not recognize the illegal mob who seized control of the Ukrainian parliament through violent force, democratically elected to join the Russian Federation.
Though if we take into account 'no boots on the ground, lets just bomb them' situations, NATO has done plenty in a very short time period.
edit: agree with sgtnoobkilla about the going off-topic, no more need to discuss this.
|
*Sigh*
I'm not responding to Zeo because it's a waste of time, but I'd like to clarify some misconceptions. The statement that Mistrals are intended to invade Baltic states and Poland is due to the fact that a) Mistrals are amphibious assault ships, i.e., their purpose is to allow troops to launch an amphibious assault on hostile soil, b) Russia announced that the ships will be stationed in the Baltic Sea (and at least one will be stationed in the Black Sea according to recent reports). Put (a) and (b) together and you have my original statement in all its intended meaning. I guess they could be used to invade other countries in the Baltic, but why would Poland and the Baltic states care about that?
|
I guess they could be used to invade other countries in the Baltic, but why would Poland and the Baltic states care about that?
Since you should know my stance, let me tell you that mistrals are not by any means purely offensive weapons. Neither for france, nor russia or any country for that matter. Not to mention, the Caesar Kurnikov is homed in sevastopol, belonging to the 197th assault ship brigade. That's another troop carrier, next to 7 other partially big landing ships, all in sevastopol for many, MANY years. And that's not counting many LCACs and whatnot, which are scattered around their country.
IF russia wanted to land in the baltics, they could've done so long ago. The capabilities are there already. So please, stay "neutral", and don't throw around hysterical conclusions.
|
On June 09 2014 02:33 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I guess they could be used to invade other countries in the Baltic, but why would Poland and the Baltic states care about that? Since you should know my stance, let me tell you that mistrals are not by any means purely offensive weapons. Neither for france, nor russia or any country for that matter. Not to mention, the Caesar Kurnikov is homed in sevastopol, belonging to the 197th assault ship brigade. That's another troop carrier, next to 7 other partially big landing ships, all in sevastopol for many, MANY years. And that's not counting many LCACs and whatnot, which are scattered around their country. IF russia wanted to land in the baltics, they could've done so long ago. The capabilities are there already. So please, stay "neutral", and don't throw around hysterical conclusions.
Err, you're still reading things into my words that aren't there. I'm literally saying that the Baltics and Poland are upset that the military capacity of Russia to launch an amphibious assault (invasion by the sea) is being enhanced while Russia has demonstrated the willingness to invade its neighbours and is using language that is unprecedented in its aggressiveness. It doesn't actually matter whether they could already invade or not. The countries are upset at France and Germany for training Russian troops and thus undermining our security. It's basically the same reason why Germany was forced to stop training Russian special forces as they used that training to annex Crimea and it was seen as a replicable model in NATO states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://kor.ill.in.ua/m/610x0/1431348.jpg?v=635369641734438050)
![[image loading]](http://kor.ill.in.ua/m/610x0/1431350.png?v=635369642006110914)
![[image loading]](http://kor.ill.in.ua/m/610x0/1431351.jpg?v=635369642204042948)
