Ukraine 2

497 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP

Ready For Nuclear War Over Ukraine?  -  by Robert Parry

http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/ready-nuclear-war-ukraine/

"...A senior Ukrainian official is urging the West to risk a nuclear conflagration in support of a 'full scale war' with Russia that he says authorities in Kiev are now seeking, another sign of the extremism that pervades the year-old US-backed regime in Kiev.

The deputy foreign minister announced that Kiev is preparing for 'full scale war' against Russia and wants the West to supply lethal weapons and training so the fight can be taken to Russia.

'What we expect from the world is that the world 'will stiffen up in the spine a little,' Pystaiko said.

Yet what is perhaps most remarkable about Prystaiko's 'Dr Strangelove' moment is it produced almost no reaction in the West..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6t5PQ3rQ8U  

Does Canada really wish to commit our collective future to this Kleptocratic NATO-NAZI looney-bin Ukraine? What Stupidos! Wise UP!

 

Ukraine Wants Canada to Persuade US to Send Weapons

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ukraine-wants-canada-to-per...

"...Canada has an 'authoritative voice' on the conflict in eastern Ukraine and could help persuade the United States to send lethal weapons to Ukraine, that country's deputy speaker says.

'Canada has been a kind of leader in the world vis a vis Ukraine. Words and actions are the same in Canada, so it's kind of an example for the rest of the world with their Ukraine policy.'

He said Canada could help to influence the US decision on whether to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine. 'We're sure that Canada's voice is authoritative and carries a lot of weight,' he added. 'So the US has to make the decision, but Canada is kind of the authoritative voice that can push for that. It can influence the US decision.'

'We believe we are fighting not only for Ukraine but for Euro-Atlantic and European values.'

 

He's absolutely right. Indeed they are. More on Andriy Parubiy here:

http://wearechange.org/leading-ukrainian-nazi-will-visit-washington-next...

The 'Maidan Commandant' With Snipers, Kiev 2014

https://twitter.com/marina_saniram/status/569124114776125440

http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/

NDPP

Toronto Protests War in Donbass

http://rusvesna.su/english/1424654655

6079_Smith_W

Rokossovsky wrote:

But Smith insists that a "ceasefire" between too belligerents impassioned by daily abuse, hardship, lost friends, blood lust, revenge and distrust is just a simple matter of people "not firing" their weapons because today is a new day, and the commanding officer said so, based on the advice of some talking heads having a meeting in Minsk -- it doesn't work that way, sorry, these people were nose to nose holding positions just meters away from each other across village streets, hurling daily insults back and forth, in some instances.

Well yes, that is what "ceasefire" means, and that is what was agreed to. And it DOES work that way when combattants, or more importantly their leaders are dealing honestly.

Then correct me if I am wrong, but you see no political solution here. It is impossible for people to stop fighting, by your assessment.

I think you are wrong. I don't see people not being able to control themselves, but rather a calculated tactic. Vladimir Putin argued against this ceasefire in Minsk, and refused to accept it at all unless there was a three-day delay, during which time he moved more arms and troops across the border, and ensured that Debaltseve would be taken.If anything destabilized the sitiation there it was that decision, which came right from the top.

In short, what made the situation in Debaltseve "inherently unstable" was not the presence of Ukrainian arms, but the fact that the Russians continued to rain artillery fire on them after they had agreed to stop. If they actually had any intention of respecting the cease fire the heavy arms could have been withdrawn when it was clear the situation was safe.

And this was artillery fire, not soldiers staring across a trench, unable to control themselves, as you are spinning it. And later, of course it became them moving into the town, something even more in violation of the cease fire.

There are plenty of situations around the world where people are nose-to-nose in a difficult peace. To argue that it can't happen here not only wrong, it is to argue for more bloodshed. But as I said, this has nothing to do with lack of control, but rather Vladimir Putin deciding how far he thinks he can go.

 

Rokossovsky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

But Smith insists that a "ceasefire" between too belligerents impassioned by daily abuse, hardship, lost friends, blood lust, revenge and distrust is just a simple matter of people "not firing" their weapons because today is a new day, and the commanding officer said so, based on the advice of some talking heads having a meeting in Minsk -- it doesn't work that way, sorry, these people were nose to nose holding positions just meters away from each other across village streets, hurling daily insults back and forth, in some instances.

Well yes, that is what "ceasefire" means, and that is what was agreed to. And it DOES work that way when combattants, or more importantly their leaders are dealing honestly.

Then correct me if I am wrong, but you see no political solution here. It is impossible for people to stop fighting, by your assessment.

I totally see a political solution here. It has to be practical. Insisting on abstract absolute demands such as a "total" ceasefire, and urealistic disposition of forces in a manner that promotes distrust and conflict is foolish to the point of being obtuse to the point of being deliberately obstructionist.

6079_Smith_W

I'm not talking about assuming that no one is going to fire a shot, Rokossovsky.

But what happened last week was a flood of arms across the border before the ink was dry, and an increase in the bombardment to ensure the troops would leave or be killed.

It was completely calculated.

 

 

Slumberjack

Just because the thread is named Ukraine doesn't mean that you're limited to discussing Ukraine from a pro-Ukrainian or pro-Western point of view.  There's scope provided here for branching out to take into consideration other perspectives as well.

6079_Smith_W

Gee, SJ. Maybe you should do a count of the posts and let us know which direction most of the rhetoric is coming from.

For that matter, if you are going to continue to restrict yourself to the repetitive argument that posters here just regurgitate whatever perspectives they are fed, you could try directing that in more than just one direction too.

6079_Smith_W

Rokossovsky wrote:

Regardless, what that indicates is that the Novorussians and Russians are politically committed to the ceasefire in the short to mid-term at least. If not, then why escalate attacks to rationalize the position before the ceasefire goes into effect.

Well never mind that it wasn't "rationalized" before the cease fire was supposed to have been observed, that's a funny bit of rationalizing on your part. I suppose by that logic if they had sent in the entire Russian army and taken the whole country they would have been even more committed to the cease fire.

 

Rokossovsky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I'm not talking about assuming that no one is going to fire a shot, Rokossovsky.

But what happened last week was a flood of arms across the border before the ink was dry, and an increase in the bombardment to ensure the troops would leave or be killed.

It was completely calculated.

Regardless, what that indicates is that the Novorussians and Russians are politically committed to the ceasefire in the short to mid-term at least. If not, then why escalate attacks to rationalize the position before the ceasefire goes into effect?

No agreement was reached on Debaltseve in Minsk, so the Novorussians wanted to resolve the problem.

From the Ukranian side the position was untenable without the ceasefire, and untenable as a reasonable DMZ for the ceasefire itself. Listening to the report of the Ukranian officer, we see that the salient was much smaller than reported, indefensible and besieged on all front in close engagements, and that the Ukrainian General Staff had were out of touch, and not receiving accurate reports on the situation on the ground.

According to the statement of the officer, he even told the sector commander that he way "lying" to his superiors.

It was completely unproductive and wasteful to hold that position, as has been proved by the result, ceasefire or not. Trying to hold it, by benefit of the "ceasefire" was an irresponsible attempt to finesse the military situation using the ceasefire.

In all cases, the Ukrainians should have withdrawn, and it is the Ukrainian political and military leadership who are responsible for that decision.

Rokossovsky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Regardless, what that indicates is that the Novorussians and Russians are politically committed to the ceasefire in the short to mid-term at least. If not, then why escalate attacks to rationalize the position before the ceasefire goes into effect.

Well never mind that it wasn't "rationalized" before the cease fire was supposed to have been observed, that's a funny bit of rationalizing on your part. I suppose by that logic if they had sent in the entire Russian army and taken the whole country they would have been even more committed to the cease fire.

 

Now you are just being silly.

The position was effectively surrounded on February 9th, when the main road was cut, and by the 11th completely cut off, before the ceasefire was even signed. They should have negotiated withdrawal at Minsk.

Indeed the Ukrainians are even on record as saying that there was road communication to Debaltseve as of the 15th, implying that the position was legitimately "the front", when the Novorussians were claiming they should evacuate, because they were surrounded.

We now know that the Ukrainian assessment was false, and the Novorussian one correct.

How is it reasonable, or responsible to allow a small enclave of surrounded troops to persist in a workable ceasefire arrangement. It's just going to lead to problems. How will they be supplied? Who will maintain the roads? Who will keep the peace?


ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Rokossovsky wrote:
How is it reasonable, or responsible to allow a small enclave of surrounded troops to persist in a workable ceasefire arrangement. It's just going to lead to problems. How will they be supplied? Who will maintain the roads? Who will keep the peace? 

Bwa-ha-ha-ha. Stop asking such inconvenient questions. Novorossiya = bad. All else follows.

Rokossovsky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Regardless, what that indicates is that the Novorussians and Russians are politically committed to the ceasefire in the short to mid-term at least. If not, then why escalate attacks to rationalize the position before the ceasefire goes into effect.

Well never mind that it wasn't "rationalized" before the cease fire was supposed to have been observed, that's a funny bit of rationalizing on your part. I suppose by that logic if they had sent in the entire Russian army and taken the whole country they would have been even more committed to the cease fire.

 

You are absolutely right, it was not "rationalized" before the ceasefire took place, and it should have been.

"Rationalize" in a military context such as this would mean shorten the front in order to allow for more efficient distribution of resources over less frontage, allowing for reinforcement of other sectors, from the US DOD defintion:

The front, from the Ukrainian perspective was not "rationalized" because the Debaltseve salient required forces to be distributed around the entire perimeter of the salient, trippling the force requirements for this sector of front, when the "rational" thing to do on the defense, would be withdraw to shorten the line, and then allow for troops to be put in reserve to be reorganized and refit, or reassigned to reinforce other areas of the front.

The fact that the Ukranian forces were overstretched is manifest in the fact that one flank of the salient was weakly defended, according to Ukrainian officers in the field -- why they were losing, in point of fact.

These things have a kind of implacable logic of their own. The Ukrainians refused to rationalize their front, so the Russians took advantage of the overstretched defense, and did it for them.

6079_Smith_W

Rokossovsky wrote:
How is it reasonable, or responsible to allow a small enclave of surrounded troops to persist in a workable ceasefire arrangement. It's just going to lead to problems. How will they be supplied? Who will maintain the roads? Who will keep the peace? 

Good question. Leningrad managed to defy it for the better part of three years, even though they, like Debaltseve, only had a dangerous road.

Berlin? Almost a year in 1948/49.

Sarajevo lasted almost four years.

You are right that it led to problems. As to your implication that anyone in that situation should pack it in because it is somehow not reasonable or responsible, not so clear.

In particular in the case of Berlin, which did not happen during a war.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The US and its Ukrainian puppet regime sabotaged Minsk 2 from its inception.

Quote:
On Wednesday February 11, literally the very day that the Minsk talks were taking place, Reuters ran a story headlined U.S. army to train Ukrainians in March: commander U.S. army Europe which quoted U.S. Army Europe commander Ben Hodges as saying, “We will train [Ukrainian military] in security tasks, medical (tasks), how to operate in an environment where the Russians are jamming (communications) and how to protect (themselves) from Russian and rebel artillery.” So, at the moment that Western media were busily lauding Merkel and Hollande for offering an olive branch, US military officials were describing how Washington would be escalating the war.

First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/02/24/minsk-ii-derailed-before-the-ink-was-dry/

"The Empire is doing what empires do. It is the fault of all those in the media, both mainstream and alternative, who refuse to examine the evidence, who choose to reduce everything into simplistic black and white terms – they are the ones who must be held accountable. For the blood of innocents in Donetsk and Lugansk stains all. And those stains will never be washed away."

ikosmos ikosmos's picture
6079_Smith_W

Rokossovsky wrote:
How is it reasonable, or responsible to allow a small enclave of surrounded troops to persist in a workable ceasefire arrangement. It's just going to lead to problems. How will they be supplied? Who will maintain the roads? Who will keep the peace? 

Good question. Leningrad managed to defy it for the better part of three years, even though they, like Debaltseve, only had a dangerous road. In Leningrad it was over a frozen lake.

Berlin? Almost a year in 1948/49.

Sarajevo lasted almost four years.

Washington was very nearly under siege in 1861, and except for a decision to break the constitution, would have been, ending the war before it started.

You are right that it led to problems. As to your implication that anyone in that situation should pack it in because it is somehow not reasonable or responsible, not so clear.

In particular in the case of Berlin, which did not happen during a war.

 

Rokossovsky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:
How is it reasonable, or responsible to allow a small enclave of surrounded troops to persist in a workable ceasefire arrangement. It's just going to lead to problems. How will they be supplied? Who will maintain the roads? Who will keep the peace? 

Good question. Leningrad managed to defy it for the better part of three years, even though they, like Debaltseve, only had a dangerous road. In Leningrad it was over a frozen lake.

Berlin? Almost a year in 1948/49.

Sarajevo lasted almost four years.

Well, they didn't did they? The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. They held out for precisely two days. You seem to be missing this point. The position was untenable, either on a military level, or in terms of a workable ceasefire.

It's precisely these kinds of dellusions that end up resulting in the military defeat that occurred. You have to have a realistic assessment of the military situation. It is clearl you don't -- you views are dominated by fantasies and wishful thinking.

Moreover the little hamlet of Debatlseve, which is of marginal strategic consequence, has grown in your mind to the level of major strategic capital (type) cities such as Leningrad, Berlin and Sarajevo.

The straws you are grasping for grow even larger in your mind, the less you have of them.

6079_Smith_W

Again, Rossokovsky, you talk about what is reasonable and responsible and try and justify it with examples of violence. Obviously they should withdraw because they are in a weaker position and will be slaughtered otherwise, and the justification is that is what happened.

Except that they had an agreement to cease fire.

From your arguments you seem to have no interest in a ceasefire or a political solution, despite your claim that by fighting more and bringing in more arms and more troops the Russians are more committed to peace.

Nonsense. It simply makes a lie of their agreement to the ceasefire. Nothing else. We know Putin has more resources available that Ukraine. We have known that before the war started, and that it why a year ago Ukraine was loathe to fight back at all and did not do so until it was obvious there was no other choice. The line as it is now is no more stable than it was two weeks ago because he has no intention of stopping.

 

 

 

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Ukraine rebels fill hospital as clashes flare around Mariupol

Quote:
Wounded rebel fighter Islam Alibaterov limps painfully along the corridor of the hospital in the separatist-held town of Novoazovsk in east Ukraine.Like others in the growing stream of insurgents now filling up the beds here, he was injured as fighting with Ukrainian forces flared up in recent days just outside
the key government-held port city of Mariupol. 
Humm... fighting during the cease fire around Mariupol? Say it isn't so.     

NDPP

E Ukraine Artillery Withdrawal Focus of FMs Meeting - As Poroshenko Buys UAE Weapons (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/235043-normandy-quartet-weapons-withdrawal/

"While the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine were meeting in Paris to talk about the Eastern Ukraine peace settlement, it was revealed that the Ukrainian president has struck a deal on arms supplies from the UAE. The four ministers agreed on the need for the ceasefire to be respected, as well as on the need to extend the OSCE mission in Eastern Ukraine, reinforcing it with more funding, personnel and equipment.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has meanwhile reached an agreement on weapons supplies from the United Arab Emirates. Former US diplomat James Jatras told RT that it is hard to believe that UAE would sell these weapons to Ukraine 'without a green light from Washington.'

'There is a lot of worry in Washington that our European satellites are slipping the leash, and that the Minsk2 agreement represents a possibility of a peace settlement that is really advantageous to the anti-Kiev forces in Lugansk and Donetsk. And one way to shake that up is to pour some weapons in there,' Jatras said."

 

Britain Should Consider Arming Ukraine - Former Chief of Defense Staff

http://rt.com/uk/234699-former-chief-arm-ukraine/

"PM David Cameron should contemplate sending arms to Ukraine as a show of NATO strength against Russia and keep his promise to restore defence-spending levels, a former Chief of Defence Staff has warned.

Air Marshall Lord Stirrup echoed sentiments of other senior politicians and officials, who claim if defence spending is cut the West will look increasingly weak.

Speaking to RT, Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade, said: 'The last thing that an already volatile situation needs is more weapons. What is needed is a peaceful and diplomatic settlement, not more war and conflict.'

 

No Weapons To Ukraine:

http://warisacrime.org/content/no-weapons-ukraine

"An open letter to the US Senate And petition"

'...The people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede, and that -- rather than the coup -- has been labeled 'aggression'. Ethnic Russians have been massacred by constant shelling from Kiev's US-NATO backed Army, while Russia has been denounced for 'aggression' in the form of various and unsubstantiated accusations, including the downing of Flight 17.

It's important to recognize Western interests at work here other than peace and generosity. GMO outfits want the excellent farming soil in Ukraine. The US and NATO want a 'missile defense' base in Ukraine. Oil corporations want to drill for fracked gas in Ukraine. The US and EU want to get their hands on Russia's 'largest supply of natural gas' on the planet..."

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

]Humm... fighting during the cease fire around Mariupol? Say it isn't so.     

Obviously it is either the Ukrainians firing on themselves as another false flag so the Americans will give them more bombs, or it is a sign of the Russian's greater committment to peace by eliminating the enemy,

.. depending on which piece of manure it is being thrown at the wall to see if it will stick.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:
... We have known that before the war started, and that it why a year ago Ukraine was loathe to fight back at all and did not do so until it was obvious there was no other choice. The line as it is now is no more stable than it was two weeks ago because he has no intention of stopping.

Ah, so that explains the ethnic cleansing, the description of human beings as insects, Israeli-style, the endless bombing of civilian areas, the 1,000,000 refugees to Russia (which "invaded") - a first in the annals of human history in which so many refugees flee to the aggressor's territory - the documented use of cluster and chemical and/or phosphorus weapons, the murderous disposal of POWs and the exchange of civilians captured on the street for genuine UAF soldiers, the refusal to negotiate the terms of federation (in fact the complete rejection of the mother tongue of a large minority and dialogue generally) until forced to by military resistance, the incineration of peaceful protestors in Odessa, etc. etc.

 

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

How to de-Nazify the Ukrainian hitlerjugend and what about the future?

Quote:
That’s why it seems necessary to combine the following measures:

- severe punishment for leaders and organizers of the coup d’état, as well as for blatant war criminals and sadists (I think, it’s rather okay to postpone the restoration of regular justice system in the liberated territories for several weeks, so that people manage to impose their own sentence on criminals, if they will);

- pitiless execution of Nazis and thugs who refuse to lay down arms after Ukrainian military and governmental institutions collapse;

- intensive anti-Nazi propaganda while exposing all the horrors of Nazis’ crimes (without fear to go too far with that and not getting distracted from it by trending topics as time goes on);

- consigning to oblivion the behavior pattern of many cannon fodder guys and “volunteers” of the dictatorship, so giving them an opportunity to forget their past and raise kids right.

An interesting idea here, a confession that Nazi views have sunk deep roots and, therefore, an approach in which the ideology is defeated or killed rather than, say, the Soviet approach which was to kill the carrier of the odious ideology ... All of this, to avoid decades or generations and generations of future problems for whatever comes out of the horrific cauldron of war ...

"The only way to rapidly eradicate the Nazism or any other ideology is to make it unpopular with the society and to bring the carriers of this ideology out as uptight misfits who are bound to fail and rust".

NDPP

Euromaidan: One Year After

http://newcoldwar.org/euromaidan-one-year-after-the-coup-in-kiev/

"The shadow of the IMF now looms over Kiev as it has loomed earlier over the capitals of many European and Latin American countries. It will now hunt down the people of Ukraine to make them pay dearly for the financial 'help' that their government has accepted.

The military and economic catastrophe suffered by Ukraine is being transformed into a complete political disaster. It is composed of the likes of..."

 

On Ukraine: NDP 'Opposition' Party is Vying with Canadian Government Over Who is More Pro War

http://newcoldwar.org/on-ukraine-ndp-opposition-party-in-canada-position...

"...At home, the Canadian government panders to the extremist Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the UCC's support to the extreme and fascist right in Ukraine. But all of that is not good enough for the NDP.

Are Nash and her party naive, or are they panderers to fascism and extremism in Ukraine? Only Peggy Nash, Paul Dewar and their NDP cohorts know for sure."

Rokossovsky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Again, Rossokovsky, you talk about what is reasonable and responsible and try and justify it with examples of violence. Obviously they should withdraw because they are in a weaker position and will be slaughtered otherwise, and the justification is that is what happened.

Except that they had an agreement to cease fire.

No they didn't. All sources say this issue was unresolved. Unresolved, it seems because the Ukrainian side refused to give up a completely untenable position, and left their men in the lurch, until the point where the men on the ground resolved the issue themselves.

In fact, the Ukrainians repeatedly reported false facts about the situation, maintaining that they had control of a supply line into the besieged group, and saying that they were going to withdraw "heavy weapons".

Neither was the case.

The first false narrative was intended to counter the factual claims of the Novorussians that the Debaltseve group was completely surrounded, as it had been since before the ceasfire was singed, and that the besieged troops should accept safe passage out of the killing zone, and surrender the terrain, because it was behind the "front" a result that would have enhanced the chances of a successful ceasefire.

The second false narrative was intended to make it seem that they were complying with the ceasefire, while denying that they were obliged to surrender the terrain because it was behind "the front".

In the last case, we know that the Ukrainians had no intention of withdrawing anything, because no such order was given, at any time by the General Staff.

They repeatedly prevaricated on point in order to justify using the ceasefire as a means to hold an offensive position, whose only strategic value was that it disrupted Novorussian communications, and made their position harder to defend along the lateral axis of the front running from Donetsk, to Luhansk. It had absolutely no "defensive" value for the Ukranians, and in fact was more or a defensive liability, than an asset, as events bear out.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Even more manure...Wink

Ukrainian Separatists Take Two Villages in Push on Key Port    

Quote:

The pro-Russian separatist group calling itself the Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) announced fresh gains towards the key Ukrainian port city of Mariupol today, as government forces reported the rebels were indeed preparing to move in on the city.

A spokesman for DNR told Russian news agency RIA Novosti that the separatists had today taken two villages situated inside the mutually agreed buffer zone, bringing them closer to the northern extremities of the port city of Mariupol, which is the second largest city in the Donetsk region.

"Yesterday evening we liberated Pishtevik and Pavlopol near Mariupol. The national guard was unable to affirm their control there," the spokesman said.

 

Splap!.........

Rokossovsky

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Even more manure...Wink

Ukrainian Separatists Take Two Villages in Push on Key Port    

Quote:

The pro-Russian separatist group calling itself the Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) announced fresh gains towards the key Ukrainian port city of Mariupol today, as government forces reported the rebels were indeed preparing to move in on the city.

A spokesman for DNR told Russian news agency RIA Novosti that the separatists had today taken two villages situated inside the mutually agreed buffer zone, bringing them closer to the northern extremities of the port city of Mariupol, which is the second largest city in the Donetsk region.

"Yesterday evening we liberated Pishtevik and Pavlopol near Mariupol. The national guard was unable to affirm their control there," the spokesman said.

 

Splap!.........

Quote:

However, reports of Pishtevik and Pavlopol being taken have not been verified by pro-Kiev forces on the ground. Ukrainian newspaper Ukrainskaya Pravda spoke to the press secretary of the local volunteer battalion Sector M  who said: “These points are situated in the buffer zone, they are not under our control and we do not have anyone stationed there. The militants can simply go there.”

Prior to the Minsk agreement two weeks ago, Pavlopol had been under the control of Kiev forces but according to the Sector M spokesman the territory was lumped into the buffer zone as part of the agreement and government forces have since pulled out.

Interesting the government forces seem able to negotiate withdrawal in this case but not a Debaltseve.

Rokossovsky

An interesting map:

 

6079_Smith_W

Rokossovsky wrote:

They repeatedly prevaricated on point in order to justify using the ceasefire as a means to hold an offensive position, whose only strategic value was that it disrupted Novorussian communications, and made their position harder to defend along the lateral axis of the front running from Donetsk, to Luhansk. It had absolutely no "defensive" value for the Ukranians, and in fact was more or a defensive liability, than an asset, as events bear out.

I'll decline to respond to the rest of that post because we have been around it far too many times.

This bit, only a few times. My response is, Ukraine held a piece of territory that disrupts rebel communications? (and more importantly, coal transport) Well so what? The rebels hold territory that prevents Ukraine from having control over its own border, and a good deal else that is both disruptive and offensive. That is not an argument at all, and it is certainly not what the cease fire was based on.

I wonder what other territory the rebels think Ukraine should give up in the interests of keeping their idea of peace.

Rokossovsky

Minsk II wrote:

2. Pull-out of all heavy weapons by both sides to equal distance with the aim of creation of a security zone on minimum 50 kilometres (31 mi) apart for artillery of 100mm calibre or more, and a security zone of 70 kilometres (43 mi) for MLRS and 140 kilometres (87 mi) for MLRS Tornado-S, Uragan, Smerch, and Tochka U tactical missile systems:

for Ukrainian troops, from actual line of contact;for Ukrainian troops, from actual line of contact;

for armed formations of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, from the contact line in accordance with the Minsk Memorandum as of 19 September 2014

Sounds to me like these two villages may be originally part of the Sept 19th Memorandum where they are alloted to the DPR, Bec.

NDPP

President Poroshenko Betrayed Ukrainian Army in Debaltseve

http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20150220/1018526949.html

"In reality, President Petro Poroshenko sacrificed Ukrainian soldiers because he did not want to incur the wrath of the war party in Kiev by ordering their retreat."

Rokossovsky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

They repeatedly prevaricated on point in order to justify using the ceasefire as a means to hold an offensive position, whose only strategic value was that it disrupted Novorussian communications, and made their position harder to defend along the lateral axis of the front running from Donetsk, to Luhansk. It had absolutely no "defensive" value for the Ukranians, and in fact was more or a defensive liability, than an asset, as events bear out.

I'll decline to respond to the rest of that post because we have been around it far too many times.

This bit, only a few times. My response is, Ukraine held a piece of territory that disrupts rebel communications? (and more importantly, coal transport) Well so what? The rebels hold territory that prevents Ukraine from having control over its own border, and a good deal else that is both disruptive and offensive. That is not an argument at all, and it is certainly not what the cease fire was based on.

I wonder what other territory the rebels think Ukraine should give up in the interests of keeping their idea of peace.

It's quite obvious that you are not interested in a political solution but victory, as can clearly be seen by your intransigent attitude. Among other things you are feeding into a lethal narrative that is supporting obstructionism and belligerence by the Ukranian side. Worse, it is precisely this narrative that resulted in the military failure and useless death of numerous individuals who are fighting your cause.

It's not me who you should be angry at. Its you who should be angry at the incompetent command that has wasted lives uselessly on this sailient, and made the Ukrainian chance of success and stability worse.

Listen to the soldier who is actually charged with fighting your war and the derrissive feelings he has about the political leadership whose cause you support.

Needless to say, indeed the "rebels" actually have a clear right to Debeltseve, not just because it is a logicl step in ensuring a ceasefire, but because this town was originally held as part of the original Minsk agreement that forms the basis of the Minsk II agreement, which i referenced above, or so it seems when comparing maps, and the agreements.

NDPP

A Letter From A Crimean To a Ukrainian

http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/02/a-letter-from-crimean-to-ukrainian.html

"I remember 1992 very well...And how did we suddenly become traitors? How can you betray occupiers? From occupiers you can only be freed. My ancestors who shed blood for Crimea and Sevastopol would not allow the treacherous Ukry to sell my native Crimea to American 'Pindoses' for their base.

We Will Starve, As Long As We Are Without You!!!"

 

Crimean Residents Protest Against Forced Ukrainization - Lost Footage from 1993 (and vid)

http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/columnists/20150220/1018526949.html

'Crimea will be Ukraine or deserted. And all of you will be khokholized. So forget about your Moskal habits. Rememer Creepers, and tell your children, that we, the Ukrainians will fight until the last drop of blood of our enemies.'

Back in 1993, Sevastopol residents could not imagine in their worst nightmare that in some 20 years, nurtured on the 'kind and bright' concepts of Ukrainian nationalism, Nazis from the Right Sector and Svoboda, will openly call for the butchery of the residents of Crimea as 'separatists' and representatives of the enemy diaspora."

*see also excellent explanation by translator on recent history of Ukr ultranationalist aggression

Rokossovsky

RELEVANT PROTOCOL AND MAPS

Minsk II wrote:

2. Pull-out of all heavy weapons by both sides to equal distance with the aim of creation of a security zone on minimum 50 kilometres (31 mi) apart for artillery of 100mm calibre or more, and a security zone of 70 kilometres (43 mi) for MLRS and 140 kilometres (87 mi) for MLRS Tornado-S, Uragan, Smerch, and Tochka U tactical missile systems:

Minsk II wrote:
for Ukrainian troops, from actual line of contact;

Minsk II wrote:
for armed formations of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, from the contact line in accordance with the Minsk Memorandum as of 19 September 2014

Rokossovsky

Composite of proposed Buffer Zones:

 

NDPP

The Ukraine Proxy and the New Cold War

http://youtu.be/MIt2k1R_hOk

The Nation's Prof Stephen Cohen with Thom Hartmann.

A good overview of the crisis

6079_Smith_W

Not to be picky, but in the first place when it says "in accordance with the Minsk Memorandum" it does not say that it is laying down the same lines as in September (which no one would likely agree to). I would assume it simply means that the terms are the same.

Secondly, your maps, including the one with the red, white and blue front line, does not have Debaltseve in rebel territory. It's at the T-junction (actually a crossing of the M-03 and M-04).

 

Rokossovsky

Not according to this map sourced to the Ukrainain National Security and Defence Council. Debaltseve is clearly within the "Rebel" area on September 19th 2014. And it was effectively under the control of the "Rebels" on February 11th, with a pocket of resistance behind their line.

As for the language, it means that the "rebel" buffer zone will the defined by the same terms, whereas Ukraine position will be defined by the present front. This would be a concession on the part of the "rebels" since it means they have to go even further back in some areas, than they would, were the zone defined by the present front.

Any idea why the Ukrainian government was more than willing to give up towns and villages around Mariupol as part of the ceasefire agreement, but was intransigent about Debaltseve?

6079_Smith_W

To repeat. It doesn't say they are moving back to the September 19 lines.

And here's a copy of the actual map from the previous agreement. Debaltseve wasn't even one of the contested areas, of which there were several.

Not that I think it is all that relevant to the current situation; I just don't think it says what you think it does.

https://en.informnapalm.org/map-demarcation-line-forces-donbass-based-mi...

Rokossovsky

But enough from me, how about some experts: What to make of Minsk 2?

Quote:
1. The ceasefire and force separation provisions will be very difficult to implement

As was the case with the ceasefire provided for in Minsk 1, the key immediate problem for Minsk 2 is the large Ukrainian force trapped in and around Debaltseve. Those forces are going to have to be allowed to withdraw if the ceasefire is to have any chance of taking effect. It will also be very difficult for Kyiv to order a withdrawal from the territory seized by the Azov battalion this past week to the east and northeast of Mariupol.

Edward W. Walker, UC Berkeley, PHD, specialist in Soviet Union and its successor states.

Doesn't seem like professor Walker thinks it was reasonable or responsible to try and maintain that position, either.

Rokossovsky

Quote:
Poroshenko, too, seemed to prefer a delayed cease-fire -- apparently not fully understanding the situation facing his military. The Europeans were trying to protect the Ukrainians from themselves.

Der Speigal -- The War Next Door: Can Merkel's Diplomacy Save Europe?

Clearly, even the EU was aware that Poroshenko and the rest of the Ukrainian leadership were out of touch with the realities on the ground to the point, where they needed to be protected by a ceasefire agreement.

Rokossovsky

Quote:
The situation in Debaltseve is untenable because no one can resupply the fighters, said Alla Neschadym, a medic with the ambulance unit whose son Oleg is still fighting in the city. She blamed Kiev for failing to mount a mass military campaign to reinforce them or to negotiate a surrender or corridor for them to withdraw.

"You should either fight, or you should take them out, but to leave them there as cannon fodder isn't right," Neschadym said.

Escape from Debaltseve: How One Convoy Made It Out of Ukraine's Besieged City

NDPP

Closing for length. Continues at Ukraine 3

http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/ukraine-3

6079_Smith_W

Closing, your self-appointed modship? Still looks open to me. I just assumed they gave up on that  100 post thing several hundred posts ago.

And why do we need a new thread, so we can reboot, rehash the same nonsense, and debunk the same lies all over again.

 

NDPP

'ah the old questions the old answers there's nothing like them' S Beckett.  Sorry sir we're closed here...

(go to 3 Smith.)

Rokossovsky

NDPP wrote:

President Poroshenko Betrayed Ukrainian Army in Debaltseve

http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20150220/1018526949.html

"In reality, President Petro Poroshenko sacrificed Ukrainian soldiers because he did not want to incur the wrath of the war party in Kiev by ordering their retreat."

That is clear copyright infringment of my material. This guy reads Rabble?

Pages

Topic locked