Ukraine 2

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

Rationalization wrote:

"Any action that increases the effectiveness of Allied forces through more efficient or effective use of defense resources committed to the Alliance. Rationalization includes consolidation of national priorities to higher alliance needs. standardization, specialization, mutual support or improved interoperability, and greater co-operation."

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Even more manure...

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!.........

An interesting map:

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_II">Minsk II</a> 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.

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.

RELEVANT PROTOCOL AND MAPS

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_II">Minsk II</a> 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:

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_II">Minsk II</a> wrote:

for Ukrainian troops, from actual line of contact;

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_II">Minsk II</a> 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

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?

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.

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

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 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?