5 ms·

> Because there are no forces of Russian federation, probably apart from some Spec Ops, logistics and reconnaissance units. Or in other words, Russian military

by mpyne 12y ago

> Because there are no forces of Russian federation, probably apart from some Spec Ops, logistics and reconnaissance units. Or in other words, Russian military forces have invaded a neighboring nation, unless there is permission from Kiev for such uniformed armed forces to be on the sovereign territory of Ukraine?.... As far as I can tell, your link [1] implies that the only reason Kiev is using air strikes or artillery is because of the presence of hostile military forces in their sovereign territory. So, yes, I would suggest Russia should "abandon" the people of Donetsk and Luhansk (and for that matter, Crimea), return to its own sovereign territory, and then the fighting will stop as there will quickly be no hostile forces to launch artillery or air strikes against. You implied with that link [1] that Russia intervened only after Kiev started committing atrocities against people in Donetsk and Luhansk, but the order appears to be completely opposite. > I actually watch Ukrainian mainstream television and recently one of the experts was openly talking about the need to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" [2]. > And he didn't get fined or jailed for this words, or even challenged by the TV host. He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"? Maybe the TV host didn't challenge him because his comments are already so backward and idiotic as to not need further emphasis. And either way, are you trying to imply that some random asshole on T.V. spouting their stupid backward opinion about a million people he's never met, is justification enough to invade the sovereign territory of another nation. I mean, even Bush 43 tried to put a better case together than that when he went off to disaster in Iraq...

pipy 12y ago
> As far as I can tell, your link [1] implies that the only reason Kiev is using air strikes or artillery is because of the presence of hostile military forces in their sovereign territory. No, it doesn't. Because there is no evidence of massive Russian troop presence, not to my knowledge. This is why you cannot attribute the sheer scale of Ukrainian Government actions to this issue. I will quote the article for your convenience: Poroshenko’s “peace plan” and June 21 cease-fire may have seemed such an opportunity, except for their two core conditions: fighters in the southeast first had to “lay down their arms,” and he alone would decide with whom to negotiate peace. The terms seemed more akin to conditions of surrender, and were probably the real reason Poroshenko unilaterally ended the cease-fire on July 1 and intensified Kiev’s assault on eastern cities, initially on the smaller towns of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, which their defenders abandoned—to prevent more civilian casualities, they said—on July 5–6. [1] The fact that there is a genuine insurgency by the Eastern Ukrainians that is not attributable to Russian influence has been supported by multiple experts from different countries. [2] Even the sociologist that gets his money from US State Department says that: "And the polls which were done in the first half of [May--and?] it means after massacre in Odessa and after very brutal attack on Mariupol by Ukrainian forces, they were showing that at least even in Donbass there are various--some sort of support for the claims of separatists, and the people in Donbas saw their seizure of governmental buildings as people's [incompr.] not as a terrorist act, not as a Russian intervention. But this were the public opinion in Donbass." [3] >He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"? OK, for me it was too emotional to claim this and to talk about this TV show. [1] http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-hawks-about-kievs-atrocities http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-haw... [2] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=958 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=... [3] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12047 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=...
- mpyne 12y ago
  I don't doubt that there are people in Ukraine actually supportive of, and legitimately participating in, that separatist movement. But that is not, by itself, justification for Russia to intervene, especially unilaterally. It's not, never will be. Think of the logic: If there were a group of 5,000 Americans living in Russia (who had been forced to move there 50 years earlier during a period of American rule in Russia), and they rebelled against Moscow (after lengthy exhortations and propaganda from D.C.), would you really be OK with America sending military forces to intervene on behalf of those separatists? Would you be OK with America providing very advanced weaponry, passports, military support, intelligence support, international top cover and more, all to support this separatist movement? Or would you say that it was an internal matter for Russians to resolve amongst themselves, and that other states should stay out of the sovereign territory of the Russian Federation? I can tell you the U.S. certainly didn't want outside intervention during our own civil war. See, this isn't two states playing covert war games in a third state, this is Ukraine fighting for its sovereignty against a separatist movement (however many legitimate aspects it might contain), with Ukraine's bordering neighbor deliberately intervening to tilt the scales as they wish.
  - pipy 12y ago
    > I can tell you the U.S. certainly didn't want outside intervention during our own civil war. So, you say that US has the right to support one side, including an anti-constitutional coup against democratically elected president, and Russia has no right to support the other side? I beg to disagree. In fact, Kiev has been Washington’s military proxy against Russia and its “compatriots” in eastern Ukraine for months. Since the political crisis began, Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA Director John Brennan and Vice President Joseph Biden (twice) have been in Kiev, followed by “senior US defense officials,” American military equipment and financial aid. Still more, a top US Defense Department official informed a Senate committee that the department’s “advisers” are now “embedded” in the Ukrainian defense ministry. [1] > This isn't two states playing covert war games in a third state, this is Ukraine fighting for its sovereignty against a separatist movement. This is one way to see it. Hopefully, I gave you enough information to explain how it is possible to view the issue from completely different point of view. [1] http://www.thenation.com/article/180825/why-washington-risking-war-russia http://www.thenation.com/article/180825/why-washington-riski...
xi 12y ago
Maybe the TV host didn't challenge him because his comments are already so backward and idiotic as to not need further emphasis. I'll give you a better explanation: the TV host didn't challenge him because it never happened. The "expert" (another journalist, in fact) never suggested to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" or anything close to it.
- pipy 12y ago
  Hello, Kirill. :) The expert is a journalist, from a newspaper «Тиждень». [1] Here are the qoutes: Донбасс – это не просто депрессивный регион. Там дикое количество ненужных людей. Я абсолютно осознанно об этом говорю. В Донецкой области примерно 4 миллиона жителей. И не менее 1,5 миллионов лишних. Нам не надо понимать Донбасс. Нам надо понимать украинский национальный интерес. А Донбасс нужно использовать как ресурс. [...] В отношении Донбасса: я не знаю рецепта, как это сделать быстро. Однако наиглавнейшее, что нужно сделать: есть люди, которых необходимо просто убить. Which means that there is an "excess of 1.5 millions of people" in Donetsk Region, that "[people of] Donetsk Region mustn't be undestood [by the people from the rest of Ukraine], and Donetsk Region [and it's people] must be used as a resource instead" and "I don't know how to solve that problem [to remove excessive civilians], but the main thing is that some people must be physically eliminated". So: 1. There are 1.5 millions of civilians of Donetsk region that are excessive. 2. People of Donetsk region mustn't be understood by the rest of Ukraine. Which literally means that they do not fit in Ukrainian Nation, they are not part of it. 3. He doesn't know the recipe how to remove the excessive civilians, but some people must be physically eliminated. In the context of the whole TV show he is talking about elimination of excessive civilians. One could argue if he considers possible to physically eliminate 1.5 million of them, or only part of them and drive others by away by force or by economical means, etc. > The "expert" (another journalist, in fact) never suggested to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" or anything close to it. So, even though I have already claimed that it was too emotional for me to mention this TV show, I consider myself to have provided reasonable translation of his words. P.S. I've actually used pyyaml parser. :) Edit: here is the relevant part of the show for you to check: [2] [1] http://tyzhden.ua/Author/76/Publications/ http://tyzhden.ua/Author/76/Publications/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhYyj5l9Lx0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhYyj5l9Lx0

by mpyne 12y ago

pipy 12y ago

> As far as I can tell, your link [1] implies that the only reason Kiev is using air strikes or artillery is because of the presence of hostile military forces in their sovereign territory. No, it doesn't. Because there is no evidence of massive Russian troop presence, not to my knowledge. This is why you cannot attribute the sheer scale of Ukrainian Government actions to this issue. I will quote the article for your convenience: Poroshenko’s “peace plan” and June 21 cease-fire may have seemed such an opportunity, except for their two core conditions: fighters in the southeast first had to “lay down their arms,” and he alone would decide with whom to negotiate peace. The terms seemed more akin to conditions of surrender, and were probably the real reason Poroshenko unilaterally ended the cease-fire on July 1 and intensified Kiev’s assault on eastern cities, initially on the smaller towns of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, which their defenders abandoned—to prevent more civilian casualities, they said—on July 5–6. [1] The fact that there is a genuine insurgency by the Eastern Ukrainians that is not attributable to Russian influence has been supported by multiple experts from different countries. [2] Even the sociologist that gets his money from US State Department says that: "And the polls which were done in the first half of [May--and?] it means after massacre in Odessa and after very brutal attack on Mariupol by Ukrainian forces, they were showing that at least even in Donbass there are various--some sort of support for the claims of separatists, and the people in Donbas saw their seizure of governmental buildings as people's [incompr.] not as a terrorist act, not as a Russian intervention. But this were the public opinion in Donbass." [3] >He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"? OK, for me it was too emotional to claim this and to talk about this TV show. [1] http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-hawks-about-kievs-atrocities http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-haw... [2] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=958 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=... [3] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12047 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=...

mpyne 12y ago
I don't doubt that there are people in Ukraine actually supportive of, and legitimately participating in, that separatist movement. But that is not, by itself, justification for Russia to intervene, especially unilaterally. It's not, never will be. Think of the logic: If there were a group of 5,000 Americans living in Russia (who had been forced to move there 50 years earlier during a period of American rule in Russia), and they rebelled against Moscow (after lengthy exhortations and propaganda from D.C.), would you really be OK with America sending military forces to intervene on behalf of those separatists? Would you be OK with America providing very advanced weaponry, passports, military support, intelligence support, international top cover and more, all to support this separatist movement? Or would you say that it was an internal matter for Russians to resolve amongst themselves, and that other states should stay out of the sovereign territory of the Russian Federation? I can tell you the U.S. certainly didn't want outside intervention during our own civil war. See, this isn't two states playing covert war games in a third state, this is Ukraine fighting for its sovereignty against a separatist movement (however many legitimate aspects it might contain), with Ukraine's bordering neighbor deliberately intervening to tilt the scales as they wish.
- pipy 12y ago
  > I can tell you the U.S. certainly didn't want outside intervention during our own civil war. So, you say that US has the right to support one side, including an anti-constitutional coup against democratically elected president, and Russia has no right to support the other side? I beg to disagree. In fact, Kiev has been Washington’s military proxy against Russia and its “compatriots” in eastern Ukraine for months. Since the political crisis began, Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA Director John Brennan and Vice President Joseph Biden (twice) have been in Kiev, followed by “senior US defense officials,” American military equipment and financial aid. Still more, a top US Defense Department official informed a Senate committee that the department’s “advisers” are now “embedded” in the Ukrainian defense ministry. [1] > This isn't two states playing covert war games in a third state, this is Ukraine fighting for its sovereignty against a separatist movement. This is one way to see it. Hopefully, I gave you enough information to explain how it is possible to view the issue from completely different point of view. [1] http://www.thenation.com/article/180825/why-washington-risking-war-russia http://www.thenation.com/article/180825/why-washington-riski...

xi 12y ago

Maybe the TV host didn't challenge him because his comments are already so backward and idiotic as to not need further emphasis. I'll give you a better explanation: the TV host didn't challenge him because it never happened. The "expert" (another journalist, in fact) never suggested to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" or anything close to it.

pipy 12y ago
Hello, Kirill. :) The expert is a journalist, from a newspaper «Тиждень». [1] Here are the qoutes: Донбасс – это не просто депрессивный регион. Там дикое количество ненужных людей. Я абсолютно осознанно об этом говорю. В Донецкой области примерно 4 миллиона жителей. И не менее 1,5 миллионов лишних. Нам не надо понимать Донбасс. Нам надо понимать украинский национальный интерес. А Донбасс нужно использовать как ресурс. [...] В отношении Донбасса: я не знаю рецепта, как это сделать быстро. Однако наиглавнейшее, что нужно сделать: есть люди, которых необходимо просто убить. Which means that there is an "excess of 1.5 millions of people" in Donetsk Region, that "[people of] Donetsk Region mustn't be undestood [by the people from the rest of Ukraine], and Donetsk Region [and it's people] must be used as a resource instead" and "I don't know how to solve that problem [to remove excessive civilians], but the main thing is that some people must be physically eliminated". So: 1. There are 1.5 millions of civilians of Donetsk region that are excessive. 2. People of Donetsk region mustn't be understood by the rest of Ukraine. Which literally means that they do not fit in Ukrainian Nation, they are not part of it. 3. He doesn't know the recipe how to remove the excessive civilians, but some people must be physically eliminated. In the context of the whole TV show he is talking about elimination of excessive civilians. One could argue if he considers possible to physically eliminate 1.5 million of them, or only part of them and drive others by away by force or by economical means, etc. > The "expert" (another journalist, in fact) never suggested to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" or anything close to it. So, even though I have already claimed that it was too emotional for me to mention this TV show, I consider myself to have provided reasonable translation of his words. P.S. I've actually used pyyaml parser. :) Edit: here is the relevant part of the show for you to check: [2] [1] http://tyzhden.ua/Author/76/Publications/ http://tyzhden.ua/Author/76/Publications/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhYyj5l9Lx0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhYyj5l9Lx0