6 ms·

> 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

by 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...
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > 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? All outside parties have the right to be supportive of whichever side they wish. The ways in which that support is expressed are not all allowable under international law, however. For instance, Obama supports the "moderate Syrian opposition", yet the U.S. has not invaded parts of Syria and annexed it, and then sent further military forces into the remainder of Syria to fight against Assad. > Hopefully, I gave you enough information to explain how it is possible to view the issue from completely different point of view. You didn't need to remind me that there are alternate POVs. I'm sure that Russia has interests in Ukraine that are much different that the E.U., or the U.S., or NATO, or even Ukraine itself. But having interests is no right to do whatever you wish. I've already expressed Obama's interest in the situation in Syria, yet you don't see him breaking down in a teary-eyed fit in international media about how Assad simply won't listen to him. Obama is doing what he thinks he can and the situation will either resolve itself in the U.S.'s favor or it won't. But even if it doesn't go the U.S.'s way, he still won't invade. We used to be able to say the same of Putin, until Crimea (something he did finally admit to lying about, after the fact). "Covert" action is one thing. Sending weapons and money is one thing. These are all things that are generally understood to be allowable ways for outside parties to aid (or not) belligerents. But even the things that are allowed come at the price of responsibility, which is why Obama won't give all the Super Ray Guns to Syrian moderates. Some things, however, are never allowed, such as sending military forces to invade and annex the sovereign territory of another nation. Russia supported the rest of the world in stopping the last time a tinpot dictator tried that exercise, in Kuwait. But now Russia is the aggressor itself...
PerfectDlite 12y ago
> real reason Poroshenko unilaterally ended the cease-fire on July 1 Real reason was that pro-russian bandits continue to fire on Ukrainian forces despite all the arrangements. And as for "would decide with whom to negotiate peace" this is absolutely acceptable, because there are a lot of bandit leaders in play and it's hard to understand who's responsible for peace negotiating.

by pipy 12y ago

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...
- mpyne 12y ago
  > 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? All outside parties have the right to be supportive of whichever side they wish. The ways in which that support is expressed are not all allowable under international law, however. For instance, Obama supports the "moderate Syrian opposition", yet the U.S. has not invaded parts of Syria and annexed it, and then sent further military forces into the remainder of Syria to fight against Assad. > Hopefully, I gave you enough information to explain how it is possible to view the issue from completely different point of view. You didn't need to remind me that there are alternate POVs. I'm sure that Russia has interests in Ukraine that are much different that the E.U., or the U.S., or NATO, or even Ukraine itself. But having interests is no right to do whatever you wish. I've already expressed Obama's interest in the situation in Syria, yet you don't see him breaking down in a teary-eyed fit in international media about how Assad simply won't listen to him. Obama is doing what he thinks he can and the situation will either resolve itself in the U.S.'s favor or it won't. But even if it doesn't go the U.S.'s way, he still won't invade. We used to be able to say the same of Putin, until Crimea (something he did finally admit to lying about, after the fact). "Covert" action is one thing. Sending weapons and money is one thing. These are all things that are generally understood to be allowable ways for outside parties to aid (or not) belligerents. But even the things that are allowed come at the price of responsibility, which is why Obama won't give all the Super Ray Guns to Syrian moderates. Some things, however, are never allowed, such as sending military forces to invade and annex the sovereign territory of another nation. Russia supported the rest of the world in stopping the last time a tinpot dictator tried that exercise, in Kuwait. But now Russia is the aggressor itself...

PerfectDlite 12y ago

> real reason Poroshenko unilaterally ended the cease-fire on July 1 Real reason was that pro-russian bandits continue to fire on Ukrainian forces despite all the arrangements. And as for "would decide with whom to negotiate peace" this is absolutely acceptable, because there are a lot of bandit leaders in play and it's hard to understand who's responsible for peace negotiating.