Ukraine War Thread

[cosmicalstorm]

It is annoying that media still refers to the Russian invasionary force as rebels. Silly.

The overwhelming majority of the fighters of the DNR and LPR are locals. Even NATO is saying that. Its in the article I posted earlier.

Wow are you still running that shit? What next, WMD's in Iraq? Polish forces attacking Nazi-Germany?
Whatever local rebels there are were trained and funded by Russians, their ammo is Russian and these days they amount to little but political commissaries that are sent out by the Russian army to tour foreign journos. You expect me to believe that they are gunning down ballistic missiles and whatever else the fuck it is a well trained army does.

Russia invaded Ukraine because the west was stealing it away via various proxies. Seriously Vympel, I'm no America-wanker, I see Russias case here, but I do not buy that shit.

[Mange]

the 9A52-4 missile system (introduced to the Russian military as late as last year and which the OSCE suspects was used to strike Kramatorsk the other day)

Erm - what? 9A52 Smerch (Tornado) is a late 1980s system. Whoever said it was introduced "late as last year" is either a huge liar, or confusing it with Russia's new Tornado-G, which is a massively modernised new-production Grad (i.e. 122mm rockets) - i.e. a system which has nothing to do with the original Smerch (i.e. 300mm rockets).

Well, the Minsk agreement carefully specifies which weapon systems to pull back and how far. The document, which was available today, specifies "MLRS Tornado-S" which was introduced, not in 2014 but 2012 so my bad: OSCE signed agreement (see the first page)
Agree on the T-72B3 issue... for now.

EDIT: It has been noted by others: Finnish YLE

[Vympel]

Wow are you still running that shit? What next, WMD's in Iraq? Polish forces attacking Nazi-Germany?

What evidence have you got to say that what I (and the article) said is wrong?

Whatever local rebels there are were trained and funded by Russians, their ammo is Russian

Whether they're being trained and funded by Russians is besides the point. They're still locals, and they make up the majority of the rebel army, is my point.

and these days they amount to little but political commissaries that are sent out by the Russian army to tour foreign journos.

That's absurd.

You expect me to believe that they are gunning down ballistic missiles and whatever else the fuck it is a well trained army does.

Who's 'gunning down ballistic missiles'? Just how large of a force is needed to shoot down a ballistic missile, in your estimate? A single S-300V could accomplish that. You don't need tens of thousands of men.

Russia invaded Ukraine because the west was stealing it away via various proxies. Seriously Vympel, I'm no America-wanker, I see Russias case here, but I do not buy that shit.

You don't have a good reason not to at this stage.

Well, the Minsk agreement carefully specifies which weapon systems to pull back and how far. The document, which was available today, specifies "MLRS Tornado-S" which was introduced, not in 2014 but 2012 so my bad:

Hmmm. I wonder who drafted it. I imagine the Russians couldn't care less that a system I've never even seen a photograph of (in Russia, no less) is listed because they would be complying by default. Plainly there are Smerch systems present in Ukraine (we've seen the rockets) but "Tornado-S"? There's not a shred of evidence its even in Russian service, whether it actually is or not* - its that rare.

*I rarely miss news of a system entering Russian service.

EDIT: the terms of the agreement says

"2. Withdrawal of all heavy weapons by both sides by an equal distance to create a security zone at least 50 kilometers wide for artillery systems of caliber of 100 millimeters and more; 70 km wide for Multiple Rocket Launching Systems (MLRS) and 140 km wide for MLRS "Tornado-S", "Uragan", "Smerch" and tactical missile systems "Tochka" and "Tochka-U":"

Whether this indicates such systems were ever actually present in the combat zone is open to interpretation - i.e. a 140km wide exclusion zone is sufficient to prevent the employment of those systems listed, but were they ever employed? Ultimately it doesn't matter, people who are talking about "proof" of Russian involvement in Ukraine are talking a dead issue, the evidence is cast-iron that they are.

[K. A. Pital]

What is absurd - the fact that locals are controlled by Russian agents? That is far, far from 'absurd'.

[Vympel]

What is absurd - the fact that locals are controlled by Russian agents? That is far, far from 'absurd'.

No, the assertion that what locals there are are just token people meant to put a mask on a vast undeclared Russian army presence in Ukraine.

[cosmicalstorm]

The huge amounts of outright lies being created by both sides right now make it hard to know anything for sure.

The Russian army is currently performing an invasion of Ukraine. In the beginning, there was an element of locals who were armed, coordinated by Russia. They lost the war a while ago and Russia had to send several thousand trained soldiers into the area with standard Russian Army equipment. I've seen enough pictures of electronic warfare veichles, rocket launchers, artillery and so on to convince me that this is the Russian army. Several shot down jets and ballistic missiles also make it pretty obvious.
Really Vympel. It's kind of pathetic to hear you trying to send out the idea that this is still some local rebel issue when this is so very obviously the Russian Army at work. Maybe before the Russian invasion of Crimea, but by now... Wow.

Anyway, I can see Russias case here. Russia was broken at the early 90's and the West used that time to move it's fronts very close to the Russian borders.

If Canada started to build Russian radar stations and anti-ballistic missile batteries at Winnipeg, Vancouver and Montreal I'm sure that would end in the same way.

[Mange]

Whether they're being trained and funded by Russians is besides the point. They're still locals, and they make up the majority of the rebel army, is my point.

You're joking right, Vympel? Are you aware of the demographic situation in Donbass? If the separatists were made up mostly by locals, they wouldn't have the manpower we've seen. Heck, the city council deputy of Zlatoust, Russia, Alexander Negrabetskikh (member of the Communist party of Russia) who joined the separatist forces, expressed surprise that 90 percent of the men in his unit was comprised by Russians from the Urals and Siberia. He even expressed outrage that so few locals are willing to "protect" their land: Ura.ru

The other day, pro-separatist blogger Graham Philips (who also freelances for RT and other channels, I believe) filmed what again appears to be T-72B3 tanks in Ukraine, this time in the vicinity of Debaltseve: YouTube

[Thanas]

So not even two days after after the armistice agreement was signed the seperatists started a new offensive.

Clearly, Putin is a man of his word.

[K. A. Pital]

So not even two days after after the armistice agreement was signed the seperatists started a new offensive.

Clearly, Putin is a man of his word.

That is if one thinks the separatists are complete puppets. Which they may very well be, but it seemed from the very start they were not going to let the encircled Ukrainian forces in Debaltsevo escape, regardless of what Putin signed or did not sign. So they simply ignored the ceasefire.

[Mange]

So not even two days after after the armistice agreement was signed the seperatists started a new offensive.

Clearly, Putin is a man of his word.

That is if one thinks the separatists are complete puppets. Which they may very well be, but it seemed from the very start they were not going to let the encircled Ukrainian forces in Debaltsevo escape, regardless of what Putin signed or did not sign. So they simply ignored the ceasefire.

That's a fair assessment. However, in Minsk, Putin said to the effect that he doubted the Ukrainians were in control of Debaltseve. According to reports, one of the main points of contention during the Minsk negotiations was Putin's refusal to support an immediate ceasefire that Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko demanded and instead he wanted to delay it by ten days (instead it was delayed by 60 hours). That enabled and worsened the situation we see today.

[Thanas]

So not even two days after after the armistice agreement was signed the seperatists started a new offensive.

Clearly, Putin is a man of his word.

That is if one thinks the separatists are complete puppets. Which they may very well be, but it seemed from the very start they were not going to let the encircled Ukrainian forces in Debaltsevo escape, regardless of what Putin signed or did not sign. So they simply ignored the ceasefire.

Russia is good at lying so we'll probably never know for sure, but the fact is that they signed the ceasefire agreement and immediately broke it.

[fgalkin]

So not even two days after after the armistice agreement was signed the seperatists started a new offensive.

Clearly, Putin is a man of his word.

That is if one thinks the separatists are complete puppets. Which they may very well be, but it seemed from the very start they were not going to let the encircled Ukrainian forces in Debaltsevo escape, regardless of what Putin signed or did not sign. So they simply ignored the ceasefire.

Russia is good at lying so we'll probably never know for sure, but the fact is that they signed the ceasefire agreement and immediately broke it.

Actually, Poroshenko violated the provisions of Minsc II right away, when he refused to grant unconditional amnesty to the leaders of the DNR and LNR, which was one of the terms.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Thanas]

And the separatists refused to hand over the captured territory right away too.

Point is I think there is a huge difference between shooting and delaying implementation of something that you know, doesn't kill peope.

[fgalkin]

And the separatists refused to hand over the captured territory right away too.

Point is I think there is a huge difference between shooting and delaying implementation of something that you know, doesn't kill peope.

There was no question of handing over captured territory, only about withdrawal from the buffer zone. In Debaltsevo, the Ukrainian troops were surrounded. They were told they could go, if they left their weapons and equipment behind. They continued to attempt to break out, instead.

Anyone who seriously expected the rebels to let the Ukrainian troops withdraw, giving up Novorossiya's greatest victory of the war for the vague promises of constitutional reform and an amnesty is a fool.

I note that the ceasefire IS kept everywhere else along the front, other than the Debaltsevo cauldron.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Thanas]

There was no question of handing over captured territory, only about withdrawal from the buffer zone. In Debaltsevo, the Ukrainian troops were surrounded. They were told they could go, if they left their weapons and equipment behind. They continued to attempt to break out, instead.

Anyone who seriously expected the rebels to let the Ukrainian troops withdraw, giving up Novorossiya's greatest victory of the war for the vague promises of constitutional reform and an amnesty is a fool.

They agreed to the ceasefire. They broke it. That is all there is. Whether someone is a fool to trust Putin and the rebels in the east doesn't matter - a ceasefire was agreed on with no Russian advance. They broke it like they broke the earlier agreement.

Quite frankly, more sanctions should follow. Russia should be frozen out of the international credit market and more active measures should be taken to destroy what is left of their economy. Maybe even weapons shipments and massive training of the Ukrainian army.

Trying to trust Russia may very well be foolish as you pointed out. Especially with the reports of Pantsir units being spotted in Luhansk.

[fgalkin]

Actually, the Ukrainians broke the ceasefire first, but continuing to break out of Debaltsevo even after the Feb 15th deadline. But let's not get pesky things like "facts" stand in the way of a good smear campaign….


Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Vympel]

You're joking right, Vympel? Are you aware of the demographic situation in Donbass? If the separatists were made up mostly by locals, they wouldn't have the manpower we've seen. Heck, the city council deputy of Zlatoust, Russia, Alexander Negrabetskikh (member of the Communist party of Russia) who joined the separatist forces, expressed surprise that 90 percent of the men in his unit was comprised by Russians from the Urals and Siberia. He even expressed outrage that so few locals are willing to "protect" their land: Ura.ru

No, I'm not joking. There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claims. Anecdotal evidence about a commander complaining about insufficient recruitment (from 2014) don't prove anything. And there's no serious analysis to substantiate the claim that the separatists don't have sufficient manpower from just local sources. Here, I'll quote the article from the National Interest I provided again:

The only visible agreement between NATO and Ukraine on the composition of separatist forces appears to be that the overwhelming majority of fighters are locals and likely Ukrainian citizens, which completely undermines the premise of the entire report that Russian forces are the key participants and their casualties will prove a deterrent.

NATO’s estimates generally show a few thousand Russian advisers and experts, while Ukrainian intelligence, which has no technical reconnaissance means, claims up to 400 Russian tanks and 10,000 Russian soldiers currently involved in the conflict. These numbers are so fantastical in range, that they suggest there is an entire Russian armored division fighting in Ukraine, perhaps even two, that have gone unnoticed by U.S. satellites (note Russia’s 4th Guards Division only has 300 tanks and 12,000 personnel required to field them). How can intelligent decisions be made on what weapons to send Ukraine when Kyiv visibly does not know what the Russian forces are, where they are and how many of them there are?

That's not the Russians saying this. Its NATO and Ukraine.

The other day, pro-separatist blogger Graham Philips (who also freelances for RT and other channels, I believe) filmed what again appears to be T-72B3 tanks in Ukraine, this time in the vicinity of Debaltseve: YouTube

Those are definitely T-72B3s.

They agreed to the ceasefire. They broke it. That is all there is. Whether someone is a fool to trust Putin and the rebels in the east doesn't matter - a ceasefire was agreed on with no Russian advance. They broke it like they broke the earlier agreement.

Quite frankly, more sanctions should follow. Russia should be frozen out of the international credit market and more active measures should be taken to destroy what is left of their economy. Maybe even weapons shipments and massive training of the Ukrainian army.

Trying to trust Russia may very well be foolish as you pointed out. Especially with the reports of Pantsir units being spotted in Luhansk.

The best description I heard of this attitude is "let's all shamelessly use Ukraine as a blood sacrifice to punish Russia". Its utterly insane, and thankfully, no one is willing to go along with such abject idiocy.

[mr friendly guy]

Interesting take on things

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/17/wha ... redirect=0

VOICE
What Putin Learned From Reagan
Russia’s power play for Ukraine takes a page out of the Gipper’s playbook. We should have seen it coming.

There was a great power that was worried about its longtime rival’s efforts to undermine it. Its leaders thought the rival power was stronger and trying to throw its weight around all over the world. In fact, this longtime rival was now interfering in places the declining state had long regarded as its own backyard. To protect this traditional sphere of influence, the worried great power had long maintained one-sided relationships with its neighbors, many of them led by corrupt and brutal oligarchs who stayed in power because they were subservient to the powerful neighbor’s whims.

But suddenly, a popular uprising toppled the corrupt leader of one of those client states, and he promptly fled the country. The leaders of the uprising seemed eager to align with the great power’s distant rival, in part because they admired the rival’s ideology and wanted to distance themselves from the neighbor that had long dominated their much-weaker country. In response, the tough-minded conservative leader of the now very worried great power ordered his government to arm rebel groups in the former client state, to prevent the new government from realigning and eventually to drive it from power.

Sound familiar? Of course it does, but the great power in this story isn’t Russia, the tough-minded leader isn’t Putin, and the troubled weak neighbor isn’t Ukraine. The great power in this story was the United States, the leader was Ronald Reagan, and unfortunate neighbor was Nicaragua.

As the 1980s began, many Americans thought Soviet power was rising and Moscow’s appetite was growing. Such fears helped put Reagan in the Oval Office and convinced the country to launch a costly military buildup.

Reagan was especially determined to stop Soviet encroachments in the Western hemisphere. The Sandinista movement in Nicaragua had just overthrown pro-American dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle and had begun cultivating close ties with Cuba. In response, the Reagan administration organized, armed, and backed the anti-Sandinista Contras.

The result? A civil war that eventually cost the lives of some 35,000 Nicaraguans. Those deaths amounted to about 2 percent of the Nicaraguan population; the equivalent percentage in this country would be more than 6 million Americans.

Reagan and the United States acted wrongly then, and Putin and Russia are acting wrongly today.Reagan and the United States acted wrongly then, and Putin and Russia are acting wrongly today. But the parallels between the two cases tell you something often forgotten when high-minded moralists start complaining about “foreign aggression.” However much we may dislike it, great powers are always sensitive to political conditions on their borders and are usually willing to play hardball to protect vital interests. The collective Western failure to understand this basic fact of life is a key reason why the Ukraine crisis erupted and why it has been so hard to resolve.

Don’t get me wrong: what is happening to Ukraine is tragic, and what Putin and Russia are doing is reprehensible. But I also think it was the height of folly for leaders in the United States and Europe not to anticipate that Russia would react as it has. After all, all they really had to do was think back to U.S. policy in much of the Western hemisphere.

If anything, Moscow has more to worry about today than the United States did back in the 1980s. Nicaragua is a tiny country, with a total population smaller than New York City’s. It had hardly any military capability of its own and its potential value as a possible Soviet base was miniscule. Yet U.S. leaders saw this small, poor, weak country as a serious strategic threat, with Reagan warning that failure to overthrow the Sandinistas would leave terrorists and subversives a mere “two days’ driving time from Harlingen, Texas.”

Today, American officials and hard-line pundits insist NATO expansion was and is not a hostile act, and that support for Kiev poses absolutely no threat to Russia whatsoever. In this view, Putin is either deluded or dissembling when he talks about foreign dangers. Or maybe what really scares him is the possibility that Ukraine might prosper and make his own rule in Moscow look bad.

But even if this view is objectively correct, it is beside the point. It doesn’t matter if our intentions are noble and NATO or EU expansion presents no genuine threat; what matters is whether Russia’s leaders think it is a threat, or worry that it might become one in the future. If Putin and Co. do see things that way — and there’s no reason to believe they don’t — they will be willing to play a large price to keep the threat at bay.

If you’re still skeptical, think back to Ronald Reagan. If the president of the mighty United States — which had the world’s largest economy and powerful military forces stationed all over the world — was sufficiently frightened by the ragtag Sandinistas that he was willing to organize and back an illegal civil war against them, is it just barely conceivable that Putin and Medvedev and many other Russians might be just a mite concerned that a country of some 45 million people right on their border might be getting ready to realign, and bring the world’s most powerful military alliance right up to their doorstep?

But wait, you might respond: We’re the good guys in both these stories. The Sandinistas were communists, for God’s sake, and they were in cahoots with Fidel Castro and the rest of Moscow’s “Evil Empire.” By contrast, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk and the reformers in Kiev are freedom-loving, market-oriented democrats, eager to root out the corruption that has handicapped Ukraine since independence. What we did in Nicaragua was noble and necessary and therefore defensible, and so is our policy toward Ukraine, while what Putin is doing is just inhuman thuggery. Even worse, it threatens the whole idea that borders in Europe should no longer be altered by force.

I understand the temptation to see this dispute as a simple morality play — West good, Russia bad — but the problem is that moral indignation and fervent self-righteousness is not a policy. Leaving aside whether the United States is entitled to command the moral high ground after Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Libya, etc., moral outrage doesn’t alter basic strategic realities. Given geography, the local military balance, Ukraine’s internal divisions, and Russian interests, advocates of a tougher approach have yet to devise a policy response that isn’t more likely to make things worse instead of better. It is all well and good for a sensible commentator like Timothy Garton Ash to decry what is happening, and insist that Putin “must withdraw his forces and Ukraine [must] have full control of its eastern frontier”; the problem is that he has no idea how to bring this off. It isn’t a failure of Western will or resolve; the plain fact is that escalating the war in Ukraine isn’t likely to work.

To repeat: Russia’s policy is objectionable and Vladimir Putin is not a misunderstood figure who deserves our sympathy. But his conduct is not that different from the actions of venerated leaders like Ronald Reagan, when they felt vital interests were at stake. Devising a lasting solution to the Ukraine muddle requires less moralizing and more strategizing, and the place to start is by understanding what is driving Moscow’s behavior. I have no sympathy for Putin, his policies, or his regime, but understanding that his actions aren’t really that unusual wouldn’t hurt our efforts at all.

[Vympel]

Read that today myself. It says pretty much all that needs to be said about how predictable the crisis was and the utter incompetence of those that played a part in provoking it.

[Mange]

I note that the ceasefire IS kept everywhere else along the front, other than the Debaltsevo cauldron.
-fgalkin

No, there has been constant fighting in other sectors such as in Shyrokyne which was recently recaptured (along with other towns and villages) by units of the National Guard. As for Debaltseve, the Ukrainian forces there were under no obligation to withdraw or surrender. It was the militia that broke the ceasefire there less than 40 minutes after it started when they went on the offensive again, blasting Debaltseve with artillery and Grad-rockets (the Ukrainian forces didn't even respond with artillery).

Hopefully though, this might help the ceasefire (to what degree you can talk about a "ceasefire" is the question).

[EnterpriseSovereign]

According to the news, having control of Debaltseve gives the separatists access to a direct rail link to Russia. Supposedly this means the Russians can now ship as much arms humanitarian supplies in one day as they could in six months transporting stuff by road. It doesn't take a military expert to see how big a boost to their logistics this would be.

[Vympel]

According to the news, having control of Debaltseve gives the separatists access to a direct rail link to Russia. Supposedly this means the Russians can now ship as much arms humanitarian supplies in one day as they could in six months transporting stuff by road. It doesn't take a military expert to see how big a boost to their logistics this would be.

That doesn't make much sense. Debaltseve doesn't border Russia. It has a major rail hub connecting Donetsk and Lugansk, so it will be easier to transport things by rail between the two, as well as eliminating an attempt by Kiev to split the LNR and DPR in two.

[cosmicalstorm]

I wonder if the US will begin supplying weapons to the Ukrainian army soon? Lets hope that does not cause a wider escalation, the Russian army could steamroll Ukraine in a couple of weeks I guess.

[LaCroix]

I wonder if the US will begin supplying weapons to the Ukrainian army soon? Lets hope that does not cause a wider escalation, the Russian army could steamroll Ukraine in a couple of weeks I guess.

Weeks? The kind of time they'd actually need if they did could better be counted in days - it would make Desert storm look like a crawl. In Georgia they used just about one Battalion and it took them 5 days to send the whole Georgian army running, without even trying hard. They fought one or two days, waited for the Georgian army to withdraw and then moved in.

If they really go 'all out' against Ukraine, they will be all over the country in about as much time as it takes them to drive there.

As people around here in Hungary are saying - "Why can we be sure the Russians aren't invading Ukraine? - Well, because they aren't knocking at our doors, already..."

[cosmicalstorm]

I wonder if the US will begin supplying weapons to the Ukrainian army soon? Lets hope that does not cause a wider escalation, the Russian army could steamroll Ukraine in a couple of weeks I guess.

Weeks? The kind of time they'd actually need if they did could better be counted in days - it would make Desert storm look like a crawl. In Georgia they used just about one Battalion and it took them 5 days to send the whole Georgian army running, without even trying hard. They fought one or two days, waited for the Georgian army to withdraw and then moved in.

If they really go 'all out' against Ukraine, they will be all over the country in about as much time as it takes them to drive there.

As people around here in Hungary are saying - "Why can we be sure the Russians aren't invading Ukraine? - Well, because they aren't knocking at our doors, already..."

I don't know if it's true but there are some places in Ukraine that could be defended for a while. Maybe there would be a couple of mini-Stalingrads. But yes, the Russian army is more than capable. Even this miniature invasion by the Russian Army is going pretty smooth now that they have stopped pretending to be some kind of guerilla movement.
This fact, that it is the Russian army, is now being recognized both in the formal agreements made and by the European Union. So pathetic when some people try to stay with the notion that it's only a couple of rebels. The amount of ammo that went into the Donetsk airport battle alone must have been utterly tremendous.