Ukraine War Thread

[Vympel]

This fact, that it is the Russian army, is now being recognized both in the formal agreements made and by the European Union.

Utter rubbish.

So pathetic when some people try to stay with the notion that it's only a couple of rebels.

No one ever said its only "a couple" of rebels. What I said - and which you have failed to refute with any remotely credible evidence, is that both Kiev and NATO agree that the rebels are majority locals. Your insistence that its a "mini Russian invasion" isn't even supported by those with the most reason to claim it. And it smacks of cowardice to just flatly ignore what I told you and repeat yourself while churlishly muttering that "its pathetic" that anyone could disagree. This isn't facebook.

The amount of ammo that went into the Donetsk airport battle alone must have been utterly tremendous.

The amount of ammunition is totally irrelevant to who fired it. Its perfectly plausible for the rebels to be majority locals and for them to be plentifully supplied by Russia.

[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.

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.

Found this excerpt from the news report. I'd forgotten the part about linking the two other cities: Link. I hope it's viewable from outside the UK.
Looking at the map it certainly looks like Debaltseve was a salient and would have been very difficult to defend.

[Vympel]

Found this excerpt from the news report. I'd forgotten the part about linking the two other cities: Link. I hope it's viewable from outside the UK.
Looking at the map it certainly looks like Debaltseve was a salient and would have been very difficult to defend.

Yeah, that video has the right of it. The Ukrainians have had this happen to them multiple times - they blunder into a salient and then refuse to leave because their political masters don't want to be embarassed by losing territory. It happened at Ilovaisk, it happened at Donetsk Airport, and it happened here.

[fgalkin]

It's like they're doing everything they can to lose.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Vympel]

It's like they're doing everything they can to lose.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I get the impression that Poroshenko would like nothing more than to end the war, and soon. The problem is that the anti-Russian fanatics in government (particularly Yats, that buffoon, and other nationalist elements) simply won't allow it - and by extension, they strenuously try and cover up any military reverses (just look at Poroshenko's ludicrous statement on the rout from the Debaltseve salient - where he tried to pretend it was a victory).

Perhaps Yats and his hawks, Svoboda and all those other fanatics are living in a parallel universe where they think they'll have victory the moment they succeed in dragging NATO countries in to do their fighting for them.

[cosmicalstorm]

This fact, that it is the Russian army, is now being recognized both in the formal agreements made and by the European Union.

Utter rubbish.

So pathetic when some people try to stay with the notion that it's only a couple of rebels.

No one ever said its only "a couple" of rebels. What I said - and which you have failed to refute with any remotely credible evidence, is that both Kiev and NATO agree that the rebels are majority locals. Your insistence that its a "mini Russian invasion" isn't even supported by those with the most reason to claim it. And it smacks of cowardice to just flatly ignore what I told you and repeat yourself while churlishly muttering that "its pathetic" that anyone could disagree. This isn't facebook.

The amount of ammo that went into the Donetsk airport battle alone must have been utterly tremendous.

The amount of ammunition is totally irrelevant to who fired it. Its perfectly plausible for the rebels to be majority locals and for them to be plentifully supplied by Russia.

The weapons, the ammunition, the logistics-op, the planning, the international backing, the C&C, the food and so on.
And yes, a great deal of the fighters.

It looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

If this is not the Russian Army I don't know what is?
If the tables were turned and a force of similar composition backed by the US was slowly eating it's way into Russia, would you stand by the idea that it's only local rebels? Hardly.

To be honest I can not say how big a deal because of the massive PR-war taking place.
But my personal belief is that most of them are Russians too, certainly the ones operating the advanced equipment that takes a long time of expensive practice to handle well, the ones doing the quality fighting and so on.

And I do think it's pathetic. I remeber this board back in 2003 when some hardcore republicans actually stood by the Yellowcake-WMD-threat to the world nonsense. I think this is equally pathetic.

[Vympel]

The weapons, the ammunition, the logistics-op, the planning, the international backing, the C&C, the food and so on.
And yes, a great deal of the fighters.

It looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

If this is not the Russian Army I don't know what is?

You're just repeating yourself over and over and over without modification - and without justifying a single thing that you say by any actual evidence.

If the tables were turned and a force of similar composition backed by the US was slowly eating it's way into Russia, would you stand by the idea that it's only local rebels? Hardly.

Can you try and have a debate without constantly distorting it?

1. No one said the Russians weren't giving the rebels material fucking support in the form of weapons, vehicles, and supplies, so stop pretending this supports your claim. It doesn't. At all.
2. No one said its "only" local rebels, I've said repeatedly that Russians make up a minority of the rebel forces.

As to your question - if the Russians themselves admitted that the forces they were facing were majority local rebels and only some Americans? Then yes, I would see no reason to disbelieve them.

And I do think it's pathetic. I remeber this board back in 2003 when some hardcore republicans actually stood by the Yellowcake-WMD-threat to the world nonsense. I think this is equally pathetic.

And I remember this board back in 2002 when I was the No.1 person calling Bush's WMD arguments out for the parade of epic lies they were - and I did so with evidence. Reams and reams of it, in the form of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports, whistleblowers, and more.

(and it wasn't just hardcore Republicans. A great deal of moderates believed it too)

[cosmicalstorm]

For starters lets remeber Crimea which started this whole affair. It was also supposedly a purely local affair. A year or two from now when even Russia recognizes this invasion I will bring this thread back up and shame you Vympel.

Well here are a few things

Although probably accidentally,
the document provided proof of
direct Russian military involvement
in the conflict. Among the
heavy weapons to be withdrawn is
the Tornado-S, which is explicitly
mentioned. This high-tech, longrange
multiple-launch rocket system
(MLRS) entered into service in the
Russian Federation in 2012, and is
operated by no other state. Hence, if
Tornados are to be withdrawn from
the conflict zone, they could not
have originated from anywhere but
Russia

http://www.fiia.fi/en/publication/485/t ... ceasefire/

I could spend all day posting pictures of Russian tanks and various russian weapon-systems.

I'm not going to waste the entire day on this. Maybe a majority of the rebel fighters are in fact from Ukraine, maybe they are a minority now that Russian army battalions are moved en masse across the border.

The core point: If there was no Russian Army in this conflict Ukraine would have been more than capable of rolling tanks and dropping bombs from MIG's over a couple of insurgents armed with AK-47's, machineguns, some RPG's and maybe even a couple of stolen armored vehicles. The conflict would have ended just like it was about to end a couple of months ago, before the Russian invasion.

The EU has broken its taboo on referring to Russian forces in east Ukraine in its official documents.

It said in its Official Journal on Monday (16 February) that Russian deputy defence minister Anatoly Antonov is being added to its blacklist because he is “involved in supporting the deployment of Russian troops in Ukraine”.

It listed first deputy defence minister Arkady Bakhin for the same reason.

It also listed Andrei Kartapolov, a senior Russian military commander, for being “involved in shaping and implementing the military campaign of the Russian forces in Ukraine”.

The text in the legal gazette was signed off by EU foreign relations chief Federica Mogherini.

EU leaders did, in an informal declaration in August last year, mention "aggression by Russian armed forces on Ukrainian soil".

Individual EU officials, such as Council chief Donald Tusk, have also made hawkish statements in off-the-cuff remarks.

Ukraine, the US, and Nato have spoken of Russian forces in Ukraine since last July. Nato and the US even declassified and published satellite pictures to back up their statements.

But Mogherini has, since coming to office last November, and with the exception of Russia-annexed Crimea, studiously avoided any reference to Russian armed forces being active in Ukraine.

The last time EU foreign ministers published a statement on the conflict, on 29 January, they also used circumlocutions, speaking of: “evidence of continued and growing support given to the separatists by Russia, which underlines Russia's responsibility”.

They added that “foreign armed groups” should leave Ukrainian territory.

The recent EU taboo went above foreign minister level.

When French, German, Russian, and Ukrainian leaders agreed a ceasefire plan in Minsk last Thursday, they also bowed to Russia’s claim its soldiers aren’t in Ukraine, by calling for withdrawal of “foreign armed formations”.

When leaders of the G7 wealthy nations the following day published a statement urging Russia to comply with the Minsk accord, they too spoke of “Russian-backed separatist militias”.

For her part, Mogherini’s spokeswoman, Maja Kocijancic, told EUobserver the new language in the Official Journal is not an accident.

She noted it reflects “mounting evidence, underlining Russia’s responsibility” for the conflict, as discussed by foreign ministers on 29 January.

One piece of evidence is a classified report on Russian activity in Ukraine compiled by Mogherini’s intelligence-sharing branch, IntCen, and circulated to capitals ahead of the 29 January meeting.

An EU diplomat, who asked not to be named, noted: "This new form of Russian warfare - using tanks and soldiers without insignia - is something we haven't seen before. We're still trying to work out how to respond to it".

A second EU diplomat added: “It [the latest Official Journal text] is a clear and understandable message against Russian propaganda and all the lies about non-Russian engagement in the military conflict”.

Russia’s claim it isn’t involved in east Ukraine is central to its propaganda message: that the conflict is a “civil war” between Ukrainian nationalists and ethnic Russian “separatists”.

The 16 February Official Journal, which also listed nine entities, highlighted the manufactured nature of the “separatism”.

Most of the entities are battalions of Russia’s irregular fighters in Ukraine.

But one of them is “Novorossiya”, a Russian “public movement” named after the Kremlin concept that east and south-east Ukraine, or “New Russia”, belong to Russia on ancestral grounds.

The Official Journal noted that Novorossiya is run by Igor Strelkov, who is already on an EU blacklist for organising the initial insurgency in Donetsk, east Ukraine, last March.

The EU gazette says he is a “Russian officer … identified as a staff member of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (GRU)”.

https://euobserver.com/foreign/127667

[K. A. Pital]

I would not be so sure about Russian volunteers-slash-mercenaries being a minority, but I will not make arguments for cosmicalstorm, he has to learn to find information on his own.

[Vympel]

For starters lets remeber Crimea which started this whole affair. It was also supposedly a purely local affair. A year or two from now when even Russia recognizes this invasion I will bring this thread back up and shame you Vympel.

Unless a year from now you're able to magic up some evidence that the war in the east was mostly just an invasion of Russian army regulars, then no, you won't be shaming anyone.

Well here are a few things

None of which contradict my argument. Not a single, solitary one.

The core point: If there was no Russian Army in this conflict

I didn't say there was no Russian Army in this conflict, for fuck's sake! I said they do not currently make up the majority of the rebel forces, something both Kiev and NATO have said, as the article I posted several pages ago indicates, and which currently stands uncontradicted by any actual evidence.

Can't you read?

Unrelated, but amusing:





Thanks very much Uncle Sam, the rebels will have that.

[cosmicalstorm]

I admit that I have no ability to know the exact composition of the men on the ground or where they were born. My main position is that the effective fighting force in this part of Ukraine is created by, controlled by, supplied by, etc etc Russia.

It's a question I guess, were does an army end, where does it begin?

By the way, if I did not say it before, I'm not "against" Russia all that much. I can see why they are doing what they are doing and hopefully this won't go any further than it already has.

[Edi]

I admit that I have no ability to know the exact composition of the men on the ground or where they were born. My main position is that the effective fighting force in this part of Ukraine is created by, controlled by, supplied by, etc etc Russia.

It's a question I guess, were does an army end, where does it begin?

By the way, if I did not say it before, I'm not "against" Russia all that much. I can see why they are doing what they are doing and hopefully this won't go any further than it already has.

Some of the most recent reports (verification needed) have the rebels massing men, tanks and heavy artillery outside Mariupol and the only purpose for that is an offensive on that city.

Neither Russia nor the rebels have any interest in ceasefire or peace. The rebels' intent is to make as much of a landgrab as they can and dismember Ukraine, and a possible land connection to the Crimea would be exactly what Russia desires, so they will do everything in their power to try to appear to be "negotiating" even as they continue their combat operations without pause.

[fgalkin]

Maidan 3.0?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Simon_Jester]

For starters lets remeber Crimea which started this whole affair. It was also supposedly a purely local affair. A year or two from now when even Russia recognizes this invasion I will bring this thread back up and shame you Vympel...

Thing is, Crimea was 'supposedly a purely local affair' for, what, a few days? It became obvious soon that entire Russian army units had basically taken off their uniforms and moved in to occupy the territory. It didn't take a month or two for evidence of this to come to light.

Whereas here, with the Ukrainian government having had plenty of time to locate some of these supposed Russian regulars and capture them in battle. They've had plenty of time to collect evidence for their presence. And they have lots of incentive to collect or even outright make up evidence that this secessionist movement they're trying and failing to defeat is actually a Russian invasion.

And yet, the Ukrainian government does not claim this.

If they haven't presented evidence and haven't claimed that the Donbass separatists are a Russian invasion at this late date, that strongly suggests the evidence isn't there.

Well here are a few things

Although probably accidentally,
the document provided proof of
direct Russian military involvement
in the conflict. Among the
heavy weapons to be withdrawn is
the Tornado-S, which is explicitly
mentioned. This high-tech, longrange
multiple-launch rocket system
(MLRS) entered into service in the
Russian Federation in 2012, and is
operated by no other state. Hence, if
Tornados are to be withdrawn from
the conflict zone, they could not
have originated from anywhere but
Russia

http://www.fiia.fi/en/publication/485/t ... ceasefire/

Alternatively, the cease-fire agreement specifies that all long range bombardment rockets be removed, and names every system that could conceivably be in the area, rather than leave open the possibility of lawyering by the Russians at some later date.

I could spend all day posting pictures of Russian tanks and various russian weapon-systems.

This does not prove what you claim to prove. Russian heavy weapons in the hands of ethnic-Russian rebels in the Ukraine proves that Russia supplies them with weapons. It even might prove that some Russian operators are being supplied to operate those weapons. But it does not prove that entire 'battalions' of Russian soldiers are being funneled into the Donets Basin and pretending to be local rebels in an attempt to covertly invade the area.

Let's have some intellectual integrity here, shall we?

I'm not going to waste the entire day on this. Maybe a majority of the rebel fighters are in fact from Ukraine, maybe they are a minority now that Russian army battalions are moved en masse across the border.

The core point: If there was no Russian Army in this conflict Ukraine would have been more than capable of rolling tanks and dropping bombs from MIG's over a couple of insurgents armed with AK-47's, machineguns, some RPG's and maybe even a couple of stolen armored vehicles. The conflict would have ended just like it was about to end a couple of months ago, before the Russian invasion.

You are aware that the Russian army can supply the Donbass separatists with weapons, without physically invading the Donbass, right?

The Donbass rebels include plenty of former Ukrainian army (and for that matter former Soviet army) soldiers who know perfectly well how to operate heavy Russian military equipment. While it would no doubt be a huge help to them to have 'advisors' from Russia help train them with these weapons, or even use these weapons personally, Russia does not have to send whole formed units of its own army over the border to accomplish that goal.

There is a huge difference between sending your own army to fight in a territory, and shipping weapons to the locals who were already fighting there. A difference large enough that one is sometimes considered an act of war while the other is not.

Again, let's have some intellectual integrity here, and respect the differences between different things.

Now, the second article you cite at least provides some evidence that some Russian units have crossed the border. But as noted, they provide no evidence of the scale of the Russian troop movements, only that some Russian units entered the Donbass at some point in time. Which is still provocative and a violation of basic principles of modern international law- but is not the same as saying the entire rebel movement is just the Russian army pretending to be local rebel formations.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

It's like they're doing everything they can to lose.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I get the impression that Poroshenko would like nothing more than to end the war, and soon. The problem is that the anti-Russian fanatics in government (particularly Yats, that buffoon, and other nationalist elements) simply won't allow it - and by extension, they strenuously try and cover up any military reverses (just look at Poroshenko's ludicrous statement on the rout from the Debaltseve salient - where he tried to pretend it was a victory).

Perhaps Yats and his hawks, Svoboda and all those other fanatics are living in a parallel universe where they think they'll have victory the moment they succeed in dragging NATO countries in to do their fighting for them.

If you consider simply getting out without being massacred as a victory, then based on that they're more or less screwed.

Sadly Ukraine needs the respite far more than the separatists- does anyone know how long it would take for Ukraine to actually get its act together and use their forces in a competent manner if they started immediately?

[Simon_Jester]

I imagine it depends heavily on what "get its act together" means. If the basic problems with their handling of the military situation are political (like "not one step backward!" orders), then no amount of time will be enough unless the Ukrainian political situation changes.

If the problem is a bunch of political appointees in the Ukrainian military's high command, that could conceivably be straightened out within a matter of weeks by firing the political generals and replacing them with hastily promoted but more competent junior-ranking officers.

[LaCroix]

The core point: If there was no Russian Army in this conflict Ukraine would have been more than capable of rolling tanks and dropping bombs from MIG's over a couple of insurgents armed with AK-47's, machineguns, some RPG's and maybe even a couple of stolen armored vehicles. The conflict would have ended just like it was about to end a couple of months ago, before the Russian invasion.

You are forgetting the fact that the rebels were raiding ukrainian stock at the beginning (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/20/world ... s-weapons/ has a few quotes on it:

Under a blazing sun in early June, a group of pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine were digging amid pine woods near the town of Krazny Liman.

Their grizzled commander was a bearded man in his 50s who would not tell us where he was from, but acknowledged that he wasn't local. He was proud to show off his unit's most prized possession -- a truck-mounted anti-aircraft unit that was Russian-made.

He told us the weapon had been seized from a Ukrainian base.

A few miles away, in the town of Kramatorsk, rebel fighters displayed two combat engineering tanks they said they had seized them from a local factory. Eastern Ukraine has long been a center of weapons production. They had parked one of the tanks next to the town square.

These were just two instances of how the rebels in eastern Ukraine were steadily adding more sophisticated weapons to their armory, including tanks, multiple rocket launchers -- and anti-aircraft systems.

In early June, they began to target Ukrainian planes and helicopters, with some success.

The day after we met the commander in the pine woods, an Antonov AN-26 transport plane was brought down over nearby Slovyansk.

Several Mi-8 and Mi-24 helicopters were also hit in this period, as was an Ilyushin IL-76 cargo plane near Luhansk -- it is about the size of a passenger jet.

Forty-nine military personnel were killed when the IL-76 crashed short of the airport.

For the most part, these aircraft were flying at relatively low altitudes, and were targeted by shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles and anti-aircraft guns. The pro-Russian rebels had taken control of several Ukrainian military depots and bases and stripped them of their weapons.

The SA-7 was standard Soviet issue. Relatively easy to operate, it is effective to altitudes of some 2,500 meters (8,000 feet).

But it and ZU 23-2 anti-aircraft batteries, which rebel units also obtained, are a world away from the SA-11 or "Buk" system that seems increasingly likely to have been used to shoot down Flight MH17 on Thursday.

Stealing a Buk

Could the pro-Russian rebels have acquired a serviceable Buk from a Ukrainian base and operated it? The evidence is circumstantial; a great deal of Ukrainian military hardware is in poor condition or redundant.

But on June 29, rebels raided the Ukrainian army's A-1402 missile facility near Donetsk. Photographs show them examining what they found.

So the rebellion started sometime in early April, and by june, they had already raided multiple military facilities, or had them defect to them.

Later, a whole ukrainian tank battalion changed sides after they were sent there "to fight a Russian army", and realized they only found protesting civilians and no army, anywhere. They got upset to the point they had a vote and decided to desert and join the rebels. (for which there is video proof in this very thread, I believe)

Especially after that desertation, the rebels were more than capable of holding their ground, and the way the Ukrainian army continued supplying them by stuff they lost to them in the following engagements cemented that.

Does Russia aid the rebels by sending material? Yes. But Russia only started to supply them long after the fact that they were a military force to be considered - Russia is not stupid enough to pour expensive material into a conflict that is not looking like it's achieving what they want.

[Vympel]

Neither Russia nor the rebels have any interest in ceasefire or peace. The rebels' intent is to make as much of a landgrab as they can and dismember Ukraine, and a possible land connection to the Crimea would be exactly what Russia desires, so they will do everything in their power to try to appear to be "negotiating" even as they continue their combat operations without pause.

The 'possible land connection to Crimea' is nothing but a ridiculous Western analyst canard from people who have apparently never looked at a map of Ukraine in their entire lives. Every single threat to Mariupol was not contextualised as you know, an important port city and the centre of administration for Donetsk (for Ukraine) after the fall of Donetsk proper, but "part of a land bridge to Crimea". Nevermind that there are two entire additional oblasts between Donetsk and Crimea. The proposition is totally unrealistic.

And if the Russians were uninterested in a cease fire or peace, why did Putin pressure the DNR and LPR to accept Minsk II (according to Merkel) at all? They're winning, not Kiev.

[Mange]

Neither Russia nor the rebels have any interest in ceasefire or peace. The rebels' intent is to make as much of a landgrab as they can and dismember Ukraine, and a possible land connection to the Crimea would be exactly what Russia desires, so they will do everything in their power to try to appear to be "negotiating" even as they continue their combat operations without pause.

The 'possible land connection to Crimea' is nothing but a ridiculous Western analyst canard from people who have apparently never looked at a map of Ukraine in their entire lives. Every single threat to Mariupol was not contextualised as you know, an important port city and the centre of administration for Donetsk (for Ukraine) after the fall of Donetsk proper, but "part of a land bridge to Crimea". Nevermind that there are two entire additional oblasts between Donetsk and Crimea. The proposition is totally unrealistic.

And if the Russians were uninterested in a cease fire or peace, why did Putin pressure the DNR and LPR to accept Minsk II (according to Merkel) at all? They're winning, not Kiev.

And have "DNR" and "LPR" adhered to Minsk II? No. They had never any intention of honoring it from the onset with for example the ridiculous claim that Debaltseve was exempt from the agreement (heck, Putin refused to agree to an immediate ceasefire). Despite their claims of withdrawing heavy weapons, there's still a constant barrage of artillery and Grad-rockets in several sectors along the front.

[Mange]

And to add to my post above, at least three civilians died this morning when a cafe was hit by artillery in government-held Avdeevka: Twitter

[fgalkin]

And to add to my post above, at least three civilians died this morning when a cafe was hit by artillery in government-held Avdeevka: Twitter

Vyacheslav Abroskin, who lied about that bus shelling, is hardly a credible source.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Vympel]

And have "DNR" and "LPR" adhered to Minsk II? No. They had never any intention of honoring it from the onset with for example the ridiculous claim that Debaltseve was exempt from the agreement (heck, Putin refused to agree to an immediate ceasefire). Despite their claims of withdrawing heavy weapons, there's still a constant barrage of artillery and Grad-rockets in several sectors along the front.

Even so, there's been a definite halt in offensive operations, notwithstanding that neither side has really begun to adhere to its terms. As to Debaltseve, Poroshenko apparently repeatedly refused to address the issue at Minsk II despite direct prompting from Putin- i.e. denying that there was any such pocket - no doubt out of fear of embarassment back home. Of course the rebels weren't going to allow such a critical location (for them) to remain in enemy hands when they already had it in the bag. It is what it is unfortunately. Even if the claims about Debaltseve are lies (and I can't imagine they were - what, no one thought it'd be a good idea to mention it?) the ceasefire has clearly had some effect.

Of course, like the Moscow Times article says (and its hardly a pro-Kremlin source) - this could be another lull while both sides rest and then resume offensive operations.

(and is indignation of "never had any intention of honoring it" reserved only for the rebels? Or do people actually believe the rebels were shelling Donetsk - their own city - regularly from the onset of the September ceasefire? Shelling which apparently continues)

Oh hey: look at the whiny Americans complaining delusionally about those damn defeatist Germans:



Original German

No longer believe in Kiev victory? Might as well no longer believe in unicorns.

(I understand Bild to be sensationalist, but does anyone really think that this sounds sensationalised?)

[LaCroix]

Ok, so the EU, Germany in particular, and the rest of the Nato pawns should wreck their economy to try and get Russia to back down, which it won't, so everybody will go down rue de la crap.

While America watches and rub their hands, as they won't suffer by this. And Germany is stupid for not agreeing to that master plan?

I hope they had this meeting in a secret volcano lair, dim lights only provided by bright numbers displayed above each chair, and everyone was wearing hoods.

[Simon_Jester]

The US really doesn't stand to lose much of anything from the Donbass becoming an independent country. Or a Russian province.

Germany and other European powers, apparently, does stand to lose something.

So imagine that the European nations are unwilling to bear a greater share of the cost for something that directly affects them, but does not directly affect their ally. And you wonder why their ally might be frustrated with this?

How do you help someone protect their own sphere of influence, when they are not willing to exert themselves seriously in order to do the job?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The US really doesn't stand to lose much of anything from the Donbass becoming an independent country. Or a Russian province.

Germany and other European powers, apparently, does stand to lose something.

So imagine that the European nations are unwilling to bear a greater share of the cost for something that directly affects them, but does not directly affect their ally. And you wonder why their ally might be frustrated with this?

How do you help someone protect their own sphere of influence, when they are not willing to exert themselves seriously in order to do the job?

Ah hahahaha... and Western politicians like to say "There's no such thing as spheres of influence"....