Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Will Putin send his tanks?

POST REPLY

Will Putin send his tanks?

Yes
13
27%
No
29
60%
I don't know
6
13%
 
Total votes : 48
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 07 Aug 2014, 09:23
I guess a quick update, 438 Ukrainian soldiers deserted to Russia from their encirclement in the southern pocket, leaving behind their weapons and armored vehicles. Over 300 already went back, but those who stay will have special status. Kiev is apparently mounting an offensive on Donetsk although the last one intended to encircle it at Shakhtersk failed and led to encirclement and mass death for the 25th aeromobile brigade.

The Aidar battalion, one of the openly nazi ones, is being disbanded following a conflict with oligarch Kolomoysky's people and their defunding as a result. They recently published their finances for July, of ~222k hryvnias, 80k went to pay for coffins and transport expenses, and another 98k for payments to families of the dead. There is a note that the 10k for the last 12 dead has not been transferred yet, suggesting that their losses were around 110-120 people that month. 4838 was spent on fresh fruits and vegetables, 5135 on cigarettes.

Image


New clashes on the Maidan and tires burning after city workers tried to take it apart. http://ukrstream.tv/stream/kiyiv http://ukrstream.tv/stream/maidan_nieza ... nsliatsiia

Also, Putin introduced retaliatory sanctions against the offending countries' agriculture and will instead be importing food from South America. The euros seem to be very unhappy about this, but I'm not really sure what they thought would happen. I'm starting to believe that the people in power are basically as stupid as us and probably had a little banquet to celebrate their bringing down Putin, where they applauded their own brilliance and gave each other celebratory pats on the back, thinking that there would be absolutely no consequences.
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 Aug 2014, 21:43
Two comrades of the Spanish Communist Youth joined an international brigade in Ukraine. Long live our Spanish comrades!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV_z3Pz21PI
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 10 Aug 2014, 11:08
Another decent article by the blogger "Feynman" on a right-populist website. He writes about MH17, sanctions, as well as the bombings in Iraq. I don't agree with everything, but it's a good alternative viewpoint from a source with mass readership. Google Translation with some corrections by me:

Quote:
Russia's Achilles Heel

The Dutch mission to the crash site has stopped. In response, Kiev has unilaterally decided to ignore the UN resolution temporarily and to fire on and try to conquer it. Crash site images broadcast yesterday on Knevel & van den Brink [a popular late night talk show] showed large explosions in the same camera shot as recognizable aircraft parts. However, it is not up to Kiev to ignore a UN resolution just because the Netherlands doesn't want to use it temporarily. Russia subsequently requested a new resolution to end the fighting at the crash site. Criticism of Kiev or an armed mission by a third party such as India was rejected. The Dutch mission has yielded one extra coffin in total. While Timmermans [the Minister of Foreign Affairs] previously still held an emotional appeal to allow the relatives a chance to say a decent goodbye, the rest of the West was immediately busy milking the disaster politically. A gift from heaven to demonize Putin personally and get the Red Army back in its cage after the annexation of the Crimea.

Editor's Note: Investigation by RTL News shows that the Dutch MH17 research team has only studied 6 percent of the disaster area. So, almost nothing.

The separatists have recovered and transferred 200 victims. Their only requirement, that the transport would be done by an independent international party, eventually was granted by Malaysia after two days. The exact same story with the two black boxes. Apparently it was a surprise for negotiators during these two days that two parties shooting at each other do not trust each other with these emotionally laden transports.

Sanctions are a joke
In contrast, the attack on MH17 has been used by the West, including Kiev as an opportunity to shift the momentum in the Ukrainian civil war. Before the crash, there was a complex stalemate, after the crash Kiev went on the frontal attack. The West supplied one of the warring parties, and supposedly knew from day one that the other side had done it, and put sanctions on Russia.

The European sanctions against Russia are a joke. Russian banks in China can borrow what they want, those few big shots on the black list can just send a stooge, boycotted technology is also available in Asia and even without that technology creates in the short or medium term, no damage to the Russian economy. The sanctions will not go into effect directly, but only for new contracts.

Maximum disruption
The damage of sanctions on western side is viewed purely economically. On the Russian side, they look at which sanctions are considered the most immediately disruptive here and at the same time firmly reduce Russia's dependence on Europe in the homeland. Russia was a net food importer. Because of the import ban, domestic production should increase. What is a sanction for us is tactical military preparations for Russia.

The food import ban on Russia has another effect. People who get less to eat are easier to motivate for war. See for example the blockade of Gaza since 2007 and the support in Gaza for a hopeless war. In America, all six war presidents were reelected. Even Bush Jr. after Iraq, even Nixon after Vietnam. For Putin a conflict is an easy way to maintain internal power

Two-front war
While in Ukraine the spark was caused by a failed attempt to add another country to the long list of Eastern bloc countries to be allowed to join the European Union someday, the neglected conflict in Syria and Iraq has revived the Caliphate. By reviving the Cold War now, the West and Russia are going for a two-front war. On both fronts, the battle is approached totally incompetently.

As was proven last night on Knevel & van den Brink on the map from Trouw [a centrist Christian daily], the bombing of USAF against ISIS was not in the areas where genocide is being committed, nor in the places where Christians are being expelled. That was the first really sharp remark I've ever been able to discern from Andries Knevel [a presenter of the show]. On TV the Nobel Prize for Peace laureate Obama declares that he does not want to look the other way, but his bombs are now falling on the wrong side of Iraq.

Gas tap
After the Russian annexation of the Crimea, a marginal response came much too late. Then they tried to compensate for the damage in a much more complex situation over the back of nearly a hundred victims still to be salvaged. Endless complaints about Russian interference, unaware of its own European interference in Ukraine costing millions.

If the West wants to tighten the thumbscrews at the same time wants to reduce European dependence on Russia, history provides a good option. The fall of the Soviet Union was caused and accelerated by rapidly declining oil and gas revenues. Russia still gets 70% of exports and 50% of tax revenues from fossil fuels.

Europe must be able to turn off the gas tap before Russia can export to Asia.


http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/20 ... ssisc.html

I don't really follow the last bit, but apparently Ukraine does, because they are threatening to cut off gas exports from Russia to EU countries themselves. Apparently we're supposed to cheer for this, because last week several parliamentary parties said that we should stop buying gas from Russia and get it from the US instead.

That's what all this sloganeering about "ending energy dependence on Russia" is really about: to become dependent on the US instead. I suppose that would be more expensive, since it wouldn't be transported by pipelines. Likewise, we're also supposed expected to cheer for US-inspired sanctions against Russia (and Russia's ban on food imports in retaliation) that don't hurt the US economy at all, but does hurt the EU.

In other news, Kiev has now launched a crazy conspiracy theory about MH17 of its own. The idea is that the evil separatists wanted to shoot down an Aeroflot plane in a false-flag attack, blame the Ukrainians, and use it as an excuse for Russia to invade. But instead they got the wrong plane. This is commonly called projection.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2011, 00:54
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 11 Aug 2014, 22:46
I've been reading the Hacked conversations obtained by Cyber Berkut over on Colonel Cassad and Voice of Sevastopol.

http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1723665.html

I'm having a difficult time with Translation and full understanding eludes me.

A little help please?
"A shiny bauble from Capitalism is worthless when the cost is Children & the Elderly going hungry, The Infirm & Sick dying because of Greed & Education reduced to a token few to placate the masses with Illusions of freedom."
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 4
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Dec 2012, 08:06
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 12 Aug 2014, 10:12
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 12 Aug 2014, 12:16
I have very low confidence in the authenticity of this hack, because if they wanted to hack the Facebook, they would just do the "download all my data" thing in privacy settings instead of these stupid screenshots. The it could all be verified instead of being this sketchy crap with the screenshots which was already found to be fake at least once before.
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2011, 00:54
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 12 Aug 2014, 19:51
After reading through it all (Thanks for the Translation Mark) I'm inclined to agree with you Kirov.

Some of the Language is Expositionary rather than interactive which seems strange for two people who have shared knowledge. Would they really speak as if the other has no idea of the subject matter in a collaborative endeavour like is suggested?

The fact it's on Facebook seems kind of strange considering more secure communication methods are available but it's not inconceivable I guess with the other Gaffs Kiev officials pull.

I'm confused why Colonel Cassad and Voice of Sevastopol have rushed to publish so quickly without more fact checking and evidence really.

The Article that contained the Info could have had better labelling and an intro also to frame the Info too.
"A shiny bauble from Capitalism is worthless when the cost is Children & the Elderly going hungry, The Infirm & Sick dying because of Greed & Education reduced to a token few to placate the masses with Illusions of freedom."
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 4
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Dec 2012, 08:06
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 13 Aug 2014, 04:17
http://cassad.net/oliynyk.rar here's the hi-res screenshots if that helps.

I'm not sure what you mean by language not being interactive, it looks pretty normal to me. At least in my work i communicate somewhat the same way.
And screenshots are more obvious to average person then long explanation with some tech terms so i would do it the same way.
As to authencity of all this, well i would say about 70% sure it is true, at least it pretty much fits the picture. Strange enough there is still no confirmation of this on http://cyber-berkut.org
http://cassad.net admins claim that its exclusive material was provided to them and Cyber Berkut will post it on their website at a later time.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 14 Aug 2014, 17:24
Do any of you guys speak German? If not, then I'm sorry to be wasting your time, but this is just too good not to share: https://www.youtube.com/v/mXzA6JBV1hM

Among other things, he talks about MH17 and how the "quality press" in Germany immediately blamed Putin and started banging the drums of war. There is this notion that German democracy will be back to "normalcy" when it dares to do armed foreign interventions again. One great line from this guy: "Also Joachim Gauck, our cuddly president-howitzer from Rostock, thinks Germany will be grown-up when it is once again prepared to shoot at those less well-armed. What was the best thing about the GDR? That Gauck wasn't allowed to go abroad."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Aug 2014, 21:14
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Aug 2014, 21:43
What's the point of literally invading a country with only 20 BRTs? I don't see the reason behind this. It's a horrible PR mistake with nothing to gain in return.
Wouldn't really trust the Guardian here.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Aug 2014, 21:55
It's not an invasion but a routine mission. I usually trust The Guardian.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3822
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 14 Aug 2014, 22:20
So, the russians put together this huge humanitarian mission with 270 trucks full of aid - which the ukranians had agreed to accept. And then when they try to cross the border at a control post controlled by Kiev, the ukranians refuse.
When the trucks go through a vacant control post, entering a warzone, the Guardian complaints they're guarded by russian APCs! Who would guard them? The ukranians refused, so they expect the rebels to guard the trucks??!!


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 15 Aug 2014, 09:46
OP-Bagration wrote:


APCs, not tanks, to be precise.


I wonder what's going to happen next. The Ukrainians claimed that they have cut off all the roads to the city of Luhansk, so maybe a Russian intervention could secure them again and allow the trucks in. But according to this, there is no relation between the APCs and the aid convoy.

As for The Guardian, they have been saying that the Russians were invading for about half a year now, yet apparently this is the first time any western journalist has actually seen Russian armoured vehicles cross the border (again, according to the Telegraph piece). Of course, The Guardian has gone full-on liberal-hawk in recent years, and they'll print just about anything that might discredit the monster of the day, whether that's Assad or Putin.

Anyway, here is an excellent article by Karel van Wolferen, an eminent old-school journalist:

Quote:
(44) The Ukraine, Corrupted Journalism, and the Atlanticist Faith (9Aug 2014)

The European Union is not (anymore) guided by politicians with a grasp of history, a sober assesment of global reality, or simple common sense connected with the longterm interests of what they are guiding. If any more evidence was needed, it has certainly been supplied by the sanctions they have agreed on last week aimed at punishing Russia.
One way to fathom their foolishness is to start with the media, since whatever understanding or concern these politicians may have personally they must be seen to be doing the right thing, which is taken care of by TV and newspapers.
In much of the European Union the general understanding of global reality since the horrible fate of the people on board the Malaysian Airliner comes from mainstream newspapers and TV which have copied the approach of Anglo-American mainstream media, and have presented ‘news’ in which insinuation and villification substitute for proper reporting. Respected publications, like the Financial Times or the once respected NRC Handelsblad of The Netherlands for which I worked sixteen years as East Asia Correspondent, not only joined in with this corrupted journalism but helped guide it to mad conclusions. The punditry and editorials that have grown out of this have gone further than anything among earlier examples of sustained media hysteria stoked for political purposes that I can remember. The most flagrant example I have come across, an anti-Putin leader in the (July 26) Economist Magazine, had the tone of Shakespeare’s Henry V exhorting his troops before the battle of Agincourt as he invaded France.
One should keep in mind that there are no European-wide newspapers or publications to sustain a European public sphere, in the sense of a means for politically interested Europeans to ponder and debate with each other big international developments. Because those interested in world affairs usually read the international edition of the New York Times or the Financial Times, questions and answers on geopolitical matters are routinely shaped or strongly influenced by what editors in New York and London have determined as being important. Thinking that may deviate significantly as can now be found in Der Spiegel, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Zeit and Handelsblatt, does not travel across German borders. Hence we do not see anything like a European opinion evolving on global affairs, even when these have a direct impact on the interests of the European Union itself.
The Dutch population was rudely shaken out of a general complacency with respect to world events that could affect it, through the death of 193 fellow nationals (along with a 105 people of other nationalities) in the downed plane, and its media were hasty in following the American-initiated fingerpointing at Moscow. Explanations that did not in some way involve culpability of the Russian president seemed to be out of bounds. This was at odds right away with statements of a sober Dutch prime minister, who was under considerable pressure to join the fingerpointing but who insisted on waiting for a thorough examination of what precisely had happened.
The TV news programs I saw in the days immediately afterwards had invited, among other anti–Russian expositors, American neocon-linked talking heads to do the disclosing to a puzzled and truly shaken up audience. A Dutch foreign policy specialist explained that the foreign minister or his deputy could not go to the site of the crash (as Malaysian officials did) to recover the remains of Dutch citizens, because that would amount to an implicit recognition of diplomatic status for the “separatists”. When the European Union en bloc recognizes a regime that has come into existence through an American initiated coup d’état, you are diplomatically stuck with it.
The inhabitants and anti-Kiev fighters at the crash site were portrayed, with images from youtube, as uncooperative criminals, which for many viewers amounted to a confirmation of their guilt. This changed when later reports from actual journalists showed shocked and deeply concerned villagers, but the discrepancy was not explained, and earlier assumptions of villainy did not make way for any objective analysis of why these people might be fighting at all. Tendentious twitter and youtube ‘news’ had become the basis for official Dutch indignation with the East Ukrainians, and a general opinion arose that something had to be set straight, which was, again in general opinion, accomplished by a grand nationally televised reception of the human remains (released through Malaysian mediation) in a dignified sober martial ceremony.
Nothing that I have seen or read even intimated that the Ukraine crisis – which led to coup and civil war – was created by neoconservatives and a few R2P (“Responsibility to Protect”) fanatics in the State Department and the White House, apparently given a free hand by President Obama. The Dutch media also appeared unaware that the catastrophe was immediately turned into a political football for White House and State Department purposes. The likelihood that Putin was right when he said that the catastrophe would not have happened if his insistence on a cease-fire had been accepted, was not entertained.
As it was, Kiev broke the cease-fire – on the 10th of June – in its civil war against Russian speaking East Ukrainians who do not wish to be governed by a collection of thugs, progeny of Ukrainian nazis, and oligarchs enamored of the IMF and the European Union. The supposed ‘rebels’ have been responding to the beginnings of ethnic cleansing operations (systematic terror bombing and atrocities – 30 or more Ukrainians burned alive) committed by Kiev forces, of which little or nothing has penetrated into European news reports.
It is unlikely that the American NGOs, which by official admission spent 5 billion dollars in political destabilization efforts prior to the February putsch in Kiev, have suddenly disappeared from the Ukraine, or that America’s military advisors and specialized troops have sat idly by as Kiev’s military and militias mapped their civil war strategy; after all, the new thugs are as a regime on financial life-support provided by Washington, the European Union and IMF. What we know is that Washington is encouraging the ongoing killing in the civil war it helped trigger.
But Washington has constantly had the winning hand in a propaganda war against, entirely contrary to what mainstream media would have us believe, an essentially unwilling opponent. Waves of propaganda come from Washington and are made to fit assumptions of a Putin, driven and assisted by a nationalism heightened by the loss of the Soviet empire, who is trying to expand the Russian Federation up to the borders of that defunct empire. The more adventurous punditry, infected by neocon fever, has Russia threatening to envelop the West. Hence Europeans are made to believe that Putin refuses diplomacy, while he has been urging this all along. Hence prevailing propaganda has had the effect that not Washington’s but Putin’s actions are seen as dangerous and extreme. Anyone with a personal story that places Putin or Russia in a bad light must move right now; Dutch editors seem insatiable at the moment.
There is no doubt that the frequently referred to Moscow propaganda exists. But there are ways for serious journalists to weigh competing propaganda and discern how much veracity or lies and bullshit they contain. Within my field of vision this has only taken place a bit in Germany. For the rest we must piece political reality together relying on the now more than ever indispensable American websites hospitable to whistleblowers and old-fashioned investigative journalism, which especially since the onset of the ‘war on terrorism’ and the Iraq invasion have formed a steady form of samizdat publishing.
In The Netherlands almost anything that comes from the State Department is taken at face value. America’s history, since the demise of the Soviet Union, of truly breathtaking lies: on Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, Libya and North Korea; its record of overthrown governments; its black-op and false flag operations; and its stealthily garrisoning of the planet with some thousand military bases, is conveniently left out of consideration. The near hysteria throughout a week following the downed airliner prevented people with some knowledge of relevant history from opening their mouths. Job security in the current world of journalism is quite shaky, and going against the tide would be almost akin to siding with the devil, as it would damage one’s journalistic ‘credibility’.
What strikes an older generation of serious journalists as questionable about the mainstream media’s credibility is editorial indifference to potential clues that would undermine or destroy the official story line; a story line that has already permeated popular culture as is evident in throwaway remarks embellishing book and film reviews along with much else. In The Netherlands the official story is already carved in stone, which is to be expected when it is repeated ten-thousand times. It cannot be discounted, of course, but it is based on not a shred of evidence.
The presence of two Ukrainian fighterplanes near the Malaysian airliner on Russian radar would be a potential clue I would be very interested in if I were investigating either as journalist or member of the investigation team that The Netherlands has officially been put in charge of. This appeared to be corroborated by a BBC Report with eyewitness accounts from the ground by villagers who clearly saw another plane, a fighter, close to the airliner, near the time of its crash, and heard explosions coming from the sky. This report has recently drawn attention because it was removed from the BBC’s archive. I would want to talk with Michael Bociurkiw, one of the first inspectors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to reach the crash site who spent more than a week examining the wreckage and has described on CBC World News two or three “really pock-marked” pieces of fuselage. “It almost looks like machine gun fire; very, very strong machine gun fire that has left these unique marks that we haven’t seen anywhere else.”
I would certainly also want to have a look at the allegedly confiscated radar and voice records of the Kiev Air Control Tower to understand why the Malaysian pilot veered off course and rapidly descended shortly before his plane crashed, and find out whether foreign aircontrollers in Kiev were indeed sent packing immediately after the crash. Like the “Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity”, I would certainly urge the American authorities with access to satellite images to show the evidence they claim to have of BUK missile batteries in ‘rebel’ hands as well as of Russian involvement, and ask them why they have not done so already. Until now Washington has acted like a driver who refuses a breathalyzer test. Since intelligence officials have leaked to some American newspapers their lesser certainty about the American certainties as brought to the world by the Secretary of State, my curiosity would be unrelenting.
To place European media loyalty to Washington in the Ukraine case as well as the slavish conduct of European politicians in perspective, we must know about and understand Atlanticism. It is a European faith. It has not given rise to an official doctrine, of course, but it functions like one. It is well summed up by the Dutch slogan at the time of the Iraq invasion: “zonder Amerika gaat het niet” (without the United States [things] [it] won’t work). Needless to say, the Cold War gave birth to Atlanticism. Ironically, it gained strength as the threat from the Soviet Union became less persuasive for increasing numbers among European political elites. That probably was a matter of generational change: the farther away from World War II, the less European governments remembered what it means to have an independent foreign policy on global-sized issues. Current heads of government of the European Union are unfamiliar with practical strategic deliberations. Routine thought on international relations and global politics is deeply entrenched in Cold War epistemology.
This inevitably also informs ‘responsible’ editorial policies. Atlanticism is now a terrible affliction for Europe: it fosters historical amnesia, willful blindness and dangerously misconceived political anger. But it thrives on a mixture of lingering unquestioned Cold War era certainties about protection, Cold War loyalties embedded in popular culture, sheer European ignorance, and an understandable reluctance to concede that one has even for a little bit been brainwashed. Washington can do outrageous things while leaving Atlanticism intact because of everyone’s forgetfulness, which the media do little or nothing to cure. I know Dutch people who have become disgusted with the villification of Putin, but the idea that in the context of Ukraine the fingerpointing should be toward Washington is well-nigh unacceptable. Hence, Dutch publications, along with many others in Europe, cannot bring themselves to place the Ukraine crisis in proper perspective by acknowledging that Washington started it all, and that Washington rather than Putin has the key to its solution. It would impel a renunciation of Atlanticism.
Atlanticism derives much of its strength through NATO, its institutional embodiment. The reason for NATO’s existence, which disappeard with the demise of the Soviet Union, has been largely forgotten. Formed in 1949, it was based on the idea that transatlantic cooperation for security and defense had become necessary after World War II in the face of a communism, orchestrated by Moscow, intent on taking over the entire planet. Much less talked about was European internal distrust, as the Europeans set off on their first moves towards economic integration. NATO constituted a kind of American guarantee that no power in Europe would ever try to dominate the others.
NATO has for some time now been a liability for the European Union, as it prevents development of concerted European foreign and defense policies, and has forced the member states to become instruments serving American militarism.
It is also a moral liability because the governments participating in the ‘coalition of the willing’ have had to sell the lie to their citizens that European soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a necessary sacrifice to keep Europe safe from terrorists. Governments that have supplied troops to areas occupied by the United States have generally done this with considerable reluctance, earning the reproach from a succession of American officials that Europeans do too little for the collective purpose of defending democracy and freedom.
As is the mark of an ideology, Atlanticism is ahistorical. As horse medicine against the torment of fundamental political ambiguity it supplies its own history: one that may be rewritten by American mainstream media as they assist in spreading the word from Washington.
There could hardly be a better demonstration of this than the Dutch experience at the moment. In conversations these past three weeks I have encountered genuine surprise when reminding friends that the Cold War ended through diplomacy with a deal made on Malta between Gorbachev and the elder Bush in December 1989, in which James Baker got Gorbachev to accept the reunification of Germany and withdrawal of Warsaw Pact troops with a promise that NATO would not be extended even one inch to the East. Gorbachev pledged not to use force in Eastern Europe where the Russians had some 350,000 troops in East Germany alone, in return for Bush’s promise that Washington would not take advantage of a Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe. Bill Clinton reneged on those American promises when, for purely electoral reasons, he boasted about an enlargement of NATO and in 1999 made the Czech Republic and Hungary full members. Ten years later another nine countries became members, at which point the number of NATO countries was double the number during the Cold War. The famous American specialist on Russia, Ambassador George Kennan, originator of Cold War containment policy, called Clinton’s move “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”
Historical ignorance abetted by Atlanticism is poignantly on display in the contention that the ultimate proof in the case against Vladimir Putin is his invasion of Crimea. Again, political reality here was created by America’s mainstream media. There was no invasion, as the Russian sailors and soldiers were already there since it is home to the ‘warm water’ Black Sea base for the Russian navy. Crimea has been a part of Russia for as long as the United States has existed. In 1954 Khrushchev, who himself came from the Ukraine, gave it to the Ukrainian Socialist Republic, which came down to moving a region to a different province, since Russia and Ukraine still belonged to the same country. The Russian speaking Crimean population was happy enough, as it voted in a referendum first for independence from the Kiev regime that resulted from the coup d’état, and subsequently for reunification with Russia.
Those who maintain that Putin had no right to do such a thing are unaware of another strand of history in which the United States has been moving (Star Wars) missile defense systems ever closer to Russian borders, supposedly to intercept hostile missiles from Iran, which do not exist. Sanctimonious talk about territorial integrity and sovereignty makes no sense under these circumstances, and coming from a Washington that has done away with the concept of sovereignty in its own foreign policy it is downright ludicrous.
A detestable Atlanticist move was the exclusion of Putin from the meetings and other events connected with the commemoration of the Normandy landings, for the first time in 17 years. The G8 became the G7 as a result. Amnesia and ignorance have made the Dutch blind to a history that directly concerned them, since the Soviet Union took the heart out of the Nazi war machine (that occupied The Netherlands) at a cost of incomparable and unimaginable mumbers of military dead; without that there would not have been a Normandy invasion.
Not so long ago, the complete military disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan appeared to be moving NATO to a point where its inevitable demise could not to be too far off. But the Ukraine crisis and Putin’s decisiveness in preventing the Crimea with its Russian Navy base from possibly falling into the hands of the American-owned alliance, has been a godsend to this earlier faltering institution.
NATO leadership has already been moving troops to strengthen their presence in the Baltic states, sending missiles and attack aircraft to Poland and Lithuania, and since the downing of the Malaysian airliner it has been preparing further military moves that may turn into dangerous provocations of Russia. It has become clear that the Polish foreign minister together with the Baltic countries, none of which partook in NATO when its reason for being could still be defended, have become a strong driving force behind it. A mood of mobilisation has spread in the past week. The ventriloquist dummies Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer can be relied upon to take to TV screens inveighing against NATO memberstate backsliding. Rasmussen, the current Secretary General, declared on August 7 in Kiev that NATO’s “support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine is unwavering” and that he is looking to strengthen partnership with the country at the Alliance’s summit in Wales in September. That partnership is already strong, so he said, “and in response to Russia’s aggression, NATO is working even more closely with Ukraine to reform its armed forces and defence institutions.”
In the meantime, in the American Congress 23 Senate Republicans have sponsored legislation, the “Russian Aggression Prevention Act”, which is meant to allow Washington to make the Ukraine a non-NATO ally and could set the stage for a direct military conflict with Russia. We will probably have to wait until after America’s midterm elections to see what will become of it, but it already helps provide a political excuse for those in Washington who want to take next steps in the Ukraine.
In September last year Putin helped Obama by making it possible for him to stop a bombing campaign against Syria pushed by the neocons, and had also helped in defusing the nuclear dispute with Iran, another neocon project. This led to a neocon commitment to break the Putin-Obama link. It is hardly a secret that the neoconservatives desire the overthrow of Putin and eventual dismemberment of the Russian Federation. Less known in Europe is the existence of numerous NGO’s at work in Russia, which will help them with this. Vladimir Putin could strike now or soon, to preempt NATO and the American Congress, by taking Eastern Ukraine, something he probably should have done right after the Crimean referendum. That would, of course, be proof of his evil intentions in European editorial eyes.
In the light of all this, one of the most fateful questions to ask in current global affairs is: what has to happen for Europeans to wake up to the fact that Washington is playing with fire and has ceased being the protector they counted on, and is instead now endangering their security? Will the moment come when it becomes clear that the Ukraine crisis is, most of all, about placing Star Wars missile batteries along an extensive stretch of Russian border, which gives Washington – in the insane lingo of nuclear strategists – ‘first strike’ capacity?
It is beginning to sink in among older Europeans that the United States has enemies who are not Europe’s enemies because it needs them for domestic political reasons; to keep an economically hugely important war industry going and to test by shorthand the political bona fides of contenders for public office. But while using rogue states and terrorists as targets for ‘just wars’ has never been convincing, Putin’s Russia as demonized by a militaristic NATO could help prolong the transatlantic status quo. The truth behind the fate of the Malaysian airliner, I thought from the moment that I heard about it, would be politically determined. Its black boxes are in London. In NATO hands?
Other hindrances to an awakening remain huge; financialization and neoliberal policies have produced an intimate transatlantic entwining of plutocratic interests. Together with the Atlanticist faith these have helped stymie the political development of the European Union, and with that Europe’s ability to proceed with independent political decisions. Since Tony Blair, Great Britain has been in Washington’s pocket, and since Nicolas Sarkozy one can say more or less the same of France.
That leaves Germany. Angela Merkel was clearly unhappy with the sanctions, but in the end went along because she wants to remain on the good side of the American president, and the United States as the conqueror in World War II does still have leverage through a variety of agreements. Germany’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, quoted in newspapers and appearing on TV, repudiated the sanctions and points at Iraq and Libya as examples of the results brought by escalation and ultimatums, yet he too swings round and in the end goes along with them.
Der Spiegel is one of the German publications that offer hope. One of its columnists, Jakob Augstein, attacks the “sleepwalkers” who have agreed to sanctions, and censures his colleagues’ fingerpointing at Moscow. Gabor Steingart, who publishes Handelsblatt, inveighs against the “American tendency to verbal and then to military escalation, the isolation, demonization, and attacking of enemies” and concludes that also German journalism “has switched from level-headed to agitated in a matter of weeks. The spectrum of opinions has been narrowed to the field of vision of a sniper scope.” There must be more journalists in other parts of Europe who say things like this, but their voices do not carry through the din of villification.
History is being made, once again. What may well determine Europe’s fate is that also outside the defenders of the Atlanticist faith, decent Europeans cannot bring themselves to believe in the dysfunction and utter irresponsibility of the American state.


http://www.karelvanwolferen.com/44-ukra ... 9aug-2014/

And the editorial in Handelsblatt that he refers to:

Quote:
The West on the wrong path
von Gabor Steingart
08.08.2014, 13:53 Uhr

In view of the events in Ukraine, the government and many media have switched from level-headed to agitated. The spectrum of opinions has been narrowed to the width of a sniper scope. The politics of escalation does not have a realistic goal – and harms German interests.

Gabor Steingart
Gabor Steingart is the publisher of Germany’s leading financial newspaper Handelsblatt.

DüsseldorfEvery war is accompanied by a kind of mental mobilization: war fever. Even smart people are not immune to controlled bouts of this fever. “This war in all its atrociousness is still a great and wonderful thing. It is an experience worth having“ rejoiced Max Weber in 1914 when the lights went out in Europe. Thomas Mann felt a “cleansing, liberation, and a tremendous amount of hope“.

Even when thousands already lay dead on the Belgian battle fields, the war fever did not subside. Exactly 100 years ago, 93 painters, writers, and scientists composed the “Call to the world of culture.“ Max Liebermann, Gerhart Hauptmann, Max Planck, Wilhelm Röntgen, and others encouraged their countrymen to engage in cruelty towards their neighbor: “Without German militarism, German culture would have been swept from the face of the earth a long time ago. The German armed forces and the German people are one. This awareness makes 70 million Germans brothers without prejudice to education, status, or party.“

We interrupt our own train of thought: “History is not repeating itself!” But can we be so sure about that these days? In view of the war events in the Crimean and eastern Ukraine, the heads of states and governments of the West suddenly have no more questions and all the answers. The US Congress is openly discussing arming Ukraine. The former security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski recommends arming the citizens there for house-to-house and street combat. The German Chancellor, as it is her habit, is much less clear but no less ominous: “We are ready to take severe measures.“

German journalism has switched from level-headed to agitated in a matter of weeks. The spectrum of opinions has been narrowed to the field of vision of a sniper scope.

Newspapers we thought to be all about thoughts and ideas now march in lock-step with politicians in their calls for sanctions against Russia's President Putin. Even the headlines betray an aggressive tension as is usually characteristic of hooligans when they 'support' their respective teams.

The Tagesspiegel: “Enough talk!“ The FAZ: “Show strength“. The Süddeutsche Zeitung: “Now or never.“ The Spiegel calls for an “End to cowardice“: “Putin's web of lies, propaganda, and deception has been exposed. The wreckage of MH 17 is also the result of a crashed diplomacy.“

Western politics and German media agree.

Every reflexive string of accusations results in the same outcome: in no time allegations and counter-allegations become so entangled that the facts become almost completely obscured.
Who deceived who first?

Did it all start with the Russian invasion of the Crimean or did the West first promote the destabilization of the Ukraine? Does Russia want to expand into the West or NATO into the East? Or did maybe two world-powers meet at the same door in the middle of the night, driven by very similar intentions towards a defenseless third that now pays for the resulting quagmire with the first phases of a civil war?

If at this point you are still waiting for an answer as to whose fault it is, you might as well just stop reading. You will not miss anything. We are not trying to unearth this hidden truth. We don't know how it started. We don't know how it will end. And we are sitting right here, in the middle of it. At least Peter Sloterdijk has a few words of consolation for us: “To live in the world means to live in uncertainty.“

Our purpose is to wipe off some of the foam that has formed on the debating mouths, to steal words from the mouths of both the rabble-rousers and the roused, and put new words there instead. One word that has become disused of late is this: realism.

The politics of escalation show that Europe sorely misses a realistic goal. It's a different thing in the US. Threats and posturing are simply part of the election preparations. When Hillary Clinton compares Putin with Hitler, she does so only to appeal to the Republican vote, i.e. people who do not own a passport. For many of them, Hitler is the only foreigner they know, which is why Adolf Putin is a very welcome fictitious campaign effigy. In this respect, Clinton and Obama have a realistic goal: to appeal to the people, to win elections, to win another Democratic presidency.

Angela Merkel can hardly claim these mitigating circumstances for herself. Geography forces every German Chancellor to be a bit more serious. As neighbors of Russia, as part of the European community bound in destiny, as recipient of energy and supplier of this and that, we Germans have a clearly more vital interest in stability and communication. We cannot afford to look at Russia through the eyes of the American Tea Party.

Every mistake starts with a mistake in thinking. And we are making this mistake if we believe that only the other party profits from our economic relationship and thus will suffer when this relationship stops. If economic ties were maintained for mutual profit, then severing them will lead to mutual loss. Punishment and self-punishment are the same thing in this case.

Even the idea that economic pressure and political isolation would bring Russia to its knees was not really thought all the way through. Even if we could succeed: what good would Russia be on its knees? How can you want to live together in the European house with a humiliated people whose elected leadership is treated like a pariah and whose citizens you might have to support in the coming winter.

Of course, the current situation requires a strong stance, but more than anything a strong stance against ourselves. Germans have neither wanted nor caused these realities, but they are now our realities. Just consider what Willy Brandt had to listen to when his fate as mayor of Berlin placed him in the shadow of the wall. What sanctions and punishments were suggested to him. But he decided to forgo this festival of outrage. He never turned the screw of retribution.

When he was awarded the Noble Prize for Peace he shed light on what went on around him in the hectic days when the wall was built: “There is still another aspect – that of impotence disguised by verbalism: taking a stand on legal positions which cannot become a reality and planning counter-measures for contingencies that always differ from the one at hand. At critical times we were left to our own devices; the verbalists had nothing to offer.“

The verbalists are back and their headquarters are in Washington D.C. But nobody is forcing us to kowtow to their orders. Following this lead – even if calculatingly and somewhat reluctantly as in the case of Merkel – does not protect the German people, but may well endanger it. This fact remains a fact even if it was not the American but the Russians who were responsible for the original damage in the Crimean and in eastern Ukraine.

Willy Brandt decided clearly differently than Merkel in the present, and that in a clearly more intense situation. As he recalls, he had awoken on the morning of August 13, 1961 “wide awake and at the same time numb“. He had stopped over in Hanover on a trip when he received reports from Berlin about work being done on the large wall separating the city. It was a Sunday morning and the humiliation could hardly be greater for a sitting mayor.

The Soviets had presented him with a fait accompli. The Americans had not informed him even though they had probably received some information from Moscow. Brandt remembers that an “impotent rage“ had risen in him. But what did he do? He reined in his feelings of impotence and displayed his great talent as reality-based politician which would garner him a stint as Chancellor and finally also the Nobel Prize for Peace.

With the advice from Egon Bahr, he accepted the new situation, knowing that no amount of outrage from the rest of the world would bring this wall down again for a while. He even ordered the West-Berlin police to use batons and water cannons against demonstrators at the wall in order not to slip from the catastrophe of division into the much greater catastrophe of war. He strove for the paradox which Bahr put as follows later: “We acknowledged the Status Quo in order to change it.“

And they managed to accomplish this change. Brandt and Bahr made the specific interests of the West Berlin population for who they were now responsible (from June 1962 onwards this also included this author) into the measure of their politics.

In Bonn they negotiated the Berlin subvention, an eight-percent tax-free subvention on payroll and income tax. In the vernacular it was called the “fear premium“. They also negotiated a travel permit treaty with East Berlin which made the wall permeable again two years after it was put up. Between Christmas 1963 and New Year’s 1964, 700 000 inhabitants of Berlin visited their relatives in the east of the city. Every tear of joy turned into a vote for Brandt a short while later.

The voters realized that here was someone who wanted to affect the way they lived every day, not just generate a headline for the next morning. In an almost completely hopeless situation, this SPD man fought for western values – in this case the values of freedom of movement – without bullhorns, without sanctions, without the threat of violence. The elite in Washington started hearing words that had never been heard in politics before: Compassion. Change through rapprochement. Dialog. Reconciliation of interests. And this in the middle of the Cold War, when the world powers were supposed to attack each other with venom, when the script contained only threats and protestations; set ultimatums, enforce sea blockades, conduct representative wars, this is how the Cold War was supposed to be run.

A German foreign policy striving for reconciliation – in the beginning only the foreign policy of Berlin – not only appeared courageous but also very strange.

The Americans – Kennedy, Johnson, then Nixon – followed the German; it kicked off a process which is unparalleled in the history of enemy nations. Finally, there was a meeting in Helsinki in order to set down the rules. The Soviet Union was guaranteed “non-interference into their internal affairs“ which filled party boss Leonid Brezhnev with satisfaction and made Franz Josef Strauß's blood boil. In return, the Moscow Communist Party leadership had to guarantee the West (and thus their own civil societies) “respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including that of thought, conscience, religion or belief“.

In this way “non-interference“ was bought through “involvement“. Communism had received an eternal guarantee for its territory, but within its borders universal human rights suddenly began to brew. Joachim Gauck remembers: “The word that allowed my generation to go on was Helsinki.“

It is not too late for the duo Merkel/Steinmeier to use the concepts and ideas of this time. It does not make sense to just follow the strategically idea-less Obama. Everyone can see how he and Putin are driving like in a dream directly towards a sign which reads: Dead End.

“The test for politics is not how something starts but how it ends“, so Henry Kissinger, also a Peace Nobel Prize winner. After the occupation of the Crimean by Russia he stated: we should want reconciliation, not dominance. Demonizing Putin is not a policy. It is an alibi for the lack thereof. He advises condensing conflicts, i.e. to make them smaller, shrink them, and then distill them into a solution.

At the moment (and for a long time before that) America is doing the opposite. All conflicts are escalated. The attack of a terror group named Al Qaida is turned into a global campaign against Islam. Iraq is bombed using dubious justifications. Then the US Air Force flies on to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The relationship to the Islamic world can safely be considered damaged.

If the West had judged the then US government which marched into Iraq without a resolution by the UN and without proof of the existence of “WMDs“ by the same standards as today Putin, then George W. Bush would have immediately been banned from entering the EU. The foreign investments of Warren Buffett should have been frozen, the export of vehicles of the brands GM, Ford, and Chrysler banned.

The American tendency to verbal and then also military escalation, the isolation, demonization, and attacking of enemies has not proven effective. The last successful major military action the US conducted was the Normandy landing. Everything else – Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan – was a clear failure. Moving NATO units towards the Polish border and thinking about arming Ukraine is a continuation of a lack of diplomacy by the military means.

This policy of running your head against the wall – and doing so exactly where the wall is the thickest – just gives you a head ache and not much else. And this considering that the wall has a huge door in the relationship of Europe to Russia. And the key to this door is labeled “reconciliation of interests“.

The first step is what Brandt called “compassion“, i.e. the ability to see the world through the eyes of the others. We should stop accusing the 143 million Russian that they look at the world differently than John McCain.
What is needed is help in modernizing the country, no sanctions which will further decrease the dearth of wealth and damage the bond of relationships. Economic relationships are also relationships. International cooperation is akin to tenderness between nations because everyone feels better afterwards.

It is well-known that Russia is an energy super-power and at the same time a developing industrial nation. The policy of reconciliation and mutual interests should attack here. Development aid in return for territorial guarantees; Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even had the right words to describe this: modernization partnership. He just has to dust it off and use it as an aspirational word. Russia should be integrated, not isolated. Small steps in that direction are better than the great nonsense of exclusionary politics.

Brandt and Bahr have never reached for the tool of economic sanctions. They knew why: there are no recorded cases in which countries under sanctions apologized for their behavior and were obedient ever after. On the contrary: collective movements start in support of the sanctioned, as is the case today in Russia. The country was hardly ever more unified behind their president than now. This could almost lead you to think that the rabble-rousers of the West are on the payroll of the Russian secret service.

One more comment about the tone of the debate. The annexation of the Crimean was in violation of international law. The support of separatists in eastern Ukraine also does not mesh with our ideas of the state sovereignty. The boundaries of states are inviolable.

But every act requires context. And the German context is that we are a society on probation which may not act as if violations of international law started with the events in the Crimean.

Germany has waged war against its eastern neighbor twice in the past 100 years. The German soul, which we generally claim to be on the romantic side, showed its cruel side.

Of course, we who came later can continue to proclaim our outrage against the ruthless Putin and appeal to international law against him, but the way things are this outrage should come with a slight blush of embarrassment. Or to use the words of Willy Brandt: “Claims to absolutes threaten man.“

In the end, even the men who had succumbed to war fever in 1914 had to realize this. After the end of the war, the penitent issued a second call, this time to understanding between nations: “The civilized world became a war camp and battle field. It is time that a great tide of love replaces the devastating wave of hatred.“

We should try to avoid the detour via the battle fields in the 21st century. History does not have to repeat itself. Maybe we can find a shortcut.


http://www.handelsblatt.com/meinung/kom ... 08406.html
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Party Member
Post 15 Aug 2014, 13:27
This is something I said I would do and completely forgot about the whole thing. Better late than never anyways.

Yeqon wrote:
War of words and poetry:

Ukrainian girl Anastasia Dmitruk expresses her hate towards Russians in poem titled "We will never ever be brothers!"

Translation by Andrey Kneller

http://youtu.be/Qv97YeC563Y

We will never ever be brothers -
not by motherland, not by mothers.
Your souls aren’t free, they’re crippling -
we won’t even become step-siblings.
Christened “elder,” - we don’t believe you -
we’ll be younger, but not beneath you.
You are many, but faceless of late,
you’re enormous perhaps, we’re – great.
But you smother… orbiting zealously,
you will choke one day on your jealousy.
Freedom’s foreign to you, unattained,
from your childhood, you’ve been chained.
In your home, “silence’s golden” prevails,
but we’re raising up Molotov cocktails.
In our hearts, blood is boiling, sizzling,
and you’re kin? – you blind ones, miserly?
There’s no fear in our eyes, it’s effortless,
we are dangerous even weaponless.
We have grown, became brave outright
while the snipers held us in sight.
Executioners forced us to kneel –
we stood up and all was repealed.
Rats are hiding from us, but they’re lot
is to wash themselves clean in blood.
They are sending new orders, devising,
we are lighting the flames of uprising.
From your Tsar, our Democracy’s severed.
We will never be brothers ever.


The translation isn't 100% accurate. Some of the words and meanings were changed in an attempt to preserve rhythm.




Quote:
A Russian response by renowned Russian poet Leonid Kornilov:



http://youtu.be/YcTRceGMRHI

Да, вы - крайние, мы – бескрайние.
Но я рядом с тобой стою.
И я знаю, моя украинка,
Каково тебе на краю.
То бросаться на поле дикое,
То – под свастичную броню…
Если хочешь быть – будь «великою»,
Только дай сперва заслоню.
Ты напугана и растеряна
И не те говоришь слова;
Только грудью своей простреленной
Дай прикрою тебя сперва.
Я всегда это делал вовремя.
Но теперь времена не те.
И в когтях полосатых воронов
Ты не чувствуешь их когтей.
И забыла про наших пращуров.
И кричат в тебе боль и страх.
Мы с тобою - «родня не зрячая»,
Потому что глаза в слезах.
Но, обиду смахнув украдкою,
Я тебя к груди притяну,
И за счастье твоё, украинка,
Я пойду на твою войну.
Ты нашла во мне виноватого.
Я желаю тебе добра.
Никогда ты не станешь братом мне,
Потому что ты мне – сестра.


So far there is no online English translation so I'll try to do it myself later in the day.



Complete translation with rhythm intact by none other than yours truly:


Extreme yes you are, indeed we are vast,
I till forever, by you stand steadfast,

Ukraine dearest, no need for a wedge,
I know your heart, when pushed to the edge,

you threw yourself, upon the wild fields,
burning in woe, beneath Nazi shields,

you wish to be great, we wish you the same,
completely with love, in essence and name,

Yet now you are lost, lament you in fear,
use words of slander, our foes draw near,

And with my chest bare, I’ll blanket you first,
take all the bullets, our enemies cursed,

I’ve always done this, come to your aid,
now I have failed you, you feel betrayed.

The crows have come, their claws you feel not,
camouflaged they come, in pretty bright spots,

forgotten you have, our ancestors brave,
who now scream in pain, and turn in their grave,

blood relatives we, forgotten our years,
our vision is blurred, our eyes full of tears,

yet swiftly will I, wipe your face clean,
embrace you once more, together we’ll gleam,

and for your gladness, I’ll fight in your wars,
if that’s what it takes, to be one once more,

you’ve found in me faults, I wish you the best,
declare me guilty, regardless you’re blessed,

if one thing is true, we’ll never be brothers,
you’ll always be my, favourite sister!


Listening to him recite it in Russian made me cry a few times. I wish every Ukrainian and Russian had half the brain of this man. Bless you Leonid Kornilov.
Last edited by Yeqon on 15 Aug 2014, 14:27, edited 2 times in total.
Image


The great art of life is sensation; to feel that you exist, even in pain.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 15 Aug 2014, 14:10
Looks like Putin's trucks are half empty.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 16 Aug 2014, 11:26
"Eat Dutch vegetables" campaign:

Image


There aren't enough
in the world to describe how I'm feeling right now.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 21 Aug 2014, 06:54
So I guess a super-brief update. Half of the Ukrainian army's deployed mechanized and aeromobile brigades have been destroyed or are basically just battalions, currently 2 (1st tank and 90th aeromobile) are involved in the storming of Lugansk and are in a bad position as the rebels are starting to win. The 17th tank, 51st mechanized and 95th aeromobile are involved in the storming of Lugansk which is not going well either. There is also the 93rd brigade somewhere in the west. There are also 2 mechanized brigades, one near Odessa and one near Kharkov that are not deployed because their loyalty is very shaky and could also lead to unrest in those cities. The 24th, 30th and 72nd mechanized brigades and 79th aeromobile have been essentially destroyed, the 25th aeromobile is still kicking somehow. The rest of the "military" is national guard battalions led by random people from maidan enthusiasts to politicians under the auspices of the ministry of internal affairs.

In the next 7 days or so, the fate of Novorossia will probably be sealed. The Ukrainian government forces seem to be preparing a tank rush on Donetsk for after Independence Day on August 24, which it seems will happen whether they are able to surround it or not. They also have pretty much no aviation left, so this is a hypothetical turnaround point for the war. At this point it looks like the situation will become a catastrophe for government forces by October.

Also, there have been unconfirmed reports that rebels have as many as 130 tanks and armored vehicles, to the Ukrainian army's mobilized 500 and similar numbers for other military hardware such as artillery and multiple rocket launcher systems, so the gap is no longer as total as a few months ago.

Also, as you probably know, Strelkov was retired last week and a unified command consisting of locals was put in, as well as a central command center near the Russian border. I wish there were more videos, but we will probably see them in the next few days as there's a lot of action going on now.
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 21 Aug 2014, 11:55
So based on what you know the rebels will repel the Ukrainian army, or simply hold out against them indefinitely? And they will be able to hold on to both Donetsk and Lugansk?
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3822
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 21 Aug 2014, 13:05
They will hold. Once winter starts the Junta, without gas, troop morale and in default, should collapse.
Besides, there's also some kind of uprising in the west - at the border with Romania (or was it Hungary?)


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.