and so it begins... Ukraine crisis: Another police building seized in east http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27005783 Pro-Russia militants have taken over a police headquarters in the eastern Ukraine city of Kramatorsk, local media and witnesses say. This followed a gun battle with the police defending the building as the attackers stormed it. Several other official buildings were reported to have been seized in Donetsk region on Saturday. The confrontations come amid rising tension between the new government and pro-Russia protesters. Eastern Ukraine has a large Russian-speaking population and has seen a series of protests since the ousting of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in February. The new government in Kiev accuses Moscow of orchestrating the unrest in eastern Ukraine. But Russia denies responsibility. We are not Ukrainian troops, we are people's militia. We have risen up to drive away the corrupt Kiev police” Amid mounting concern about the situation, US Secretary of State John Kerry called his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. Mr Lavrov said Ukraine was "demonstrating its inability to take responsibility for the fate of the country". He warned that any use of force against Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine would undermine the "potential for co-operation", which included talks in Geneva next week. It has also been announced that US Vice President Joe Biden is to travel to Ukraine in 10 days' time., A Kramatorsk-based website said the attackers arrived in the city in two buses at around 1900 local (1600GMT) on Saturday and seized the police department after an exchange of fire lasting several minutes. There had been no casualties and the flag of the Donetsk Republic had been raised at the building, the Voctochnyy Proyek site said. The attackers, toting assault rifles and wearing camouflage and masks, introduced themselves as fighters of the "people's militia" and addressed residents, the report said. "We are not Ukrainian troops, we are people's militia. We are the people who have risen up to drive away the corrupt Kiev police," the attackers said. Video clips running on Ukraine's Hromadske TV appear to show scenes at dusk outside the police building at Kramatorsk, with people gathered on nearby streets watching. At one point in the unverified video clips, loud and prolonged firing can be heard. Earlier, the acting Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, had written on his Facebook page that an attack involving shooting was under way in Kramatorsk. Trouble continued in several towns and cities on Saturday despite the Kiev government setting a deadline of Friday for all occupations to end. In other incidents: Gunmen occupied a police station and a security services building in the town of Sloviansk Official buildings in the town of Druzhkovka were also reported to have been taken over An attack on police buildings in Krasny Liman late on Saturday was repelled, officials said A Donetsk regional police chief quit after pro-Russia crowds marched on a police station demanding his resignation. Protesters in Donetsk city continued to occupy government buildings, demanding a referendum on becoming part of Russia. In the attack in the town of Sloviansk, dozens of unidentified armed men in camouflage uniform seized the police station and security service premises. The aim of the attack at the police station - according to the Interior Ministry - was to seize arms as some 40 automatic rifles and 400 pistols were stored there along with ammunition. But a member of the group involved in the Sloviansk seizure said they wanted to fight people who represented the "illegal authorities" of interim President Oleksandr Turchynov, according to a video posted on YouTube. Interviewed in Russian, the man said they represented the People's Front of Donbass - the industrial Donets Basin region in eastern Ukraine. He said those involved were peaceful Donbass residents and "not fascists". The acting interior minister has promised a "very tough" response.
harassment tactics Russian TV Propagandists Caught Red-Handed: Same Guy, Three Different People (Spy, Bystander, Heroic Surgeon) http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod...ifferent-people-spy-bystander-heroic-surgeon/ Three different channels have featured interviews with one Andrei Petkov, lying wounded in a hospital in the south Ukrainian city of Nikolayev. In the three interviews, he is identified by name. He is on his back in a hospital bed, describing his experiences in the previous evening’s violence, which left him with serious wounds. Petkov is dressed in a black outfit, his nose bandaged. In each interview, he speaks softly, but with earnest conviction. He cuts a sympathetic and credible figure. The problem is that Andrei Petkov is a different person in each interview! .......... Apparently Russian viewers want to believe these fairy tales. They want to think their country is in the right. They want to be proud of their country. Accordingly, they make ideal subjects for Big Lie propaganda. I do not know how they will feel when they eventually learn the truth. sounds like FAUX, sorta funny they would say that on Forbes
That's way worse than fox news. It's disgusting... and like I've said many times before in this thread - their people fall for it, they believe it and they support Putin because of it and changing their mind would be even more difficult than changing a die hard tea partiers mind here in the states. This is the type of propaganda Hitler & company put out there when invading Poland. It's so very concerning.
Here's some excerpts from an excellent column by Robin Niblett, director of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. He compares the strategies of China and Russia with regard to their neighbors. Chinese apologists will be pleased with the read, because China comes off quite favorably in the comparison, as the gentle reader will see if he/she bothers reading it. And it's worth reading, in my humble opinion, by those interested in current foreign affairs. The West must not blame itself for Putin's revanchism By Robin Niblett, Special to CNN (CNN) -- There is a growing belief among many in the West that Europe and the United States provoked President Putin into annexing Crimea. Moscow's reaction to NATO expansion and to the EU's efforts to bring Ukraine into its orbit was, it is said, inevitable. In this view, Western leaders backed Putin into a corner and, with the situation worsening in eastern Ukraine, it is time we gave him an exit plan. Interestingly, this is the prevalent view in Southeast Asia, a region not lacking a large and assertive neighbor of its own. In Singapore last week, several prominent figures told me Southeast Asia is managing better the challenge of a resurgent China than Europe is a re-assertive Russia. But this is a misleading comparison. China and Russia present entirely different propositions to their neighbors. (where you see a row of dots, I've cut some material for brevity. You should read what I cut!) ............ Most importantly, China is ever more deeply integrated economically with its neighbors across East Asia, serving as an essential engine of regional economic growth. From a Chinese perspective, the rising tide lifts all boats. Neighbors that are economically strong support China's growth. Given its relative size, China's political influence will only grow as a result. 'Law of jungle' The contrast between this approach and that of President Putin could not be starker. Putin appears to see the world through a unique prism of winner takes all and loser loses everything. He represents a 19th century "law of the jungle" mentality, in the words of Angela Merkel. This makes Russia an altogether more dangerous neighbor. As tends to be the case with bad neighbors, Russia's belligerence stems from problems at home. Despite recent high global oil prices, Putin presides over an economy in reverse. Russia's current account surplus was already projected to have disappeared this year, before the crisis over Ukraine. Capital outflows amounted to $63 billion last year, a figure at least matched in the first quarter of 2014. In the meantime, growth is projected to fall in 2014 to 0.6% according to Russian figures, after achieving only 1.3% in 2013. Like Xi, Putin has tightened his control over the media and political opposition. But rather than accompanying political tightening with economic reform, his government has side-stepped market-opening commitments made as part of Russia's WTO accession. And rather than tackling ever-deepening corruption, he has continued to hand his close allies the choicest parts of the Russian economy through Kremlin-led corporate mergers and lucrative concessions. Regionally, Putin's notion of national security is to surround Russia with what Karel de Gucht, the EU Trade Commissioner, recently described as a string of economic "black holes" (such as Ukraine and Belarus) and "frozen conflicts" (including in Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia). These areas remain dependent upon Russia for their economic survival and constitute a further hindrance to Russian economic growth. Where China recognizes the necessity of a stable neighborhood, Putin has manufactured a volatile and vulnerable one. Nor does he show any interest in exiting this spiral. Having failed with economic coercion, he is now also resorting to political and military coercion to prevent Ukraine from escaping Russia's economic stranglehold. ........... If the choice now is between trying to bring President Putin gradually in from the cold, or containing his worst instincts towards Russia's European neighbors, the latter is the only rational answer. Europe and the United States should not accept the way Crimea was annexed into Russia, and should be prepared and willing to apply major economic sanctions should Putin raise the stakes again over Ukraine or Transnistria. Over time, Ukraine should be integrated into EU markets through the completion of the Association Agreement along with substantial financial support. There can be no return for Putin to the G8 or business-as-usual in NATO until Russian economic and military threats against its European neighbors are lifted and a mutually acceptable solution is found to Crimea's status. Putin's actions are not a response to European and American provocations. He has painted himself into a corner with a combination of strategic paranoia, dreams of Russian revanche and economic illiteracy. As it seeks to present a strong and united response, the West can ill afford to blame itself. http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/12/opinion/ukraine-putin-niblett/index.html
And this is why you can never try to negotiate or work with Putin. He views the US as an enemy. Always has, always will: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/f1ufDdr85hk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The War has Officially Started and by the way "pro russian forces" are simply just special Russian forces planted by Moscow. Now that Ukraine is using force, Moscow will send in the troops to "protect Russians". All part of the plan. Ukraine to fight pro-Russia forces http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27011605 Ukraine's president says a full-scale operation involving the army will be launched in the east after pro-Russian militants seized government buildings. Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov said he would not allow a repetition of what happened in Crimea which was annexed by Russia last month. His live televised address from parliament came after pro-Russian forces targeted half a dozen cities. Earlier, Nato's secretary general voiced concern at events in the region. And the US ambassador to the UN said the attacks this weekend bore the "tell-tale signs of Moscow's involvement." But the Kremlin denies involvement in events in eastern Ukraine. Early on Sunday Ukrainian authorities said they launched an "anti-terror operation" after armed men took over the city of Sloviansk. A Ukrainian officer was killed in a gun battle in the city, and there are reports the Ukrainian operation has been halted. But both sides suffered a number of casualties, interim Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said. Eastern Ukraine has a large Russian-speaking population and has seen a series of protests since the ousting of Ukraine's pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in February. 'Sowing discord' "We will not allow Russia to repeat the Crimean scenario in the eastern regions of Ukraine," said President Turchynov. "The aggressor... is continuing to sow disorder in the east of the country." But Mr Turchynov offered not to prosecute militants who gave up their weapons by early Monday. Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen's statement on Sunday drew parallels with some aspects of last month's seizure of Crimea. He said the "reappearance of men with specialised Russian weapons and identical uniforms without insignia, as previously worn by Russian troops during Russia's illegal and illegitimate seizure of Crimea, is a grave development". A Nato source told the BBC the organisation believed that "Russian forces have been involved in the seizure of some of the buildings". And the US ambassador to the UN said the attacks on police and other buildings in eastern Ukraine had "telltale signs of Moscow's involvement". "It's professional, co-ordinated. Nothing grass-roots about it," ambassador Samantha Power told ABC News. "The forces are doing in each of the six or seven cities they have been active in exactly the same thing." Turning violent On Saturday, armed men took over police stations and official buildings in Sloviansk, Kramatorsk and Druzhkivka. Similar accounts emerged of armed men dressed in camouflage arriving in buses in Sloviansk and Kramatorsk and storming the police stations. BBC reporters in Sloviansk said the gunmen were well-organised and quickly established control throughout the town. Checkpoints had been set up on the main roads into the town.
They would never have used them. The spectre of NATO in a European war is the strategic equivalent, in that it would be economic chaos and mutually assured destruction for a generation. Putin is managing his internal politics using the Ukraine as a nationalist rallying cry. He won't push it to war. That would be stupid.
He's already started a war. pretty one sided though. Because if Ukraine responds it would be like:"hey world, look, Ukraine strated the war. They attacked peaceful separatists, which are formed from local residents, not from our secret agents and army units". Wake up people, Russian's army has already on eastern Ukraine, taking lands step by step, pushing Ukraine, and once it responds, whole army will enter.
When you see tanks, missiles and airplanes killing people, that's war. Psyops and harassment just keeps the tension up. Madman Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory not war:
The article highlights the key difference between the PRC and Russia is that the PRC place a far greater emphasis on economic development than Russia. While Russia has sought to develop it's economy it pretty much allowed a criminal ogliarchy to do it. The PRC also values stability to a huge extent. It is because of those reasons why I highly doubt they will go to war with Japan or with the US and one of the reasons why they haven't tried to invade Taiwan. There is too much at stake regarding economic development.
I agree with Dubious that they probably wouldn't have used them and there was a lot of pressure from the west anyway to give them up. Also given how much it cost to maintain a nuclear program it is doubtful that the Ukrainians would've wanted to spend the money to keep aging Soviet nukes in functioning condition, especially when probably neither Russia or the West would want to give them money to do so.
They may not have used them, but do you think Russia would have just annexed Ukrainian territory if they had a bunch of nukes pointed at Russia? History to date has a perfect record on this. No nation with ICBM's has ever lost any territory to external aggression. In fact, no nuclear power has ever even been invaded by another country. Considering Ukraine's history with Russia, I was very surprised they gave up their arsenal. A very naive decision that is rearing its head today.
It's hypothetical anyway, but no, I don't think the Western world would bring about the destruction of the planet over Crimea. It was always defacto Russia, everyone knew that. The Crimea was Putin's knee-jerk reaction to losing influence in the Ukraine. He had to make a move so as to not look impotent and vulnerable internally. It was easy and the outcome was always inevitable.
Maybe, it depends on about how much Putin would know about the state of Ukraine's nukes. The point though I was mainly making was that even without the threat of Russia it is very unlikely Ukraine would've kept their nukes. There was too much pressure from many sectors for them to do so. Also just to add nuclear countries have had territory invaded. The PRC, USSR, and India have all had territory that they claimed occupied by one or other since they have had nukes.
China's invasion of India pre-dated it's ability to launch an ICBM. It is in fact one of the drivers of India's ballistic nuke program (although obviously Pakistan was the major one). Not sure who invaded the USSR/PRC though since their development of ICBMs. Are you sure about that? My point here isn't that Nukes are a safeguard against these types of foreign incursions (we already know they are), but that if Russia does annex territory successfully here no nation will ever completely disarm their nuclear capability.
The PRC had border dispute last year where they moved into Indian territory. The dispute was resolved diplomatically but there have been border incursions during the time period that both countries have been nuclear powers. I've noticed you're saying ICBM's instead of just nukes. Keep in mind that for any of the major nuclear powers they have had multiple delivery systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict The Chinese and Russians fought a border conflict in 1969 when both had already developed nuclear weapons years before. There was some fear that this conflict would turn nuclear. [rquoter]Heightened tensions raised the prospect of a nuclear war between China and the Soviet Union.[4] In the early 1960s, the United States had "probed" the level of Soviet interest in joint action against Chinese nuclear weapons facilities; now the Soviets probed what the United States' reaction would be if the USSR attacked the facilities[/rquoter] That is fairly speculative. There are many other factors involved with keeping nukes besides territorial integrity. Ukraine is also an unusual case in that the nukes were placed their by the Soviet Union and not developed themselves. So even if they had kept the nukes they night not have the technical expertise to use them, Russia might've just kept the triggers while leaving the warheads.
It is far harder to stop an ICBM or SLBM than a bomber. A big reason for diplomatic resolution is because both countries are nuclear powers. If you look at what China does with the Spratley Islands and Tibet, there's a strong correlation between occupation and not having nukes. Again, I am not sure what China's first strike capability was in 1969. It was a different landscape in nuclear politics, but I would also point out that a border conflict does not constitute an invasion. Territorial integrity is one of the main reasons for countries obtaining nukes - it is often the reason sited. Nuclear arms for the most part have been a defensive strategy - based on the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Judo, I just wanted to point out that the incursion by China into Indian territory was a very minor incident, given the long history between the two countries. A handful of Chinese troops marched into what they (naturally) view as Chinese territory, set up a little camp, pissed off the Indians (whom are justifiably sensitive about their country being invaded, regardless of the small numbers involved, just as we would be), and then withdrew back to China after the fuss. It was nothing like the huge incursions of decades past, when large numbers of troops were involved on both sides, with India at the time simply being outclassed militarily. It's one of the reasons why they are so intent on becoming a superpower in their own right. Honestly, I'm beginning to think that Pakistan is seen as far less of a threat to Indian sovereignty than China is, looking long term. That's probably a topic for a different thread, however. -
