Crisis in the Ukraine

It seems this Kiev tank wasn't hit but the driver crashed it on the tank trap.

"Ukrainian tank with the words "In Moscow" struck the post with the words "No War."
On the track at the entrance to the tank Mariupol Ukrainian armed forces, with the inscription on the armor "In Moscow" crashed into a concrete hedgehog, on which was written "No War" . Video footage of the broken fighting vehicle hit the Internet. According to reporters, the tank was not hit, the accident was caused by the driver."

Sputnik said:

Ukraine: 'Bound for Moscow' - wrecked Kiev tank found near Mariupol
[video=youtube;PYD6SxOiOME]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYD6SxOiOME[/video]

Click to expand...

Jura said:

did you, SampanViking?

Me loosing an argument on the SDF is of course the least of the problems of this world and personally, as I said before, I like to argue in the pub, so ... I've lost some arguments before Nevertheless, I went backwards through some of the sources you used, and also read Ukrainian unofficial military articles which already started "armchair-generaling" and "second-guessing" on the July-August Campaign. I did it because I like to think about "what the side which lost should've done differently" in any conflict (if I hope I have enough data) -- but I know some people consider this type of thinking ridiculous ... I wonder how it is in this thread, so I'll only briefly mention my "conjecture" or "private investigation" (I could include more links if you insisted):
the Separatists were in "an operational crisis" until about the time when

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

was ousted (together with groups which wouldn't accept "Central Command and Control" like

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)
and after that, they
1) started to prepare counter-offensive (I missed

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

showing the salient around Uspenka (Успенка -- the southernmost point on this map) created in mid August -- why go "out of the defense line"??) and
2) created battle reserves by calling off units from "more secure" sectors; there's another "factor", which is of the direct Russian involvement at this point, but I intentionally skip this right now. However, the Ukrainian forces basically didn't react to the above, and became predictable in the sense they would slowly push in the directions at which they had been deployed, and that (limited!) reserves they had would only be used locally. I stop my long post at this point, and you may tell me what you think.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed I did and very nice it was too, but I would hardly call our preceding discussion an argument. I certainly believe you are a pub debater as such tend to have a genial aspect (Pub trolling would afte rall be a short journey to major tooth loss and nose reshaping!)

To be honest, retrospective threads are never that satisfying in the final analysis, but I will try and identify the key failings in the Ukrainian campaign

1) Starting the punitive action in the first place. The initial situation was not irredeemable via negotiation and most of the population up until May would have preferred greater autonomy over Independence. Had the government recognised genuine grievance and negotiated in good faith, a popular deal could quickly have been struck and the real separatist minority, isolated out of the process as unrepresentative.

This is of course has now changed completely after 3 months of full scale warfare and especially considering the conduct of the Pro Kiev side in their operation, popular opinion is never going to support continued integration with the rest of Ukraine.

It is the above more than anything that convinces me that the object of "High Command" was to provoke Russia into overt military intervention.

I strongly suspect that the deal offered by Nuland to Yats and Co was something like this. "Reconquering the Donbass is not the objective, but provoking Putin into direct confrontation is. Forget the Donbass, its gone so wreck it, get Putin mad and we will take care of many of your other problems and make sure that no further territory is lost". That of course is why it is such a disaster for Kiev not to succeed in provoking Putin. The Donbass is lost, but there is no help and no guarantee in limiting territory loss, as Nuland & Co are happy to "lose" all Ukraine if that is what it takes to provoke Putin eventually.

2) National Armies want to defend the nation against external enemies and very few soldiers feel comfortable fighting a civil war. It seems that very few Ukrainian regulars believe in the campaign or trust Senior command (most of which remember is new, with the old command purged by the Maidan Installed Government). It is no surprise that much of the fighting was left to the headbangers of the private brigades.
The truth is that after the retreat from Slavyansk, the Ukrainians really did not make much real progress and won none of the decisive battles through July/August.

Put together, I hope you see that an extra Brigade here or an Artillery Regiment here is going to make very little difference, especially when the military objectives are not conventional battlefield objectives and the enemy are the ones that really believe in what they are fighting for and trust their leadership.

Will the CeaseFire hold?
It may shake and sway but it could last.
If all sides want it, they will tolerate even major violations, if they do not they will use the slightest excuse to jetison it. So far it looks promising.

It may of course simply be about both sides resting and regrouping.
Both sides may also have a desire to see those forces in the various cauldrons withdrawn from NRA held territory for mutually obvious reasons.

An interesting read.

Russian 'Soldiers Mothers Committees' -- a US Covert Op?

A major component in the latest western government and media claims of a Russian invasion of Ukraine is protests of the various Russian "Soldiers' Mothers Committes" over the supposed disappearance of their soldier sons in Ukraine. Absent compelling visual evidence of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, these NGOs are said to provide the evidence that, as NATO claims, 1,000 young Russians have been forced to go fight in Ukraine.

The US mainstream media has reported extensively over the past several days that these "Soldiers' Mothers Committes" are a smoking gun indicating the Russian government's military intervention in Ukraine.

From the Washington Post on 29 August:
Valentina Melnikova, who leads the Soldiers’ Mothers Committee, told the Daily Beast she was “personally humiliated as a citizen of the Russian Federation by our commander-in-chief’s pure, direct crime.” She said Russian President Vladimir Putin is “violating not only international laws, not only the Geneva Convention, [he] also is breaking Russian Federation law about defense. And as for the [Russian airborne commander], we should be too disgusted to even mention his name. He forces his servicemen to fight in a foreign state, Ukraine, illegally, while mothers receive coffins with their sons, anonymously.”
Here is the Daily Kos:
Here are some "known knowns" about Russians and Ukraine. Russian troops are in Ukraine. Russian troops have died in Ukraine. Russian mothers can't get answers about where their sons are. Add to that common knowledge a new, unsettling "known" that Russian soldiers, most just boys, are being buried in secret graveyards far from families who can only guess their fate.
But are these committees really just innocent NGOs that seek to defend young Russian soldiers being sent off to fight in foreign lands? Or are they well-financed and trained arms of US propaganda used to bolster Washington's line that Russia has invaded Ukraine?

The US government has in the past been generous in funding the Russian Soldiers' Mothers Committes. In a 2011 report of the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, we learn that the US government granted the Committees more than $150,000. In 2010 they received approximately the same amount from the US government, and in 2009 they received nearly $200,000.

We cannot tell how much the US government has funded these organization in more recent years because the NED, which demands transparency in others, refuses to publish a list of its grantees any longer.

It is certainly possible that these Committees, which were initially formed to help Russians avoid conscription, have not been co-opted into serving as a propaganda tool for the US government. However the fact that they have long accepted US government money and are now a key component of Washington's propaganda strategy may suggest otherwise. The Soldiers' Mothers Committees were required last year under Russian law to register as foreign agents due to US government funding of their operations.


Copyright © 2014 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Cassad has an interesting write on the current ceasefire and why it happened. He also talked briefly about the politics behind it and the hand of Moscow that lead to the peace talk with the attendant arm twisting of the militias. The sacking of senior leaders of the militia and govt was to pave the way to put in people who are wiling to negotiate. Humanitarian aid was one of the prize Putin dangled to the militias to go to the negotiation table.
Putin and his oligarchies wanted a settlement to delay the new EU sanctions that can destroy their wealth. Because of this, US was not involved in this ceasefire.
What he wrote I can accept as it's all about big business politics at the expense of the people's aspiration.

Cassad wrote the peace talk is just part of the stage play and it's doomed to failure as peace at that price is not acceptable to US at all. Which is the disgrace of Russia and Putin and the tie-up of Ukraine to the west forever. Goading the Russians into a direct intervention was also one of US' aims. (SampanViking this seems to support your POV)
Hence, the present acceptance of the militia as equal negotiation partners is not acceptable to US agenda.

The hostilities will resume and the militia are prepared for that. The final outcome will not be good for Putin nor Kiev as the militia will want to go all the way, Russia and sanctions are not their concern.

US to supply modern weapons to Ukraine. Seems upping the ante to the arms race over there. Perhaps we will also see the militias with just as modern weapons to fight the Kiev forces with. Another ideology proxy war is starting there, and as usual, the people are the ultimate losers.

SampanViking said:

Yes indeed I did and very nice it was too, but I would hardly call our preceding discussion an argument. I certainly believe you are a pub debater as such tend to have a genial aspect (Pub trolling would afte rall be a short journey to major tooth loss and nose reshaping!)

Click to expand...

it's very easy to ignore a Troll at some Internet forum, though

SampanViking said:

To be honest, retrospective threads are never that satisfying in the final analysis, but ...

Click to expand...

I hear you, I quit talking here about "what I see in hindsight" LOL

EDIT
For those who know Russian, and wouldn't consider it a fake: "Strelkov" posted at VKontakte today!


EDIT AGAIN
some interesting "what if":

The website of my favorite radio station published this afternoon, at 4:30 GMT, a notice that official sources at NATO have said that US, France, Italy, Poland and Norway will NOT supply weapons to Kiev.

They really don't need to. Other then sophisticated systems the Ukraine was Russia's cold war arms locker. and that that was not built in joint with Russia was produced at home.

delft said:

The website of my favorite radio station published this afternoon, at 4:30 GMT, a notice that official sources at NATO have said that US, France, Italy, Poland and Norway will NOT supply weapons to Kiev.

Click to expand...

not really surprised. since the ceasefire is still in effect, it is really hard to justify such provocative moves. but i dont know if they will change their minds in case hostility recommences.

Still don't see the MH17 report. How much the West has been spinning?