Crisis in the Ukraine

Jura said:

maybe but are you aware of the part of SampanViking's post I reacted to? It's (sorry, there must a better technique available for quoting but I don't know it

"
...
We were even told that the aforementioned elements were being put into place and that before long, as the Ukrainian army runs out of steam before our eyes, that a Counter offensive would be launched.

Well, this is exactly what has happened as predicted and as expected and straight away, we are told that have to believe that its all down to the Russians!

I cannot believe that anyone here would be fool enough to believe such nonsense.

..."

so I've said I'm "fool enough" ... because I think the current Separatists' Offensive wouldn't have happened without the Russian "aid" (I'm not going to go into any play of words around intervention/invasion http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/members-club-room/crisis-ukraine-52-6939.html#post302675), is all

Click to expand...

I think you're misunderstanding the point here. Sampan is responding to the NATO narrative that the recent rebel counter-offensive was due to an outright Russian military invasion. Western media is trumpeting this narrative because for the past two months, they've been reporting that the Kiev regime forces were winning. Now that they're forced to abandon that narrative, they are using the idea of a Russian invasion to explain their inconsistency.

Sampan is pointing out that unlike the typical Western media consumer, we've been following the development of this conflict throughout, and the counter-offensive has been predicted weeks ago. There is no need to create a Russian invasion to explain the rebels' "sudden" success.

solarz said:

I think you're misunderstanding the point here. ...

Click to expand...

no problem and thank you, that's why I log into the SDF to hear several more theories of what is actually going on ... right now I wonder if Mariupol will hold/fall as I'm thinking about that scary Russian article I quoted in http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/members-club-room/crisis-ukraine-53-6939.html#post302737
and I realized it also said the Russians increased their presence in Ukraine to avert the defeat of Separatists

Jura said:

no problem and thank you, that's why I log into the SDF to hear several more theories of what is actually going on ... right now I wonder if Mariupol will hold/fall as I'm thinking about that scary Russian article I quoted in http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/members-club-room/crisis-ukraine-53-6939.html#post302737
and I realized it also said the Russians increased their presence in Ukraine to avert the defeat of Separatists

Click to expand...

If Russian soldiers suddenly start occupying Mariupol, then that would be a sharp escalation. However, barring overt NATO intervention in the conflict, I don't believe this will happen. If Russia wanted to intervene directly, they would've done so when the rebels were hard-pressed. If we didn't see it happen then, why would we be seeing it happen now?

In fact, I don't believe the rebels would want to push that far. Despite the counter-offensive, Donetsk is still under siege. Stretching themselves too thin would be a mistake at this point.

The strategic objectives of the rebels is not to capture territory, but to show the Kiev regime, and their own people, that they are able to defend their declaration of independence.

It's also interesting that, despite their mottos of freedom and self-determination from the West, they have thrown their lot with a regime that had sent its military in to crush a popular independence movement.

I honestly don't know if I'm watching the "wrong" western media, but I don't feel like they ran a story line the way it is purported here.

When I turned on TV or read online newspapers it was more or less consistent. Over the past weeks, the Ukranians were reported to be making slow and costfull gains around Luhansk and Donetsk, capturing a few important places here and there. It was also reported that at least parts of the ukrainian troops were in rather poor material condition.
While ukrainian claims over surrounding the big cities were reported, it was generally stated this could not be verified and it was asked how the aid convoy could go in and out unopposed without consent.
Then there were reports about renewed russian interferance, with the ukrainians loosing ground again. While a russian invasion was a possibility for a few days after initial reports, it's now mostly unofficial russian material & personal support.

If anything, general media reports may have been lagging somewhat, but I don't feel it were outrigh lies.

I believe an unstable ukraine, or even better a pro-russian rebels controlled (south)east Ukraine is well within russian interets right now, and they're actively supporting the rebels with heavy weapons, training and even military personall that is "on leave".
While this is not an open russian invasion, it certainly is a - rather less covert by now - russian intervention.
The russian government is very actively trying to shape the flow of events there and doesn't stop short of having military personal and equipment change the balance.

Scratch said:

I honestly don't know if I'm watching the "wrong" western media, but I don't feel like they ran a story line the way it is purported here.

Click to expand...

Western media coverage of the crisis was/is complete B.S. I'm not talking about who is right and who is wrong - everybody has their own favorite side. I'm talking about basic ability to cover important events, changing front lines, encirclements etc. You would find much better information on this forum and on Internet in general, then in media .

I'm not saying that media reporting was perfectly accurate, and I'm well aware that there's generaly better information available on the internet if you're taking the time and effort to look for it.
What I do challange though, is the "complete B.S." notion. Because, again, what I have seen isn't that far off from what is being said here.
And also, what is being said by the other side challanging "western media" isn't the full truth per se, just because it's the opposite. Sometimes I feel a little bit like that notion is in there as well, however.

thunderchief said:

Western media coverage of the crisis was/is complete B.S. I'm not talking about who is right and who is wrong - everybody has their own favorite side. I'm talking about basic ability to cover important events, changing front lines, encirclements etc. You would find much better information on this forum and on Internet in general, then in media .

Click to expand...

Knowing that for many users here only 'good' sources are RT and 'Colonel Cassad' webpage I wouldn't go blaming anyone when you do the same thing but from the opposite side...

Janiz said:

Knowing that for many users here only 'good' sources are RT and 'Colonel Cassad' webpage I wouldn't go blaming anyone when you do the same thing but from the opposite side...

Click to expand...

RT didn't do very good job either, although they had some interesting videos confirming news .

As for Colonel Cassad and similar, like them or not, they didn't lie about factual situation on the ground. Despite being on rebel's side, Cassad gives cautious predictions about outcome of operations.

------

Btw, rebels claim they have shoot down 4 Su-25 last night . We shall see.

Donetsk militias shoot down four Ukrainian assault planes

DONETSK, August 29. /ITAR-TASS/. The army of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic shot down four Ukrainian Su-25 assault planes on Friday, the army headquarters said.

Two Ukrainian assault planes were about to bomb the Donetsk army positions when the militias shot them down from portable anti-aircraft missile complexes. The militias shot down another two Su-25 planes near the settlements of Voikovo and Merezhki, the militia headquarters said.

Click to expand...

Huh?



MOSCOW - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed Friday that NATO satellite pictures showing Russian military involvement in Ukraine had "turned out to be from computer games." Speaking on Russia 24 television, Lavrov said that the West had produced "no facts" to support its accusations that separatists in eastern Ukraine had been joined by Russian forces.

On Thursday, NATO released images it said showed that Russian combat troops had crossed into Ukraine. The images, some taken as recently as Aug. 21, purportedly depict Russian self-propelled artillery units moving in a convoy through Ukraine and then establishing "firing positions" in Krasnodon, just outside the Russian border. On Friday, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Russian troops are involved in "direct military operations" inside its smaller neighbor.

Scratch said:

I'm not saying that media reporting was perfectly accurate, and I'm well aware that there's generaly better information available on the internet if you're taking the time and effort to look for it.
What I do challange though, is the "complete B.S." notion. Because, again, what I have seen isn't that far off from what is being said here.
And also, what is being said by the other side challanging "western media" isn't the full truth per se, just because it's the opposite. Sometimes I feel a little bit like that notion is in there as well, however.

Click to expand...

well if we are talkin about BBC and its pathetic map, then yes that was utter and complete BS, no question about it. that particular site has also neglected to mention much of rebels' significant victories. curiously enough they reported every bit of government troops' advance in detail so we know that the aforementioned omissions were not a result of low priority. anyways i stopped getting my info on the war from BBC because it is BS.

i am usually pretty meticulous about this stuff. when i get words of rebel advance, i will look for hints in reports from ukrainian side that may corroborate such assertion. i dont think anyone here is dumb enough to accredit one particular source as the one that holds all the truth, it really takes some work to figure out where that middle ground is, kinda like researching for a history paper.