Ukraine Revolt/Civil War News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter Jura The idiot
- Start date
So far so good or so it seems, with the Ceasefire largely holding on most fronts.
With that being the case, I would like to share a few thoughts that I have long held regarding the view of the larger founder EU states with respect to the enlargement of the EU.
I have been aware for many years, that the main founder nations of the EU were always more interested in a deeper rather than wider Union and that widening; such as we have today, was the compromise deal forced by the UK in the 90's after deepening was effectively blocked at Mastricht and indeed other subsequent treaties.
I have never been able to accept the idea that countries such as France and Germany, would be prepared to accept the Ukraine into the EU, even if the situation on the Eastern borders was all sweetness and light. The facts (as I have seen them) are that the Ukraine; as an EU member, would be a very large, very populous but very needy country that would have very high voting rights.
In short the inclusion of the Ukraine would rebalance the voting power of the Union firmly towards the East and give a large whip hand to nations that would be the main beneficiaries of spending and support decisions, taking the whip out of the hand of large founder members that would be expected to pick up the bill.
The need of the Ukraine, even before the war, cannot be underestimated, the impact on the costs of the Common Agricultural Policy, the old Coal and Steel community regeneration funds etc would dwarf all that has been seen before!
In short, it has always seemed obvious that to allow in the Ukraine as a unitary state would be as good as economic suicide for the EU. Given also that up until the events of twelve months ago, the existence of the Ukraine of anything other than a Unitary State was unthinkable, it was therefore impossible to believe that the EU would seriously consider absorbing it into the Union.
Of course this has now all changed and the more I really think about the objectives of Merkel and Hollande and the way they have diverged from London and Washington, keeps bringing me back to the Unitary state question.
One of the surprising constants in the arguments from all sides is the apparent recognition that once the Ukraine starts to unpick, that it would not simply shed a piece or two (Crimea and Donbass) but unravel completely and rapidly back; Yugoslavia fashion, into its component parts.
Is this what underlies the meetings in Moscow two weeks ago? the realisation that disintegration was now unavoidable and the best thing was to manage the process and agree who gets what?
From the perspective of Berlin and Paris, this prospect of disintegration must hold many attractive options. Primarily that it reduces the nation to a handy series of bite sized blocks that can be processed and absorbed sequentially, over time and after preparatory work has been completed to lessen the pain of digestion. Some western districts are largely areas of Hungarian, Romanian and indeed Polish speakers and are adjacent to the borders of the respective EU member nations. It would be no stretch to see these incorporate with the "parent" EU state in very short pace of time. Which of course would leave more time to start with the larger Western/Central statelets such as Galicia etc.
Far fetched? well maybe, but when you really think seriously about what Merkel and Putin could meet to discuss and really agree on things that they really want, I cannot find to many other serious or viable alternative options/scenarios that could possibly fit the bill.
With that being the case, I would like to share a few thoughts that I have long held regarding the view of the larger founder EU states with respect to the enlargement of the EU.
I have been aware for many years, that the main founder nations of the EU were always more interested in a deeper rather than wider Union and that widening; such as we have today, was the compromise deal forced by the UK in the 90's after deepening was effectively blocked at Mastricht and indeed other subsequent treaties.
I have never been able to accept the idea that countries such as France and Germany, would be prepared to accept the Ukraine into the EU, even if the situation on the Eastern borders was all sweetness and light. The facts (as I have seen them) are that the Ukraine; as an EU member, would be a very large, very populous but very needy country that would have very high voting rights.
In short the inclusion of the Ukraine would rebalance the voting power of the Union firmly towards the East and give a large whip hand to nations that would be the main beneficiaries of spending and support decisions, taking the whip out of the hand of large founder members that would be expected to pick up the bill.
The need of the Ukraine, even before the war, cannot be underestimated, the impact on the costs of the Common Agricultural Policy, the old Coal and Steel community regeneration funds etc would dwarf all that has been seen before!
In short, it has always seemed obvious that to allow in the Ukraine as a unitary state would be as good as economic suicide for the EU. Given also that up until the events of twelve months ago, the existence of the Ukraine of anything other than a Unitary State was unthinkable, it was therefore impossible to believe that the EU would seriously consider absorbing it into the Union.
Of course this has now all changed and the more I really think about the objectives of Merkel and Hollande and the way they have diverged from London and Washington, keeps bringing me back to the Unitary state question.
One of the surprising constants in the arguments from all sides is the apparent recognition that once the Ukraine starts to unpick, that it would not simply shed a piece or two (Crimea and Donbass) but unravel completely and rapidly back; Yugoslavia fashion, into its component parts.
Is this what underlies the meetings in Moscow two weeks ago? the realisation that disintegration was now unavoidable and the best thing was to manage the process and agree who gets what?
From the perspective of Berlin and Paris, this prospect of disintegration must hold many attractive options. Primarily that it reduces the nation to a handy series of bite sized blocks that can be processed and absorbed sequentially, over time and after preparatory work has been completed to lessen the pain of digestion. Some western districts are largely areas of Hungarian, Romanian and indeed Polish speakers and are adjacent to the borders of the respective EU member nations. It would be no stretch to see these incorporate with the "parent" EU state in very short pace of time. Which of course would leave more time to start with the larger Western/Central statelets such as Galicia etc.
Far fetched? well maybe, but when you really think seriously about what Merkel and Putin could meet to discuss and really agree on things that they really want, I cannot find to many other serious or viable alternative options/scenarios that could possibly fit the bill.
I think that Russia will try to keep Ukraine as federal state without leaving parts to Hungary or Poland but with close cultural connections over the borders. This is already a policy within the EU so Brussels would find it difficult to object. There is also a certain likelihood that the EU will disintegrate in which case Ukraine can be a connection between the Eastern ex-EU countries and the Eurasian union.
This supposes of course that a new government in Kiev will reject the current policies and indeed prosecute the current leaders for war crimes etc.
This supposes of course that a new government in Kiev will reject the current policies and indeed prosecute the current leaders for war crimes etc.
The writer clarified that this is bought by the Ukraine govt from a private UK arms dealer.
But still it is sold off as soon as it landed.
Ukraine Sells Off British Armored Vehicles It Just Received
To presumably circumvent the ban on arms exports at a time like this, the Saxons are being rather implausibly advertised as "Sanitation and Hygiene Equipment."
2/15/2015
By Alex Leshy
Translated from Russian by J.Hawk
The proof is for all here to see. As soon as Kiev received the British AT105 Saxon armored personnel carriers, it promptly put them on sale. I don’t know what business is located at the Borispol Street 9 in Kiev, Ukraine, that’s indicated on the web site. But if it is to be believed, it offers for sale something remarkable, namely a Saxon AT105 tactical police vehicle. If need be, the firm is willing to repaint the vehicle according to the wishes of the purchaser.
No, Ukraine will never be a great power. Granted, the Saxon is a piece of junk. But at a time when a boarded-up truck is considered an armored vehicle at the front, even these wheeled coffins might be of some use. Of how much use, that is another question. But when you on the one hand plead for military assistance all around the world, and on the other you put it up for sale as soon as you receive some is, undeniably, the stuff of which empires are made of. Yes.
J.Hawk’s Comment: Lenin famously said that the “capitalists will sell us the rope to hang them with,” and judging by the goings-on in the Ukraine, capitalism seems to be alive and well there! The Saxons were, interestingly enough, purchased by the Yanukovych government from a private British arms dealer, not the UK government. Still, they are in working order, and they do have certain usefulness, even though their combat qualities are negligible. But yes, this is a prime example of the epic, almost supernatural, Ukrainian corruption which will bring the current “Ukraine project” to a very tragic end. Western governments no doubt have few illusions as to what would happen to whatever assistance, lethal or non-lethal, they sent to Kiev.
But still it is sold off as soon as it landed.
Ukraine Sells Off British Armored Vehicles It Just Received
To presumably circumvent the ban on arms exports at a time like this, the Saxons are being rather implausibly advertised as "Sanitation and Hygiene Equipment."
2/15/2015
By Alex Leshy
Translated from Russian by J.Hawk
The proof is for all here to see. As soon as Kiev received the British AT105 Saxon armored personnel carriers, it promptly put them on sale. I don’t know what business is located at the Borispol Street 9 in Kiev, Ukraine, that’s indicated on the web site. But if it is to be believed, it offers for sale something remarkable, namely a Saxon AT105 tactical police vehicle. If need be, the firm is willing to repaint the vehicle according to the wishes of the purchaser.
No, Ukraine will never be a great power. Granted, the Saxon is a piece of junk. But at a time when a boarded-up truck is considered an armored vehicle at the front, even these wheeled coffins might be of some use. Of how much use, that is another question. But when you on the one hand plead for military assistance all around the world, and on the other you put it up for sale as soon as you receive some is, undeniably, the stuff of which empires are made of. Yes.
J.Hawk’s Comment: Lenin famously said that the “capitalists will sell us the rope to hang them with,” and judging by the goings-on in the Ukraine, capitalism seems to be alive and well there! The Saxons were, interestingly enough, purchased by the Yanukovych government from a private British arms dealer, not the UK government. Still, they are in working order, and they do have certain usefulness, even though their combat qualities are negligible. But yes, this is a prime example of the epic, almost supernatural, Ukrainian corruption which will bring the current “Ukraine project” to a very tragic end. Western governments no doubt have few illusions as to what would happen to whatever assistance, lethal or non-lethal, they sent to Kiev.
Russia today said those Saxons were given by the UK govt as "defense" weapons.
The original was from the Telegraph.
Former British Army Chief Condemns Armored Vehicle Transfer to Ukraine
General Sir Richard Dannatt, former head of the British Army, criticises transfer of "useless" British armoured vehicles to Ukrainian forces
The former head of the British Army has condemned a decision to deliver dozens of redundant British military armoured vehicles to the Ukrainian government as “nothing short of immoral”.
General Sir Richard Dannatt, who served as Chief of the General Staff between 2006 and 2009, said the Saxon armoured vehicles, which the Ukranian military are planning to convert for use in their fight against Russian-backed separatist forces – are “quite useless”.
Ukranian sources said that 20 Saxons have been delivered to Ukraine, with another 55 expected to arrive soon.
Although the Ministry of Defence would not confirm the figures, it said the vehicles, which were transferred to the Ukrainians under a 2013 deal which predates the current conflict, were not equipped with lethal weapons.
It insisted the delivery did not represent an escalation of British involvement in Ukraine.
But Gen Sir Richard, who acted as David Cameron’s defence adviser between November 2009 and the general election in May 2010, said the vehicles should not have been transferred to the Ukranians in the first place, as they were not fit for purpose.
He told The Telegraph: “I took these out of service by the UK Army in 2005/6 as completely unsuitable for current operations, so I find it incredible that they are being sold/gifted to Ukraine. I am incensed by the thought we are supplying, even via a 3rd party, SAXON APCs to the hapless Ukrainians.
“They are quite useless, semi-armoured lorries that should be nowhere near anyone’s front line."
He said that it was "nothing short of immoral” to present the transfer of the vehicles as a "good news story" for the Ukrainians.
Gen Sir Richard added:"My concern is the inadequate nature of these vehicles which I ordered out of British Army front line service when I was Commander in Chief Land Command 2005-2006. They were withdrawn from Iraq and never deployed in southern Afghanistan.
"To suggest that the UK is making a significant gesture of support by supplying vehicles which we took out of service ten years ago, because we deemed them unsafe, seems bizarre at best and downright dangerous at worst."
The Ukranian authorities have made it clear they fully intend to use the vehicles in their struggle against the separatists.
Oleksander Turchynov, Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) Secretary said during a visit to the National Guards Training Center that although the armoured vehicles need some readjustment they would be adapted for the Ukrainian army.
He said: “These Saxons arrived without any armament, we will mount arms which should provide efficient firing cover for the National Guard or other units to which they will be supplied.”
Mr Turchynov added that the vehicles would enter service in the Ukrainian army as soon as they had been tested at a training range.
A MoD spokeswoman said the sale had been organised for some time through the Disposal Services authority, which deals with obsolete military equipment.
She said: “As the foreign secretary has made clear, our policy since the beginning of the crisis has been to supply non-lethal assistance to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. There has been no change to this and we have not provided lethal assistance.
“These vehicles were provided unarmed under a commercial contract, dating to 2013, by a private company. They offer protective mobility to personnel, and are defensive in nature; they are not close combat vehicles.”
Thousands of people have died in almost a year of fighting in the region.
A new ceasefire deal for eastern Ukraine brokered to end the conflict between the Ukrainian army and the rebels is set to begin at midnight on Saturday.
The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has warned Russia will face fresh sanctions from the EU if the deal is not fully implemented,
She said EU leaders had asked officials to prepare further sanctions in case an agreed ceasefire was not respected. The leaders of Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France reached the ceasefire agreement on Thursday, after lengthy talks in Belarus.
Pro-Russian rebels have signed the deal, which also includes weapon withdrawals and prisoner exchanges.
However key issues remain to be settled and clashes between government forces and the rebels continued on Thursday, with one Russian-backed commander said his forces would not stop fighting.
The original was from the Telegraph.
Former British Army Chief Condemns Armored Vehicle Transfer to Ukraine
General Sir Richard Dannatt, former head of the British Army, criticises transfer of "useless" British armoured vehicles to Ukrainian forces
The former head of the British Army has condemned a decision to deliver dozens of redundant British military armoured vehicles to the Ukrainian government as “nothing short of immoral”.
General Sir Richard Dannatt, who served as Chief of the General Staff between 2006 and 2009, said the Saxon armoured vehicles, which the Ukranian military are planning to convert for use in their fight against Russian-backed separatist forces – are “quite useless”.
Ukranian sources said that 20 Saxons have been delivered to Ukraine, with another 55 expected to arrive soon.
Although the Ministry of Defence would not confirm the figures, it said the vehicles, which were transferred to the Ukrainians under a 2013 deal which predates the current conflict, were not equipped with lethal weapons.
It insisted the delivery did not represent an escalation of British involvement in Ukraine.
But Gen Sir Richard, who acted as David Cameron’s defence adviser between November 2009 and the general election in May 2010, said the vehicles should not have been transferred to the Ukranians in the first place, as they were not fit for purpose.
He told The Telegraph: “I took these out of service by the UK Army in 2005/6 as completely unsuitable for current operations, so I find it incredible that they are being sold/gifted to Ukraine. I am incensed by the thought we are supplying, even via a 3rd party, SAXON APCs to the hapless Ukrainians.
“They are quite useless, semi-armoured lorries that should be nowhere near anyone’s front line."
He said that it was "nothing short of immoral” to present the transfer of the vehicles as a "good news story" for the Ukrainians.
Gen Sir Richard added:"My concern is the inadequate nature of these vehicles which I ordered out of British Army front line service when I was Commander in Chief Land Command 2005-2006. They were withdrawn from Iraq and never deployed in southern Afghanistan.
"To suggest that the UK is making a significant gesture of support by supplying vehicles which we took out of service ten years ago, because we deemed them unsafe, seems bizarre at best and downright dangerous at worst."
The Ukranian authorities have made it clear they fully intend to use the vehicles in their struggle against the separatists.
Oleksander Turchynov, Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) Secretary said during a visit to the National Guards Training Center that although the armoured vehicles need some readjustment they would be adapted for the Ukrainian army.
He said: “These Saxons arrived without any armament, we will mount arms which should provide efficient firing cover for the National Guard or other units to which they will be supplied.”
Mr Turchynov added that the vehicles would enter service in the Ukrainian army as soon as they had been tested at a training range.
A MoD spokeswoman said the sale had been organised for some time through the Disposal Services authority, which deals with obsolete military equipment.
She said: “As the foreign secretary has made clear, our policy since the beginning of the crisis has been to supply non-lethal assistance to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. There has been no change to this and we have not provided lethal assistance.
“These vehicles were provided unarmed under a commercial contract, dating to 2013, by a private company. They offer protective mobility to personnel, and are defensive in nature; they are not close combat vehicles.”
Thousands of people have died in almost a year of fighting in the region.
A new ceasefire deal for eastern Ukraine brokered to end the conflict between the Ukrainian army and the rebels is set to begin at midnight on Saturday.
The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has warned Russia will face fresh sanctions from the EU if the deal is not fully implemented,
She said EU leaders had asked officials to prepare further sanctions in case an agreed ceasefire was not respected. The leaders of Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France reached the ceasefire agreement on Thursday, after lengthy talks in Belarus.
Pro-Russian rebels have signed the deal, which also includes weapon withdrawals and prisoner exchanges.
However key issues remain to be settled and clashes between government forces and the rebels continued on Thursday, with one Russian-backed commander said his forces would not stop fighting.
Equation
Lieutenant General
The Ukraine government can do the same to Russia and the Rebel forces, not to mention the shooting down of flight MH17 to go along with it.
My Dutch newspaper has succeeded in combining a news article in which they say Debaltsevo is surrounded with a small scale map showing a corridor to the place that has nearly constant width and for which they claim authorship. 
The article was written by their own correspondent from Gorlivka, much nearer to Debaltsevo than Amsterdam. That is probably the explanation.
The article was written by their own correspondent from Gorlivka, much nearer to Debaltsevo than Amsterdam. That is probably the explanation.
They will probably do so but there would have been no need to make the agreement between Ukraine, Australia, Belgium and The Netherlands not to publish any results of the MH17 investigation if anyone but Ukraine had been responsible.
There is a lot of unhappiness in The Netherlands about the lack of published results.