Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Until I figure out how to un-close it, at least.

0 (0%)

So yeah.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: May 01, 2014, 02:06:40 pm

[GrizzlyAdamz]

You might want to put a 'graphic' warning on that.

I'm with scrdest.



As for Russians ordering the protesters to comply, yeah sure, unless they don't want them to.

[10ebbor10]

Reverse image search revealed nothing usefull, so same questions as the people above.

[Guardian G.I.]

Spoiler: Is it a proper way to deal with separatist? (click to show/hide)

Huh, what are we seeing here exactly? Aside from the obvious? Who, when, how, why?

I've done some reverse image searching: apparently its a road accident that happened somewhere in Chechnya in 2009. Propagandists from pro-Russian forces posting on Ukrainian bulletin boards claim it happened in Mariupol the other day, though.

[scrdest]

Yep. It happened at least five years ago, unless Russians built a time machine.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Eh) Trolling didn't work. That is bay12 after all

[Sheb]

Still, trolling ain't nice UR. You made 10ebbor10 and GI lose time looking for your pic...

Anyway, what do you think is more likely: Putin genuinely wants separatists to disarm but doesn't control them, or he signed the deal knowing full well the militias wouldn't back it just to look reasonable? Real question here, not rethorical.

Also, lol at the idea that having the Ukrainian army on Ukrainian soil is aggressive action and that it should disarm.

[Sergarr]

Still, trolling ain't nice UR. You made 10ebbor10 and GI lose time looking for your pic...

Anyway, what do you think is more likely: Putin genuinely wants separatists to disarm but doesn't control them, or he signed the deal knowing full well the militias wouldn't back it just to look reasonable? Real question here, not rethorical.

Also, lol at the idea that having the Ukrainian army on Ukrainian soil is aggressive action and that it should disarm.

I think the militiamen believe that some "jeneva agreement" will not protect them from the wrath of Kiev.

[Knit tie]

We shouldn't underestimate the general fanaticism of protesters. These guys are perfectly capable of ignoring Putin's orders and pursuing their own agenda as independent guerrillas if he ever tells them to disarm.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Anyway, what do you think is more likely: Putin genuinely wants separatists to disarm but doesn't control them, or he signed the deal knowing full well the militias wouldn't back it just to look reasonable? Real question here, not rethorical.

Of cause Russia will not order "militia" to disarm, that would be admitting that they control them
I think Putin wants to win time here. Don't know why he needs it. Maybe to bring more forces to Ukraine, maybe to prepare for impending sanctions better, maybe to delay the action and launch the main phase just before the elections...

I am rather pissed at that Geneva agreement because it basically said - "hey, separatists you may continue to break laws and you'll not get punished because amnesty "and Ukraine got just nothing for that kind of capitulation. That + accepting legal Russian spies for monitoring

[Knit tie]

Anyway, what do you think is more likely: Putin genuinely wants separatists to disarm but doesn't control them, or he signed the deal knowing full well the militias wouldn't back it just to look reasonable? Real question here, not rethorical.

Of cause Russia will not order "militia" to disarm, that would be admitting that they control them
I think Putin wants to win time here. Don't know why he needs it. Maybe to bring more forces to Ukraine, maybe to prepare for impending sanctions better, maybe to delay the action and launch the main phase just before the elections...

I am rather pissed at that Geneva agreement because it basically said - "hey, separatists you may continue to break laws and you'll not get punished because amnesty "and Ukraine got just nothing for that kind of capitulation. That + accepting legal Russian spies for monitoring

I think that Geneva literally had to accept Russian monitors. Because otherwise Putin would cry "OMGHAX!!!!".

[Sean Mirrsen]

Anyway, what do you think is more likely: Putin genuinely wants separatists to disarm but doesn't control them, or he signed the deal knowing full well the militias wouldn't back it just to look reasonable? Real question here, not rethorical.

Of cause Russia will not order "militia" to disarm, that would be admitting that they control them
I think Putin wants to win time here. Don't know why he needs it. Maybe to bring more forces to Ukraine, maybe to prepare for impending sanctions better, maybe to delay the action and launch the main phase just before the elections...

I am rather pissed at that Geneva agreement because it basically said - "hey, separatists you may continue to break laws and you'll not get punished because amnesty "and Ukraine got just nothing for that kind of capitulation. That + accepting legal Russian spies for monitoring

I think that Geneva literally had to accept Russian monitors. Because otherwise Putin would cry "OMGHAX!!!!".

Actually, it's because of the four/five entities involved - US, EU, NATO, Russia(, and Ukraine), everyone that isn't Russia is allied with each other. Having no one to keep the "axis of capitalism" in check would mean leaving the people of Eastern Ukraine in a worse situation, freedom of choice-wise, than Ukraine said the people of Crimea had with Russian forces there. At least Russian forces managed to do everything as calmly and peacefully as was possible. With the Right Sector still being a thing, and the acting government of Ukraine and its military having shown the entirety of restraint and respect for human life they are capable of, I have doubts that silly things like "amnesty" or "freedom of speech" would mean much in the Eastern Ukraine.

[BlindKitty]

The problem here is (again) that nobody wants to make Putin angry. Or sad. Or generally unhappy in any way whatsoever. I mean, nobody from the West. Russia basically says "Do what we want or we will do what we want anyway." And Obama and... Whoever it was on EU side just reply "Dude, that's not nice! But oh well, OK, if you insist. Just don't kick us in the nuts." That's a wrong way to go about it. It was wrong to begin with; on the first sign of Russian invasion of Crimea, NATO should be all like 'Hey, get out of there'. There should be a freaking aircraft carrier on the Black Sea, along with all the companions, not a single destroyer; offer of military assistance aimed at Ukraine as soon as any kind of invasion become even possible, and actual American* troops flying into Crimea way before the 'referendum'. Why? Because:
a) USA guaranteed that the Ukraine will stay intact after giving up nuclear weapons;
b) it is pretty much obvious to anybody with half a brain that _not_ doing that will just make Putin want more.

But it's not like the US can take any of it's military operations to the end. Not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq, not to mention things like Libya or Syria, so I wouldn't expect any better this time. Or next time.
Well, it will generally accomplish one thing - everybody will either give up or stack up military stuff. There are already voices in the Ukraine that the country should get some nukes back; in Poland there are talks about upping the army expenses, and so on.

*Yeah, I moved from NATO to just USA there, because let's admit it, it's not like the rest of the NATO could do much. As far as the EU goes, there is so little will to fight at all, that if not for the Americans, Russia would steamroll all the continent to Lisbon with less resistance than Hitler, due to populations just... Giving up. And the politicians are even worse here.

[Sheb]

The USA never guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity. In the Budapest Memorandum, the USA promised not to take measures infringing on Ukraine's territorial integrity (Check.) and gave Ukraine a right to consult in case someone invaded it. They never promised to act on that consultation.

Sean Mirrsen: The Ukrainian Army and the Right Sector have shown great restrain. They didn't do anything in Crimea, and in Eastern Ukraine, given the fact that you had separatists with assault weapons, they showed remarkable restraint. Outside of Russian TV of course.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Sean Mirrsen: The Ukrainian Army and the Right Sector have shown great restrain. They didn't do anything in Crimea, and in Eastern Ukraine, given the fact that you had separatists with assault weapons, they showed remarkable restraint. Outside of Russian TV of course.

The Army? Yes. Right Sector? Doubtful, but then again I don't have a network of surveillance micro-drones reporting every event in the world to me. (mental note: make sure to establish a network of surveillance micro-drones reporting every event in the world to me) I guess the sentence was poorly structured - "government of Ukraine and its military", meaning the leadership. The soldiers did a very good job of showing restraint, I can do nothing but respect them for that.

[Sheb]

And what exactly did the leadership do?