Print

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

Petro Poroshenko

5 (29.4%)

Yulia Tymoshenko

2 (11.8%)

Oleg Lyashko

2 (11.8%)

Anatoly Hrytsenko

2 (11.8%)

Serhiy Tihipko

0 (0%)

Mykhailo Dobkin

0 (0%)

Other

6 (35.3%)

Total Members Voted: 17

[Knit tie]

Edit:

After all, if the desired and the real are the same, even the most odious propaganda mouthpiece needs not lie.

What do you mean by 'the desired and the real'?
Also yeah, journalism everywhere is basically a crapshot. I guess it comes from having to write something while knowing next to nothing.

By "the desired and the real" I mean the Russian media's opinion that Ukraine's current government is composed primarily of not even remotely democratic squabbling robber baron oligarchs and their cronies and is becoming increasingly radicalised to boot, which is not far from reality.

Editedit: I don't know who posted this link, but I find it hilarious that they cite reports of the Russian invasion of Crimea as examples of 'crying wolf' over Russia invading Ukraine...

It certainly wasn't "crying wolf" back when Crimea was filled with the "polite people" and annexed, but it is "crying wolf" now, because aside from the humanitarian and occasionally military aid (weapons, vehicles, etc.) convoys that Russia never denied there is absolutely no evidence that there are Russian forces in Ukraine. Plenty of separatists with Russian supplies, yes, but no indication whatsoever of Russian troops, aside, of course, from the claims of the official media Ukrainians channels, which are as truthful as the Russian "1st. Channel", the bogus photo of which I have so stupidly used in the other thread.

[Helgoland]

humanitarian and occasionally military aid (weapons, vehicles, etc.) convoys that Russia never denied

Huh? Russia never denied equipping the separatists? I guess I must've dreamt up all the claims about the separatists' equipment consisting exclusively of conquered (is that the right word?) Ukrainian army inventory...

[Knit tie]

humanitarian and occasionally military aid (weapons, vehicles, etc.) convoys that Russia never denied

Huh? Russia never denied equipping the separatists? I guess I must've dreamt up all the claims about the separatists' equipment consisting exclusively of conquered (is that the right word?) Ukrainian army inventory...

To be fair, the Russian media has so far tactfully avoided mentioning the fact that the convoys it sent contained not only humanitarian supplies but also weapons, but the very fact of Russian aid to the separatists has never been denied. Also, to be fair, most of the inventory the separatists posess indeed was captured from the Ukrainian armed forces - primarily because it was a very easy thing to do, what with the low morale of the Ukrainian army and the horrific incompetence of its (thoroughly infiltrated by the russian intelligence services) command.

[Helgoland]

You are starting to shift the goalposts here a bit...
But you say that the Ukrainian command is infiltrated by the FSB, and thus implying that the separatists get information from that source; you say that the separatists are being equipped by Russia; you admit that Crimea was invaded by Russia; in effect, the only thing Western media claim that you deny is the presence of actual Russian troops, which is supported by the Union of the Committees of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia as well as that incidence where a number of Russian soldiers got 'lost' deep inside Ukraine - and a detail that is only interesting because of its juristic implications... How exactly do you see Russia as not being the bad guy here? What's your beef with Western media, if you agree with them on almost everything?

[Knit tie]

You are starting to shift the goalposts here a bit...
But you say that the Ukrainian command is infiltrated by the FSB, and thus implying that the separatists get information from that source; you say that the separatists are being equipped by Russia; you admit that Crimea was invaded by Russia; in effect, the only thing Western media claim that you deny is the presence of actual Russian troops, which is supported by the Union of the Committees of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia as well as that incidence where a number of Russian soldiers got 'lost' deep inside Ukraine - and a detail that is only interesting because of its juristic implications... How exactly do you see Russia as not being the bad guy here? What's your beef with Western media, if you agree with them on almost everything?

The Committees of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia are composed primarily of hysterical soccer moms. If there's a rumor going on that we're going to send our soldiers to the moon, they'll believe that and protest against that.

My beef with the Western media is that it tends to portray the current Ukrainian government as "democratic" and "liberal" and heap praise upon it with a ladle, while in realiy Ukraine is ruled by corrupt oligarchs and their nationalistic cronies, who are running what essentially is a totalitarian mafia state, complete with purges of the opposition and repressions against reporters. As for the "good" and the "bad", I consider the Ukraine to be the bad guy here because of its terror shelling of separatist cities and punitive operations against civilians. What Russia does is standard operational procedure as far as supporting a rebellion you are not oficially supporting in the modern world goes.

[Helgoland]

"Terror shelling"? There are only so many ways of shelling an enemy who's shelling you from within residential areas. Plus you conveniently ignore that all those bad things only started happening after the rebellion had gone into full swing - with Russian help, as you said yourself.
More points:
-On what basis do you reject the evidence provided by the 'hysterical soccer moms'?
-Do you consider the recent election undemocratic?
-What do you think of Russia breaking the Minsk agreement?
-What do you think of the large-scale separatist offensive that has been announced?

[mainiac]

What Russia does is standard operational procedure as far as supporting a rebellion you are not oficially supporting in the modern world goes.

Standard operational procedure as far as supporting a rebellion you are not officially supporting is you dont fucking do it.

[Knit tie]

"Terror shelling"? There are only so many ways of shelling an enemy who's shelling you from within residential areas. Plus you conveniently ignore that all those bad things only started happening after the rebellion had gone into full swing - with Russian help, as you said yourself.

Personally I do not really consider the shelling to be that big of a deal (because it is a standard military procedure, after all), I am more concerned about the delberate punitive operations against the civilians by the volunteer battalions. As for the "bad things happening only after the rebellion got in full swing", I fail to see how this makes a difference. And besides, the rebellion in Donbass wasn't pre-organised by Russia, it was a spontaneous, grassroots national uprising due to the long-standing tensions between Ukraine's ethnic Russians and the increasingly nationalistic Ukrainians, which reached their crescendo after the Euromaidan when the Ukrainian nationalists came to legislative power. All Russia did was take advantage of the situation later, as Putin is wont to do - "Oh, hey, look, some russkies are rebelling against a US-supported government! - Cool, let's aid them, because fuck America!"

More points:
-On what basis do you reject the evidence provided by the 'hysterical soccer moms'?

On the basis of lack of said evidence. All we have are unsubstantiated claims.

-Do you consider the recent election undemocratic?

Yes, both in Ukraine and in Donbass. In Ukraine, two very popular maidan - opposing parties were disbanded - the Communist Party of Ukraine and the Party of Regions - before the elections in order to eliminate rivals for the Poroshenko's bloc. In Donbass, the elections were essentially a legitimisation measure intended to provide political leverage.

-What do you think of Russia breaking the Minsk agreement?

How can Russia break a ceasefire agreement if it has no forces in Ukraine to acually, well, fire? Only the actual fighters - Ukrainian army and the rebels - can do that. But regardless, are you referring to some specific incident, or to the general lack of respect for the areement from both sides? It appears that both the separatists and the Ukrainian army have had multiple ceasefire violations ever since the agreement was signed, that is, all that the ceasefire did was diminish the intensity of fighting and not at all stop it.

-What do you think of the large-scale separatist offensive that has been announced?

Well, there's a very tasty looking salient in the upper right corner of the battle map there , but I cannot say anything definite - the announcement may as well be a fake designed to confuse the Ukrainians.

What Russia does is standard operational procedure as far as supporting a rebellion you are not oficially supporting in the modern world goes.

Standard operational procedure as far as supporting a rebellion you are not officially supporting is you dont fucking do it.

I meant "not officially supporting" as in "not sending in actual troops to help". Russia has never denied that it supports the separatists by sending them aid.

[mainiac]

I meant "not officially supporting" as in "not sending in actual troops to help". Russia has never denied that it supports the separatists by sending them aid.

Russia has been sending troops into the Ukraine for months.  You say that both sides are to blame but you swallow massive lies from Russia.

[Knit tie]

I meant "not officially supporting" as in "not sending in actual troops to help". Russia has never denied that it supports the separatists by sending them aid.

Russia has been sending troops into the Ukraine for months.  You say that both sides are to blame but you swallow massive lies from Russia.

Give me evidence of that. There is no evidence of Russian forces entering Ukraine, all we have are claims by the Ukrainian government and reports of said claims by the Western media.

And now for the main course: refutation of refutation of the truthfullness of the photo I used earlier. Main point: the planes are so large because the point of view is quite close to them due to the picture being taken with the usage of optics and not just observed with the naked eye. Not saying the photo's 100% true, though. 

[mainiac]

It's common knowledge and has been for a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine

It's hilarious that the Russian government can award medals for combat actions in Ukraine and hold military funerals for Russian soldiers KIA in Ukraine (reported on state TV) and people like you will believe them when they deny sending soldiers into Ukraine.  It's perfect demonstration of the fact that people make their minds up and then go seek evidence that conforms to their beliefs.

[Helgoland]

refutation of refutation of the truthfullness of the photo I used earlier

If that was in English, we'd actually be able to read it... But I'd like to see the optics that can overcome a rather important mathematical theorem.
With regards to the Minsk agreement: Russia recognized the 'elections' in the Donbass area, which is a clear-cut violation of point nine of the protocol. And I believe Crimea is still de jure part of Ukraine, and Russia certainly has been sending troops there...

But enough with this pointless exchange: Do you honestly believe it was wise of Putin to support the rebellion? The fallout it has caused is enormous, and without Russia's help the separatists would've been swiftly defeated. Do you believe the current situation serves Russia's interests?
And, perhaps most importantly: Do you see an exit strategy?

[Knit tie]

It's common knowledge and has been for a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine

And as we all know, common knowledge always represents the objective truth that is in no way, shape or form distorted by a multitude of factors, such as the position of the state propaganda and the mainstream mass media, the preeminent mood towards the subject among the populace, various racial and/or historical prejudices, biases in education regarding the subject and so on and so forth.

In reality, most of common knowledge is based on shameless truthiness.

PS: And wikipedia is really not a good place to get your information on politically sensitive topics, as the majority of articles on such topics are written and furiously edited by people with clear political agendas.

[Helgoland]

Heh, we should rename this thread to "The impeccably dressed punching bag"
Seriously though, could you at least provide a rough translation of that article?

[Knit tie]

refutation of refutation of the truthfullness of the photo I used earlier

If that was in English, we'd actually be able to read it... But I'd like to see the optics that can overcome a rather important mathematical theorem.
With regards to the Minsk agreement: Russia recognized the 'elections' in the Donbass area, which is a clear-cut violation of point nine of the protocol. And I believe Crimea is still de jure part of Ukraine, and Russia certainly has been sending troops there...

Nobody has any doubts that Crimea was chock full of Russian soldiers during the referendum and is still chock full of them now - the issue is with the mainland Ukraine, where no photos or videos of russian foces exist and yet Ukraine keeps saying that they are there.

The elections in Donbass, in my opinion, were recognised by Russia as a part of Putin's perpetual dick measuring contest with the West. By recognising the rebel elections he essentially said "look, assholes, I am not afraid of you!". Standard politician stuff.

But enough with this pointless exchange: Do you honestly believe it was wise of Putin to support the rebellion? The fallout it has caused is enormous, and without Russia's help the separatists would've been swiftly defeated. Do you believe the current situation serves Russia's interests?
And, perhaps most importantly: Do you see an exit strategy?

Not being personally acquainted with Mr. Putin, I cannot say what his exact thoughts are, but I believe that this whole annexation/rebellion support extravaganza has been a part of the aforementioned dick measuring contest, just doing dangerous things to show that you can do dangerous things with impunity, and increasing your influence in the process. But I have to disagree with you on whether or not was Russian help essential for the rebels. I think that their continued success was not so much a result of Russian aid as of staggering incompetence of the Ukrainian command and the poor condition of the Ukrainian army. Colonel Cassad, despite his pro-Russian views, is widely recognised and recommended as a very good and objective military observer, I recommend you read his posts n the subject.

I have to confess, I do not see any exit strategies aside from Ukraine just plain conceding and giving the DNR and LNR independence, as now they will not agree to anything less. But with Ukraine's government becoming increasingly nationalistic and anti-Russian, such a turn of events is highly unlikely.

Heh, we should rename this thread to "The impeccably dressed punching bag"
Seriously though, could you at least provide a rough translation of that article?

Don't be Ukraine, Helgo, don't claim that you are winning when you clearly aren't.

The main point of the article is that pictures taken from orbit, due to the optic lenses involved in the process, appear as if they've been taken from a height much less than 10 kilometers, and therefore, all planes will appear to be much larger that they really are as if they were close to the camera, such as the plane in this Google earth photo.

It's hilarious that the Russian government can award medals for combat actions in Ukraine and hold military funerals for Russian soldiers KIA in Ukraine (reported on state TV) and people like you will believe them when they deny sending soldiers into Ukraine.  It's perfect demonstration of the fact that people make their minds up and then go seek evidence that conforms to their beliefs.

There are plenty of Russian battle tourist volunteers fighting in Ukraine right now, and I am sure a fair bit of them are current or former members of the Russian military. Just because a Russian soldier was fighting with the rebels does not mean that he was doing so on official orders. And please don't imply that I am some sort of rabidly fanatical patriot who fails to see the horrible evil of despotic Russia out of willfull blindness - the only reason why I don't believe that there are any Russian forces in Ukraine is because I am yet to see any concrete evidence of them being there.