[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

Cease fire won't last.

Will it even start?

This ceasefire has been brokered by Germany and France,(the primary movers behind negotiating the ceasefire). Its been called an unconditional ceasefire, however, the Ukrainian PM left the negotiations at one point claiming he couldn't work with these political conditions such as the decentralization of power within the Ukraine and referendums and democratic reforms (that's a joke that has been insisted on by Russia!). The Ukrainians have accepted a massive IMF loan in return for their capitulation. While all this has been going on, the state control Russian media has been reporting from their current front line that the Russian army could march to Poland or Germany. These statements just don't concur with the story that is being told in the discussions over the ceasefire.

This is the second time a ceasefire has been agreed on and as we all know, the first one never happened.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Will it even start?

This ceasefire has been brokered by Germany and France,(the primary movers behind negotiating the ceasefire). Its been called an unconditional ceasefire, however, the Ukrainian PM left the negotiations at one point claiming he couldn't work with these political conditions such as the decentralization of power within the Ukraine and referendums and democratic reforms (that's a joke that has been insisted on by Russia!). The Ukrainians have accepted a massive IMF loan in return for their capitulation. While all this has been going on, the state control Russian media has been reporting from their current front line that the Russian army could march to Poland or Germany. These statements just don't concur with the story that is being told in the discussions over the ceasefire.

This is the second time a ceasefire has been agreed on and as we all know, the first one never happened.

I agree.Putin continually makes statements or promises and continually lies.

[arista]

Fisty Cuffs in Ukraine Politics

[Vadim Ivchenko, from the Fatherland party, then throws an almighty right hand on to the jaw of Mr Sobolev]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3RYq5RizJ

[Z]

As for Russia's interference in Ukraine - it's nowhere near as unpredictable as people make it out to be. Russia was provoked. Many people might not recognise it, but it's no different than if Russia formed a defence organisation to protect itself and its allies from the threat of the United States and invited Canada to be a member, just to pull Canada out of the USA's sphere of influence. I mean just take a moment to actually consider what the EU was doing; it was trying to incorporate Ukraine into its organisation, a country that is hugely in debt, fully corrupt and barely able to function and millions of citizens who would doubtless seek to move west for a better life, at a time when many Europeans are turning their backs on Schengen, immigration and there's a lot of hatred towards Slavs, Roma and foreigners in general. What could the EU possibly have gained from a formal relationship with Ukraine? Nothing much, other than making sure Russia doesn't have control over it.

Russia's involvement in Ukraine is little more than political posturing, sending a message that it will not be bullied by sanctions and trade agreements and pencil pushers trying to isolate it. Russia knows if it acts decisively with precise force, it will go unchallenged. Georgia 2008 showed as much. Russia chose Ukraine next because of its military connections to Sevastopol and the Crimean peninsula, its lack of membership in European organisations and its heavy dependence on Russian help. It could have just as easily been Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, any of the Central Asian -stan republics...

I wish I had a practical use for my degree, this is what I studied and I love talking about it

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Z

As for Russia's interference in Ukraine - it's nowhere near as unpredictable as people make it out to be. Russia was provoked. Many people might not recognise it, but it's no different than if Russia formed a defence organisation to protect itself and its allies from the threat of the United States and invited Canada to be a member, just to pull Canada out of the USA's sphere of influence. I mean just take a moment to actually consider what the EU was doing; it was trying to incorporate Ukraine into its organisation, a country that is hugely in debt, fully corrupt and barely able to function and millions of citizens who would doubtless seek to move west for a better life, at a time when many Europeans are turning their backs on Schengen, immigration and there's a lot of hatred towards Slavs, Roma and foreigners in general. What could the EU possibly have gained from a formal relationship with Ukraine? Nothing much, other than making sure Russia doesn't have control over it.

Russia's involvement in Ukraine is little more than political posturing, sending a message that it will not be bullied by sanctions and trade agreements and pencil pushers trying to isolate it. Russia knows if it acts decisively with precise force, it will go unchallenged. Georgia 2008 showed as much. Russia chose Ukraine next because of its military connections to Sevastopol and the Crimean peninsula, its lack of membership in European organisations and its heavy dependence on Russian help. It could have just as easily been Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, any of the Central Asian -stan republics...

I wish I had a practical use for my degree, this is what I studied and I love talking about it

Great Post....... You have expanded on some of the reasons why Russia has been forced down this road and has to take the actions it has.







.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Z

As for Russia's interference in Ukraine - it's nowhere near as unpredictable as people make it out to be. Russia was provoked. Many people might not recognise it, but it's no different than if Russia formed a defence organisation to protect itself and its allies from the threat of the United States and invited Canada to be a member, just to pull Canada out of the USA's sphere of influence. I mean just take a moment to actually consider what the EU was doing; it was trying to incorporate Ukraine into its organisation, a country that is hugely in debt, fully corrupt and barely able to function and millions of citizens who would doubtless seek to move west for a better life, at a time when many Europeans are turning their backs on Schengen, immigration and there's a lot of hatred towards Slavs, Roma and foreigners in general. What could the EU possibly have gained from a formal relationship with Ukraine? Nothing much, other than making sure Russia doesn't have control over it.

Russia's involvement in Ukraine is little more than political posturing, sending a message that it will not be bullied by sanctions and trade agreements and pencil pushers trying to isolate it. Russia knows if it acts decisively with precise force, it will go unchallenged. Georgia 2008 showed as much. Russia chose Ukraine next because of its military connections to Sevastopol and the Crimean peninsula, its lack of membership in European organisations and its heavy dependence on Russian help. It could have just as easily been Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, any of the Central Asian -stan republics...

I wish I had a practical use for my degree, this is what I studied and I love talking about it

if America wanted to invade and own Russia, it would already be done, and Russia would have no power to stop it.

The idea that America has plans to conquer and own Russia is ****ing RETARDED.

Russia is pathetic failed state that happens to have some natural resources. Russia is trying to bully all of Europe politically just because they have a large supply of natural gas. The US is helping Europe stand up to the Russian bullying.

America doesn't need Russian gas, Europeans do. And Putin was trying to bully Europe with that leverage, America is just trying to even the playing field for the other European countries that need that gas. Russia has no right to be a bully just because they have a specific natural resource.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by lostalex

if America wanted to invade and own Russia, it would already be done, and Russia would have no power to stop it.

The idea that America has plans to conquer and own Russia is ****ing RETARDED.

Russia is pathetic failed state that happens to have some natural resources. Russia is trying to bully all of Europe politically just because they have a large supply of natural gas. The US is helping Europe stand up to the Russian bullying.

America doesn't need Russian gas, Europeans do. And Putin was trying to bully Europe with that leverage, America is just trying to even the playing field for the other European countries that need that gas. Russia has no right to be a bully just because they have a specific natural resource.

"if Russia wanted to invade and own Ukraine, it would already be done, and Ukraine would have no power to stop it."

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by MTVN

"if Russia wanted to invade and own Ukraine, it would already be done, and Ukraine would have no power to stop it."

I disagree. Russia is fully aware that a full on invasion would undoubtedly bring about a world war. Both Russia and the west are being guarded and rightly so.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I disagree. Russia is fully aware that a full on invasion would undoubtedly bring about a world war. Both Russia and the west are being guarded and rightly so.

I agree, my point more was replying to the 'USA could conquer Russia if they wanted to' argument, as though the fact they haven't means they are not responsible for any provocation of inflaming of tensions

[Z]

Originally Posted by lostalex

if America wanted to invade and own Russia, it would already be done, and Russia would have no power to stop it.

The idea that America has plans to conquer and own Russia is ****ing RETARDED.

Russia is pathetic failed state that happens to have some natural resources. Russia is trying to bully all of Europe politically just because they have a large supply of natural gas. The US is helping Europe stand up to the Russian bullying.

America doesn't need Russian gas, Europeans do. And Putin was trying to bully Europe with that leverage, America is just trying to even the playing field for the other European countries that need that gas. Russia has no right to be a bully just because they have a specific natural resource.

Why are you quoting me and implying that I've suggested America wants to conquer Russia? It doesn't, it just wants to neuter it and block it from having as much influence as America has in global affairs, seeing as Russia and China can gang up and veto American led decision making in UN affairs. Russia was on the verge of being a failed state in the 90s; but under Putin has restored much of its former glory because he's an A+ statesman who knows how to manoeuvre politically to get what he wants. I wrote my dissertation about Russia's use of natural resources in the political arena; the US really isn't helping Europe to stand up to Russia, the sheer level of neglect in Poland and the Baltic States alone is enough proof of that.

[Nedusa]

This (below) is a current BBC News report of the current situation in Ukraine.

New shelling has been reported around the rebel-held east Ukrainian cities of Donetsk and Luhansk, a day after a peace deal was reached in Minsk.

There are no confirmed reports of casualties. Both cities are near the front line where the pro-Russian rebels face government forces.

The ceasefire agreed in the Belarusian capital is to begin in eastern Ukraine after midnight (22:00 GMT) on Saturday.

The EU has warned Russia of additional sanctions if the deal is not respected.
BBC journalists in Donetsk heard new shelling on Friday morning, though they said it sounded less intense than in recent days.

Luhansk also came under bombardment overnight - with Russian TV reporting some of the heaviest fighting in months.

On Friday morning, a military spokesman in Kiev said eight members of Ukraine's military had been killed in fighting against separatists in the past 24 hours.

Meanwhile, rebels said seven civilians had been killed, reported AFP news agency. Two people were also killed on Friday morning when rebels shelled a cafe in Shchastya, near Luhansk, said the head of the Kiev-controlled regional administration.

"So this is how a comprehensive ceasefire is prepared for," said Hennadiy Moskal in a statement.

He was echoing wider doubts about the peace deal agreed following marathon negotiations between Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France.

Women embrace as they wait for a bus, carrying evacuees to Russia, to leave Donetsk
German Chancellor Angela Merkel - whose tireless shuttle diplomacy on Ukraine many credit with the deal - has warned that it presents only a "glimmer of hope"
Pro-Russian rebels have signed the agreement, which also includes weapon withdrawals and prisoner exchanges, but key issues remain to be settled.







If you read the article it is clear the areas being shelled and the people being killed are pro Russian Ukrainians living in or near Donetsk or Luhansk, it is clear the current Ukrainian Govt are happy to keep on attacking and killing their fellow Ukrainians right up to the ceasefire deadline.

I must also point out that this article like most articles from Western media sources is again biased towards the Pro Western side , if you see the comment in bold above you have to ask what relevance that line has given the current context of the article.

clearly the Pro russian cities are being shelled by pro western forces so why mention the EU has warned Russia of further sanctions if the deal is not respected. this clearly infers Russia is involved in this continuing shelling when clearly it is not.

More biased reporting along with inserting the line about Ukrainian soldiers dying fighting separatists, which has been inserted for balance when no balance was necessary given the main news being reported in this article.

I could summarise this whole article in two or three lines.

Unelected Ukrainian govt continues killing its own people using weapons supplied by US before the ceasefire deadline comes into effect. This is being done at the behest of the west and reported by Western media sources to look like this fighting is continuing on both sides.





.

[MTVN]

I thought the same Nedusa, all this talk about how Russia must respect the ceasefire or face consequences, what about Kiev? It's impressive how that article is able to report on the shelling of civilian areas without laying any blame at the door of the Ukrainian government for doing so.

[Kizzy]

Due to the size of the chemical plant explosion I'm surprised there's anyone left in east Ukraine to evacuate.

[MTVN]

That site says "terrorists and bandits", UK media says "rebels", RT says "self defence forces", funny how different tags can instil such different connotations. Also funny how the BBC say "The EU has warned Russia of additional sanctions if the deal is not respected" while that site says "The possibility of new economic sanctions has been eliminated". Two reports whose sympathies lie more with Kiev than Moscow yet they still relay things entirely differently. Reality is that either side could wheel out a couple of 'analysts' to argue that they are being treated unfairly.

I always find Mary Dejevsky's articles on Ukraine pretty good and a decent attempt to draw a bridge between the two opposing narratives. Excerpt from her article today:

The agreement differs somewhat in detail from its predecessors but little in spirit. It is the obvious compromise solution, waiting to happen. It provides for Ukraine to remain a single state within its current borders, which has been a central demand of Kiev. It enshrines a measure of constitutional autonomy for the territory held by the anti-Kiev rebels in the east, which has been a central demand of theirs – not independence, not secession to Russia, but devolved government within Ukraine.

This has always been the outcome that Moscow has insisted it would accept. But each time the ceasefire has broken down, largely because the rebels rejected the most basic practical arrangements on the ground. The last ceasefire collapsed in the first instance because some groups of rebels refused to give up certain villages – their home villages – which had been the price for the rebels’ retaining Donetsk airport. This was a turn of events that Russia had neither envisaged nor approved. Yet it could not have enforced compliance without sending in much heavier forces of its own. Moscow’s capacity to control the rebel forces has always been exaggerated.

If the rebels were undisciplined and rejected part of the deal negotiated on their behalf, the Kiev government was not entirely blameless either. President Poroshenko has been adamant that Ukraine should remain a unitary state, fearing that moves towards a more federal system could precipitate its break-up. If Kiev had been able to get its political writ to run in the east, or – failing that – to conquer the territory by force, then a unitary state would have been the unambiguous result.

But the conflict of the past year has shown that it is unable to do either, at least not without outside military help that most European governments, at least, are not prepared to give. Decentralisation is the only way that Ukraine can now remain one state. If Poroshenko has now been persuaded to accept this, then that offers the latest peace plan a chance.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-10042692.html

[DemolitionRed]

Translated text of report by Lithuanian news website Delfi from 16 January 2015.

Russian analyst Illarionov discusses Putin’s plans for Ukraine. (For those who suggest Russia wouldn't want to take the Ukraine)

http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/01/2...s-for-ukraine/

[DemolitionRed]

Can you imagine if Scotland had become independent and England had gone on to pull out of the EU. Somewhere down the line Scotland pushes to join the EU and just as that signature gets close to being signed, we put massive military forces on the borders into Scotland. What would happen if we, the English decided to arm those still living in Scotland who were opposed to the change, with the intention of causing havoc whilst weakening and perhaps overthrowing the Scottish government?

Would Scotland expect military assistance from other EU countries? after all, they were so close to signing the EU agreement or should the EU ignore Scotland and let it fall back into British hands?

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Can you imagine if Scotland had become independent and England had gone on to pull out of the EU. Somewhere down the line Scotland pushes to join the EU and just as that signature gets close to being signed, we put massive military forces on the borders into Scotland. What would happen if we, the English decided to arm those still living in Scotland who were opposed to the change, with the intention of causing havoc whilst weakening and perhaps overthrowing the Scottish government?

Would Scotland expect military assistance from other EU countries? after all, they were so close to signing the EU agreement or should the EU ignore Scotland and let it fall back into British hands?

Perhaps we could alter this scenario. Scotland, like eastern Ukraine has its own distinctive culture and outlook within the UK. Those for independence argue that London is distant to them, it does not represent or care for them and has no interest for Scottish needs. That is how the rebels feel about Kiev. How about instead of devolving powers to Scotland as Westminster has, and instead of promising further powers to keep them within the Union, the Tory government instead said: nah, we're the government and you have to accept it, you are not allowed any autonomy or control over your own issues, all power resides with us. Would the Scots accept that the way the eastern Ukrainian rebels are supposed to? We could even take this further and imagine that there was a Prime Minister who was sympathetic to Scottish devolutionists and sought to promote their interests, he was democratically elected and yet suddenly violent protests erupt in London, the Prime Minister has to flee, in comes a government completely opposed to Scottish interests and suddenly starts clamping down on their autonomy. Would that be accepted?

My issue with your argument is that you don't seem to have any recognition for the genuine grievances and aims of eastern Ukrainians. Most of them don't want the country to break up but they are very unhappy and disillusioned with the conduct of the Kiev regime which exercises so much centralised power. That article you linked says it all where it dismisses the rebels as "bandits and terrorists". That is the same tactic used by every government in history to try and de-legitimise opposition movements. This is not simply Ukraine vs Russia, the rebels are not merely Russians in disguise, all anti-Kiev government is not controlled from the barrel of a gun. Simplify the conflict into binaries and there never will be a satisfactory agreement. The more it is seen as Russia vs Ukraine, or Russia vs the West, and the more it is seen as a new 'cold war' the worse the situation is going to get.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Perhaps we could alter this scenario. Scotland, like eastern Ukraine has its own distinctive culture and outlook within the UK. Those for independence argue that London is distant to them, it does not represent or care for them and has no interest for Scottish needs. That is how the rebels feel about Kiev. How about instead of devolving powers to Scotland as Westminster has, and instead of promising further powers to keep them within the Union, the Tory government instead said: nah, we're the government and you have to accept it, you are not allowed any autonomy or control over your own issues, all power resides with us. Would the Scots accept that the way the eastern Ukrainian rebels are supposed to? We could even take this further and imagine that there was a Prime Minister who was sympathetic to Scottish devolutionists and sought to promote their interests, he was democratically elected and yet suddenly violent protests erupt in London, the Prime Minister has to flee, in comes a government completely opposed to Scottish interests and suddenly starts clamping down on their autonomy. Would that be accepted?

My issue with your argument is that you don't seem to have any recognition for the genuine grievances and aims of eastern Ukrainians. Most of them don't want the country to break up but they are very unhappy and disillusioned with the conduct of the Kiev regime which exercises so much centralised power. That article you linked says it all where it dismisses the rebels as "bandits and terrorists". That is the same tactic used by every government in history to try and de-legitimise opposition movements. This is not simply Ukraine vs Russia, the rebels are not merely Russians in disguise, all anti-Kiev government is not controlled from the barrel of a gun. Simplify the conflict into binaries and there never will be a satisfactory agreement. The more it is seen as Russia vs Ukraine, or Russia vs the West, and the more it is seen as a new 'cold war' the worse the situation is going to get.

We have been known to disagree, but I cannot fault one point made in this. And brilliantly written.

[empire]

when the ussr went broke, the oligarch moved in and nearly wrecked russia under western puppet boris yeltsin, then putin came in and kicked out the oligarch from the top to the bottom, putin is a smart cookie, aswell because he could for see that the EU state is going to collapse, eu state can't afford ukraine membership, because they need 50 billion a month, no country in the eu state will pay up to 15 billion a month, ukraine is nothing without russia, if they stand alone, they are a failed state, there army is in near defeat, and their gold reserves are gone, the maidan government will be overthrown pretty much soon, the us goverment is desperate to keep the maidan in, they will waste taxpayers money for it, and hard working americans will suffer for it,

[empire]

people here think the russian army are poorly under funded, well if you look at the russian army of the 90s vs the russian army of the 2015, then you will be shocked, nato knows that thay are taking on a army that is not under funded or poorly trained, there military hardware is not downgraded export stuff either, russia is not iraq remember,

[DemolitionRed]

Where did the pro Russian separatists get their heavy armoury from? The local corner shop? If Russia hadn’t got involved this would not be happening now.

East Ukraine has a lot of pro Russian residents but that’s their choice. They don’t live in Russia and they don’t live in the Crimea; through choice they live in the Ukraine…a self-governing…none aligned country. (and btw I have never seen Crimea as part of the Ukraine).

When the Ukrainian government was toppled, it was toppled by its people…just like the storming of the Bastille it was a popular uprising. The large populous want more independence that what they currently have; the pro Russians want Russian law in a country that isn't Russia.

ED to say: Russia and pro Russians have no claim on the rest of the Ukraine (that includes the eastern border)

My thoughts on Crimea:
The Crimea hasn’t flourished under Ukrainian rule; in fact it’s a neglected and forgotten part of the Ukraine that isn’t allowed many of the same benefits. The Ukraine should of allowed a legitimate referendum (they had wanted this for years) and if the vote swung in favour of the Crimea reuniting with Russia, then that choice should have been given. Crimea is a country within a country, its an Autonomous Republic where the majority of Crimean’s are not Ukrainian and as such, have or at least should have the right to choose their future. Unfortunately, because less than 20% of Crimea is Tartar, these people will have to accept their loss.

[DemolitionRed]

................double post

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

........My thoughts on Crimea:
The Crimea hasn’t flourished under Ukrainian rule; in fact it’s a neglected and forgotten part of the Ukraine that isn’t allowed many of the same benefits. The Ukraine should of allowed a legitimate referendum (they had wanted this for years) and if the vote swung in favour of the Crimea reuniting with Russia, then that choice should have been given. Crimea is a country within a country, its an Autonomous Republic where the majority of Crimean’s are not Ukrainian and as such, have or at least should have the right to choose their future. Unfortunately, because less than 20% of Crimea is Tartar, these people will have to accept their loss.

Originally Posted by Livia

The home of Russia's Black Sea Fleet is at Sevastopol in Crimea. Even though it's part of Ukraine, Russians have patrolled the streets of Sevastopol for over 200 years. It's strategically important for Russia both defensively and offensively. Russian presence in Crimea makes Ukraine hard to defend because Russia hold them on three fronts and I can't see Russia giving up its grip on it easily.

Thought it was worth repeating my original post. My view is that Russia will never give up its hold on Crimea generally, and Sevastopol in particular.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Where did the pro Russian separatists get their heavy armoury from? The local corner shop? If Russia hadn’t got involved this would not be happening now.

East Ukraine has a lot of pro Russian residents but that’s their choice. They don’t live in Russia and they don’t live in the Crimea; through choice they live in the Ukraine…a self-governing…none aligned country. (and btw I have never seen Crimea as part of the Ukraine).

When the Ukrainian government was toppled, it was toppled by its people…just like the storming of the Bastille it was a popular uprising. The large populous want more independence that what they currently have; the pro Russians want Russian law in a country that isn't Russia.

ED to say: Russia and pro Russians have no claim on the rest of the Ukraine (that includes the eastern border)

My thoughts on Crimea:
The Crimea hasn’t flourished under Ukrainian rule; in fact it’s a neglected and forgotten part of the Ukraine that isn’t allowed many of the same benefits. The Ukraine should of allowed a legitimate referendum (they had wanted this for years) and if the vote swung in favour of the Crimea reuniting with Russia, then that choice should have been given. Crimea is a country within a country, its an Autonomous Republic where the majority of Crimean’s are not Ukrainian and as such, have or at least should have the right to choose their future. Unfortunately, because less than 20% of Crimea is Tartar, these people will have to accept their loss.

A lot of armament factories from the Soviet era are based in eastern Ukraine, it was already a region littered with weapons. If the Ukrainian government was toppled by the 'people', it was the people of Kiev who don't represent the whole of the country, and it can't be denied either way that the toppling was done in quite shady circumstances.

[DemolitionRed]

Livia, up until my last post I haven't been discussing the Crimea; I've been discussing the Ukraine and like I previously said, I don't look towards the Crimea and see it as part of the Ukraine and neither would most Ukrainians. The Crimean’s don't think of themselves as Ukrainian, they think of themselves as Russians (except for the Tatars) because historically and politically Crimea has been a part of the Russian empire since the 18th century.

My argument has never been about the taking of Crimea but the taking of east Ukraine.