What's new in Syria

[joepistole]

They could have tried to protect their parliament with unprofessional militias, they preferred to have reliable professionals there.

As previously and repeatedly pointed out to you, Putin's armed little green men did take over Crimea's parliament and illegally remove and install a new parliament - taking a pro-Russian member of parliament who had only garnered 4 percent of the popular vote and making him prime minister.

Correct. And the point is that shooting guns and what you name "roughing up and threatening journalists, observers, officials" is not what the polite men in green have done. This may have been done by some of the militias. The men in green have simply professionally protected some key buildings.

Well, as has been previously and repeatedly pointed out to you, that isn't consistent with what the UN and OSCE observers and journalists who were roughed up, harassed and warned off with gunfire have said. If you have credible evidence to support your assertion, now is the time to show it. Firing guns to warn people off and physically attacking them isn't considered polite in most places.

https://www.cpj.org/2014/03/journalists-detained-attacked-while-reporting-in-c.php

And the establishment winning 6 times out of 6. LOL.

First, it wasn't an "establishment". Either your ignorance or dishonesty is once again on display comrade. Hundreds if not thousands of caucus sessions occurred throughout the state. There were many coin tosses. Hillary's group won 6 of them and her opponent won a similar number of coin flips. http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/46526...in-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

I don't know how you do coin tosses in Mother Russia, but here in the states, both parties are present and the coin toss is conducted in public. If any party objects to the toss, they have the opportunity to make those objections known. This isn't Mother Russia comrade where things are conducted behind closed doors and secrecy. No party has objected to the coin tosses, and complete recount has occurred as is the custom when counts are close.

You obviously like all the Nazis because they have fought against the Soviets. Whatever, I do not name somebody a Nazi if he does not openly support Nazis. And the Bandera movement is the Ukrainian fascist movement, and in murdering Jews, Russians and Poles they were even more radical than the German Nazis. They have, fortunately, not reached the necessary power to kill more at that time.

Unfortunately for you comrade, a love of fact and reason doesn't make one a lover of Nazis or a Nazi. You see Nazis everywhere but where they really are. Bandera was a Ukrainian nationalist who was arrested by Nazis and eventually collaborated with them to fight against Mother Russia (i.e. the Soviet Union). And has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Bandera has been dead for more than a half century. He isn't honored by the Ukrainian government, and his existence in history doesn't make Ukrainians Nazis as you have repeatedly asserted.

Poroshenko has used the Bandera greeting "Slava Ukraine" even in his speech in the Congress. And the founding day of the UPA, that gang of mass murderers, is now an official holiday.

There are no doubt supporters of Bandera in Ukraine. But that doesn't make everyone a supporter of Bandera. As previously and repeatedly pointed out to you, there are Nazis in Mother Russia too. Many states have neo-Nazi organizations within their borders, but that presence doesn't make everyone or their governments Nazis. Just because their are neo-Nazi organizations in Ukraine, it doesn't make all Ukrainians or even most Ukrainians or their government Nazis.

Feel free to defend the main Ukrainian Nazi Stepan Bandera and his gangs who have murdered a lot of Poles, Russians and Jews (not soldiers, civilians) because they were not Ukrainians, as freedom fighters. You are expected to do such things, you also love Al Qaida, naming them "moderate rebels", so what?

Thank you for giving me permission to defend Bandera. But in the US, we don't need permission to speak our minds. Additionally, a simple restatement of historical facts isn't a defense of Bandera. It's just a restatement of historical facts. I get it, you don't like those historical facts. But that doesn't make them any less factual.

 

[Yazata]

Their army’s equipment and strategy was “outmoded”; their air force’s bombs and missiles were “more dumb than smart”; their navy was “more rust than ready”. For decades, this was Western military leaders’ view, steeped in condescension, of their Russian counterparts. What they have seen in Syria and Ukraine has come as a shock.

During the Cold War, the Russians were perceived by the US as worthy adversaries with advanced technology and modern equipment. Concern was often expressed about Russian advances. American R&D was driven in large part by trying to counter what we thought the Russians were doing.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian military entered into a ten-year period of dramatically reduced budgets and dramatic down-sizing throughout the 1990's. They kept the best and most modern Soviet-era equipment and junked the rest wholesale. What little money they spent on new developments and programs went to keeping their nuclear deterrent capability going.

From the 2000's to the present, the Russian economy has grown and Russian military forces, while still much smaller than they were during the Soviet years, are being modernized. That modernization isn't just a matter of new equipment, it's also improvement in terms of training and command structures.

We probably need to remember that America's military has also downsized dramatically since the Cold War years. Most of our military aircraft are Cold War era designs (F-15's, F-16's, F-18's and so on). Some of our planes, like the B-52, date back to the 1950's (though constantly upgraded since then).

Russian military jets have, at times, been carrying out more sorties in a day in Syria than the US-led coalition has done in a month. The Russian navy has launched ballistic missiles from the Caspian Sea 900 miles way, and kept supply lines going to Syria. The air defences installed by the Russians in Syria and eastern Ukraine would make it extremely hazardous for the West to carry out strikes against the Assad regime or Ukrainian separatists.

It's all true. Of course one of the reasons why the Russian air force is more effective in Syria than the Americans is the fact that the Russians are flying in support of ground troops. The US can bomb ISIS all it likes, but until there are ground troops able to move in and seize territory, ISIS' boundaries won't change much.

The Russian cruise missiles were impressive, flying from small patrol boats in the Caspian, across Iranian Azerbijan and northern Iraq, across rugged mountains, and into Syria, and then striking their targets precisely. It suggests that even small Russian naval combatants have a significant strike capability.

Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, the commander of the US army in Europe, has described Russian advances in electronic warfare in Syria and Ukraine – a field in which they were typically supposed to be backward – as “eye watering”.

The chief of US Air Force operations in Europe and Africa, Lieutenant General Frank Gorenc, has disclosed that Moscow is now deploying anti-aircraft systems in Crimea, which the Kremlin annexed from Ukraine last year, and in Kaliningrad, an enclave between Lithuania and Poland. It is doing so, he says, in a way that makes it “very, very difficult” for Nato planes to gain access safely to areas including parts of Poland.

There's a basic inconsistency in a lot of the anti-Russian rhetoric. We are supposed to simultaneously believe that Russia is a threat to NATO, especially in the Baltics, while believing that the Russian military is nothing but junk and incapable of operating effectively. But it can't be both things at once.

In Syria the Russians have been conducting as many air strikes a day, up to 96, as the US-led coalition has carried out in a month.

Part of that is due to rules of engagement. The majority of American sorties against ISIS return to their bases with their bombs still aboard. There just aren't enough targets, and when pilots do locate targets they have to be individually approved by CENTCOM's joint operations center in Qatar before bombs can be released. There are all kinds of collateral damage concerns. The Russians on the other hand are flying in support of the Syrian army and has that army designating targets for them. So Russian pilots find themselves in a much more target-rich environment than the Americans and can release a lot more ordinance.

This is in marked contrast, Western military planners have noted, to how quickly Nato began to feel the strain when bombing Libya and Kosovo.

The Russians do seem more prepared to conduct an air campaign in Syria than the Europeans were in Libya. It will be interesting to see how long they can keep it up.

One reason for the dearth of coalition sorties is that its Sunni state members are carrying out scarcely any missions, focusing instead on Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. Operations by Turkey, meanwhile, have been overwhelmingly against the Kurds rather than Isis.

Yes, the Saudis and some of their Gulf allies do seem more interested in bombing the Shi'ite Houthis than in bombing Sunni ISIS. (Given the target shortage problem, it might make sense.) The Saudis seem to be a lot less scrupulous about collateral damage when bombing Yemen than the US is when bombing ISIS. And when Turkey started flying air strikes in Syria, the American media portrayed it as their finally joining the US air campaign against ISIS, even though most of their air strikes were against the Kurds.

 

[sculptor]

There's a basic inconsistency in a lot of the anti-Russian rhetoric. We are supposed to simultaneously believe that Russia is a threat to NATO, especially in the Baltics, while believing that the Russian military is nothing but junk and incapable of operating effectively. But it can't be both things at once.

Part of that is due to rules of engagement. The majority of American sorties against ISIS return to their bases with their bombs still aboard.

Wow-land loaded---real ballsy ----during nam, they dumped unused bombs in the south china sea before returning to base.

Yes, the Saudis and some of their Gulf allies do seem more interested in bombing the Shi'ite Houthis than in bombing Sunni ISIS. (Given the target shortage problem, it might make sense.) The Saudis seem to be a lot less scrupulous about collateral damage when bombing Yemen than the US is when bombing ISIS. And when Turkey started flying air strikes in Syria, the American media portrayed it as their finally joining the US air campaign against ISIS, even though most of their air strikes were against the Kurds.

The people there are playing a complicated game. It seems that our leaders are only guessing at the rules, and team compositions.

Go Kurdistan!

 

[joepistole]

First, Putin has never stated that the men in green were not part of Russian army. Then, there have been also a lot (several thousands) local militias, also with weapons, in part the Crimean parts of the Ukrainian Berkut police special forces which after the coup returned to Crimea with their weapons.

First, let me say your continual denial of reality is impressive. This isn’t the first time, nor will it be the last time you have been shown your assertion is clearly wrong.

“Initially,President of RussiaVladimir Putinstated that the men in green were not part ofRussian Armed Forces, but groups of local militia who had obtained their weapons from Ukrainians.[11]TheSACEURofNATOAllied Command Operations GeneralPhilip Breedlovesaid that these "green men" were in fact Russian troops.[12]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Ukrainian_crisis)#Official_Russian_reaction

And as previously pointed out to you the Berkut isn’t a militia. It’s part of the Ukrainian police forces. It never left Crimea. It’s a full-time professional police unit.

Definition of militia:

a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

I have seen this interview in Russian. So don't tell me translated distortions. Some stupid journalist has formulated an quite imprecise question about some men in uniforms, and Putin has, roughly, answered, uniforms can be bought in any militaria shop.

Yeah, you have seen a lot of material which clearly demonstrates the errors of your assertions. But you won’t let little things like facts, evidence, and reason get in the way of your denials.

"Admitted" LOL. There was already before an open statement that the government of Crimea has asked the Russian army located in Sewastopol to support them by retaining the public safety and order. And the chief of the garnison has also openly said that this will be done.

Well, you are not being honest again comrade.

Again, there was a coup in Kiev, and as the legal president of the Ukraine, as the local government of Crimea have officially asked Russia for military support.

Except, he wasn’t the legal president, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, he was indicted and convicted of felony corruption crimes. He was impeached by a duly elected Ukrainian parliament. Putin’s stooge in Kiev was replaced by his parliament. He was legally removed from office. Russia had no business invading, occupying and annexing the lands of Georgia and Ukraine. Clearly Russia failed not only to honor international law, but also its own agreement recognizing the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

That your sources have been silent about the invitations is their fault, it does not mean that they did not exist. And, again, official persons of whatever organizations who refuse to accept the legal power (which was, after the separation, the government of Crimea) should not wonder if nobody cares about their diplomatic status - this is symmetric, if they do not acknowledge the Crimean government, but behave as if the Nazis in Kiev were a legal government, is not acknowledged as a diplomat. They should blame themself.

Actually, it is your problem. You have repeatedly asserted, and contrary to all previously presented data, that Mother Russia has issued invitations to credible international observers. So where is the credible data to back up that assertion? You have none, because it didn’t happen.

My sources, credible sources, have not been silent. Far from it, they reported being physically assaulted. They reported being harassed and threatened with gunfire. That’s what they reported. Now maybe it’s different in Mother Russia, but in the civilized world we don’t physically assault, harass, and threaten invitees with gunfire.

Per previously referenced materials. “Crimea’s” government wasn’t a legitimate government. Mother Russia had illegally replaced the Crimean government with a Russian government.

And despite some irrelevant claims of minor distortions, it is clear that even the most fair referendum would have given an overwhelming support for becoming part of Russia.

Well if that were so, then why was a status quo option not on the “referendum”? Why was Mother Russia so afraid of that option? As previously and repeated pointed out to you, there was no option on the referendum which would have led to remaining a part of Ukraine. It was a Soviet style ballot with effectively only one choice on the ballot.

Unfortunately for you and your beloved Putin, the world isn’t as stupid as you need it to be.

The other was not annexion by Russia but independence, and return to the 1992 constitution. In this constitution, Crimea was officially nonetheless part of Ukraine - simply with much greater autonomy.

Unfortunately comrade, the world isn’t as stupid as you need it to be. Given, Mother Russia had replaced the duly elected Crimean government with a pro-Russian government, installing a pro-Russia guy who had only received 5 percent of the popular vote, as prime minister, a return to the 1002 Constitution would have led to Russian annexation too.

Why was Mother Russia so afraid of allowing a vote for the status quo (i.e. remaining in the Ukraine) if annexation was such a popular notion as you and your beloved Mother Putin have asserted? And let’s not forget all the Russians who would not normally be qualified to vote in a Crimean election or referendum to vote.

Nonsense. The democratically elected parlament of Crimea as well as of Sewastopol remained up to some elections later.

The Crimean parliament was duly elected before Mother Russia marched in with armed troops and took over the Crimean parliament and replaced the leaders under force of arms. Now, given Mother Russia’s history, you probably don’t have this rule in Mother Russia, but in the civilized world, we do not recognize acts committed under undue duress as legitimate and a gun barrel in the back of the head does indeed constitute undue duress.

Nonsense. Former security officer Strelkow was in Crimea too, but far from being a leader there. The leaders in Crimea remained as politicians in Crimea.
Indeed. What makes them Nazis are their own political beliefs and, in particular, their open support for the Ukrainian Nazist traditions (Bandera and his UPA).

As previously and repeatedly pointed out to you, he was and he wasn’t alone. There were many others including Alexander Bordodai (self-proclaimed prime minister of Donetsk Peoples Republic), who was also a Russian citizen and Russian state security officer and served as an advisor to Sergey Aksyonov (the Russian installed Prime Minister of Crimea), who was also a Russian citizen with a long history in organized crime. After advising Russia's man in Crimea he went to the Donbass and led the Russia's efforts there and proclaiming himself prime minister.

 

[Schmelzer]

What have I written that could lead you to believe I admired Bandera?

You present this fascist leader of an organization which has murdered a lot of people simply because they had the wrong nationality, presenting him simply as a nationalist. This is the typical behavior of his admirers.

... this discussion was about Putin's little green men and your assertion his little green men were Ukrainian militias.

No. First, I do not use "little green men", but "polite men in green", then I have never doubted that they were Russian speznas. But their role was a rather small one - the defense of a few central buildings, which in other Ukrainian towns have been stormed by Bandera gangs, so that a danger of such action existed in Crimea too.

What I have said that the protection of the border between Crimea and Ukraine has been done not by Ukrainian but by local Crimean militias.

Clearly they were not local militias as you have asserted. They didn't exist prior to Russia's invasion of Crimea.

They didn't exist prior to the Nazi takeover in Kiev. They were created as a reaction, by the locals. With a lot of informal support, by volunteers from Russia from very different political directions, nationalists, communists, whatever.

The article you referenced clearly distinguishes Putin's little green men as separate and apart from the so called "militias" your article referenced and didn't exist prior to Russia's invasion.

Correct, and I'm telling you the same. There were a few "polite men in green" with very special jobs, namely the protection of some special buildings like the parliament, and there were local militias, a dubious mixture of a lot of volunteers, all pro-Russian of course, but this is already all what they have shared. Some with experience from the various Soviet and post-Soviet wars (Afghanistan, Chechen, Pridnestrowje, Karabach, Serbia), other simply locals with no more than standard conscription as experience. Some 50 of them later have gone to Slavjansk together with Strelkow.

How had he managed to travel from Russian-controlled territory to the east of the country? And from where did he get his Kalashnikov? He declined to answer but claimed the weapon had come from a seized police station, although Ukraine's police use different, smaller ones.

To travel was at that time not a problem at all, the Crimea-Ukrainian border was only defended on the side of Crimea by the same militias, the weapons they may have got as from police stations, as from security service, as from the Ukrainian army, they may have sized them or simply bought them because all these guys there were more or less pro-Russian and moreover they all (independent of political preferences) were extremely corrupt. Bezler later accused Poroshenko himself that he has taken money for weapons but not delivered the last truck of weapons. Which may be, of course, simply a propaganda joke by Bezler, but the point is that this claim is completely believable.

Russian support with weapons came later, when Poroshenko started the real war, with bombing civilians in town. The bombing of towns by air did not last a long time - and the reason is that the planes who did it were shot. Similarly, when the Ukrainians started to use, systematically, artillery to hit the towns, artillery for the defense appeared on the side of the rebels.

 

[Schmelzer]

“Initially,President of Russia Vladimir Putin stated that the men in green were not part of Russian Armed Forces, but groups of local militia who had obtained their weapons from Ukrainians.[11]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Ukrainian_crisis)#Official_Russian_reaction

English Wikipedia is certainly not a reliable source for what Putin has said. As I have said, for what Putin said, please present the Russian original. (Irrelevant NATO babble deleted)

And as previously pointed out to you the Berkut isn’t a militia. It’s part of the Ukrainian police forces. It never left Crimea. It’s a full-time professional police unit.

It is a special police force, and they have been in Kiev during the maidan, and have fought were with all this Bandera Nazi scum. Then, the Nazis have taken power, humilated the Berkut guys they were able to catch, and anyway they returned to their homes. Those who came from Crimea changed sides and started to organize the self-defense militias. But, given that they have, as a regular police force, access to weapons, this gave the militias also access to weapons. Taking over police stations, security service and some army barracks was another way to get access of weapons.

Except, he wasn’t the legal president, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, he was indicted and convicted of felony corruption crimes.

He was the legal president, because the Ukrainian constitution prescribes how an impeachment looks like, and what the Kiev Nazi junta has done to fake an impeachment did not even in their propaganda claims meet the criteria of the constitution.

You have repeatedly asserted, and contrary to all previously presented data, that Mother Russia has issued invitations to credible international observers. So where is the credible data to back up that assertion?

The point that not only the right-wing and left-wing guys who actually came have been invited, but also a lot of others, in particular also members of the German Bundestag, has been openly admitted in German state TV, as referenced (in German) by
http://medien-luegen.blogspot.com.eg/2014/03/wahlbeobachter-ewald-stadler-die.html and
https://propagandaschau.wordpress.c...gen-uber-wahlbeobachter-beim-krim-referendum/

“Es sind viele Abgeordnete auf der ganzen Welt von russischen Behörden angeschrieben worden, ob sie als Wahlbeobachter zur Verfügung stehen…Sie haben auch deutsche Bundestagsabgeordnete angeschrieben…“

The very idea that they would invite only right-wing and left-wing observers is stupid. What is not stupid is that the West did not want to legitimize the referendum by sending observers, who would have found nothing to object. So, of course all the politically correct invited guys refused to come. Here something about what the observers have seen:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...upported-by-the-crimean-people-250658201.html
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/...um-and-international-observers/article/377812
http://www.rekos.at/cms/Statement-Crimea.pdf
Of course, from your point of view only those who have rejected such a proposal can be considered as credible.

My sources, credible sources, have not been silent. Far from it, they reported being physically assaulted. They reported being harassed and threatened with gunfire. That’s what they reported. Now maybe it’s different in Mother Russia, but in the civilized world we don’t physically assault, harass, and threaten invitees with gunfire.

Nobody has threatened invited guys with gunfire. OSCE observers have been invited to the referendum, but have refused to come.

Prior to that, OSCE military observers, invited by the Ukraine government, but not by the government of Crimea, have tried to invade the territory of Crimea, and this has been prevented by the militias who have secured the border. Yes, with a warning shot. But these guys have not been invited.

Well if that were so, then why was a status quo option not on the “referendum”?

It was. For the simple reason that at that time Crimea has already declared its independence, thus, independence was, at the time of the referendum, the status quo. The former status quo was not an option, but this is a known problem of every referendum that there is only one choice, yes or no.

Why was Mother Russia so afraid of that option?

It wasn't. In fact, a typical trick of politicians to win a referendum is to use, as the alternative, something which is less popular. In this case, the alternative - independence - was more popular than the former status quo of remaining a Kiev-controlled region of the Ukraine.

The Crimean parliament was duly elected before Mother Russia marched in with armed troops and took over the Crimean parliament and replaced the leaders under force of arms. Now, given Mother Russia’s history, you probably don’t have this rule in Mother Russia, but in the civilized world, we do not recognize acts committed under undue duress as legitimate and a gun barrel in the back of the head does indeed constitute undue duress.

But that some force of arms was used is an unsupported propaganda claim. The professional protection of the parliament was a provable necessity, given storms of parliaments in other parts of the Ukraine and similar attempts the day before.

And a use of force is also completely implausible, given that the pro-Russian "party of regions" had a clear majority in the parliament, and Aksjonow was simply from another pro-Russian party. Without the "polite men in green", the probability of use of force - by the local pro-Russian militias, as well as by pro-Ukrainian Tatar extremists, above taking Kiev as an example - would have been much more plausible. It was based on their behavior protecting the parliament that the phrase "polite men in green" became popular.

 

[joepistole]

You present this fascist leader of an organization which has murdered a lot of people simply because they had the wrong nationality, presenting him simply as a nationalist. This is the typical behavior of his admirers.

I have just presented the facts, the facts you like to ignore. He fought Russians for Ukrainian independence and you don't like that, hence your attempts to misrepresent him. Per my previous references, the man clearly was a Ukrainian nationalists who fought Russian domination.

No. First, I do not use "little green men", but "polite men in green", then I have never doubted that they were Russian speznas. But their role was a rather small one - the defense of a few central buildings, which in other Ukrainian towns have been stormed by Bandera gangs, so that a danger of such action existed in Crimea too.

Yeah, the "polite little green men" who assaulted journalists, threatened people with gunfire, and expelled observers, they really were not so polite. Their role was critical; they took over government buildings including the parliament; they installed a fellow Russian as prime minister and ousted duly elected Crimean officials; they fired upon Ukrainian military units and they ejected them Crimea.

If you never doubted they were Russian speznas then why have you been denying they were?

What I have said that the protection of the border between Crimea and Ukraine has been done not by Ukrainian but by local Crimean militias.

No, this is the first time you have made that claim. And where is the credible evidence to back that claim? You are lying comrade.

They didn't exist prior to the Nazi takeover in Kiev. They were created as a reaction, by the locals. With a lot of informal support, by volunteers from Russia from very different political directions, nationalists, communists, whatever.

Except, there was no Nazi takeover in Kiev. Opposing Mother Russia doesn't make one a Nazi. The plain and simple fact is Crimea and later the Donbass was invaded by Russian troops using the cover of night and the invaders wore unmarked uniforms. Mother Russia also imported thugs,including the biker gang Mother Putin sometimes rides with, in order to create havoc first in Crimea and then Donetsk.

Correct, and I'm telling you the same. There were a few "polite men in green" with very special jobs, namely the protection of some special buildings like the parliament, and there were local militias, a dubious mixture of a lot of volunteers, all pro-Russian of course, but this is already all what they have shared. Some with experience from the various Soviet and post-Soviet wars (Afghanistan, Chechen, Pridnestrowje, Karabach, Serbia), other simply locals with no more than standard conscription as experience. Some 50 of them later have gone to Slavjansk together with Strelkow.

To travel was at that time not a problem at all, the Crimea-Ukrainian border was only defended on the side of Crimea by the same militias, the weapons they may have got as from police stations, as from security service, as from the Ukrainian army, they may have sized them or simply bought them because all these guys there were more or less pro-Russian and moreover they all (independent of political preferences) were extremely corrupt. Bezler later accused Poroshenko himself that he has taken money for weapons but not delivered the last truck of weapons. Which may be, of course, simply a propaganda joke by Bezler, but the point is that this claim is completely believable.

Russian support with weapons came later, when Poroshenko started the real war, with bombing civilians in town. The bombing of towns by air did not last a long time - and the reason is that the planes who did it were shot. Similarly, when the Ukrainians started to use, systematically, artillery to hit the towns, artillery for the defense appeared on the side of the rebels.

LOL, you keep trying to put lipstick on a pig. The fact is Mother Russia invaded Ukraine under the cover of darkness by first sending in unmarked Russian special forces units which took control over all critical areas including government buildings, roads, and communication facilities. Putin's little green men were also accompanied by gangs of thugs and criminals which conducted street protests.

And the men who led this invasion, occupation, and annexation were all Russian state security officers or members of Russian organized crime.

One more thing comrade, you are misquoting me. That too is dishonest. You have misrepresented one of my references as my writing, when it is not. I didn't write the following, " How had he managed to travel from Russian-controlled territory to the east of the country? And from where did he get his Kalashnikov? He declined to answer but claimed the weapon had come from a seized police station, although Ukraine's police use different, smaller ones."

That text came from a Guardian article I had referenced. The reporter/investigator asked those questions to one of Putin's thugs. The question wasn't directed to you. It was directed at the thug, and he refused to answer. So how would you know the answer better than the thug?

 

[joepistole]

English Wikipedia is certainly not a reliable source for what Putin has said. As I have said, for what Putin said, please present the Russian original. (Irrelevant NATO babble deleted)

Except that isn't true either. English Wikipedia sources are full documented. Do you know how to read references?

It is a special police force, and they have been in Kiev during the maidan, and have fought were with all this Bandera Nazi scum. Then, the Nazis have taken power, humilated the Berkut guys they were able to catch, and anyway they returned to their homes. Those who came from Crimea changed sides and started to organize the self-defense militias. But, given that they have, as a regular police force, access to weapons, this gave the militias also access to weapons. Taking over police stations, security service and some army barracks was another way to get access of weapons.

Yes, as I have repeatedly written now, it is a police force. It isn't a militia as you have repeatedly asserted. And I see you are back to your Nazi bullshit. Just because Ukrainians want to cast off Russian domination, it doesn't make them Nazis and they were not the little green men as you have and Putin first described, nor were they the hoodlums in the streets.

He was the legal president, because the Ukrainian constitution prescribes how an impeachment looks like, and what the Kiev Nazi junta has done to fake an impeachment did not even in their propaganda claims meet the criteria of the constitution.

Per the Ukrainian Constitution is the law and its impeachment of Putin's man was fully legal. Just because you don't like it, it doesn't make it illegal.

The point that not only the right-wing and left-wing guys who actually came have been invited, but also a lot of others, in particular also members of the German Bundestag, has been openly admitted in German state TV, as referenced (in German) by
http://medien-luegen.blogspot.com.eg/2014/03/wahlbeobachter-ewald-stadler-die.html and
https://propagandaschau.wordpress.c...gen-uber-wahlbeobachter-beim-krim-referendum/

The very idea that they would invite only right-wing and left-wing observers is stupid. What is not stupid is that the West did not want to legitimize the referendum by sending observers, who would have found nothing to object. So, of course all the politically correct invited guys refused to come. Here something about what the observers have seen:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...upported-by-the-crimean-people-250658201.html
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/...um-and-international-observers/article/377812
http://www.rekos.at/cms/Statement-Crimea.pdf
Of course, from your point of view only those who have rejected such a proposal can be considered as credible.

Of course, bullshit is bullshit. Articles which references Russian sources and only unnamed Russian sources are not credible, especially when the actual people who were suppose to receive these invitations say they never received them. And in any case, it makes no difference because of the previously mentioned problems. There wasn't a status quo option on the referendum. The referendum offered two choices, both of which would have led to annexation.

Nobody has threatened invited guys with gunfire. OSCE observers have been invited to the referendum, but have refused to come.

Prior to that, OSCE military observers, invited by the Ukraine government, but not by the government of Crimea, have tried to invade the territory of Crimea, and this has been prevented by the militias who have secured the border. Yes, with a warning shot. But these guys have not been invited.

It was. For the simple reason that at that time Crimea has already declared its independence, thus, independence was, at the time of the referendum, the status quo. The former status quo was not an option, but this is a known problem of every referendum that there is only one choice, yes or no.

It wasn't. In fact, a typical trick of politicians to win a referendum is to use, as the alternative, something which is less popular. In this case, the alternative - independence - was more popular than the former status quo of remaining a Kiev-controlled region of the Ukraine.

There was no status quo option. Again why was that the case? Without all options leading to an annexation, there was no choice to be made. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, without an opposing option a single vote for either option would have been sufficient for annexation. The vote was window dressing to cover Russia's annexation. Also as has been previously and repeatedly brought to your attention, Putin has confessed to planning this all out weeks earlier. There was a no annexation option. This was a Soviet style referendum.

But that some force of arms was used is an unsupported propaganda claim. The professional protection of the parliament was a provable necessity, given storms of parliaments in other parts of the Ukraine and similar attempts the day before.

And a use of force is also completely implausible, given that the pro-Russian "party of regions" had a clear majority in the parliament, and Aksjonow was simply from another pro-Russian party. Without the "polite men in green", the probability of use of force - by the local pro-Russian militias, as well as by pro-Ukrainian Tatar extremists, above taking Kiev as an example - would have been much more plausible. It was based on their behavior protecting the parliament that the phrase "polite men in green" became popular.

No, it isn't. It's a well documented fact. There was no legitimate need to take over the parliament with force of arms. There was no legitimate need to install a corrupt Russian as prime ministers. If you want to control street protesters you need to be on the streets, not in buildings. Street protests happen around the world, and in the civilized world, police don't take over buildings to control street protesters. Police are in the streets, where the protesters are.

 

[Schmelzer]

I have just presented the facts, the facts you like to ignore. He fought Russians for Ukrainian independence and you don't like that, hence your attempts to misrepresent him.

The point being? Hitler also fought for the independence of Germany, and he also build autobahns. By the way, he killed a lot of innocent people, but this is not very important, not even worth to be mentioned for you, not? So, again, these Bandera gangs have killed Russians, Poles and Jews, not fighters but civilists living in the Ukraine, simply for being Russians, Poles and Jews. This is what makes this movement fascist or Nazi, and given this no further information about these gangs in necessary to reject them completely.

Per my previous references, the man clearly was a Ukrainian nationalists who fought Russian domination.

And his mass murdering activities are a sort of innocent hobby, nothing worth to care about. Like the headcutting and liver eating of the terrorist scum in Syria. The only thing which matters is that they fight Russia.

Given that what remains is anyway only cheap repetition of the same lies, things which have been already answered many times, it seems time to stop this discussion with this Nazi defender. If somebody is searching for a Holocaust deniers, here you have at least a partial one, because what the Ukrainian UPA has done was part of the Holocaust.

 

[Yazata]

It looks like this thread has been well and truly hijacked by those who want it to be a 'Russia Sucks' thread instead of an 'Events in the Syrian civil war' thread.

So I think that I'm going to start a second 'Events in the Syrian Civil War' thread that hopefully can remain devoted to military and political events in that country, only discussing other nations in the context of what they are doing inside Syria.

 

[joepistole]

It looks like this thread has been well and truly hijacked by those who want it to be a 'Russia Sucks' thread instead of an 'Events in the Syrian civil war' thread.

So I think that I'm going to start a second 'Events in the Syrian Civil War' thread that hopefully can remain devoted to military and political events in that country, only discussing other nations in the context of what they are doing inside Syria.

A couple of things, first the truth is just the truth. If as a result of that Mother Russia looks bad, so be it. Second, you cannot extricate Russia from the military and political events in Syria given Mother Russia is heavily involved in the military and political events in Syria. Additionally, there are those in this thread, including the OP, who have tried to use this thread as a propaganda device for Mother Russia and her ally Assad, basically promulgating Assad's media and republishing Assad's and Putin's propaganda without any scrutiny.

 

[joepistole]

The point being? Hitler also fought for the independence of Germany, and he also build autobahns. By the way, he killed a lot of innocent people, but this is not very important, not even worth to be mentioned for you, not? So, again, these Bandera gangs have killed Russians, Poles and Jews, not fighters but civilists living in the Ukraine, simply for being Russians, Poles and Jews. This is what makes this movement fascist or Nazi, and given this no further information about these gangs in necessary to reject them completely.

And his mass murdering activities are a sort of innocent hobby, nothing worth to care about. Like the headcutting and liver eating of the terrorist scum in Syria. The only thing which matters is that they fight Russia.

Given that what remains is anyway only cheap repetition of the same lies, things which have been already answered many times, it seems time to stop this discussion with this Nazi defender. If somebody is searching for a Holocaust deniers, here you have at least a partial one, because what the Ukrainian UPA has done was part of the Holocaust.

The only Nazi defender here is you comrade. Yes, Nazi's killed/slaughtered numerous innocent people during WWII, but so did Mother Russia. Mother Russia (i.e. the Soviet Union) collaborated with Nazi Germany too. Mother Russia (i.e. the Soviet Union) allied itself with Nazis (e.g. the Munich Agreement) before it was betrayed by Nazi Germany. Mother Russia murdered Poles too. With the exception of Ukrainian independence, everything you accuse Bandera of can also be said of Mother Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_collaborationism_with_the_Axis_powers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

 

[Schmelzer]

I will ignore this Bandera fan who thinks some "Mother Russia" has to be blamed for the misdeeds of some guys ruled by a Western ideology (marxism) and Georgian and Ukrainian politicians when they had power over Russia and destroyed all its traditions.

There is not much really new from Syria - some of the twitter level news of the past days were premature, but it seems that one or two days later they have nonetheless happened. So, it seems Kafr Naya has been taken by the SAA. And the airbase Ming as well as the village of the same name are under control of the Kurds - even if there remains a little doubt that all the resistance has been completely suppressed. The situation in Latakia is less clear, with a lot of doubt if this or that village or mountain has been taken or not - except that there is agreement that the last week was a quite successful one for the Syrian army.

The interesting new thing is that the Syrian army has started a new offensive in the direction toward Raqqa. I doubt the aim of this offensive is really to take Raqqa. Actually, I think it is, first of all, to find out and take the weak points of the IS in this direction. And to advance as long as the IS allows it because it is not yet too dangerous for them. In this way, what is created is an additional point - or, even better, several of them - where dangerous attacks against the IS can be started, and which, therefore, bind some IS forces to defend them. There have been already created several of them, having positions near Deir Hafer, near Al Bab, near Aleppo with the danger to encircle some IS territory breaking through to Aleppo, there are old ones near Palmyra, near Qaratein, and Deir Ezzor. And now a new one will be created. One where IS will have a big problem with defending, because this is mainly desert, up to the really interesting regions near the Euphrat.

I have wondered a long time why there is no attack on Palmyra or Qaratein. Later I have wondered why there is no attack on Deir Hafer or Al Bab. Now I'm sure that this is intentional. They do not want to fight in towns - the only town which has been attacked was Sheikh Miskeen. Everything else where, essentially, big villages. They prefer to attack rural areas. This has a lot of advantages: One can see the enemy much better, and can bomb him without hesitation, much less problems with collateral victims. On the other hand, the enemy has to move his forces much more, which makes them vulnerable to air attacks. Given that the enemy has no airforce, it is much easier for the Syrian army to drive its forces around, without the enemy even knowing about this. So, it is now the Syrian army which can afford very long frontlines, and force the enemy to have similar long frontlines. And it is nice for Syria to bind a lot of IS forces as in Palmyra, as in Qaratein, as in Deir Hafer, as in Al Bab, as in Deir Ezzor, as in Manbidzh where they have to be afraid of the Kurds. And now they need forces in yet another far away place.

This makes sense also given that the IS fighters are highly fanatical, so, with high moral, but fewer in numbers. The Syrian army are mainly conscripts, thus, certainly not that fanatical. But they will be, nonetheless, good enough in defense, especially if they have artillery and air support against attackers. In a rural environment, it is also not a big problem if they give up some positions - what is more important is that the enemy looses a lot of fighters attacking. Own attacks may be left to special forces who know how to do this. But there may be a long front without such special forces, thus, unable to attack, but how does the enemy know about this, once they are strong enough to defend themself? And once one does not know this, one cannot leave the frontlines without own forces.

But about the possible target of the offensive: First, there is some 20 or so km away some oil plant, which is also crossroad. And the Northern way leads, after some other 30 km, to the Tabka airbase. This is probably the main target. It is, of course, a long way to the airbase. But, on the other hand, there is desert, nothing on the road, and what is on the road can be bombed away without any hesitation about civil casualties.

And already quite close to this airbase there is something much more important - the main supply line of the IS, the highway nr. 4 from Aleppo along the Euphrat toward the Iraq border. Cutting it means cutting the connection from Raqqa to Turkey. This would be a deadly danger, thus, something the IS cannot allow. That means, he has to defend this regions with all means. In the desert.

 

[joepistole]

I will ignore this Bandera fan who thinks some "Mother Russia" has to be blamed for the misdeeds of some guys ruled by a Western ideology (marxism) and Georgian and Ukrainian politicians when they had power over Russia and destroyed all its traditions.

Well, that's nothing new for you. You ignore most if not all evidence you don't like and slander folks to boot. Additionally, you seem to have forgotten who the real Marxists were either that or you are just being dishonest again. Western ideology has never been ruled by Marxism. Further, nobody is blaming Mother Russia for anything she hasn't done.

The facts are, Mother Russia committed every atrocity you have accused Bandera of doing. Those are had facts comrade, and I don't care if you don't like them. It isn't intellectually honest for you to ignore those facts as you have consistently done.

There is not much really new from Syria - some of the twitter level news of the past days were premature, but it seems that one or two days later they have nonetheless happened. So, it seems Kafr Naya has been taken by the SAA. And the airbase Ming as well as the village of the same name are under control of the Kurds - even if there remains a little doubt that all the resistance has been completely suppressed. The situation in Latakia is less clear, with a lot of doubt if this or that village or mountain has been taken or not - except that there is agreement that the last week was a quite successful one for the Syrian army.

The interesting new thing is that the Syrian army has started a new offensive in the direction toward Raqqa. I doubt the aim of this offensive is really to take Raqqa. Actually, I think it is, first of all, to find out and take the weak points of the IS in this direction. And to advance as long as the IS allows it because it is not yet too dangerous for them. In this way, what is created is an additional point - or, even better, several of them - where dangerous attacks against the IS can be started, and which, therefore, bind some IS forces to defend them. There have been already created several of them, having positions near Deir Hafer, near Al Bab, near Aleppo with the danger to encircle some IS territory breaking through to Aleppo, there are old ones near Palmyra, near Qaratein, and Deir Ezzor. And now a new one will be created. One where IS will have a big problem with defending, because this is mainly desert, up to the really interesting regions near the Euphrat.

I have wondered a long time why there is no attack on Palmyra or Qaratein. Later I have wondered why there is no attack on Deir Hafer or Al Bab. Now I'm sure that this is intentional. They do not want to fight in towns - the only town which has been attacked was Sheikh Miskeen. Everything else where, essentially, big villages. They prefer to attack rural areas. This has a lot of advantages: One can see the enemy much better, and can bomb him without hesitation, much less problems with collateral victims. On the other hand, the enemy has to move his forces much more, which makes them vulnerable to air attacks. Given that the enemy has no airforce, it is much easier for the Syrian army to drive its forces around, without the enemy even knowing about this. So, it is now the Syrian army which can afford very long frontlines, and force the enemy to have similar long frontlines. And it is nice for Syria to bind a lot of IS forces as in Palmyra, as in Qaratein, as in Deir Hafer, as in Al Bab, as in Deir Ezzor, as in Manbidzh where they have to be afraid of the Kurds. And now they need forces in yet another far away place.

This makes sense also given that the IS fighters are highly fanatical, so, with high moral, but fewer in numbers. The Syrian army are mainly conscripts, thus, certainly not that fanatical. But they will be, nonetheless, good enough in defense, especially if they have artillery and air support against attackers. In a rural environment, it is also not a big problem if they give up some positions - what is more important is that the enemy looses a lot of fighters attacking. Own attacks may be left to special forces who know how to do this. But there may be a long front without such special forces, thus, unable to attack, but how does the enemy know about this, once they are strong enough to defend themself? And once one does not know this, one cannot leave the frontlines without own forces.

But about the possible target of the offensive: First, there is some 20 or so km away some oil plant, which is also crossroad. And the Northern way leads, after some other 30 km, to the Tabka airbase. This is probably the main target. It is, of course, a long way to the airbase. But, on the other hand, there is desert, nothing on the road, and what is on the road can be bombed away without any hesitation about civil casualties.

And already quite close to this airbase there is something much more important - the main supply line of the IS, the highway nr. 4 from Aleppo along the Euphrat toward the Iraq border. Cutting it means cutting the connection from Raqqa to Turkey. This would be a deadly danger, thus, something the IS cannot allow. That means, he has to defend this regions with all means. In the desert.

And where is your support for this? Where are your references? I'm concerned because you have a habit of labeling Syrian and dissidents as ISIS or terrorists and cannibals.

 

[Billy T]

A short term prediction:
By 1 March almost all of Aleppo will be in the Syrian government control. I.e. Putin has proposed 1 March as start of a new cease fire. (Because he thinks, with his bombing the government forces will control Aleppo by then.)

 

[Tiassa]

Quick hits:

https://twitter.com/BreakingNews/status/697933240984866816 (Retweeted by MaddowBlog) ― "US Secretary of State John Kerry say diplomats have agreed to 'cessation of hostalities' in Syria and expanded aid"

http://www.breakingnews.com/item/2016/02/12/us-secretary-of-state-john-kerry-says-nationwide-c/ ― "US Secretary of State John Kerry says nationwide ceasefire to begin in Syria in 1 week; aid to begin immediately"

(waiting/searching for news copy)

"Cessation of hostilities"

Press availability underway: http://video.state.gov/live/

 

[Tiassa]

You know, it probably helps if instead of using a search engine, I just look where I expect the news to be:

• Associated Press. "The Latest: Diplomats agree to Syria cease-fire in a week". The Big Story. 11 February 2016. Bigstory.AP.org. 11 February 2016. http://apne.ws/20P7Hej​

 

[joepistole]

Good news if it happens.

 

[Schmelzer]

A short term prediction:
By 1 March almost all of Aleppo will be in the Syrian government control. I.e. Putin has proposed 1 March as start of a new cease fire. (Because he thinks, with his bombing the government forces will control Aleppo by then.)

I doubt. Because I doubt that any ceasefire with any non-islamistic forces will change much on the ground.

"While the ceasefire will require the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the non-jihadist forces to cease hostilities with one another; this is not the case with Islamist groups like Jabhat Al-Nusra (Syrian Al-Qaeda group), Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham, and the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS)."
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-ceasefire-to-begin-in-one-week/

So what, who is left? Nothing relevant, all the so-called "rebels" cooperate with Al Nusra. All one can hope for is to create some split on the "rebel" side, that some parts stop to cooperate with Al Nusra to get a ceasefire. But those will be immediately fought by Nusra itself

And Putin is not bombing Aleppo. He is bombing the terrorists where the fight goes, which is actually North of Aleppo, and not Aleppo itself.

 

[Billy T]

I'll stick with my prediction: Almost all of Aleppo will be in the government's control by 1 March.

I think there is a good chance, some humanitrian aid will get to some of the places it is badly needed, but not all.