The Situation in the Ukraine. #17

PapaDragon wrote:When NATO attacked us they expected us to capitulate in 72 hours. Instead they had to settle for negotiated end after 3 months. Getting bombed was unavoidable part of the events.
We were isolated, cut off, outnumbered, outgunned, and out of time. Still we pulled off the impossible.

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:

Rodinazombie wrote:
The moment NAF starts a major offensive and carves up territory that whole process of ukrainian disintigration goes back to zero.

You are living in a la-la land if you think that non-Donbass Ukraine is in danger of disintegration. What happened in Mukacheno was nice and even encouraging, but it was still only a minor skirmish involving only a handful people.

In fact Russia is more of a danger of losing Northern Caucasus than Ukraine is in danger of being disintegrated.

Ya drunk?

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:When NATO attacked us they expected us to capitulate in 72 hours. Instead they had to settle for negotiated end after 3 months. Getting bombe'd was unavoidable part of the events.
We were isolated, cut off, outnumbered, outgunned, and out of time. Still we pulled off the impossible.

You fought well, but you lost the war and the territory you fought for.
The "negotiated end" was not much better than Minsk I-II.

Karl Haushofer wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:

Rodinazombie wrote:
The moment NAF starts a major offensive and carves up territory that whole process of ukrainian disintigration goes back to zero.

You are living in a la-la land if you think that non-Donbass Ukraine is in danger of disintegration. What happened in Mukacheno was nice and even encouraging, but it was still only a minor skirmish involving only a handful people.

In fact Russia is more of a danger of losing Northern Caucasus than Ukraine is in danger of being disintegrated.

Ya drunk?

Well, I don't see either of them as a serious possibility right now. Ukraine will not disintegrate because there are no regions in Ukraine (except maybe for Donbass) where the majority of people do not consider themselves Ukrainians. And Russia is not going to lose Chechnya or Dagestan either because at the moment Russia has enough resources to keep these regions mostly happy.

However, the prospect of Russia losing Chechnya or Dagestan is higher than prospect of Ukraine losing any of its current regions because these Russian regions have a different mentality and religion and ethnicity than the majority of the Russian people.

Karl Haushofer wrote:Probably, but Russia would lose a big portion of Black Sea coastline with Dagestan and also the Caucasus mountains as a geographical barrier in south.

Karl Haushofer wrote:And NATO would most likely swallow Chechnya and Dagestan with military bases soon after.

Karl Haushofer wrote:Ukraine only lost Crimea because of Russia's direct intervention. Without Russian intervention Crimea would be still Ukrainian.

видео видео wrote:Donetsk. shelling near a bridge on a bet.

видео видео wrote:Shelling terrorists DNR Avdeevka

Ира Типичная wrote:Attention! 18 July 15 shelling of Makeyevka

TGodessa wrote:Shock! American mercenaries already in Odessa!

Министерство информации ДНР wrote:tatement by Alexander Zakharchenko, Denis Pushilin and Vladislav Dane

whir wrote:Sorry if this offends someone but...

WTF has happened here? Is everyone going full retard?

sepheronx wrote:

BKP wrote:I don't think there's been a single day in which Ukes haven't been in violation of Minsk 2. We know the Western MSM ignore or misrepresent this and fully expected them to do so. And, of course, they will howl with outrage if NAF go on the the offensive, and put all the blame on them and Putin while screaming about the "Minsk agreement."

Since it's a given that Novos will be blamed regardless, I'm wondering why they don't go on the offensive. Maybe they still don't have adequate forces to do so? Offense is risky, but maybe the US government's strategy for the Ukes is to never commit to a major thrust again, and just slowly kill everyone and destroy everything from a relatively safe distance. That sounds like something they'd come up with: dirty, ruthless, cowardly, but possibly effective in the long term.

Obviously, the NAF have a clearer picture of what their situation, capabilities, and limitations than we can ever have. Still, it's extremely frustrating having to watch the side of evil and lies deliberately kill civilians day after day.

I'm still hoping something will give and there will be positive developments.

Only thing now is to strike back with artillery on the PUkes artillery positions.  The west will scream about it but do nothing.  Because then the PUkes will have to leave their hardened positions to go fight, and NAF would destroy them.  So the only thing NAF isn't doing which should be doing, is hitting those artillery positions.

Karl Haushofer wrote:
I am a Western citizen and a Western dominated world probably is good for my material well being, but a moral side of me finds this very disturbing and distressing. I feel for the non-Western world but I also think that they should finally stand up and defend themselves.

Rodinazombie wrote:

Going on a full blown offensive just plays right into poroshenkos hands. Look how far ukraine has fallen down the black hole, how its militias are biting it on the ass with tensions building up. The moment NAF starts a major offensive and carves up territory that whole process of ukrainian disintigration goes back to zero.

The rift between porky and the rabbit, pravy sektor, other militias will disappear.
Suddenly more money will be pouring in from europe and the US and ukraines financial meltdown will be put on hold.
The fracturing ukie society will pull together via more brainwashing in the face of russian aggression.

We dont want any of the above happening, why do you think the americans and kiev have been doing their best to goad NAF into doing just that?? If they want you to do it, then its pretty obvious that its the last thing you want to be doing.

Rodinazombie wrote:

There has however, got to be a response to the shelling and constant breaking of the minsk treaty by the ukies. They cant be allowed. Or seen to be allowed to shell residential areas with impunity. Whether the response it political or military, it cannot be ignore

sepheronx wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:

Rodinazombie wrote:
The moment NAF starts a major offensive and carves up territory that whole process of ukrainian disintigration goes back to zero.

You are living in a la-la land if you think that non-Donbass Ukraine is in danger of disintegration. What happened in Mukacheno was nice and even encouraging, but it was still only a minor skirmish involving only a handful people.

In fact Russia is more of a danger of losing Northern Caucasus than Ukraine is in danger of being disintegrated.

Ya drunk?

Well, I don't see either of them as a serious possibility right now. Ukraine will not disintegrate because there are no regions in Ukraine (except maybe for Donbass) where the majority of people do not consider themselves Ukrainians. And Russia is not going to lose Chechnya or Dagestan either because at the moment Russia has enough resources to keep these regions mostly happy.

However, the prospect of Russia losing Chechnya or Dagestan is higher than prospect of Ukraine losing any of its current regions because these Russian regions have a different mentality and religion and ethnicity than the majority of the Russian people.

Check the government support polls in the Russian regions of the Caucasus. The results will blow your mind.

Care to share those?  I heard Putin was ridiculously popular in the NC regions, but I have no idea.

whir wrote:Sorry if this offends someone but...

WTF has happened here? Is everyone going full retard?

As I wrote yesterday replying to Kepesh I've the feeling that we're witnessing a redux of "the reinforcements are coming" from last summer.

All positions along the frontline are compromised after months of intel gathering and susceptible to artillery. Just the notion of a pull back wrecks any orchestrated effort to monitor NAF activity along the contact line.

The combined arms training we have seen in the last few weeks is not simply a stupid way to spend fuel and ammunition for the sake of it.

And don't forget that ATO 2 is just in it's initial stage with NG driving around just like they were doing prior to the referendum.

Flagship Victory wrote:My thinking is that the west bated Putin into taking Crimea.

Flagship Victory wrote:Absorbing such a big chunk of Ukraine guarantees that Ukrainians will hate Russia forever, sort of like between Syria and Israel after Israel absorbed Golan in 1982.

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:You are thinking too highly of the USAE leadership.

Flagship Victory wrote:Belarus is next.

Flagship Victory wrote:My thinking is that the west bated Putin into taking Crimea. Absorbing such a big chunk of Ukraine guarantees that Ukrainians will hate Russia forever, sort of like between Syria and Israel after Israel absorbed Golan in 1982. Putin should have been wiser. Occupy to keep Ukrainian troops out, but not absorb.

Karl Haushofer wrote:

Flagship Victory wrote:Belarus is next.

At another board I came across with a Belarussian guy. He is currently in Kiev and his brother is fighting in one of Kiev's volunteer battalions.

These were his words and I don't know how truthful they are, but he said that after they are done with Donbass separatists they will go after Lukashenko and replace him. And they have wide support from Western intelligence services.

Flagship Victory wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:

Flagship Victory wrote:Belarus is next.

At another board I came across with a Belarussian guy. He is currently in Kiev and his brother is fighting in one of Kiev's volunteer battalions.

These were his words and I don't know how truthful they are, but he said that after they are done with Donbass separatists they will go after Lukashenko and replace him. And they have wide support from Western intelligence services.

For sure most Belarussians hate Lukashenko. Lukashenko is getting old and he's going to run again. This time he'll meet his doom like Gaddafi.

Flagship Victory wrote:On the contrary, the US foreign policy against Russia has been working very well. Systematically taking down Russia's allies. Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Serbia, Ukraine, and now Cuba. Selling arms to India to make India a client of the US rather than a client of Russia. Belarus is next.

Karl Haushofer wrote:
What makes you think the most Belarussians hate him?