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.
Yeah, something like that. Withdrawing heavy weapons at this point as a "goodwill" gesture... I'm not seeing it. There's no goodwill in Kiev, it doesn't exist, and the "gesture" will be ignored by Kiev, Washington and their MSM mouthpieces. So, why bother making it? Maybe these are sarcastic statements, like Putin calling the governments of Europe and North America "partners."
Maybe these positions are just becoming untenable for the NAF, or they actually are trying to lure the ukrops to attack in force, as neutrality said. I don't know. We'll see.
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.
As for Western "material well being," what happened to the Greeks might well be what's in store for all of us. The nation states are being dismantled, public assets privatized, democracy usurped. A new era of corporate serfdom is dawning. </digression>
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.
I agree, and this has largely been my position all along. The renewal of large-scale fighting in the east would threaten to undermine process of disintegration taking hold in Ukraine.
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
Ah, see? As we just said, a response can carry the danger of stabilizing the rest of Ukraine, which is bad. So, what will the response be?
This, again, is why I'm glad I'm not actually making these decisions. This is now a very complex situation. I still have faith in the current leadership.
Also, as to anyone casting aspersions on Putin (not you, RZ). It is clear to me, at least, that he is the great statesman of the current age. In fact, he is one of the few actual statesmen that exist anymore. It's clear that most national "leaders" are puppets now. I won't post some bullet list of his remarkable track record. We are undoubtedly all familiar with it, or should be. I'll just add that I, for one, would not want to be in that man's shoes and take weight of his responsibilities onto my shoulders, or make the decisions that he has to.