The Situation in the Ukraine. #23

SturmGuard wrote:Does anyone else here remember those stories from the end of July/beginning of August of those pairs and trios of UkrOp survivors speaking of Russian "T-90s" and "Spetsnaz" obliteratig their platoons? Well, it seems that they weren't bullshiting, in the north around Lugansk there actually were T-90s while the south got "only" advanced T-72s. I was always sceptical of the claims that artillery alone can destroy so many AFVs (which was the prevalent theory back then).

They also claimed to have destroyed Armata tanks.

Neutrality wrote:They also claimed to have destroyed Armata tanks.

Without a doubt there was plenty of nonsense, I almost wet my pants when retarded Western MSM reported the usual UkrOp bullshit of "having destroyed an ENTIRE Russian Army armored convoy" and then watched how awkward and ashamed were they when they realised that no pictures, confirmation or information whatsoever exists of the reported "event", in other words, they reported something for domestic consumption. Even our domestic crappy c/p media fully embraced the story, and then were harrased for days by people asking about the location or pictures of the hulls.

But these guys were different, they were really battered and demoralised, there were no claims of heroic stand, no "T-90s destroyed and 2000 Spetsnaz killed", just that their position was annihilated and they barely escaped with their lives. If my memory serves me correct, the UkrOp leadership threatened those who survived/retreated or fled to Russia from those cauldrons that they will be trialed for desertion :DDD

I mean, what is the official number of "deserters" right now for UkrOps? Didn't they open several thousand court cases for "deserters"?


I think Russians should be proud of their armed forces/compatriots and leadership, the way they handled the terrible situation wasn't perfect, but it could have been far worse.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

jhelb wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Once I was trying to explain some aspects of the current world war by drawing parallels with WW2 wherever it was appropriate, and he comes and says "What does WW2 has to do with the current situation."

Needless to say, that very important discussion got wrecked.

Morpheus,

It's a shame that such an important discussion was derailed by some troll but can you please share that link with me if you have some time? Thanks.

jhelb,

Those discussions were probably from the time the Ukrainian civil war had just started; I will try to see if I can find some of the posts.

However, as would be expected, these kind of discussions can't get much traction before the well-known forum-wreckers putting an end to them, especially that the topic was on a subject that is just now becoming fashionable to discuss, i.e., that of the current world war. Basically not much was allowed to be discussed here at that time.

The part of those posts that I can remember, however, was on the early phases of the WW2 (GPW), where for example from 22/06/41 until I think early July '41 the "Nazis" were allegedly advancing into the Russian territory, while the Russian government's public position was that the "Nazi" advances were just enemy propaganda.

I will try to write more about this if the opportunity presents. Until then, I should point out that I am not suggesting that the current world war will be a direct parallel of any of the previous world wars. On the contrary, I have been of the opinion that the current world war will have a fundamentally different outcome.

Maybe u should make a thread about this topic.

flamming_python wrote:
Not at all, it was pretty clear to me that Russian forces were directly involved for quite some time. Looking at Kadyrov's Chechen battallion, who were deployed there very openly and made plenty of their own video blog entries - is the easiest way to confirm that. Officially speaking they are Russian MVD servicemen, and they never would have found their way there w/o Kadyrov's orders, who himself would have never given those orders w/o at least an OK from the Kremlin.

Chechen paramilitary are one thing, regulars are an entirely different one.

And there were plenty of other indicators too; the destroyed columns of Ukrainian armour,

I think Khepesh here will agree that Ukrainian tankers poor tactics and leadership are to blame. Remember what happened to Russian tankers in Grozny in 1994.

the complete thrashing that the Ukraine got in all its cauldrons and the skillful way in which their lines were completely broken apart after these catastrophies,

Encirclement and destroying the encircled enemy is easy enough. Savages have managed to wipe out civilized armies in this way repeated times.

That there were Russian commanders and advisors coordinating these operations, very likely. But saying that the South Cauldron and the pockets leading to Ilovaysk were the work of the Russian army... I don't think so.

Artillery fire from across the border? Plausible but there is no proof. Anyway, I remembered very vividly when following the war day by day how the Novorussian meager forces grew little by little with each capture. I remember the first battery of D-30 guns they captured and the first Grad they used. If the Novorussians had Russian support, it would not have taken so long to wipe out the cauldrons, Lugansk airport.. etc

Militia could have perfectly trashed the Ukrops on their own. They had help, but they did the fighting. For a variety of reasons I do not believe in the "North Wind".

basically left right open for anyone to nip through (but of course no-one did as the West rushed to get Minsk 1 & 2 signed, correspondingly).

The problem with "North Wind" is that if the Kremlin had decided on Russian intervention, they used very scant resources and achieved too little. Mariupol could have been taken and the Debaltsevo salient would have not formed. Minsk agreements should have never been signed unless the Kremlin is desperate to avoid a repetition of the Korean War.

As for the Debaltsevo bulge and other battles there, I am familiar with the problems of an improvised army trying to go on the offensive for the first time. If there were Russian "tourists" fighting with the NAF, they fought poorly, or the Ukranians had the support of Western forces. All the tales of NATO advisors and mercenaries fighting with the Ukranian army are as credible as the "North Wind", again for a variety of reasons. There may have been a couple battallions worth of Polish mercenaries, but that is all.

That sort of thing won't happen without the involvement of Russian SF, air defence specialists and officers/command staff, that's pretty clear.

We have been through this before. Special forces are just commandoes, light infantry. A few raids would have had no appreciable impact in what was battles with tanks and artillery involving thousands of troops.

Air defense? Just a few shoulder fired missiles taken from the Georgians in 2008. If Russia had really wanted to help the rebels, they would have provided an ample supply of antitank missiles and RPGs, not just a smattering of them, wich are more likely to have been provided by sympathetic officers in the armed forces  

Intelligence support? Advisors? Instructors? Most certainly. Instructors need not cross the border. Zakharchenko at the time let slip that the offensive was conducted by troops trained in Russia, in 2014. You mention a similar history later on

I have heard of how rebel armour battallions were being trained in Rostov; manned mostly by rebel volunteers - and how 2 such formations were sent in in time for Debaltsevo.

Then all the stories of Russian servicemen volunteering for Ukraine duty, resignations, holidays, casualties, etc... well, there's no smoke w/o fire as they say.

Yes, yes. All the same. There are Russian volunteers there, but they are only between 10-20% of the militias, and a lot are just normal guys without any previous training. Even the Ukranian generals admitted they were not fighting the Russian army but the Donbass people.

If there were a few thousands Russian soldiers involved there that would be impossible to conceal. The Ukrops would have found corpses, or captured prisoners. And people back home there would have notice people missing, particularly in military units.

I think the numbers involved of actual RF soldiers are small, in the hundreds, and casualties can be concealed. Is likely the "tourists" are not fighting as infantry in the trenches, but are found at command levels, as artillery officers, and perhaps as tank crews.  From what can be ascertained, is possible there was a limited involvement in the summer of 2014, some Russian tanks entered Ukraine to protect the aid convoys and had a fierce clash with Ukranian tank columns, but the cauldrons are the work of the militia.

On the map, at the height of the battles the situation looked desperate, but I said at the time the situation was not so dire. The Ukranian army was being bled white in frontal assaults , and their flanks were exposed, to use a repeated comparison, the situation was similar to the Stalingrad campaign on the eve of the Soviet offensive. I am sure I was not the only one that predicted the Southern Cauldron and the successive ones. And the rebels did not need Russian army to perform them, though perhaps Strelkov needed replacement and likely there was a Russian staff directing maneuvers.

As for the videos we've seen now and before a few times, of fully formed battallions++ of armour and support vehicles manned by clearly well-trained crewmen - that always looked suspicious too

That is because people have a romantic view of the guerrilla fighter as a guy with a Kalashnikov and an RPG fighting a regular army, but throghout all the wars after WWII there are plenty examples of guerrillas learning to use complex weapons such as artillery and tanks.. You can make competent artillerists out of civilians and I, and Khepesh agrees, believe the same thing can be done with armor crews.

A competent cadre of officers and sergeants can turn civilians into competent soldiers in a short time. That's the difference between the Novorussian rebels and the Ukranian troops.

My point is that a fully formed rebel column of tanks in the march does not means they are crewed by  Russian regulars, though the leaders or advisors probably are.

Also, there is another story. I am sure I read it in MPnet thread. Somebody posted that some rebel tanks crossed a village, and when one of the locals asked where they came from the tankes replied "from Crimea". One youth asked if he could join, and with a smile they said "sure, come onboard" and he joined them wearing slippers.

I think very plausible that a lot of the "Russian" troops in Donbass are former Ukranian army regulars that were stationed in Crimea. From one of my wife acquaintances, a policeman, I know there are a lot of Crimean volunteers fighting in Donbass, mostly of these military and some police.

I think it is likely that these Crimean tankers, possibly even with their own Ukranian army tanks were the ones that formed the nucleus of the militias first armored forces. Technically they were Ukranian citizens, so Russia could maintain plausible deniability.

There is some degree of Russian military aid to the Novorussians, but I think it was and still is just a trickle. Enough to prevent defeat and turn the tables, but not enough to achieve a military victory. For whatever reason, the Kremlin keeps the Novorussians in a tight leash.

I think Khepesh here will agree that Ukrainian tankers poor tactics and leadership are to blame. Remember what happened to Russian tankers in Grozny in 1994.

That is the main reason accounts at least for 80% of all casualties. The ukrops had no supplies, no logistics they were eating rotten bread and were constantly complaining of not having ammunition, food, fuel or tactics. It is no wonder that russia does very little to help DNR/LNR besides some ammunition, some goodies and most help they recieve is specialists in coordination/communication, artillery personal, field command and similiar.

The Ukrops killed more of their own due bad tactic, then DNR/LNR did.

They did not care about tactics, because that was never their concern. Their concern and their duty given by US themselfs was to provocate russia, many deaths is very provocative and they wanted to drag Russia into a war that is why the entire crap is made in such a disgusting taste. Most did not want to shoot on their own people so they had to use nazi bulkhead to do most and punished those moderates with ISIS(USrael) mercs if they refused to and still are doing.

No evidence of T-90's more wishfull thinking then anything. Sounds more like cheering of Abrams smashing monkey models of untrained, personal, with no airforce, no tactics and no serious weaponary in an already lost war. I call it fan cheering than anything else.

^^' There were T-72B3s present on the battlefield - makes a good substitute for T-90s.

While NAF no doubt fought excellent on the battlefield, many shortcomings were revealed too -in particular, pretty small army size and resulting lack of troop rotation. Soldiers had to fight for very long time with barely any rest.

SturmGuard wrote:

Without a doubt there was plenty of nonsense, I almost wet my pants when retarded Western MSM reported the usual UkrOp bullshit of "having destroyed an ENTIRE Russian Army armored convoy" and then watched how awkward and ashamed were they when they realised that no pictures, confirmation or information whatsoever exists of the reported "event", in other words, they reported something for domestic consumption. Even our domestic crappy c/p media fully embraced the story, and then were harrased for days by people asking about the location or pictures of the hulls.

But these guys were different, they were really battered and demoralised, there were no claims of heroic stand, no "T-90s destroyed and 2000 Spetsnaz killed", just that their position was annihilated and they barely escaped with their lives. If my memory serves me correct, the UkrOp leadership threatened those who survived/retreated or fled to Russia from those cauldrons that they will be trialed for desertion :DDD

I mean, what is the official number of "deserters" right now for UkrOps? Didn't they open several thousand court cases for "deserters"?


I think Russians should be proud of their armed forces/compatriots and leadership, the way they handled the terrible situation wasn't perfect, but it could have been far worse.

They were annihilated due to terrible logistics, terrible planning and terrible/non existant experience by an adversary who was everything they were not. Ofcourse they are going to dramatize their defeat. Yes, most likely Russian specialists/instructors participated in Debalstevo and I don't deny that. I'm highly sceptical on the presence of T-90s at that time. T-72B3 and BTR-82A were there, we saw them. How much of those were supplied is far from what the VSU claim though. That modern armor was most likely used as a force multiplier. Logically thinking, one or two T-72B3s equipped with night/thermal vision would be an amazing upgrade among those T-64s and T-72s by directing fire by providing coordinates.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:^^' There were T-72B3s present on the battlefield - makes a good substitute for T-90s.

While NAF no doubt fought excellent on the battlefield, many shortcomings were revealed too  -in particular, pretty small army size and resulting lack of troop rotation. Soldiers had to fight for very long time with barely any rest.

B3's are not T-90's they are just the best among B models but not 3rd generation material.

I posted a picture of a real T-90A in the Lugansk Oblast some time ago. It matches the description of the Ukrop tank commander. Picture was taken in the late summer of 2014. I don't have time to dig it up now but whoever wants to see evidence of a T-90A in Novorossiya, you are more than welcome to go dig it up.

I really am starting to understand you people who refuse to accept that the Russian Military did take part in North Wind and Debaltsevo less and less. Sure you may want to believe that the Rebels are much stronger than the Hohols, I like to think that holds true right now. Nevertheless, there is more than ample evidence for anyone to suggest that the NAF was not alone in either of those two fights and there was some sort of third party working alongside them (read Russian forces were not embedded within the NAF ranks like other volunteers). In both cases the Russian Military performed very well. The Russian Military did not have time to clean up their loses and it shows how well they did. There were only around a dozen known to be lost in the North Wind and none known to be lost in Debaltsevo (in which the Buryat tankers were called in at the end to close the cauldron when the NAF failed to do so). And both cases led to decisive victories very quickly. Many Ukrainian patriots call Ilovaisk a "massacre" and Debaltsevo a "betrayal," that alone should show how badly the Ukrops had it handed to them.

Ispan wrote:Chechen paramilitary are one thing, regulars are an entirely different one.

They are regulars, as I said - officially speaking they are MVD servicemen; they are subordinated to the Interior Ministry.
In practice - they are subordinated to Kadyrov of course, who is subordinated only directly to the President I suspect.
Either way it's evidence enough.

I think Khepesh here will agree that Ukrainian tankers poor tactics and leadership are to blame. Remember what happened to Russian tankers in Grozny in 1994.

Those columns were destroyed by ambushes deep inside Grozny city rather than along country roads (where it's considerably harder to pull it off); and the level of destruction was less than the carnage we saw here.
But point taken.

Encirclement and destroying the encircled enemy is easy enough. Savages have managed to wipe out civilized armies in this way repeated times.

Name me when?
The Ukrainian lines were broken apart in the aftermath of these grand encirclements - as they simply surrounded so many troops and the Ukrainians had everything at the front, with few reserves to plug the gaps. If not for Minsk 1/2 the rebels (supported by the Russian forces), could have ploughed ahead Blitzkrieg-style into Ukrainian territory at that stage. But only contingent on further Russian assistance, as I said.

Granted, these fantastic results were achieved as much by Ukrainian incompetence as anything else; getting their troops surrounded in the first place, refusing to pull them back while there was still time, and basically having no reserves/backup plan for the coming catastrophe.

That there were Russian commanders and advisors coordinating these operations, very likely. But saying that the South Cauldron and the pockets leading to Ilovaysk were the work of the Russian army... I don't think so.

Illovaisk no, that was very much a rebel-executed op. Don't remember much about the South Cauldron to give an opinion.
But Russian advisers/staff drawing up the plans is the sort of stuff I meant too; not just direct fighting.

Artillery fire from across the border? Plausible but there is no proof. Anyway, I remembered very vividly when following the war day by day how the Novorussian meager forces grew little by little with each capture. I remember the first battery of D-30 guns they captured and the first Grad they used. If the Novorussians had Russian support, it would not have taken so long to wipe out the cauldrons, Lugansk airport.. etc

I didn't mention that, I agree with your assessment on it - plausible but no proof. And the rebels increased their artillery stocks to a formidable amount by the time the Ukr 72nd brigade and elements of the 79th and 24th were encircled by the border and pounded relentlessly in early August 2014.

Militia could have perfectly trashed the Ukrops on their own. They had help, but they did the fighting. For a variety of reasons I do not believe in the "North Wind".

The Militia was doing well considering its resources, it was waging a fighting retreat; but a retreat it nonetheless was, right up from May/June (the height of its initial take-over) till August pretty much. It was giving ground up until certain events when it unleashed hell on advancing Ukrainian forces; trapping them against borders, trapping them in cities, trapping them within whole districts - and it all involved lots of accurate artillery fire, detonating Ukr armour columns, videos of massive rebel mechanized columns travelling to and fro, some skilled military planning and so on.

The problem with "North Wind" is that if the Kremlin had decided on Russian intervention, they used very scant resources and achieved too little. Mariupol could have been taken and the Debaltsevo salient would have not formed. Minsk agreements should have never been signed unless the Kremlin is desperate to avoid a repetition of the Korean War.

The real problem is with making assumptions based on information we don't have.
Russia used scant resources but who says they didn't achieve what they wanted?
Why do you think Mariupol was ever an objective? Do you think Russia needed this war, or encouraged it?
From the start, it looked to me like something no-one asked for, a bad situation brought on by Ukrainian political repression and ultra-nationalism, that Russia played no part in, and escalated into war by stupid Ukrainian decisions.
When the West rushed to propose Minsk 1, and then Minsk 2, in the wake of Ukrainian defeats - perhaps that was exactly the outcome Russia was looking for. For all we know.

As for the Debaltsevo bulge and other battles there, I am familiar with the problems of an improvised army trying to go on the offensive for the first time. If there were Russian "tourists" fighting with the NAF, they fought poorly, or the Ukranians had the support of Western forces. All the tales of NATO advisors and mercenaries fighting with the Ukranian army are as credible as the "North Wind", again for a variety of reasons. There may have been a couple battallions worth of Polish mercenaries, but that is all.

There were Russian tourists there; as to their precise nature, whether Russian servicemen that volunteered to fight or servicemen that didn't volunteer to fight but were told to anyway - well that's up in the air, there are materials in the press in support of both possibilities.
Then of course there were your standard volunteers from Russia, ex-military and just ordinary civilians - but none of them having any affiliation with the Russian government.

That sort of thing won't happen without the involvement of Russian SF, air defence specialists and officers/command staff, that's pretty clear.

We have been through this before. Special forces are just commandoes, light infantry. A few raids would have had no appreciable impact in what was battles with tanks and artillery involving thousands of troops.[/quote]

A Spetsnaz squad armed with the Krasnopol laser-sighting complex can illuminate a few targets at once and then illuminate the rest in quick succession once the first guided 152mm shells fired by artillery on standby start landing on the roofs of Ukrainian T-62s, trucks and BMPs. The whole thing shouldn't take longer than a few minutes, maybe even less.
That's it, a whole column wiped out. Such systems have been available to Soviet Spetsnaz since the 80s.

Air defense? Just a few shoulder fired missiles taken from the Georgians in 2008. If Russia had really wanted to help the rebels, they would have provided an ample supply of antitank missiles and RPGs, not just a smattering of them, wich are more likely to have been provided by sympathetic officers in the armed forces  

Well the rebels had plenty of tanks. The ones seen earlier in the conflict were blatantly taken from local stockpiles or the Ukrainians themselves. The ones later, I'm not so sure; if only because of the large numbers that they swelled to.

Air defence, yes. As in, whoever's sitting in those Pantsir-S systems that were photographed in Eastern Ukraine. Don't think it's a bunch of them local coal miners in there.

Intelligence support? Advisors? Instructors? Most certainly. Instructors need not cross the border. Zakharchenko at the time let slip that the offensive was conducted by troops trained in Russia, in 2014. You mention a similar history later on

Instructors don't. Advisers, officers, intel... they would all need to at the very least, pay regular visits and see things for themselves.

Yes, yes. All the same. There are Russian volunteers there, but they are only between 10-20% of the militias, and a lot are just normal guys without any previous training. Even the Ukranian generals admitted they were not fighting the Russian army but the Donbass people.

Yes that figure sounds about right.

But in time for the big battles there were also other sorts of volunteers there, it would seem.
And a small permanent presence of such volunteers too I would image, to man those Pantsir and EW systems, for liason and intel purposes, etc...

If there were a few thousands Russian soldiers involved there that would be impossible to conceal. The Ukrops would have found corpses, or captured prisoners. And people back home there would have notice people missing, particularly in military units.

I never started speculating on figures. The permanent presence I wouldn't think would be more than 100-200. But that could always swell when a big offensive or counter-offensive is being prepared or is taking place.

I think the numbers involved of actual RF soldiers are small, in the hundreds, and casualties can be concealed. Is likely the "tourists" are not fighting as infantry in the trenches, but are found at command levels, as artillery officers, and perhaps as tank crews.  From what can be ascertained, is possible there was a limited involvement in the summer of 2014, some Russian tanks entered Ukraine to protect the aid convoys and had a fierce clash with Ukranian tank columns, but the cauldrons are the work of the militia.

Right, that's what I think too - so what are we arguing about?

That is because people have a romantic view of the guerrilla fighter as a guy with a Kalashnikov and an RPG fighting a regular army, but throghout all the wars after WWII there are plenty examples of guerrillas learning to use complex weapons such as artillery and tanks.. You can make competent artillerists out of civilians and I, and Khepesh agrees, believe the same thing can be done with armor crews.

A competent cadre of officers and sergeants can turn civilians into competent soldiers in a short time. That's the difference between the Novorussian rebels and the Ukranian troops.

My point is that a fully formed rebel column of tanks in the march does not means they are crewed by  Russian regulars, though the leaders or advisors probably are.

I personally think it was a mix of local volunteers and Russian 'volunteers' for some of the more complicated and critical positions in that column.

Yes I agree with you on a lot of this; yes you can train people up, yes they do learn after a year of war - but at the same time, fielding a modern battallion++ exclusively out of local coal miners?
Na. You would need to have them be part of a proper military and military structure for that. The DNR/LNR wasn't at that stage, where it could start mobilizing and training masses of civilians into modern mechanized formations within the space of a few months. Russia would have had to help with resoures, training, logistics and organization for anything like that, and I believe with personnel too - the local rebels just wouldn't have had the specialists, the technical personnel, the experienced officers and commanders necessary for anything like that.

Also, there is another story. I am sure I read it in MPnet thread. Somebody posted that some rebel tanks crossed a village, and when one of the locals asked where they came from the tankes replied "from Crimea". One youth asked if he could join, and with a smile they said "sure, come onboard" and he joined them wearing slippers.

Yes I heard that too. I believe it was from fairly early on. And might not have been tanks, but those Venas or BMDs.

I think very plausible that a lot of the "Russian" troops in Donbass are former Ukranian army regulars that were stationed in Crimea. From one of my wife acquaintances, a policeman, I know there are a lot of Crimean volunteers fighting in Donbass, mostly of these military and some police.

Quite possible too, why not?

I think it is likely that these Crimean tankers, possibly even with their own Ukranian army tanks were the ones that formed the nucleus of the militias first armored forces. Technically they were Ukranian citizens, so Russia could maintain plausible deniability.

There is some degree of Russian military aid to the Novorussians, but I think it was and still is just a trickle. Enough to prevent defeat and turn the tables, but not enough to achieve a military victory. For whatever reason, the Kremlin keeps the Novorussians in a tight leash.

Yes I agree, Russia doesn't need the war to escalate, or to restart, but it will not allow the defeat of the DNR/LNR either and that's its policy in a nutshell. Russia is fine with the status quo.

SturmGuard wrote:Does anyone else here remember those stories from the end of July/beginning of August of those pairs and trios of UkrOp survivors speaking of Russian "T-90s" and "Spetsnaz" obliteratig their platoons? Well, it seems that they weren't bullshiting, in the north around Lugansk there actually were T-90s while the south got "only" advanced T-72s. I was always sceptical of the claims that artillery alone can destroy so many AFVs (which was the prevalent theory back then).

Most of the units that were ID'd in Luhansk by InforNapalm were bog standarts MRB's. There was no OMGWTFBBQ spetsnaz. Actually the Spets were active in the south (even caught by Channel 4). There's the guard platoon with our now famous Dagestani Mikhail Wittmanski. Also I doubt they had the chance to see T90's with their eyes. Those who were mopped up were killed in their arse.

Also a bigh chunk of tanks in this war was artied out to death. Izvarino Luhansk carnage is the exception, not the norm.

Farewell, Kyiv. They've abandoned you.

https://www.rt.com/business/326167-imf-ukraine-debt-russia-sovereign/

The executive board of the International Monetary Fund has recognized Ukraine’s $3 billion debt to Russia as official and sovereign – a status Kiev has been attempting to contest. Russia is to sue Ukraine if it fails to pay by the December 20 deadline.

“In the case of the Eurobond, the Russian authorities have represented that this claim is official. The information available regarding the history of the claim supports this representation,” the IMF said in a statement.

========
========
========

Now the facist scums had done it

https://www.rt.com/news/326163-kiev-bans-communist-party/

The Communist Party of Ukraine is now out of politics after a Kiev court ruled to ban its activities.

Hey, Ukraina. Is it democracy. Hey, Obama. Is it freedom ?

Continuing down the theme of covert Russian Military involvement. Here is something interesting from the Twower blog. This report comes from a mechanic that took a vacation there. I pulled a few pictures from the report.
http://twower.livejournal.com/1865975.html

KoTeMoRe wrote:Also/

http://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/avakov-posts-video-of-heated-argument-with-saakashvili-404335.html




This needs a nasheed.

Version with English subtitles from Kazzura

DerWolf wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

jhelb wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Once I was trying to explain some aspects of the current world war by drawing parallels with WW2 wherever it was appropriate, and he comes and says "What does WW2 has to do with the current situation."

Needless to say, that very important discussion got wrecked.

Morpheus,

It's a shame that such an important discussion was derailed by some troll but can you please share that link with me if you have some time? Thanks.

jhelb,

Those discussions were probably from the time the Ukrainian civil war had just started; I will try to see if I can find some of the posts.

However, as would be expected, these kind of discussions can't get much traction before the well-known forum-wreckers putting an end to them, especially that the topic was on a subject that is just now becoming fashionable to discuss, i.e., that of the current world war. Basically not much was allowed to be discussed here at that time.

The part of those posts that I can remember, however, was on the early phases of the WW2 (GPW), where for example from 22/06/41 until I think early July '41 the "Nazis" were allegedly advancing into the Russian territory, while the Russian government's public position was that the "Nazi" advances were just enemy propaganda.

I will try to write more about this if the opportunity presents. Until then, I should point out that I am not suggesting that the current world war will be a direct parallel of any of the previous world wars. On the contrary, I have been of the opinion that the current world war will have a fundamentally different outcome.

Maybe u should make a thread about this topic.

I agree. I should call the thread the "Reunification War".

Not very relevant but... Porkie somehow forget how to calculate

https://www.rt.com/news/326291-poroshenko-pope-birthday-mistake/

Petro Poroshenko published a heartfelt message to Pope Francis on his official website, wishing him a happy 80th birthday. Unfortunately the message went out a year too early as the pontiff has just turned 79.

The media promptly reacted by taking numerous screen shots of Poroshenko’s mistake, which was quickly erased from the website, with the open letter now stating the correct age, 79. No comment has been made so far from the Ukrainian president’s office.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

SturmGuard wrote:Does anyone else here remember those stories from the end of July/beginning of August of those pairs and trios of UkrOp survivors speaking of Russian "T-90s" and "Spetsnaz" obliteratig their platoons? Well, it seems that they weren't bullshiting, in the north around Lugansk there actually were T-90s while the south got "only" advanced T-72s. I was always sceptical of the claims that artillery alone can destroy so many AFVs (which was the prevalent theory back then).

Most of the units that were ID'd in Luhansk by InforNapalm were bog standarts MRB's. There was no OMGWTFBBQ spetsnaz. Actually the Spets were active in the south (even caught by Channel 4). There's the guard platoon with our now famous Dagestani Mikhail Wittmanski. Also I doubt they had the chance to see T90's with their eyes.  Those who were mopped up were killed in their arse.

Also a bigh chunk of tanks in this war was artied out to death. Izvarino Luhansk carnage is the exception, not the norm.

Just wanted to say that I didn't genuinely claim that there were actual Spetsnaz personnel in action, just that UkrOps were trashed by someone who was in their eyes "Spetsnaz level", far better than they were.

Their performance was terrible and played a great part in the success of the relatively few regular forces sent to tip the balance.

The point of my post was to emphasise how powerful an impact did only several actual Russian tanks (obviously well crewed) leave across the entire front. We know that they weren't numerous yet their effect was significant. Both battlefield damage inflicted and morale impact due to rumours. If they reported that Russian tanks and artillery were present where UkrOp were supposed to go fighting, it must have made them feel uneasy, going into certain defeat.

卍Odin 18/88卐 wrote:

Awwww, cute.

Odin, this one is for you


Ukraine says it can't pay off debt to Russia

http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-says-cant-pay-off-134628729.html

KIEV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine faces a looming debt default after the country's finance ministry said Thursday that the country cannot make a $3 billion debt due to Russia this weekend without violating a debt-restructuring deal with other international creditors.
Related Stories

Ukraine, which is supposed to pay down the debt by Sunday, said it is ready to keep negotiating with Russia about restructuring the debt. Russia has said it would sue Ukraine if it doesn't get its money back on time.

Relations between the two neighbors soured after Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula in March 2014 and threw its backing behind separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine. Ukrainian leaders have accused Moscow of sending troops and weapons to the east, a claim the Kremlin has vehemently denied.

The Ukrainian finance ministry said in a statement Thursday that it has "negotiated in good faith" with Russia but it cannot pay the bond debt without violating its deal with other international creditors.

Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov on Thursday told Russian news agencies that it is ready to consider Ukraine's proposals but warned that time is running out.

"We are ready to look at them," he said. "There are three days left. We have a plan. In case Ukraine defaults on its obligations, we will take steps to defend our interests."

Ukraine's statement comes a day after the International Monetary Fund said the 2013 debt to Russia is an intergovernmental loan and not a private one as Kiev has claimed.

Ukraine has insisted that the loan, coming from a Russian state rainy day fund, should be considered private and therefore not be part of the IMF rules that require Kiev to make good on its sovereign debt as part of its IMF bailout package.

Ukraine's struggling economy relies on IMF aid.

Kiev also sought to give a political dimension to the debt, hinting that Russia bought Ukrainian bonds in December 2013 in an act of clandestine bribery of then President Viktor Yanukovych who was facing massive anti-government protests at the time.

In November, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed a debt restructuring, saying Moscow would be willing to agree to payments of $1 billion a years between 2016 and 2018.

Ukraine turned down the offer, saying it cannot offer Russia a better deal than the one it negotiated with other debt holders. That involved a 20 percent write-down of bond holdings, which cut Ukraine's sovereign debt from $19 billion to $15.5 billion.

卍Odin 18/88卐 wrote:

Looks like gay loving nazis at it again. Gay loving nazi ukrops, traitors of Slavic race by putting on pedestal Anglo-saxon-germanic ideology about Slavs being inferior. How pathetic

Hell, those ukrops are so master race that they actually die in ten thounsands in Donbass
If that is all about being master "ukrop" race then I'm all for it

BTW beat in this video is pretty good, almost as good as from the darkest Brooklyn street. DJ Premier could notice, keep it up

fragmachine wrote:

卍Odin 18/88卐 wrote:

Looks like gay loving nazis at it again. Gay loving nazi ukrops, traitors of Slavic race by putting on pedestal Anglo-saxon-germanic ideology about Slavs being inferior. How pathetic

Hell, those ukrops are so master race that they actually die in ten thounsands in Donbass
If that is all about being master "ukrop" race then I'm all for it

BTW beat in this video is pretty good, almost as good as from the darkest Brooklyn street. DJ Premier could notice, keep it up

What's also funny is the Germans (a.k.a Merkel Ferkel) are now promoting an Islamic invasion of Europe, it's also funny how the German's also allied with the Ottomans against most of Europe in WW1, the same German's are always hostile towards (Greece and Russia) historical defenders against Islamic invasion of Europe.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

What's also funny is the Germans (a.k.a Merkel Ferkel) are now promoting an Islamic invasion of Europe, it's also funny how the German's also allied with the Ottomans against most of Europe in WW1, the same German's are always hostile towards (Greece and Russia) historical defenders against Islamic invasion of Europe.

Well, typical Poles always had distrust for Germans, if anyone pushed them for EU association is France and GB.
Like in old saying - "good German is dead German" - we never really had good relations with our western neighbour.

As for Turks, we too stopped them at Vienna. Thousands of Turk dead bodies... Good old days

Ukraine: Farmers bring COW HEADS to Kiev protest against VAT policy



Hundreds of protesters gathered in front of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament) in Kiev, to demand a special regime of Value-added tax (VAT) to the farmers, Thursday.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e9_1450364211

PapaDragon wrote:
Odin, this one is for you  

Ukraine says it can't pay off debt to Russia

http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-says-cant-pay-off-134628729.html

No money, no gas.