Ukraine SITREP: Debaltsevo cauldron finally closed?
This
time this sure looks official: the Russian TV channel REN-TV
has announced that the Debaltsevo cauldron has been finally closed,
just north of the city of Debaltsevo itself and not further north up
the highway where this had been expected. The same reports say
that the DNR and LNR forces met, so we are not talking about holding
the highway under direct artillery fire anymore, but about
Novorussian forces actually digging in across the highway and truly
closing it down. Earlier this evening, Colonel Cassad was
reporting the highway still not closed, but if you
look at his map, you can clearly see the location where the two
forces apparently joined a few hours later (right over the word
ДЕБАЛЬЦЕВО).
 |
Map
from Colonel Cassad
|
I
took a quick look at militarymaps.info and here is what I saw there:
 |
Debaltsevo
on militarymaps.info
|
On
this map the Novorussian units have still not closed the cauldron.
Weird.
So who is right?
My gut feeling that the cauldron has probably been closed. My guess is that the junta was so concerned about this that it sent two SU-25 to provide close air support to the surrounded junta forces (both aircraft were shot down). This was probably a last desperate attempt to prevent the cauldron from closing.
We should know soon.
No major developments elsewhere along the line of contact.
The Saker
So who is right?
My gut feeling that the cauldron has probably been closed. My guess is that the junta was so concerned about this that it sent two SU-25 to provide close air support to the surrounded junta forces (both aircraft were shot down). This was probably a last desperate attempt to prevent the cauldron from closing.
We should know soon.
No major developments elsewhere along the line of contact.
The Saker
04.02.2015 Military Report of Novorossia. Latest news of Ukraine, DPR,LPR
04.02.2015 Ukrainian crisis news. War in Ukraine, Donbass, DPR, Russia, USA, Europe
Putin prefers a bad peace
By Israel Shamir
In February, it is a long way to the spring, lamented Joseph Brodsky, the poet. Indeed, snow still falls heavily in Moscow and Kiev as well as in the rolling steppes that form Russian-Ukrainian borderlands, but there it is tinted with red. Soldiers are loth to fight in the winter, when life is difficult anyway in these latitudes, but fighting already flared up in war-torn Donbass, and the US prepares to escalate by supplying sophisticated weapons to Kiev. Tired by the siege and by intermittent shelling, the rebels disregarded snow and took the strategic Donetsk airport. This airport with its Stalin-built tunnels, a symbol of solid Soviet defence work, presented a huge challenge for underequipped militia. Its many-leveled underground facilities were built to sustain a nuclear attack; still, the rebels, after months of fighting, flushed the enemy out and took it.
In a bigger offensive, they trapped Kiev’s troops in Debaltsevo pocket, and Kiev already sued for a cease-fire. The rebels hope to dislodge the enemy from their lands altogether; as now they hold only about one third of Donbass; but Russia’s president still gropes for brakes. He prefers a bad peace to a good war. For him, the Ukraine is important, but not a sine qua non, the only problem in the world. This attitude he shares with the American leader. There is a big difference: Russia wants peaceful Ukraine, Americans prefer one at war.
Russia would prefer to see Ukraine united, federal, peaceful and prosperous. The alternative of splitting Donbass is not very tempting: Donbass is strongly connected to the rest of Ukraine, and it is not easy to sever its ties. The war already had sent millions of refugees from Donbass and from rump Ukraine to Russia and overloaded its systems. Putin can’t cut loose and forget about Donbass – his people would not allow him anyway. A cautious man, he does not want to go to an open-ended war. So he has to navigate towards some sort of peace.
I had a meeting with a well-informed and highly-placed Russian source who shared with me, for your benefit, some inner thoughts on condition of his anonymity. Though the West is certain that Putin wants to restore the Soviet Union, actually the Russian president did everything he could to save the Ukraine from disintegration, said the source. That’s what Russia did in order to bring peace to Ukraine:
- Russia supported the West-brokered agreement of February 21, 2014, but the US still pushed for the next day (February 22) coup, or “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine" , in Obama’s words.
- After the coup, the South-East Ukraine did not submit to the new Kiev regime and seceded. Still, Moscow asked the Donbass rebels to refrain from carrying out their May referendum. (They disregarded Putin’s appeal).
- Moscow recognised the results of sham May elections carried out by Kiev regime after the coup, and recognised Poroshenko as the president of the whole Ukraine – though there were no elections in the South East and opposition parties were banned from participating.
- Moscow did not officially recognise the results of November elections in Donbass, to the chagrin of many Russian nationalists.
These
steps were quite unpopular in Russian society, but Putin made them
to promote a peaceful solution for Ukraine. Some warlike Donbass
leaders were convinced to retire. In vain: Putin’s actions and
intentions were disregarded by the US and EC. They encouraged the
‘war party’ in Kiev. “They never found a fault with Kiev,
whatever they do”, said the source.
Peace in Ukraine can be reached through federalisation, my source told me. That’s why two most important parameters of Minsk accords (between Kiev and Donetsk) were those we never hear about: constitutional and socio-economic reforms. Russia wants to secure territorial integrity of the Ukraine (minus Crimea) but it can be achieved only through federalisation of Ukraine with a degree of autonomy being given to its regions. Its west and east speak different languages, worship different heroes, have different aspirations. They could manage together, just, if the Ukraine were a federal state, like the US or Switzerland or India.
In Minsk, the sides agreed to establish a joint commission for constitutional reforms, but Kiev regime reneged on it. Instead, they created a small and secretive constitutional committee of the Rada (Parliament). This was condemned by the Venice Commission, a European advisory body on constitutional matters. Donetsk people wouldn’t accept it, either, and it is not what was agreed upon in Minsk.
As for integration, it was agreed in Minsk to reintegrate Donbass within Ukraine. This was disappointing for Donbass (they would prefer to join Russia), but they accepted it, - while Kiev laid siege to Donbass, cut off its banks, ceased buying Donbass coal, stopped to pay pensions. Kiev troops daily shell Donetsk, a city of a million inhabitants (in peaceful times!). Instead of amnesty for rebels, as agreed in Minsk, there are more government troops pouring eastwards.
The Russians did not give up on Minsk accords. The Minsk agreements could bring peace, but they have to be implemented. Perhaps president Poroshenko of Kiev would like to, but Kiev war party with its western support will unseat Poroshenko if he goes too far. Paradoxically, the only way to force him to peace is war, - though Russia would prefer the West to put pressure on its clients in Kiev. The rebels and their Russian supporters used warfare to force him to sign Minsk accords: their offensive on Mariupol on the Black Sea was hugely successful, and Poroshenko preferred to go to Minsk in order to keep Mariupol. Since then, Kiev and Donetsk had a few cease-fires, they exchanged POWs, but Kiev refuses to implement constitutional and socio-economic demands of Minsk accord.
It does not make sense to cease fire, if Kiev uses it to regroup and attack again. Cease fire should lead to a constitutional reform, said my source, a reform negotiated in an open and transparent dialogue of the regions and Kiev. Without a reform, Donbass (or Novorussia) will go to war. So the Debaltsevo operation can be considered as a way to force Poroshenko to sue for peace.
Russia does not intend to take part in the war, or in peace negotiations, said the source. The Russians are adamant to stay out, while the Americans are equally adamant to present Russia as a side to conflict.
Meanwhile, the Russian-American relations were moved forty years back to Jackson-Vanik amendment of 1974 by the Ukraine Freedom [Support Act of 2014]. The US Secretary of State John Kerry considered this act an unfortunate development, but a temporary one. The Russians are not that optimistic: for them, the Act codified anti-Russian sanctions. The US tries to turn other states against Russia, with some success. In one sweep the German Kanzlerin Angela Merkel eliminated all organisations, structures and ties built between Germany and Russia for many years. Every visit of Joe Biden causes a conflagration.
The Russians are upset with the story of the Malaysian Boeing. In every high-level encounter with the Americans, they remind of the hysterical accusations and claims that the liner was downed by the rebels using Russian missiles. Six months passed since the tragedy; still the Americans did not present a single proof of Russian and/or rebel involvement. They did not present photos of their satellites, nor records of their AWACS aircraft hovering over Eastern Europe. My source told me that the American high-ranking officials do not insist anymore that Russians/rebels are involved, but they stubbornly refuse to apologise for their previous baseless accusations. They never say they are sorry.
Still the Americans want to play the ball. They insist that they do not seek Russian ‘surrender’, that they find the confrontation costly and unwelcome, while the US needs Russian support for dealing with Iranian nuclear programme, with removal of Syrian chemical weapons, with Palestinian problem. The Russians retort they have heard it all during the Libyan affair and aren’t impressed.
Differences of opinion between Russia and the US are big in practically every area. There is one common feature: from Syria to Donbass, Russians endorse peace, Americans push for war. Now the Russians invited some opposition figures and the government representatives from Syria for talks in Moscow. They came, talked, went away and will come again. They could probably settle but the US representatives say that they will never reconcile to Bashar Assad presidency and will fight to the last Syrian for his dismissal. It is not that Americans are bloodthirsty; war makes sense for them: every war on the globe supports the US dollar and invigorates Dow Jones, as capital seeks safe haven and finds it in the US.
They do not think about fate of Syrians who flee to Jordan - or of Ukrainians who escape to Russia in ever increasing numbers. What a shame for two wonderful countries! Syria was peaceful and prosperous, the diamond of the Middle East until ruined by the US-supported islamists; the Ukraine was the wealthiest part of the USSR, until being ruined by the US-supported far-right and oligarchs. Joseph Brodsky bitterly predicted in 1994, as the Ukraine declared its independence from Russia, that the shifty Ukrainians will still evoke Russian poetry in their mortal hour. This prophesy is about to be fulfilled.
Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net
Peace in Ukraine can be reached through federalisation, my source told me. That’s why two most important parameters of Minsk accords (between Kiev and Donetsk) were those we never hear about: constitutional and socio-economic reforms. Russia wants to secure territorial integrity of the Ukraine (minus Crimea) but it can be achieved only through federalisation of Ukraine with a degree of autonomy being given to its regions. Its west and east speak different languages, worship different heroes, have different aspirations. They could manage together, just, if the Ukraine were a federal state, like the US or Switzerland or India.
In Minsk, the sides agreed to establish a joint commission for constitutional reforms, but Kiev regime reneged on it. Instead, they created a small and secretive constitutional committee of the Rada (Parliament). This was condemned by the Venice Commission, a European advisory body on constitutional matters. Donetsk people wouldn’t accept it, either, and it is not what was agreed upon in Minsk.
As for integration, it was agreed in Minsk to reintegrate Donbass within Ukraine. This was disappointing for Donbass (they would prefer to join Russia), but they accepted it, - while Kiev laid siege to Donbass, cut off its banks, ceased buying Donbass coal, stopped to pay pensions. Kiev troops daily shell Donetsk, a city of a million inhabitants (in peaceful times!). Instead of amnesty for rebels, as agreed in Minsk, there are more government troops pouring eastwards.
The Russians did not give up on Minsk accords. The Minsk agreements could bring peace, but they have to be implemented. Perhaps president Poroshenko of Kiev would like to, but Kiev war party with its western support will unseat Poroshenko if he goes too far. Paradoxically, the only way to force him to peace is war, - though Russia would prefer the West to put pressure on its clients in Kiev. The rebels and their Russian supporters used warfare to force him to sign Minsk accords: their offensive on Mariupol on the Black Sea was hugely successful, and Poroshenko preferred to go to Minsk in order to keep Mariupol. Since then, Kiev and Donetsk had a few cease-fires, they exchanged POWs, but Kiev refuses to implement constitutional and socio-economic demands of Minsk accord.
It does not make sense to cease fire, if Kiev uses it to regroup and attack again. Cease fire should lead to a constitutional reform, said my source, a reform negotiated in an open and transparent dialogue of the regions and Kiev. Without a reform, Donbass (or Novorussia) will go to war. So the Debaltsevo operation can be considered as a way to force Poroshenko to sue for peace.
Russia does not intend to take part in the war, or in peace negotiations, said the source. The Russians are adamant to stay out, while the Americans are equally adamant to present Russia as a side to conflict.
Meanwhile, the Russian-American relations were moved forty years back to Jackson-Vanik amendment of 1974 by the Ukraine Freedom [Support Act of 2014]. The US Secretary of State John Kerry considered this act an unfortunate development, but a temporary one. The Russians are not that optimistic: for them, the Act codified anti-Russian sanctions. The US tries to turn other states against Russia, with some success. In one sweep the German Kanzlerin Angela Merkel eliminated all organisations, structures and ties built between Germany and Russia for many years. Every visit of Joe Biden causes a conflagration.
The Russians are upset with the story of the Malaysian Boeing. In every high-level encounter with the Americans, they remind of the hysterical accusations and claims that the liner was downed by the rebels using Russian missiles. Six months passed since the tragedy; still the Americans did not present a single proof of Russian and/or rebel involvement. They did not present photos of their satellites, nor records of their AWACS aircraft hovering over Eastern Europe. My source told me that the American high-ranking officials do not insist anymore that Russians/rebels are involved, but they stubbornly refuse to apologise for their previous baseless accusations. They never say they are sorry.
Still the Americans want to play the ball. They insist that they do not seek Russian ‘surrender’, that they find the confrontation costly and unwelcome, while the US needs Russian support for dealing with Iranian nuclear programme, with removal of Syrian chemical weapons, with Palestinian problem. The Russians retort they have heard it all during the Libyan affair and aren’t impressed.
Differences of opinion between Russia and the US are big in practically every area. There is one common feature: from Syria to Donbass, Russians endorse peace, Americans push for war. Now the Russians invited some opposition figures and the government representatives from Syria for talks in Moscow. They came, talked, went away and will come again. They could probably settle but the US representatives say that they will never reconcile to Bashar Assad presidency and will fight to the last Syrian for his dismissal. It is not that Americans are bloodthirsty; war makes sense for them: every war on the globe supports the US dollar and invigorates Dow Jones, as capital seeks safe haven and finds it in the US.
They do not think about fate of Syrians who flee to Jordan - or of Ukrainians who escape to Russia in ever increasing numbers. What a shame for two wonderful countries! Syria was peaceful and prosperous, the diamond of the Middle East until ruined by the US-supported islamists; the Ukraine was the wealthiest part of the USSR, until being ruined by the US-supported far-right and oligarchs. Joseph Brodsky bitterly predicted in 1994, as the Ukraine declared its independence from Russia, that the shifty Ukrainians will still evoke Russian poetry in their mortal hour. This prophesy is about to be fulfilled.
Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net
Interview with Dmitry Rogozin, Deputy PM of Russia
And
yes, please do press the "cc" button if you want to see the
subtitles!
Interview with Dmitry Rogozin, Deputy PM of Russia from Oceania Saker on Vimeo.
War in the Ukraine
by Alexander Mercouris
Russia
Insider has published my latest piece on the course of the Ukrainian
war. It is a more refined and thought through version of the piece I
previously wrote on this
Page.http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/02/02/3054
1. My key point is that it is not minor tactical movements that are determining the course of this war. It is the level of casualties the Ukrainian military is suffering. They were hammered in the summer and they are being hammered again now.
In my pieces for Russia Insider I quoted the number of Ukrainian military deaths on the basis of official Ukrainian documents obtained by a hacking group as 1,100 for a two week period that covered the battle for Donetsk airport. The NAF today puts the total number of Ukrainian military deaths presumably since the resumption of the fighting at 1,500. Colonel Cassad yesterday was saying that the number could be over 1,800.
The figures of 1,500 and 1,800 cover a longer period than the 1,100 in the hacked Ukrainian documents. The fact that they are all of the same order of magnitude however suggests that all these figures are reliable. If so then that that shows that my guess that the Ukrainian army is suffering deaths at a rate of several hundred a week is probably correct.
2. Of course the NAF is also currently suffering a high rate of losses. However it is clear that these are at a substantially lesser level than the Ukrainian. As I said in the Russia Insider piece an NAF spokesman put the loss ratio at 4 to 1. Colonel Cassad put the total number of NAF deaths at 600 for the same period as that of his 1,800 estimate for Ukrainian deaths. That is a 3 to 1 ratio.
I suspect that the number of NAF deaths over the last 3 weeks is higher than usual because the NAF has been on the attack for most of this period. When that stage ends after the Debaltsevo pocket is fully encircled I would guess the number will fall. By contrast as the pocket collapses the rate of deaths of Ukrainians will rise especially if the pattern of unsuccessful counterattacks the Ukrainians have a habit of launching is followed.
3. As I said in the article for Russia Insider the Ukrainian military simply cannot go on taking losses at a rate of several hundred a week. In the slugfest we are seeing it is only a matter of time before it breaks. This is especially so since I strongly suspect that I have greatly overestimated the total number of Ukrainian troops in the Donbass in my Russia Insider piece. I put the number in the same range of 60,000 or so thousand that was the case in the summer. I suspect the real total is substantially less, thus the attempted mobilisations about which in the Russia Insider piece I have much to say.
4. On the political front, the DPR/LPR are taking a very hardline in the negotiations. Specifically:
(1) they are now formally challenging Kuchma's plenipotentiary rights i.e. his right to sign agreements that formally and legally bind the junta. They are insisting that he formally be given such rights.
As I have argued before there was no doubt that Kuchma was acting on behalf of the junta when he signed the Minsk Protocol and it is fatuous to deny the fact. However the junta has repeatedly resisted pressure to formalise Kuchma's position since if they formally admit he is their representative then they formally admit they are negotiating with the NAF, which is something for political and ideological reasons they emphatically do not want to do.
(2) the NAF has said that they would agree to a new ceasefire on the basis of the actual combat line and not the line agreed in the Minsk Memorandum. This is a way of rejecting calls for a ceasefire because they know perfectly well that the junta will not agree to this. Importantly the NAF rejected a call for a temporary 7 day ceasefire in Debaltsevo today. I think this is the first time the NAF has rejected a ceasefire when it has been offered.
This is a fundamental shift from the position last spring and summer. At that time it was the NAF (and the Russians) who were repeatedly calling for a ceasefire and the junta that was ignoring such calls even as it purported to agree to them. Now the situation is reversed. There is no better indicator that the initiative has now passed to the NAF than that.
(3) The Russians are backing the NAF line. It has been completely overlooked but yesterday 2nd February 2015 Interfax carried this brief but momentous report at 20:03 hours Moscow time:
"Kremlin source: East Ukraine militias' hardline 'absolutely justifiable'"
As I have said previously, the Russians have abandoned hope of Western pressure to force the junta to negotiate. This provides further confirmation. The NAF has the green light from Moscow to see its offensive through.
(4) To understand why the Russians have given up hope of a negotiated solution consider Poroshenko's latest statement today. Even as the situation collapses around him he is continuing to reject calls for federalisation and is continuing to say that the Ukraine will remain a unitary state. As I have said previously, the ideological and political nature of the junta makes no other response possible and anyone who thinks the junta will voluntary agree a compromise is fooling himself.
5. I am not going to say anything about what looks like a gathering political crisis in Kiev because there are others who understand it better than me.
----------------Saker commentary: here is what I wrote in the comments section of Russia Insider under Alexander's analysis.Since Alexander has been so kind as to mention me I just want to say that I indeed *fully* agree with his analysis, especially when he predicts further disaster for the Ukrainian military. He is also correct when he says that the number of killed Ukrainians is a humanitarian catastrophe: we might well see something quite amazing happening - a war where there are more military casualties then civilian ones. Furthermore, I also fully agree that the decision to stop the massacre depends not on Kiev, but on Washington. This war will last as long as the US wants to keep this bleeding wound open and no amount of western "aid" (lethal or otherwise) will turn the tide in this war. The only question is how many Ukrainians will have to die for this abomination to finally stop. Even the "solution" to this war is obvious and understood by everybody: a nominally unitary Ukraine with full cultural, economic and political autonomy for *all* its regions, not only the Donbass and a full recognition of the Novorussian authorities as a equal partner for negotiations. All this nonsense about "9000 Russian troops" "invading" the Ukraine and Russia as the "aggressor country" (as the Rada says) or the nonsense about the LNR and DNR being "terrorist organizations" (official Kiev position) only delays the inevitable and will generate more useless deaths. Finally, I also agree that the US/NATO cannot and therefore will not send forces to crush the Novorussians. What US/NATO can, and will, do is provide some financial and some military aid, and lots of hot air and big empty statements and promises. That will not be enough. Alexander's analysis is flawless.
1. My key point is that it is not minor tactical movements that are determining the course of this war. It is the level of casualties the Ukrainian military is suffering. They were hammered in the summer and they are being hammered again now.
In my pieces for Russia Insider I quoted the number of Ukrainian military deaths on the basis of official Ukrainian documents obtained by a hacking group as 1,100 for a two week period that covered the battle for Donetsk airport. The NAF today puts the total number of Ukrainian military deaths presumably since the resumption of the fighting at 1,500. Colonel Cassad yesterday was saying that the number could be over 1,800.
The figures of 1,500 and 1,800 cover a longer period than the 1,100 in the hacked Ukrainian documents. The fact that they are all of the same order of magnitude however suggests that all these figures are reliable. If so then that that shows that my guess that the Ukrainian army is suffering deaths at a rate of several hundred a week is probably correct.
2. Of course the NAF is also currently suffering a high rate of losses. However it is clear that these are at a substantially lesser level than the Ukrainian. As I said in the Russia Insider piece an NAF spokesman put the loss ratio at 4 to 1. Colonel Cassad put the total number of NAF deaths at 600 for the same period as that of his 1,800 estimate for Ukrainian deaths. That is a 3 to 1 ratio.
I suspect that the number of NAF deaths over the last 3 weeks is higher than usual because the NAF has been on the attack for most of this period. When that stage ends after the Debaltsevo pocket is fully encircled I would guess the number will fall. By contrast as the pocket collapses the rate of deaths of Ukrainians will rise especially if the pattern of unsuccessful counterattacks the Ukrainians have a habit of launching is followed.
3. As I said in the article for Russia Insider the Ukrainian military simply cannot go on taking losses at a rate of several hundred a week. In the slugfest we are seeing it is only a matter of time before it breaks. This is especially so since I strongly suspect that I have greatly overestimated the total number of Ukrainian troops in the Donbass in my Russia Insider piece. I put the number in the same range of 60,000 or so thousand that was the case in the summer. I suspect the real total is substantially less, thus the attempted mobilisations about which in the Russia Insider piece I have much to say.
4. On the political front, the DPR/LPR are taking a very hardline in the negotiations. Specifically:
(1) they are now formally challenging Kuchma's plenipotentiary rights i.e. his right to sign agreements that formally and legally bind the junta. They are insisting that he formally be given such rights.
As I have argued before there was no doubt that Kuchma was acting on behalf of the junta when he signed the Minsk Protocol and it is fatuous to deny the fact. However the junta has repeatedly resisted pressure to formalise Kuchma's position since if they formally admit he is their representative then they formally admit they are negotiating with the NAF, which is something for political and ideological reasons they emphatically do not want to do.
(2) the NAF has said that they would agree to a new ceasefire on the basis of the actual combat line and not the line agreed in the Minsk Memorandum. This is a way of rejecting calls for a ceasefire because they know perfectly well that the junta will not agree to this. Importantly the NAF rejected a call for a temporary 7 day ceasefire in Debaltsevo today. I think this is the first time the NAF has rejected a ceasefire when it has been offered.
This is a fundamental shift from the position last spring and summer. At that time it was the NAF (and the Russians) who were repeatedly calling for a ceasefire and the junta that was ignoring such calls even as it purported to agree to them. Now the situation is reversed. There is no better indicator that the initiative has now passed to the NAF than that.
(3) The Russians are backing the NAF line. It has been completely overlooked but yesterday 2nd February 2015 Interfax carried this brief but momentous report at 20:03 hours Moscow time:
"Kremlin source: East Ukraine militias' hardline 'absolutely justifiable'"
As I have said previously, the Russians have abandoned hope of Western pressure to force the junta to negotiate. This provides further confirmation. The NAF has the green light from Moscow to see its offensive through.
(4) To understand why the Russians have given up hope of a negotiated solution consider Poroshenko's latest statement today. Even as the situation collapses around him he is continuing to reject calls for federalisation and is continuing to say that the Ukraine will remain a unitary state. As I have said previously, the ideological and political nature of the junta makes no other response possible and anyone who thinks the junta will voluntary agree a compromise is fooling himself.
5. I am not going to say anything about what looks like a gathering political crisis in Kiev because there are others who understand it better than me.
----------------Saker commentary: here is what I wrote in the comments section of Russia Insider under Alexander's analysis.Since Alexander has been so kind as to mention me I just want to say that I indeed *fully* agree with his analysis, especially when he predicts further disaster for the Ukrainian military. He is also correct when he says that the number of killed Ukrainians is a humanitarian catastrophe: we might well see something quite amazing happening - a war where there are more military casualties then civilian ones. Furthermore, I also fully agree that the decision to stop the massacre depends not on Kiev, but on Washington. This war will last as long as the US wants to keep this bleeding wound open and no amount of western "aid" (lethal or otherwise) will turn the tide in this war. The only question is how many Ukrainians will have to die for this abomination to finally stop. Even the "solution" to this war is obvious and understood by everybody: a nominally unitary Ukraine with full cultural, economic and political autonomy for *all* its regions, not only the Donbass and a full recognition of the Novorussian authorities as a equal partner for negotiations. All this nonsense about "9000 Russian troops" "invading" the Ukraine and Russia as the "aggressor country" (as the Rada says) or the nonsense about the LNR and DNR being "terrorist organizations" (official Kiev position) only delays the inevitable and will generate more useless deaths. Finally, I also agree that the US/NATO cannot and therefore will not send forces to crush the Novorussians. What US/NATO can, and will, do is provide some financial and some military aid, and lots of hot air and big empty statements and promises. That will not be enough. Alexander's analysis is flawless.
Cheers,
The Saker
The Saker
На войне как на войне / War is War
На войне как на войне / War is War from Max Fadeev on Vimeo.
And yes, please do press the "cc" button if you want to see the subtitles!
Assault on the New Terminal of Donetsk International Airport, combat footage 16-18 January "Donbass under fire" documentary
«На войне как на войне» седьмой фильм Максима Фадеева для News Front. В фильме показаны драматические события происходящие в Донецке с 15 по 18 января 2015 года. Штурм нового терминала аэропорта «Донецк» имени Сергея Прокофьева.
Уникальные
кадры из гущи событий битвы за аэропорт
показаны на фоне того, что происходило
в городе в данный момент: спуск шахтеров
в лаву, обстрелы мирных районов города
РЗСО украинской армией и их последствия.
Фильм
попытка передать жестокую реальность
и безумие войны, показать весь ужас
широкомасштабной человеческой трагедии
происходящей на Донбассе изнутри,
передать боль и отчаяние простых людей,
заставить зрителя по-настоящему
почувствовать себя среди героев фильма,
испытать на себе что такое война.
If Russia is Ukraine’s enemy then why are 1.2 million Ukrainian men seeking refuge in Russia?
Ukrainian
men of conscription age are seeking refuge in Russia in numbers that
increased by 20,000 in one week, the press service of the Russian
Federal Migration Service (FMS) said on Monday. Who is invading who?
2
February, 2014
Is
Russia invading Ukraine or Ukraine invading Russia?
Would
you seek refuge in the very arms of your “enemy”?
Last
time I checked 1,000 Russian troops invaded Ukraine, or was it 9,000,
or 7,000. I lose count, as do the script writers for Obama, Psaki,
Porky, and Yats.
Here
is a number that may shock some western European and American
zombies, 20,000…
- 20,000 increase in Ukrainian men a week seeking refuge in Russia, to avoid Porky’s military draft.
- 1.193 million Ukrainian men, conscription age, now staying in Russia.
- 2.5 million Ukrainian nationals (refugees) currently being taken care of (feed, clothed, etc…) in Russia.
ITAR
TASS Reports…
“About 2.5 million Ukrainian nationals, including 1.193 million men of conscription age, are staying in the territory of Russia,” the FMS told TASS. More than 850,000 people have arrived from Ukraine’s south-eastern regions.
“About 440,000 people who were forced to leave south-eastern Ukraine have applied for a refugee status, temporary shelter or temporary residence permit,” the FMS press service went on to say.
Russia has 531 temporary refugee centers in its territory for 27,000 Ukrainian refugees.
If
that’s not voting with your feet (literally) than I don’t know
what is!
The
above numbers should help any person with half a brain
figure out who the real aggressor is, and who is doing the actual
invading/destabilisation.
So
I ask again…would
you seek refuge in the very arms of your “enemy”?
How
many Ukrainian refugees are the Europeans and Americans taking care
of?
How
many refugee centers does Poland have set up?
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.