Kiev's choice of a military solution could seriously impact Ukraine's territorial integrity.

[another_liberal]

Russia's deputy Foreign Minister, Grigory Karasin, has warned negative consequences may arise from the Kiev government's insistence on pursuing an end to Ukraine's civil war through military victory alone. This total reliance on armed force to bring Separatist regions of the Donbas back under central government control could even impact Ukraine's very statehood, the diplomat stressed.

A house destroyed during shelling in Donetsk. (RIA Novosti)


Kiev’s new offensive in Donbass may lead to irreversible consequences – Moscow


Kiev’s attempt to solve the Ukrainian crisis with military force is a blunder, which may affect the country’s territorial integrity, Russia’s deputy foreign minister said. On Sunday, Kiev renewed its assault in southeast Ukraine. "It's the biggest, even strategic mistake of the Ukrainian authorities to bank on a military solution to the crisis in Ukrainian society and to all of southeast Ukraine's problems. This can lead to irreversible consequences for Ukrainian statehood," Grigory Karasin, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, was quoted as saying by Interfax news agency.

Earlier, in a statement, the Russian Foreign Ministry urged Kiev to take steps to pull its heavy weapons out of Eastern Ukraine, saying that their militia opponents had already signed a roadmap for it. An arms pullout is a key point in the so-called Minsk agreement, a roadmap to deescalating the situation. However it was never fully implemented after the Russia and OSCE-brokered deal between the government in Kiev and their opponents was penned in September 2014.

“If Kiev truly prepared to pull back heavy weapons as would the militia do… this should lead to practical steps on the ground, especially considering that the leaders of [the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics] have already signed a roadmap for it,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement Monday.

The rebels did sign the roadmap, but a disagreement remains on where the disengagement line separating the warring parties should exactly be. On Sunday Moscow said it is trying to do what it can to make the militia commanders agree to the terms that the Ukrainian government is insisting on.

(snip)



Read more at: http://rt.com/news/224119-eastern-ukraine-arms-pullout/

[mythology]

1. Shockingly the invading country (Russia)

doesn't want the invaded country (Ukraine) to fight back.

[another_liberal]

2. Except that Russia isn't invading Ukraine . . .

When a region within a country defends itself from a military assault by the central government of that country, we call the situation a "Civil War." The Separatists are defending in the East. Kiev government forces are attacking from the West.

See?

[gwojtowy]

4. Except that Russia IS invading Ukraine!

When a full 50% of the so-called "rebels," aren't even FROM Ukraine, have Russian military patches, or are Kadirov Chechens from Chechnya, when "rebels," have tanks, and GRAD missiles that can shoot down a Jumbo jet from Holland, and have convoys crossing the borders from Russia all the time, I'd call THAT an invasion! When Girkin (Strelkov) was always an RF operative now happily living in Russia, that seems proof of invasion!

[JonLP24]

5. This entire situation should be viewed in the context of the Yugoslavia Wars

The resentments & grudges as well as political identities such as Russia & Eastern Orthodox Christianity would make better sense. Even the Yugoslavia wars play a role in what's going on in Syria & Iraq.

[nationalize the fed]

16. You're more right than you even know- Because Kosovo was a PNAC project

Now you're probably saying Bullshit.

The PNAC website was shut down but there's the Wayback machine, and proof. See, Clinton and his scummy republican "Defense" secretary William Cohen were lying about humanitarian bombing. How many times does the Government have to lie before you start to question what they say?

Behold: The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), William Kristol, Robert Kagan (Husband of Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland) and Kosovo



https://web.archive.org/web/20020605191239/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

The OP will be proven right in time.

NGU another_liberal. You're light years ahead of many.

[NuclearDem]

20. Green for victory!

[JonLP24]

23. I think a mistake that the US & NATO made

which the US does in most conflicts is inevitable they choose a side.

I'd certainly support action to halt ethnic cleansing but we certainly should avoid coming up with political solutions.

[pampango]

6. They were never there: Russia's silence for families of troops killed in Ukraine

A growing body of information about Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine has started to reveal a damning picture of Moscow’s intervention in the separatist conflict there, despite Kremlin denials of involvement. As fighting continued to flare in the east particularly around Donetsk airport, an online organisation has catalogued more than 260 people reportedly killed in eastern Ukraine. The Open Russia organisation, started by the Kremlin critic Mikhail Khodorkovsky, has also published a map showing where the dead are from.

The official denial of Russian military participation in Ukraine has pressured the relatives of those who served and died there to keep silent, and could deprive many of them of the benefits to which they are entitled. But some have started to speak out.

Amid the official denials, soldiers are being pressured to deploy to Ukraine unofficially. Those wounded in eastern Ukraine and the families of those killed have been told to keep silent about their service there, according to soldiers’ rights advocates. Some families say they have not received the various compensations they are entitled to after losing a breadwinner in military service.

The “volunteer” service Putin referred to is often anything but, according to several rights advocates. They say soldiers have told them that they were pressured to sign documents to go on a “business trip” to eastern Ukraine or “volunteer” in other ways. Tumanov told his mother that his commanders offered a 400,000-rouble bonus to sign up to fight in Ukraine, then simply ordered them forward when volunteers weren’t forthcoming. Some captured Russian paratroopers recounted that they had gone on a supposed training mission in armoured carriers and only later realised they were in Ukraine.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/19/russia-official-silence-for-families-troops-killed-in-ukraine

[reorg]

29. why ask the Russian opposition if you can ask the volunteers directly:

Pavel, from the southern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don - a tall man in his late 30s with a fashionably trimmed beard and a bookish air - is just one of hundreds, perhaps as many as 1,000, Russian volunteers fighting in Ukraine.

The conflict around the self-proclaimed separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk has now dragged on for eight months - with at least 4,600 killed, even by the most conservative, UN, estimate. Despite Kremlin denials, evidence from intelligence sources, and Russian human rights groups, suggests thousands of regular Russian troops have also been fighting there, alongside a larger number of local rebels. But men like Pavel say they aren't there under orders, or for money, but only for an idea, the idea of restoring a Russian empire. It would be Orthodox, like the empire of the tsars, including Ukraine and Belarus.

"Why do I say Donetsk is Jerusalem? Because what's happening here is a holy war of the Russian people for its own future, for its own ideals, for its children and its great country that 25 years ago was divided into pieces," Pavel says.

We're sitting on his narrow, squeaky bed in a barracks in Donetsk, our conversation interrupted periodically by the boom of shelling and the crackle of gunfire. Like the other Russians here, he says he's paid for much of his equipment and travel arrangements himself. Some kit and food comes from donations channelled through Russian nationalist organisations, while their weapons - in this unit, mostly rifles - are from the rebel military authorities, originally captured from Ukrainian forces or supplied by Russia.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30518054

[pampango]

30. In response to an OP linked to government-sponsored Russia Today, I think it is appropriate to

reference the Russian opposition.

Few Western journalists have been allowed to meet the volunteers before - revealing any Russian involvement in the war is sensitive - and some of his comrades in this unit of Russian and Ukrainian volunteers are nervous about our presence.

Of course it is possible that Mr. Rasta is totally a volunteer fighting what he seems as a "holy war". Since this neatly coincides with the position of the Russian government, I think it is fair to wonder if a 'volunteer' agreeing to a rare interview with the Western press would feel free to speak his mind without fear of consequences. If he had combined his 'holy war' declaration with some insights or criticisms of government policy, it would seem more genuine.

Because what's happening here is a holy war of the Russian people for its own future ...

Are liberals accepting of foreign 'volunteers' going to fight 'holy wars' - which look a lot like civil wars - in other countries? (Leaving aside the question of whether all the Russians there are 'volunteers'.)

How do Russia's rulers regard such volunteers? Certainly, there's a complex interplay between nationalist groups and the authorities. The nationalists share the Kremlin's distaste for Western liberal values and its love of strong central authority.

Putin has borrowed some of their religious imagery: in his annual address to the Russian parliament, which I see him deliver on a fuzzy TV in Pavel's barracks, he too uses the Jerusalem comparison.

So are the volunteers loose cannons who could potentially embarrass the Kremlin? Or are they simply useful tools of a policy that can be officially denied? In April a force led by Russian volunteers under the shadowy former intelligence agent Igor Strelkov seized the strategic town of Slavyansk, north of Donetsk, effectively sparking the war. In recent interviews, Strelkov has said he takes full responsibility on himself. But he's now back in Moscow. And other Russian citizens who played a prominent role in the formation of the separatist republics have also now left Ukraine, at least partly it seems under pressure from Moscow. Their role there no longer suited the Kremlin's purpose.

Thanks for the link. There was a lot of useful information there.

[reorg]

31. and yet, the government-sponsored BBC confirms

that the volunteers are real, that they are there out of their own free will, don't receive any money for it and not even material support.

That is what, for instance, Strelkov has always been saying. And, yes, he was bragging that it was due to his organisational skills that the self defense forces were able to put up some resistance when the Ukrainian army, assisted by several Nazi 'batallions', came with heavy weapons and ground attack airplanes to crush them.

At the same time, he was always complaining about the lack of support from Russia which, according to him, is caused by a 'fifth column' influencing the Russian government. That he agreed to leave 'under pressure from Russia' (apparently in exchange for some material and increasingly necessary humanitarian support) only goes to show that these 'holy' warriors can be restrained, unlike certain forces the 'West' tacitly and/or openly supported.

[pampango]

32. If you believe that the BBC and Russia Today are equally government controlled, be my guest.

Ethnic Russians are a majority in no Ukrainian province other than Crimea. Polls show that a majority in all provinces - other than Crimea - want to remain a part of Ukraine.

And Ukrainians (of any ethnicity or linguistic background) did not start the violence in the east. From the BBC link you provided:

In April a force led by Russian volunteers under the shadowy former intelligence agent Igor Strelkov seized the strategic town of Slavyansk, north of Donetsk, effectively sparking the war. In recent interviews, Strelkov has said he takes full responsibility on himself. But he's now back in Moscow. And other Russian citizens who played a prominent role in the formation of the separatist republics have also now left Ukraine ...

So it was not just a case that it was due to Streikov's "organisational skills that the self defense forces were able to put up some resistance". No he and other Russian citizen 'volunteers' "effectively sparked the war" by militarily capturing a town and "played a prominent role in the formation of the separatist republics".

[another_liberal]

13. Got a source for those statistics . . .

Or what exactly?

[Adrahil]

11. You really do buy the BS Russian propoaganda, don't you?

I keep thinking you're gonna come out an say you were just funnin' us, but no, I think you're a true believer.

I suppose you still think it was "local self-defense forces" in Crimea too, huh?

Pure comedy!

[another_liberal]

12. No, I don't "buy" any "propaganda."

And that includes the Pentagon's.

[Adrahil]

14. LOL... you're posting RT stuff. ROFL!

You've crossed over into self-parody.

[another_liberal]

15. Insults only show one has no valid arguments left to offer . . .

Seriously, think about that.

[tammywammy]

19. Then why do you post from RT? n/t

[JonLP24]

24. What is wrong with RT?

I've enjoyed watching their reporting on the recent TPP negotiations on Youtube. I haven't come across anything that was so far like Fox News reporting.

[tammywammy]

25. If someone's going to say they're against propaganda,

then they shouldn't post from the Russian state media (RT) or Press TV or Voice of America. The person I responded to always posts from RT.

[JonLP24]

27. I was looking them up after my post

I couldn't find much except a lot of criticism from Western media & figures but none of it substantiated but can't find anything much worse than tabloidy and has a perspective bias but every media does. Al-Jazeera which is funded by grants & loans (rather than direct subsidy) by Qatar is has positive world wide recognition but they likely would have a perspective bias.

Like both, they are known for granting interviews & reporting views that the Western media doesn't. Larry King joined their organization saying he wanted to do interviews with people in power, rather than people speaking for them. The thing I notice is they're more fair than most other news organizations but with everyone anti-Russia these days, including Saudi Arabia--where would I find fair reporting (except doing my own research which would involve a variety of sources including RT who I wouldn't reject out-of-hand.

[SidDithers]

3. ...

Sid

[11 Bravo]

7. Oh, GOOD! I was afraid that I was the only one who gets a kick ...

out of this one.
I hope they continue to provide a bit more comedy relief prior to the eventual inevitable downward spiral into caricature.

[edhopper]

8. Weren't you shocked

that a Russian Diplomat singled out the Kiev Government as the culprit in this conflict.
And report in that bastion of fairness RT.
Shocked!

[SidDithers]

9. Thread for you a_l...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026106799

Sid

[zappaman]

10. Finally!

[nationalize the fed]

17. Can't you do any better than that? Sad, really.

Putin on the Ritz

[hobbit709]

18. Want to bet on whether a certain poster has one of those?

[malaise]

21. Kiev hit a hospital today

Ah well!

[malaise]

22. Sad to watch DUers defend the neo-con agenda

[pampango]

26. How Russia's president resembles the American hawks (neo-cons) who hate him most.

Ever since Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea, American pundits have strained to understand his view of the world. Putin’s been called a Nazi; a tsar; a man detached from reality. But there’s another, more familiar framework that explains his behavior. In his approach to foreign policy, Vladimir Putin has a lot in common with those very American hawks (or “neocons” in popular parlance) who revile him most.

1. Putin is obsessed with the threat of appeasement

To Kristol, McCain, and their ilk, the United States is a nation perennially bullied by adversaries who are tougher, nastier, and more resolute than we are. ... In his (Putin's) view, it’s Russia that has been perennially bullied by tougher and nastier countries—in particular, America and its NATO allies. “They have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact,” he explained in a speech announcing Russia’s incorporation of Crimea. “They are constantly trying to sweep us into a corner.” But now, finally, the era of appeasement is over. “Russia found itself in a position it could not retreat from,” Putin said. “If you compress the spring all the way to its limit, it will snap back hard.”

2. Putin is principled—so long as those principles enhance national power

For Putin, an anti-Russian government in Kiev is illegitimate regardless of how it takes power. For many American hawks, the same is now true for a pro-Chávez government in Latin America or an Islamist government in the Middle East. ... In the United States, both hawks and doves like to claim that they’re promoting cherished principles like democracy and freedom. The difference is that doves are more willing to acknowledge that these principles can undermine American interests. For most hawks, by contrast, the fight for democratic ideals must serve American power.

3. Putin doesn’t understand economic power

This indifference to the economic aspects of statecraft was a defining feature of the Bush administration, where treasury secretaries played a marginal foreign-policy role ... Seeing “economics” as separate from “foreign policy issues” is precisely what Clinton decried in the 1990s, and it’s the weakness in Putin’s strategy today. But it’s a weakness that many American hawks share. For decades now, Kristol and McCain have insisted that America relentlessly expand its global military footprint and relentlessly boost its defense budget. I’ve never seen either make a serious effort to explain how this should be paid for.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/vladimir-putin-russian-neocon/284602/

[Duckhunter935]

28. Russia did the same thing

In Chechnya, I guess it was OK for them to level cities with it's military to keep order.

The First Chechen War was a conflict between the Russian Federation and the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, fought from December 1994 to August 1996. After the initial campaign of 1994-1995, culminating in the devastating Battle of Grozny, Russian federal forces attempted to seize control of the mountainous area of Chechnya but were set back by Chechen guerrilla warfare and raids on the flatlands in spite of Russia's overwhelming manpower, weaponry, and air support. The resulting widespread demoralization of federal forces, and the almost universal opposition of the Russian public to the conflict, led Boris Yeltsin's government to declare a ceasefire in 1996 and sign a peace treaty a year later. The Second Chechen War, launched by the Russian Federation in 1999, in response to the Invasion of Dagestan by the Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade (The unit was composed of between 400 to 1,500 militants, most of them Dagestani, as well as Chechens, Arabs, Turks and other foreign fighters) and following the October Russian apartment bombings which Russia blamed on Chechen separatists, Russian troops entered Chechnya. The campaign ended the de-facto independence of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and restored Russian federal control over the territory. During the initial campaign, Russian military and pro-Russian Chechen paramilitary forces faced Chechen separatists in open combat, and seized the Chechen capital Grozny after a winter siege that lasted from late 1999 to the following February 2000. Russia established direct rule of Chechnya in May 2000 and after the full-scale offensive, Chechen guerrilla resistance throughout the North Caucasus region continued to inflict heavy Russian casualties and challenge Russian political control over Chechnya for several more years

http://www.lifeforcemagazine.com/aug2012/index_10.htm

[JackRiddler]

33. No, what Moscow did in Chechnya was not okay.

Which is why it's not okay when the Kiev regime commits the same kind of violence against the Russian Ukrainian citizens of the Donbass-Donetsk regions.

[Duckhunter935]

34. I just

Pointed out the hypocrisy of Russia's position.