The West´s silly Ukrainian ISIS Nazi Army

[Tehon]

Oh, incidents with civilians.
Okay, I will repeat you what I said some time ago – make your government find their balls and resolve this conflict directly; or make them stop fuelling the conflict and the amount of incidents with civilians will significantly cease. But you Russian citizens are supporting your government in this ‘hybrid war’ (which virtually was waged in the March of 2014) and are crying on forums about the victims of this war. Hypocritical fools.

It is not Russia's conflict to resolve, it's Kiev's. And it was Kiev who moved on Donbass not the other way around. Kiev's targeting of civilians has little to do with Russia and a lot to do with breaking the will of the population.
The way out of this mess is with Kiev pulling back and working out a political solution to the problem.

 

[ESay]

It is not Russia's conflict to resolve, it's Kiev's. And it was Kiev who moved on Donbass not the other way around. Kiev's targeting of civilians has little to do with Russia and a lot to do with breaking the will of the population.

So, Russia has nothing to do with this conflict. I see.

The way out of this mess is with Kiev pulling back and working out a political solution to the problem.

Tell me please why didn’t Russia start ‘a political solution to the problem’ in Chechnya some time ago?

 

[Tehon]

So, Russia has nothing to do with this conflict. I see.

That is not an accurate characterization of my response. The problems in Ukraine are internal, the people of Donbass distrust the government in Kiev. That is not Russia's problem to resolve.

Tell me please why didn’t Russia start ‘a political solution to the problem’ in Chechnya some time ago?

I will have to assume that by "some time ago" you are referring to the first Chechen war. I am not nearly as familiar with that war. I believe that for a time they did try to come to a political solution. I can not say the reasons why the drunkard Boris Yeltsin decided to invade. Perhaps his new constitutional powers mixed with his drink of choice went straight to his head and clouded his judgement.

 

[ESay]

The problems in Ukraine are internal, the people of Donbass distrust the government in Kiev.

Yes, you are absolutely right. Though, when I called this conflict a civil war, some of local truth-seekers virtually called me a liar.
Anyway, the Ukrainian government won’t withdraw its troops from Donbass. The reasons of it I wrote several tens of posts above (it is what I see as reasons). Furthermore, after an announcement of such a move, the government will be overthrown in the course of several days, I suppose.
So, I think it is fruitless to expect such a move. What other options are there?

I will have to assume that by "some time ago" you are referring to the first Chechen war. I am not nearly as familiar with that war. I believe that for a time they did try to come to a political solution. I can not say the reasons why the drunkard Boris Yeltsin decided to invade. Perhaps his new constitutional powers mixed with his drink of choice went straight to his head and clouded his judgement.

Thanks. What about the second war?

 

[Tehon]

Yes, you are absolutely right. Though, when I called this conflict a civil war, some of local truth-seekers virtually called me a liar.
Anyway, the Ukrainian government won’t withdraw its troops from Donbass. The reasons of it I wrote several tens of posts above (it is what I see as reasons). Furthermore, after an announcement of such a move, the government will be overthrown in the course of several days, I suppose.
So, I think it is fruitless to expect such a move. What other options are there?

I have learned not to expect too much from people and don't expect Kiev to reverse course either but I don't see any other way out of this mess. Perhaps they would be able to if Kiev didn't have the external pressures from the Western banks with whom they have decided to do business.

Thanks. What about the second war?

The second invasion was in response to the invasion of Dagestan by Wahabbi's who wanted autonomy from Russia. I see what you are getting at but I don't think they are true parallels. Russia is not trying to annex Donbass. Propaganda aside, Putin has made no moves to suggest he would and didn't when it was requested.

 

[ESay]

I have learned not to expect too much from people and don't expect Kiev to reverse course either but I don't see any other way out of this mess. Perhaps they would be able to if Kiev didn't have the external pressures from the Western banks with whom they have decided to do business.

Actually, Kiev can reverse the course, but there need to be a great defeat (much greater than there was in Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo). But in order to do so, there need to be much greater involvement of Russia, than it has been so far. But it will be a direct challenge to the West. I think Russia is unable to do so.

The second invasion was in response to the invasion of Dagestan by Wahabbi's who wanted autonomy from Russia. I see what you are getting at but I don't think they are true parallels. Russia is not trying to annex Donbass. Propaganda aside, Putin has made no moves to suggest he would and didn't when it was requested.

Annex? Of course not. To tell the truth, it is interesting who was an author of a mad idea to annex Crimea. It would be wiser if Russia had used an Abkhazia scenario at least, wouldn’t it?

Actually, I am talking about that in order to get terrorists the Russian government was using artillery, tanks, military planes, and so on. There were assaults of cities by armed forces (I suppose you have seen photos of Grozny after such an assault). If I remember correctly, the population of Chechnya was widely supporting those whom Moscow called terrorist (some of them really were terrorists, though). The war was widely seen in Chechnya as a war for independence, wasn’t it? Or it is just anti-Russian propaganda?
I don’t know whether it was a political solution of the crisis in Chechnya. But there is not much proof that Russia was trying to find it, is there? Though, now it stands in a pose of mentor and gives advises about how to resolve the Ukraine crisis by the diplomatic means.
Though, in any case, it is just a ‘flight of thought’. It matters nothing.

 

[Camp]

Why when separatist formed into militia groups were so many leaders made in charge and boss's from Russian intelligence services and military? How is it defensible that these kinds of guys show up at the same time as weapons and Russian volunteers and it is called a rebellion instead of invasion. It does not make sense. It is not logical. It sounds like bullshit about rebellion. Guys from outside of country come and hand out bags of money and weapons and say "follow us, we will have a rebellion".

 

[ESay]

Why when separatist formed into militia groups were so many leaders made in charge and boss's from Russian intelligence services and military? How is it defensible that these kinds of guys show up at the same time as weapons and Russian volunteers and it is called a rebellion instead of invasion. It does not make sense. It is not logical. It sounds like bullshit about rebellion. Guys from outside of country come and hand out bags of money and weapons and say "follow us, we will have a rebellion".

You disagree with me over my calling this conflict a civil war? Or I misunderstood your statement?

 

[Camp]

Why when separatist formed into militia groups were so many leaders made in charge and boss's from Russian intelligence services and military? How is it defensible that these kinds of guys show up at the same time as weapons and Russian volunteers and it is called a rebellion instead of invasion. It does not make sense. It is not logical. It sounds like bullshit about rebellion. Guys from outside of country come and hand out bags of money and weapons and say "follow us, we will have a rebellion".

You disagree with me over my calling this conflict a civil war? Or I misunderstood your statement?

It is some kind of hybrid civil war invasion combination. Would there be a civil war without this big involvement from Russia? Could this civil war be fought without trained military from a neighboring nation assisting the so called rebellion? Ukraine citizens are in the rebellion, so that make it a civil war. Russia is using a tricky tactic and caught everyone by surprise. Putin said there were no troops in Crimea helping with the rebellion. Later we learned different. Was that a true rebellion?
Putin has given us a new kind of warfare and way for countries to invade neighbors. The west is struggling to find ways to stop this kind of tactic. Sending disguised troops across foreign borders is already illegal. That is why so much effort is made to deny it and refusal to admit what is obvious.
Other nations go to great effort with UN and international law to justify entering a sovereign nation. You can find ways that America has done this and say America has done just like Russia did in Ukraine. That would not be accurate. America always has some UN resolution or international agreement to fall back on. You can argue that the excuse may be being misused or distorted, but at least there is something to contest and debate. What justification does Russia give for having troops in Ukraine?

 

[Tehon]

Actually, Kiev can reverse the course, but there need to be a great defeat (much greater than there was in Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo). But in order to do so, there need to be much greater involvement of Russia, than it has been so far. But it will be a direct challenge to the West. I think Russia is unable to do so.

Kiev has masters now, they will do as they are told.

Annex? Of course not. To tell the truth, it is interesting who was an author of a mad idea to annex Crimea. It would be wiser if Russia had used an Abkhazia scenario at least, wouldn’t it?

I don't compare the situations. Strategically I think Russia made the correct move in Crimea.

Actually, I am talking about that in order to get terrorists the Russian government was using artillery, tanks, military planes, and so on. There were assaults of cities by armed forces (I suppose you have seen photos of Grozny after such an assault). If I remember correctly, the population of Chechnya was widely supporting those whom Moscow called terrorist (some of them really were terrorists, though). The war was widely seen in Chechnya as a war for independence, wasn’t it? Or it is just anti-Russian propaganda?

Yes I see your point here, but one does not justify the other and earlier you were trying to hold Russia accountable for the civilian casualties perpetrated by Kiev.

I don’t know whether it was a political solution of the crisis in Chechnya. But there is not much proof that Russia was trying to find it, is there? Though, now it stands in a pose of mentor and gives advises about how to resolve the Ukraine crisis by the diplomatic means.

They were repelling an invasion of Dagestan by Wahhabis militants! It is not the same scenario. You spend too much time comparing things, it is as you said a "flight of thought".

 

[ESay]

It is some kind of hybrid civil war invasion combination. Would there be a civil war without this big involvement from Russia? Could this civil war be fought without trained military from a neighboring nation assisting the so called rebellion? Ukraine citizens are in the rebellion, so that make it a civil war. Russia is using a tricky tactic and caught everyone by surprise. Putin said there were no troops in Crimea helping with the rebellion. Later we learned different. Was that a true rebellion?
Putin has given us a new kind of warfare and way for countries to invade neighbors. The west is struggling to find ways to stop this kind of tactic. Sending disguised troops across foreign borders is already illegal. That is why so much effort is made to deny it and refusal to admit what is obvious.
Other nations go to great effort with UN and international law to justify entering a sovereign nation. You can find ways that America has done this and say America has done just like Russia did in Ukraine. That would not be accurate. America always has some UN resolution or international agreement to fall back on. You can argue that the excuse may be being misused or distorted, but at least there is something to contest and debate. What justification does Russia give for having troops in Ukraine?

I think there have been not many civil wars without external meddling.

I think all that rebellion in Eastern Ukraine would have been stopped in the spring of 2014 if there hadn’t been Russian support. But at the same time, the hybrid war would be impossible without a great number of people in Donbass who support the so-called rebel movement.

It is may well be called a proxy war.

To tell you the truth, I don’t know where there lays a line which distinguishes a civil war from a proxy war or a proxy war from a hybrid war.

There was an invasion in Crimea. But I don’t think the war in Donbass may be called an invasion. I am pretty sure that there are Russian military trainers, advisors, technical specialists. I am pretty sure that there are deliveries of arms, ammunition, and military equipment from Russia. In all probability units of the Russian armed forces took part in battles in Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo. But at the same time I think that the majority of so-called rebels are local citizens.

 

[ESay]

They were repelling an invasion of Dagestan by Wahhabis militants! It is not the same scenario.

So, the Ukrainian government should have been waited until the so-called rebels seized for example Kharkov and Poltava and only then began an antiterrorist operation? In this case the war would be justified?

 

[Camp]

It is some kind of hybrid civil war invasion combination. Would there be a civil war without this big involvement from Russia? Could this civil war be fought without trained military from a neighboring nation assisting the so called rebellion? Ukraine citizens are in the rebellion, so that make it a civil war. Russia is using a tricky tactic and caught everyone by surprise. Putin said there were no troops in Crimea helping with the rebellion. Later we learned different. Was that a true rebellion?
Putin has given us a new kind of warfare and way for countries to invade neighbors. The west is struggling to find ways to stop this kind of tactic. Sending disguised troops across foreign borders is already illegal. That is why so much effort is made to deny it and refusal to admit what is obvious.
Other nations go to great effort with UN and international law to justify entering a sovereign nation. You can find ways that America has done this and say America has done just like Russia did in Ukraine. That would not be accurate. America always has some UN resolution or international agreement to fall back on. You can argue that the excuse may be being misused or distorted, but at least there is something to contest and debate. What justification does Russia give for having troops in Ukraine?

I think there have been not many civil wars without external meddling.

I think all that rebellion in Eastern Ukraine would have been stopped in the spring of 2014 if there hadn’t been Russian support. But at the same time, the hybrid war would be impossible without a great number of people in Donbass who support the so-called rebel movement.

It is may well be called a proxy war.

To tell you the truth, I don’t know where there lays a line which distinguishes a civil war from a proxy war or a proxy war from a hybrid war.

There was an invasion in Crimea. But I don’t think the war in Donbass may be called an invasion. I am pretty sure that there are Russian military trainers, advisors, technical specialists. I am pretty sure that there are deliveries of arms, ammunition, and military equipment from Russia. In all probability units of the Russian armed forces took part in battles in Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo. But at the same time I think that the majority of so-called rebels are local citizens.

We have a saying "a girl can not be a little bit pregnant". I believe Russian troops have been used in Ukraine. An invasion is an invasion. To say the troops only came to Ukraine a few times is like saying the girl is only a little bit pregnant.

 

[ESay]

We have a saying "a girl can not be a little bit pregnant". I believe Russian troops have been used in Ukraine. An invasion is an invasion. To say the troops only came to Ukraine a few times is like saying the girl is only a little bit pregnant.

Well, actually you are right.

 

[Tehon]

They were repelling an invasion of Dagestan by Wahhabis militants! It is not the same scenario.

So, the Ukrainian government should have been waited until the so-called rebels seized for example Kharkov and Poltava and only then began an antiterrorist operation? In this case the war would be justified?

Is it realistic to think that they would or could have done that? Or was Kiev concerned that the rebellion would spread naturally and if so what does that say as to the legitimacy of the coup government in the peoples minds?

 

[ESay]

Is it realistic to think that they would or could have done that?

According to the words of some rebel leaders, they had intention to liberate all Ukraine from “the fascist junta”. Realistic it was or not, you have to ask them about it.

Or was Kiev concerned that the rebellion would spread naturally and if so what does that say as to the legitimacy of the coup government in the peoples minds?

I don’t know what you mean by saying ‘naturally’. If the rebels advanced with their arms and with indirect support from one of Ukraine’s neighbours, then would it be called ‘naturally’?

 

[Tehon]

I don’t know what you mean by saying ‘naturally’. If the rebels advanced with their arms and with indirect support from one of Ukraine’s neighbours, then would it be called ‘naturally’?

It was a poor choice of words on my part and it doesn't matter anyway. They were never going to advance.

 

[ESay]

They were never going to advance, they wanted to retreat, back to Russia.

Retreat? Then what is all of that supposed to mean? They are fighting for a right to retreat to Russia?
Or by saying ‘retreat’ you mean something like ‘reunite’?

 

[Tehon]

They were never going to advance, they wanted to retreat, back to Russia.

Retreat? Then what is all of that supposed to mean? They are fighting for a right to retreat to Russia?
Or by saying ‘retreat’ you mean something like ‘reunite’?

Yeah, I edited my post because I figured this might cause confusion. I mean separate from Kiev and join Russia.

 

[ESay]

Yeah, I edited my post because I figured this might cause confusion. I mean separate from Kiev and join Russia.

But then I don’t understand your logic. According to their opinion, the territory of Ukraine which they call Novorossia is historically Russian lands which must be returned back to Russia. Furthermore, if so-called Novorossia had really got to existence, it would have given good advantages to Russia in bargaining with the West. So, your statement that there would be no advance is somewhat doubtful, I think.