Sbiker
Gold Member
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.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.
You can believe in invasion, but it's fact you've mixed details.
Offcourse, Putin upkeeps rebels as he can - in other case he have a big risk from angry electorate in Russia. But where the facts, where Putin feed rebels with cookies, like Nuland? Where's facts?
Erofeev and Alexandrov? Ok, let's count. Ukraine has about 200.000 combatants in army (see To fight wiht it Russia must have similar group and really have about 200.000 in rapid-reaction forces. Only two captured from 200.000, which "take a part in war in Ukraine" during year??? It's lesser than statistic. With Russian and Ukrainian people are millions of relations, it's available for Ukrainian policemen to find two civilian guests with military experience from Russia and claim them as "spies".
Have you seen Esay's story about marauding in rebel's army? It's a fact, but no one regular army can allow marauding - it's seriously downs their fighting abitily. So, it's a fact, shows the rebel army is consist of cossacs, volunteers, some bandit groups etc. So, if we believe only facts, we have only invasion of Victoria Nuland on the streets of Kiev