Ukraine: non-military aspects (August 2014-December 2015)

AP--this is addressed to you as you seem to think one can negotiate with Russia/Putin if we only really try hard enough to understand them.

Now what Russia is saying "officially" concerning their full understanding of what is required for "aid" shipments (no military in the trucks)---and oh they did state to the world that they had an agreement with the ICRC which knew nothing it seems---BUT it does not match what they are in "reality" doing--- negotiations over what exactly.

Current status on the Russian "humanitarian aid" "shell game of where is the pea" being delivered in repainted Russian military KAMAZs driven by Russian military personnel.

AP--notice from the tweets the Russian "aid" convoy is moving under the ICRC flag and the ICRC has not approved the "aid" mission and has stated that to the world---negotiate over what again AP?

Here is the ICRC's statement--notice AP there is nothing stating "Russian has an approved aid plan from the ICRC".

http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/08/1...es-to-ukraine/

This is from the RIA news agency RIA today --notice the distinct disconnect on where the "aid" is going--ie this their "official Russian statement".

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140812/191...kiv--Kiev.html

This is from a blogger who has spotted the "aid" convoy headed to a different location-namely Rostov where there is no way to control their crossing as the Russians agreed to-notice the "real destination".

https://twitter.com/georgivs_cit/sta...316416/photo/1

From Jeffrey Tayler at The Atlantic:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Way Out of the Ukraine Crisis

The way out of this standoff lies in dialogue—realpolitik-based dialogue, the kind in which the United States engaged in the 1970s to initiate its groundbreaking détente policy with Leonid Brezhnev’s far stronger, more troublesome, and more threatening Soviet Union. Talking to Russia would be in keeping with how American presidents—from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush—handled relations with their counterparts in the Kremlin even after major acts of Soviet aggression, from the repression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956 to the stationing of missiles in Cuba in 1962 to the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968 to the shooting down of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in 1983.

---

His proposals:

o "Obama needs to formally rescind the NATO members’ declaration welcoming eventual Ukrainian and Georgian membership."

o "Russia must stop aiding separatists and destabilizing Ukraine, and allow the country to pursue its own path to democracy and economic prosperity."

o "A new [Crimea] referendum is now called for—one under the auspices of the United Nations."

o "Obama needs to meet Putin for a summit and signing ceremony."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Outlaw

And that represents what an honest above board clear thinking rational Russian government? And you really want to negotiate?

---

Again - your fixation on Russia as an irrational actor is a serious error. Russia has the motive, means, and opportunity, and it has responded in ways predicated by numerous Russia analysts - yet you keep insisting that Russia's behavior somehow cannot be understood. Moreover, you push for more confrontational policies with the assumption that it will compel Russia to behave in a desired manner even after arguing that Russia is irrational. Exactly how will Russia respond in a predictable rational manner, if Russia is a "rogue", "criminal", and "irrational" state? It's your line of argument that is irrational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Outlaw

this is addressed to you as you seem to think one can negotiate with Russia/Putin

---

Every resolved dispute between Russia and the U.S. in the history of diplomatic relations between the two states has been resolved through negotiations, not through violence.

See AP you go off the deep end again--check my comments on the current location of the Russian "humanitarian aid" driven by verified Russian military headed to Rostov not where they were said by Russia to be heading.

And then check the ICRC released statements that they sent Russia with no response.

And then tell me again AP what does one negotiate over---by taking NATO off the table are you not exactly giving Putin what he stated he wanted in his Duma speech which you seemed to ignore and is exactly the reasoning behind his armed annexation of the Crimea?

And that AP is what you call negotiation?---come on you have got to have a better recommendation--I can think of three off the top of my hat.

It seems bloggers using open sources or on the roads inside Russia are far more informed that someone writing an article from exactly where AP?

Ah the enjoyment of distance--sometimes one has to be up close and personal to actually understand the real world out there AP.

So with all the words the US has whispered in Putin's ears about the "aid " shipments---and he does what again AP?

So again strong words are nice and nice to hear but in reality sometimes.....someone wrote today in a leading German newspaper concerning Iraq and how the PKK from the US condemned as a terror group and hunted down by Turkey is in fact leading the fight against the IS and are actually holding their own---what you ask a US terror listed group fighting head to head with the IS to defend their homeland.

Then the writer went on ---"sometimes one must go to war to achieve peace".

Obama's soft power approach did not work in Syria, it did not work in Gaza or the West Bank, it did not work in Mali, it did not work in Yemen, it is not working in AFG nor Iraq and it is not working in the Ukraine---and you want negotiations?

Come on AP give me a better written article that defines the here and now not some fantasy written again where?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

Every resolved dispute between Russia and the U.S. in the history of diplomatic relations between the two states has been resolved through negotiations, not through violence.

---

AP--let's look at say Europe through the eyes of those in Europe;

1. what did the US resolve in say 1956 in Hungary
2. what did the US resolve in say 1961 when the wall went up
3. what did the US resolve in 1968 in Prague---by the way the Soviets accused my SF team of being in Prague and we were nicely working in southern Italy
4. what did the US resolve in Poland in the 80s
5. what did the US resolve in 1990--nothing actually it was the collapse of the GDR that reunified Germany not US efforts--BY the way there is some indications that the US did not want to initially support German reunification.
6. Anything gained in Libya ---since the Russians hold that against us as well
7. Russia has signed at least two agreements in the last six months to ensure the Russian mercenaries lay down their arms and leave the occupied building---did you see that happen?
8. Russia stated yesterday they fully understood our warning on "aid" coming in without Ukrainian approval---and AP just where is that aid again?---in Rostov driven by military personnel.
9. Russia still holds the Libyan adventure against us--so nothing there.
10. and oh by the way Putin still holds the Iraqi adventure against us as do some Europeans

Let's see we could add we were assisting in the break up of the former Yugoslavia which Russian still holds against us---so nothing there or maybe Kosovo which again Russian holds against us.

Let's now look at the INF---is Russia in or out of compliance .

Let's look at say the OSCE disarmament agreements which we adhered to and Russia has still over 2K armored vehicles to destroy.

Let's look at say the Helsinki Accords--are the Russians in or out of compliance?

Let's look at say the Memorandum protecting Ukraine sovereignty in exchange of giving up the third largest nuclear weapons stockpile--Russia in or out of compliance.

Let's look at Russian aggression against Georgia and Moldavia ---anything settled there as of yet using US negotiations AP?

Let's look at what the Russians are doing to support the US in getting an Iranian agreement---not much my friend and they are doing a side deal themselves.

Let's look at there assistance in reigning in Assad--not much on that front although they are destroying the S300s BUT that is under the sanctions requirements.

Let's not even get into the Snowdon affair nor their constant cyber attacks and criminal cyber activities costing US taxpayers billions per year.

So you see from say the European perspective--again AP negotiate what?

As a second thought--you might when you look back at history say the US has really lucked out over the years as there has never been a solid national/global strategy in place --what you say we need a strategy---it has never been in our DNA.

So if luck is equal to neogiations when I guess we have been "neogiating over the years".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Outlaw

And then tell me again AP what does one negotiate over---

---

This has been answered repeatedly. Asking the same questions reptitively does not constitute any actual argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Outlaw

It seems bloggers using open sources or on the roads inside Russia are far more informed that someone writing an article from exactly where AP?

---

Jeffrey Tayler is The Atlantic's Russia correspondent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Outlaw

Ah the enjoyment of distance--sometimes one has to be up close and personal to actually understand the real world out there AP.

---

If this true, then mirhond's comments should be considered more accurate than yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Outlaw

Then the writer went on ---"sometimes one must go to war to achieve peace".

Obama's soft power approach did not work in Syria, it did not work in Gaza or the West Bank, it did not work in Mali, it did not work in Yemen, it is not working in AFG nor Iraq and it is not working in the Ukraine---and you want negotiations?

---

So "war" with Russia is your suggestion for resolving the conflict with Ukraine? Would the goal be to "emasculate" Russia? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Outlaw

Come on AP give me a better written article that defines the here and now not some fantasy

---

Again - Jeffrey Tayler is The Atlantic's Russia correspondent. Do a little basic research.

By the way AP---I do understand first the former Soviet Union and now Russia only to well.

Try starting your German Ph.D in the early 70s when you had as an American to defend every word spoken or written to at least six different versions of Communism being practiced/preached in German universities--and that does count the Chinese versions as well. And by the way defend your views in German not English.

That my friend teaches one well the finite game of dialectic materialism--try it someday.

Oh and having experienced crossing their border controls in the 80s was not a joy either.

Oh and having to deal directly with countless ex Soviet citizens coming into Berlin in the 80s was an eye opener as well.

So just maybe education and experience tends to teach one well when it comes to the former Soviet Union.

Where again was the quoted author say in 1956 or 1968 or Poland in the 80s or say the GDR in the mid to late 80s and he is a subject matter expert in what again AP?

And to top it off my company duels daily with Russian cyber criminal gangs---it keeps me in business for at least the next ten years.

AP--take your quoted Atlantic article and balance it against this today out of the Ukraine and tell me who speaks "truth to power". Again just how far away is the Atlantic magazine from the ground reality?

Again let those on the ground directly affected do it their way--stand back, provide all available assistance that is possible and let the population itself make up it's mind on what is to be their rule of law and good governance as it is their lives and their future not ours.

Go back and check the Helsinki Accords--that was the core assumptions written in it and signed by the Soviets and as the legal follow on government of the SU---Russia. And that AP clearly shows that Russia is in violation of the Accords they signed.

You have to love pundits speaking from the safety of what NYC?

http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/08/1...tarian-convoy/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

I didn't say anything about Russia's convoy action. Please try to stay on topic. You are starting to sound unhinged.



This has been answered repeatedly. Asking the same questions reptitively does not constitute any actual argument.



Jeffrey Tayler is The Atlantic's Russia correspondent.



If this true, then mirhond's comments should be considered more accurate than yours. :rolleyes:



So "war" with Russia is your suggestion for resolving the conflict with Ukraine? Would the goal be to "emasculate" Russia? :rolleyes:



Again - Jeffrey Tayler is The Atlantic's Russia correspondent. Do a little basic research.

---

AP--you have to love it---a US journalist in Russia adhering to Russia residence requirements and he is not what "biased" come on AP and you do not think for a moment he is not tailed daily or monitored by the FSB. Come on AP you know nothing about Russia.

If he had been reporting from say the view of a few of the Russian opposition and there are some that condemn Putin's moves---would have some respect now reporting there and adhering to residence requirements tends to make one biased if you want to keep reporting from Moscow does it not?

You did not notice a word usage that resembles much of what the Russian FM states in RIA or Interfax---come on AP read between his lines.

And a FSB internet "troll" who for the longest time refused to state in SWJ he was even in Russia and worked for the FSB who "speaks truth to power"---come on AP get something better.

Now AP let's take this great example of yours that you yourself selected--step by step and in the end you will the holes in yours and the authors writing.

His proposals:

o "Obama needs to formally rescind the NATO members’ declaration welcoming eventual Ukrainian and Georgian membership."

Is this statement correct as written--why-- any common student of the NATO knows that Obama cannot formally do anything---and I know you do not like my experience and life paths but I have also worked in NATO staffs---you need a full 28 members unnamious decision to make any formal statement--Obama cannot rescind anything.

AP this is your excellent Russian journalist---he knows nothing on how NATO is both structured and functions---and you really expect the Baltics and Poland to go along---come on AP get better at this.

Example---it took almost five years to get the 28 members to just make a change to five words in a key document and you want what Obama to rescind?

o "Russia must stop aiding separatists and destabilizing Ukraine, and allow the country to pursue its own path to democracy and economic prosperity."

Come on AP really--the Russian FM has placed Russia's signature already on two Geneva documents stating as much and what has been the final results?[

Right now Putin via his own public statements stated that he had given orders to secure the border and what is exactly going on AP---so he says again he is going to "allow" self determination---have you noticed by the way just how he defines "self determination"--federation and he has never come off of that term and you do know what it means right AP?.

o "A new [Crimea] referendum is now called for—one under the auspices of the United Nations."

Come on AP--the author and you really believes that a Russian leader who has built his popularity on the annexation of the Crimea, his speech in the Duma and he calling out for the creation of the "New Russia" and who has issued his own new Putin Doctrine declaring Russia has the "right" to protect "all Russians anywhere in Europe" is going to do what exactly?--rescind everything he has done the last six months on top of his accusations against the western stupid mistakes that he blames us for causing him to act in this fashion. Really AP--he is going to do that?

He is just going to accept a new UN sanctioned election after he has declared to his entire Russian population the elections in the Crimea were fair, correct and democratic?

Does that make sense to you?

o "Obama needs to meet Putin for a summit and signing ceremony."

Now this require a massive leap of faith on your part as well as the writer thus it leads me to believe he is simply mouthing Russian demands nothing more nothing else and you use this writer as a "Russian expert"?

Just why would Obama do that?---the Crimea will never be returned as experience has shown that whatever Russian signs Russia does not hold to---just look at the Ukrainian Memorandum as a basis of experience with Russia holding to international agreements. Or do we need to mention the INF signed in the 80s that the Russian military wants overturned.

So we hold an election and the Crimea remains in Russia--what about Ukrainian sovereignty and national territorial integrity?--how does Obama explain that to them?

Then there is no mention for the elimination of the call by Putin for the "New Russia" nor is there a mechanism by which Putin renounces to the world his new Doctrine that all Russians can at any time be protected via the Russian military by his getting a simple Duma statement in less than 15 minutes.

So Obama gives everything away for what the promise of fair monitored elections where the majority will just vote again to remain in Russia.

so let me get this straight Obama commands NATO to do something he cannot demand, Obama gives the Crimea back to Russia because you know already how the vote will go, Obama signs then giving away the bank.

So exactly what is in this great concept for the Ukrainians pray tell-as the last time I checked it was about the Ukraine not the US and Russia.

So AP do me the favor and completely reread the suggestions from this Russian expert of a journalist and tell me the suggestions make any sense in this game of power politics.

And this does not even take in just how the EU/NATO will respond to it especially after Obama has often stated this is really an European problem.

I can actually go back and show you exactly similar demands being made by Russian nationalists the last few weeks---so what is so new with this Atlantic writer?

Does it make sense to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

And an (ex-)U.S. special forces operator with service in Europe during the Cold War who "started his German PhD in the early 1970s" isn't biased? :rolleyes: Again - your argument proves too much. In the attempt to delegitmize the arguments of others by attacking their credentials and experiences, you only open yourself up to the same criticisms.

Are you physically closer to Ukraine than Mirhond? Are you currently a resident in Russia like Jeffrey Tayler? Have you lived in Russia for more years than Tayler? Do you speak more languages than Tayler (I count 7 on his biography)? Have you published more articles on Russia than Tayler? So - by your own measurements, you are not qualified to talk about this issue.

---

Then after you inhale read my response to his proposals which will never fly inside NATO nor the EU.

Noticed you all give Obama the power to rescind NATO decisions---that one is new to me, but I guess this writer is what also a NATO subject matter expert---right AP?

Speaking seven languages does not make one an expert nor correct in what he writes.

Just shows he has a good left brain capability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

And an (ex-)U.S. special forces operator with service in Europe during the Cold War who "started his German PhD in the early 1970s" isn't biased? :rolleyes: Again - your argument proves too much. In the attempt to delegitmize the arguments of others by attacking their credentials and experiences, you only open yourself up to the same criticisms.

Are you physically closer to Ukraine than Mirhond? Are you currently a resident in Russia like Jeffrey Tayler? Have you lived in Russia for more years than Tayler? Do you speak more languages than Tayler (I count 7 on his biography)? Have you published more articles on Russia than Tayler? So - by your own measurements, you are not qualified to talk about this issue.

---

So AP--you give me a supposedly great article by a journalist who speaks seven languages and yet you ignore just exactly how Russia is acting with the "humanitarian aid" being driven by Russian military,

You seem to ignore exactly what the US has told Russia is acceptable in order for "humanitarian aid". You see how Russian is avoiding the ICRC while claiming they are working with the ICRC and now the aid convoy is headed to a crossing point not controlled by the Ukraine and is a direct affront to the US/UK/Germany.

This was just released by the Russian FM via Interfax:---notice just how Russia demands that the Ukraine cannot make demands on a topic that falls under their own their territorial sovereignty control and in the face of what they have been told by the US and the ICRC.

AND have basically lied to the world about just what they are doing with that "aid".

AND then you really believe what your journalist wrote has a snow balls chance in heaven---come on AP.

08/12 21:17 Lavrov expects additional terms set by Kyiv for humanitarian aid delivery to be disavowed (Part 2)

AND AP then this via Interfax from the Russian side a tad earlier:

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukra...ia-360348.html

AND then AP---the Ukrainian response----so again you support I assume Ukrainian sovereignty?

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukra...et-360354.html

And yet AP you seem to not see as does your writer not see the Russian shuffle the pea game being played just as in Georgia and Moldavia.

And the writer as do you suggest negotiation and I say over what?

Russia's economic embargo of food is in direct relation over its sanctions over Crimea and it's support of the rebels. Russia's economic collapse or failure to collapse is now directly tied to it. Considering Ukraine and Russia have also been sparring with sanctions. Directly related.

Quote:

---

1. A fail to found exported chicken in Aushan or any other chain stores with reasonable prices.

---

For now, Russia imported billions worth of meat. First month it will be of little effect. Meat is already slaughtered, in supply. That will last all of a month then prices wills tart to rise. I never said foodless in my original post I said cost increase. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/imports

Quote:

---

2. You consider shrimp, crab, and lobster a "basic staple"? Gawd, You leave in a fairy kingdom, may be? This food is fu(king expensive, two-three time more expensive than ordinary beef, as expensive as fine veal.

---

I certainly consider shrimp such, and crab. Both are actually found rather cheap in the US, EU, Australia, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, and South Africa. Only certain crab breeds are expensive. Why isn't it true for Russia? Only lobster is exclusively pricier.

Quote:

---

3. Fruits and vegies vary greatly, from the cheapest Russian to the most expensive European, glorious Polish apples lie somewhere in the middle.

---

They will vary a lot less soon for yes some are pricier than others, but it doesn't matter. If you cut out a low cost or an expensive supplier than means your supply is lower. Even .05 cent veggies will go up. Every penny is just one less in the middle and poor's pockets.

Quote:

---

4. Fish - well, I'll miss Norwegian salmon. Beef/pork - there are some exported, two-three times more expensive than Russian.

---

Russia is not self sufficient in beef. Cattle was being exported en masse to Russia because it was trying to become beef self sufficient. Most of these imported cattle were from the US. :D It was part of what was driving up beef costs in the US even before the drought in the southwest. It wasn't there yet, supply is now down, beef will go up. Once more, never said beefless, I said cost. Even as far back as 2012 Russia was still importing a lot of beef: http://en.mercopress.com/2012/07/28/...eef-production

Quote:

---

5. Grain - Russia actually exports wheat, but imports durum wheat, but I prefer rye-bread, so I'll not suffer without macaroni and wheat-bread.

---

What you prefer, and what other people eat especially poor are an entirely different thing. Russian wheat imports were not the most impressive but any product removed is an alternative no longer there. Russia still imported most of its lentils, peas, beans, soy, and other low cost food items.

You completely missed the point, ranting and raving how you would still have food. Russia will still have food but Russia imports far to much food. 1.1 million tons of beef in 2012 from the US alone, not including beef imports from Canada, Australia, and other countries. This goes for each and every product we talked about here. Russia will not be foodless, but certain food prices in the US are already going down because of it. Beans, for example directly related to it because it's no longer going there. Russia's cost will go up. Cost, cost, cost. Extra spending cash was already low in Russia's middle class, this will just consume more of it. Russia only punished its middle class and poor. The more trouble they get into the more they turn to the state, the more the state has to spend to make certain they eat the more it will cost for them.

Anecdotal pictures of food I don't care about. I want data that suggests Russia didn't import more than 30% of its food. Show me that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

From Jeffrey Tayler at The Atlantic:



His proposals:

o "Obama needs to formally rescind the NATO members’ declaration welcoming eventual Ukrainian and Georgian membership."

o "Russia must stop aiding separatists and destabilizing Ukraine, and allow the country to pursue its own path to democracy and economic prosperity."

o "A new [Crimea] referendum is now called for—one under the auspices of the United Nations."

o "Obama needs to meet Putin for a summit and signing ceremony."



Again - your fixation on Russia as an irrational actor is a serious error. Russia has the motive, means, and opportunity, and it has responded in ways predicated by numerous Russia analysts - yet you keep insisting that Russia's behavior somehow cannot be understood. Moreover, you push for more confrontational policies with the assumption that it will compel Russia to behave in a desired manner even after arguing that Russia is irrational. Exactly how will Russia respond in a predictable rational manner, if Russia is a "rogue", "criminal", and "irrational" state? It's your line of argument that is irrational.

---

AP:---both you and the writer of the article do actually realize that Russia is in an undeclared war with the Ukraine fought using it's own troops and irregulars conducting UW in a political warfare environment---you both do realize that right?

Secondly---after reading the article a number of times ------this proposal is a take off of the recently lanced via a Russian newspaper owner in the UK that alleged money for land allegedly from Merkel.

Now the new lanced version is land for land---meaning if we hold an UN election and we win we will "allow" the Ukraine to keep eastern Ukraine.

Now if I remember correctly both the Crimea and eastern Ukraine are territorially part and parcel of the Ukraine so why would Putin offer land for land which is not his in the first place.

If you happen to look at the statistics that mirhond accidently posted---54% of those polled in the Crimea would today vote for Russia---in the east well over 75% would vote to remain in the Ukraine. So we know now in advance how a UN election will turn out,

So knowing that in advance--- it is a land for land deal and thus another attempted balloon from Russia to see if the West will bite. Surprised that the writer would allow himself to be the messenger at least the Russian newspaper owner lanced an "alleged" story.

Besides I can never foresee Russia placing the chance into the hands of the electorate--- that he could in fact potentially lose the Black Sea Fleet base---would you?

Again you do realize there is an undeclared war ongoing in eastern Ukraine?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-invasion.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09

AP:---both you and the writer of the article do actually realize that Russia is in an undeclared war with the Ukraine fought using it's own troops and irregulars conducting UW in a political warfare environment---

---

How many interstate wars end by negotiated settlement and how many be the annihilation of one of the belligerents?

Quote:

---

Now if I remember correctly both the Crimea and eastern Ukraine are territorially part and parcel of the Ukraine so why would Putin offer land for land which is not his in the first place.

---

Quote:

---

If you happen to look at the statistics that mirhond accidently posted---54% of those polled in the Crimea would today vote for Russia---in the east well over 75% would vote to remain in the Ukraine. So we know now in advance how a UN election will turn out

---

Crimea is now de facto a part of Russia. How do you propose to change that?

Quote:

---

Besides I can never foresee Russia placing the chance into the hands of the electorate--- that he could in fact potentially lose the Black Sea Fleet base---would you?

---

Are you suggesting, contrary to your previous claims, that Russia is in fact a rational actor with material interests it pursues with calculated actions? :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

Every resolved dispute between Russia and the U.S. in the history of diplomatic relations between the two states has been resolved through negotiations, not through violence.

---

For the record, would you be so kind as to list these 'disputes' and how they arose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nyxilis

Russia's economic embargo of food is in direct relation over its sanctions over Crimea and it's support of the rebels

---

You wrote about Russian economy, so I've answered to your post in appropriate thread.

Rada Hustle Daily

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0__Upj-EpKg

L'ashko got punched into the face by Shevchenko, I love this Parliament, really. :)

Odessa massacre. Someone kills a woman inside the Trade Unions house.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvnL...3BeJQN8cNqbbxk

0:23 She cries "Help!"
0:30 reply from the croud "Lay her out"
1:21 "there are calls to let them burn alive"
1:59 "She is not a woman she is a separatist"
2:04 "Women are at home with kids, she is a bitch"

upd.
another pick of funny BS from Ukromedia.

http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/eve...-separatystamy

COIN forces destroyed a car with separatists.
http://kor.ill.in.ua/m/610x385/1484731.jpg

Vatniki (derogatory nickname for pro-Russians) are so dumb that they somehow drove a car without wheels and engine :D

ps. to be honest, korrespondent.net admits that entire story smells like bull$#!t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirhond

Odessa massacre. Someone kills a woman inside the Trade Unions house.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvnL...3BeJQN8cNqbbxk

0:23 She cries "Help!"
0:30 reply from the croud "Lay her out"
1:21 "there are calls to let them burn alive"
1:59 "She is not a woman she is a separatist"
2:04 "Women are at home with kids, she is a bitch"

upd.
another pick of funny BS from Ukromedia.

http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/eve...-separatystamy

COIN forces destroyed a car with separatists.
http://kor.ill.in.ua/m/610x385/1484731.jpg

Vatniki (derogatory nickname for pro-Russians) are so dumb that they somehow drove a car without wheels and engine :D

ps. to be honest, korrespondent.net admits that entire story smells like bull$#!t.

---

let's speak truth to power mirhond;

this is the UK FT headline for tomorrow morning---basically states 70 Russian vehicles into the Ukraine---70 Russian vehicles destroy by Ukrainian artillery.

Putin denies, the Russian FM denies, the Russian Defense Minister denies--but guess what mirhond that thing called a GMTI (Ground Movement Target Indicator) that can even identify how fast you are walking at a very long distance and can tell the difference in vehicles ---it does not lie comrade mirhond.

what is with your Defense Minister---seems he does not believe NATO AWACs and E3s can "see anything"?
NATO confirmed the number of vehcilces going in

I am aware that the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania) have been concerned about Russia's policy towards the Ukraine and protecting Russian communities, this is the first time I have seen the Finns publicly expressing concern and by their President:

Quote:

---

The possibility of military alliance through membership in NATO will remain as one option for our security policy also in the future....European Union security and defense policy hasn’t developed as we had hoped.

---

Link:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...tml?cmpid=yhoo