Ukraine: military (Aug '14 to mid-June '15) closed

[AmericanPride]

AP--and this is what Russia "realpolitik" ----come on AP you were the one that stated "we must understand the Russia side and we must negotiate"---how did that go for you?

The U.S. is not at war with Russia - so far, so good. Now how's your "no negotiations" position working out for the Ukrainians? And since you seem to think that the closer someone is to the conflict, the better they understand it - you might have missed that the Ukrainian president himself has participated in negotiations. So it seems to be that the credibility of argument is... well, nil.

And you are still stating negotiate---have you even read anything mentioned here in the last six months?

Yes - because, as stated repeatedly, the U.S. does not have the coercive means to reverse Russia's gains in Ukraine. The implication is that any Russian reversal will be voluntary; ergo, by negotiation. You still haven't described for anyone how sanctions will be effective in reversing Russia's achievements to date. Please elaborate.

---the last time I checked the Russians do not need a buffer for the following reasons that they themselves have stated since 2012-

It's always been Russian policy to protest NATO encroachment on their borders; i.e. to protest that there is no strategic space between Russia and the West. Russia's nuclear strategy does not change this calculus since there are a range of conflicts between peace and nuclear war (as evidenced by Ukraine).

So if I threaten to use first strike tactical nuclear weapons then just why do I assume I need a buffer---does that make sense to you?

If no geographic buffer exists to create strategic space, transitioning to a position of nuclear first strike makes perfect sense. The lack of space means a contraction of time, which increases the value of a first strike. But since you insist that the Russians are in an "altered state of reality", I don't expect you to understand their strategic perceptions.

[OUTLAW 09]

[QUOTE=OUTLAW 09;160876]

Then again AP--let's look at your "buffer concept"--if you had been ever in the GDR during the 80s you would have seen for yourself that in order to attack Russia via an land attack the Germans would have to drive what about seven hours in a normal car travelling 120kms per hour JUST to get to Kiev--not even the Russian border---now translate that into tank time ---what about five days to make the seven hours--of course one could rail them but that would alert the Russians to a possible land attack sine they have as many recon satellites as we do these days.

So the idea of a say the Ukraine as a "sphere of influence" buffer zone makes about as much sense as a drop of water in the Mojave desert--but again that is your thinking not mine.

Let's see about the idea that the Kazahkstan was never a country and has Russians living in it being inside this "Russian sphere of influence".

Putin's statements not mine---so who is going to attack the Russian empire via Kazahkstan?

Let's see--the Baltics as a Russian "sphere of influence" buffer zone--they are so small width wise I am not sure just what kind of buffer that would be and since one can see literally across the Baltics--a ground attack against Russia would be seen any time night or day--not sure what Navy could currently pull off a landing invasion as well.

AP--you do realize just how ludicrous the idea in the 21st century is concerning the concept of "buffer zones are needed to avoid a ground attack"--right?

AP--you do realize that the term "spheres of influence" especially in Europe came out of Yalta and disappeared fully 25 years ago when the Wall came down--right?

So yes I fully understand the Russia line of argumentation but in the 21st century one would think Russian leaders would spend more time in figuring out how to improve the Russian standard of living not chasing a neo imperialistic dreams of the old Russian Empire than trying to figure out just how much land is needed between them and some alleged possible maybe sometime in the future land invasion.

So what is your explanation of the Russian need for a "buffer"? Once you have one--then explain it to NATO.

By the way if I were Putin I would spend far more time in figuring out my Islamist problems than worrying about the Ukrainians because longer term the Russian Islamist problems are far more threatening to Putin than the Ukrainians will ever be.

You have read the daily Interfax releases concerning the constant fighting between the Islamists and the GRU/FSB---right AP?

AP--this kind of explains Putin's actions:

The greater the stress we're under, the more likely we are to fall back on old ideas. Often catastrophic.

[AmericanPride]

AP--you do realize just how ludicrous the idea in the 21st century is concerning the concept of "buffer zones are needed to avoid a ground attack"--right?

Unsurprisingly, you have a narrow way of viewing the concept.

AP--you do realize that the term "spheres of influence" especially in Europe came out of Yalta and disappeared fully 25 years ago when the Wall came down--right?

Disappeared according to whom? The "end-of-history" triumphialists? What has disappeared in the end of the Cold War was strict bipolarity in the international system. It does not mean that great powers no longer exert significant influences on the states around them, or that they no longer compete with one another for such influence. Since you're a self-proclaimed expert on the Middle East also, you no doubt recall the arguments around promoting Shias in Iraq's government risking pulling Iraq into Iran's... wait for it... sphere of influence at the expense of the U.S.

but in the 21st century one would think Russian leaders would spend more time in figuring out how to improve the Russian standard of living not chasing a neo imperialistic dreams of the old Russian Empire than trying to figure out just how much land is needed between them and some alleged possible maybe sometime in the future land invasion.

Why would you think that? It's already been discussed here and elsewhere why and how Russia is reverting to old patterns of behavior as it becomes more assertive internationally. But then again, that would run counter to your hysterical claims that Russia is an "irrational" "rogue state" operating in an "altered reality".

By the way if I were Putin I would spend far more time in figuring out my Islamist problems than worrying about the Ukrainians because longer term the Russian Islamist problems are far more threatening to Putin than the Ukrainians will ever be.

But you're not Putin, and that's the problem with your line of argument.

[OUTLAW 09]

The U.S. is not at war with Russia - so far, so good. Now how's your "no negotiations" position working out for the Ukrainians? And since you seem to think that the closer someone is to the conflict, the better they understand it - you might have missed that the Ukrainian president himself has participated in negotiations. So it seems to be that the credibility of argument is... well, nil.



Yes - because, as stated repeatedly, the U.S. does not have the coercive means to reverse Russia's gains in Ukraine. The implication is that any Russian reversal will be voluntary; ergo, by negotiation. You still haven't described for anyone how sanctions will be effective in reversing Russia's achievements to date. Please elaborate.



It's always been Russian policy to protest NATO encroachment on their borders; i.e. to protest that there is no strategic space between Russia and the West. Russia's nuclear strategy does not change this calculus since there are a range of conflicts between peace and nuclear war (as evidenced by Ukraine).



If no geographic buffer exists to create strategic space, transitioning to a position of nuclear first strike makes perfect sense. The lack of space means a contraction of time, which increases the value of a first strike. But since you insist that the Russians are in an "altered state of reality", I don't expect you to understand their strategic perceptions.

So AP--simple question--just who is supposedly suppose to "attack" Russia pray tell?

The last time I checked not even NATO had any planning for such an attack as Europe as a whole had some how figured that the "spheres of influence thing" had died a slow death 25 years ago and that problems around the physical changing of borders by military force had disappeared as well 25 years ago and everyone in the EU had more problems with the Euro and employment than thinking about "invading" Russia.

So AP just where did this Russian paranoia come from---maybe they have not gotten over Hitler but what that was wait 70 or so years ago right?

And since then when were they "invaded" or threatened with "invasion"?

[AmericanPride]

So AP--simple question--just who is supposedly suppose to "attack" Russia pray tell?

Ask the Russians. It's their security.

The last time I checked not even NATO had any planning for such an attack

And you're probably right. But then that goes back to that whole "trust" thing you mentioned earlier - how privy is Russia to NATO's military goals and strategies? What incentive does Russia have to trust NATO? You know, the basic prisoner's dilemma here. Russia has consistently chosen material security over principled trust. Given that Russia has always been on the outside of Europe's institutions, why would they do anything different in this scenario?

[kaur]

I argue that:

● Russia is a revisionist power;
● It has the means to pursue its objectives;
● It is winning; and
● Greater dangers lie ahead.

I recommend that the United Kingdom and its allies:

● Give up any hope of a return to business as usual;
● Boost the defence of the Baltic states and Poland;
● Expose Russian corruption in the West;
● Impose sweeping visa sanctions on the Russian elite;
● Help Ukraine; and
● Reboot the Atlantic Alliance.

http://en.delfi.lt/opinion/edward-lu...#ixzz3CNBAXUR3

[OUTLAW 09]

AP--another example of the Russian "altered state of reality"--the NATO/Russian Agreements are not treaties but a statement of intent between NATO and Russia---it was never intended to have treaty status and was so treated by all NATO countries.

Now Russia throws the accusation that nothing can be changed since it is a treaty--notice the subtle dialectic.

I have spent which you have not literally hours going over the meanings of words and definitions until the Russians found one that suited them--remember I mentioned here often that they have a hang up on legality there is a reason for that and this RIA press release depicts that hang to legality---but remember what Stalin once said to high level CP members--we will sign treaties, agreements, memos if they help us--but then we will ignore them when the time comes that it suits us.

MOSCOW, September 4 (RIA Novosti) - US President Barack Obama’s statement about the possibility of the US unilaterally amending the basic act streamlining Russia-NATO relations is wrong in legal and political terms, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.

NOTE AP---what is in fact the legal terms of the Agreement--there are none by the way---it was never intended to be a treaty and was as such never ratified as a treaty by any member state---again AP notice how they hang on the term "legal".

NOTE AP--by the way the 1994 Budapest Memorandum is not being considered today by Russia to be "legal and nor binding"---notice how Stalin's 1939 words come back to haunt the West.

“Declaring that one country decided to amend a collective document signed by 28 states would be incorrect both in legal and political terms,” Lavrov said.

NOTE AP---see how they keep going back over the term legal?

The Russian minister said that the document was drafted by all members of the Russia-NATO Council and “can be amended only through a collective effort.”

The NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security was signed in 1997 and is the formal basis for current NATO-Russia relations. It defines the procedures of consultation, cooperation, joint decision-making and action of the two parties.

NOTE AP how they interpret the agreement--as if it is a treaty not a working agreement of intent.

In April, the Alliance suspended cooperation between NATO and Russia over Russia’s alleged role in escalating the crisis in Ukraine, something Moscow has repeatedly denied.

So AP--Russia has not be escalating problems in south/east Ukraine---right?

Come on AP--you have got to finally start "understanding what you are seeing".

[OUTLAW 09]

AP--this is the Russian military "reality" on the ground inside the Ukraine.

Video: #Russian army shelling positions @ #Mariupol w GRAD MRLS (BM21s). This is by the way #Ukraine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7k6bHCoBcw …

Video was geo tagged and is in the Ukraine.

[AmericanPride]

So AP--Russia has not be escalating problems in south/east Ukraine---right?

When did I ever state that? I'm starting to think that it's you that's living in an "altered state of reality".

we will sign treaties, agreements, memos if they help us--but then we will ignore them when the time comes that it suits us.

How is that behavior unique to Russia? I seem to recall that the U.S. is not recognizing the Budapest Memorandum as binding it to provide for Ukraine's security and territorial integrity. Your criticism of Russia is that it's a self-interested state. That's not a criticism. That's an observation.

Kaur,

Thanks for providing that op-ed. I disagree with some of his recommendations since he slides into moments of idealism, but otherwise, it's a good read.

[kaur]

AP, you are welcome. It would be nice if you elaborate those idealistic points. Isn't your song words also carrying idealism?

17.05 FSB guy Strelkov (sitting on boxes of Russian ATGM-s (volunteers couldn't use because of lack of skills) and MANPAD-s) was claiming that there are so few volunteers to join the fight against Ukrainian forces. Where are all those harassed masses?

https://storify.com/ystriya/strelkov-seeks-volunteers

Then started inflow of Russian volunteers to foreign country.

Then Ukrainian units became skilled enough to fight the Russians volunteers (Chechens, Ossetians, Russian nationalists, fascists, orthodox conservatives etc) and end of operation was question of months. Those volunteers were fighting for people, who were not interested in fighting?

Then Russian regulars came in with several БТГр-s.

If you were Ukrainian, what could do? Keep silent or shout battle cry of freedom? Isn't this war of Independence for Ukrainians? Are Ukrainians objects of international relations or they do have their say?

[AmericanPride]

AP, you are welcome. It would be nice if you elaborate those idealistic points. Isn't your song words also carrying idealism?

He asks: "Are we really proposing that countries which paid the greatest price for the mistakes of the 20th century (including many made by this country), and which the past masters of the Kremlin occupied and despoiled, should be once again subject to outside interference and oppression?"

I don't see how his question is relevant to what policies the U.K. (or the West in general) should be pursuing.

And my signature is more about celebrating the triumphs of the U.S. and less about formulating foreign policy.

If you were Ukrainian, what could do? Keep silent or shout battle cry of freedom? Isn't this war of Independence for Ukrainians? Are Ukrainians objects of international relations or they do have their say?

I don't criticize Ukraine's military response from a moral, legal, or ethical perspective. The Ukrainians have the right to defend their territorial integrity and this is a right recognized in international law. And I would have serious concerns about the importance of Ukrainian state-hood if there was not an armed response to some extent. That doesn't mean that their strategy and policy are sound, or that even the Ukrainians "should" win the conflict on their terms. It could happen, but I doubt it and there's more at stake than Ukraine's sovereignty. Who's interests will prevail? Who gains by the continuation and escalation of the conflict? I doubt the on-going destruction of one third of Ukraine through armed conflict is in Ukrainians' best interests.

[OUTLAW 09]

When did I ever state that? I'm starting to think that it's you that's living in an "altered state of reality".

AP---I have provided you an example of the "Russian altered state of reality" as it applies say to the NATO-Russian accords complete with the Russian FMs comments accusing the US of wanting to make changes and yet you do not respond---strange is it not?

Notice I pointed out to you the Russian current inability to define what is and is not "legal" again from their "altered state of reality" and yet you say nothing.

My interpretation you do not have to accept but maybe the opinion of a legal expert from the Baltics might in fact say the same thing I have been saying about the NATO Agreement that the Russians for some strange reason think is "legal".

You really do need to read this as it actually counters the German view of the document which strangely parallels the Russian view.

Now AP as a good analyst read the Russian FMs comment concerning the NATO document and then read a legal experts views of the document and then tell me there is no Russian "disconnect into the altered reality"?

http://en.delfi.lt/central-eastern-e...#ixzz3CNSyhSPp

First, she says, the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, signed in Paris in 1997, is not, strictly speaking, an international treaty, but rather a political declaration. Second, Russia itself has breached the agreement with its actions in Ukraine.

Agreement scrapped by Russia itself

"I would like to note that the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, signed by NATO and Russia in Paris in 1997, is not an international treaty, so it gives rise to no legal obligations and is therefore more of a political declaration. In other words, this document, which was intended to lay down the foundations and procedures for NATO-Russia cooperation, sets out obligations that are not legal, but political in nature, and sticking to them is a matter of good will. Breaching these obligations does not lead to legal liability," Leonaitė says.

She says that the main objective of the NATO-Russia agreement was to build a sustainable peace in Europe. It is for this goal that NATO and Russia pledged to build their mutual relations on the basis of respect for international legal norms, for democracy and political pluralism, the rule of law, human rights and freedoms.

"As a matter of fact," Leonaitė says, "the preamble to the Founding Act states that 'Russia is continuing the building of a democratic society and the realisation of its political and economic transformation.' Most importantly, the Founding Act explicitly states the obligation to refrain from using armed force and threat of using armed force not only by one side against the other, but also against any other country, its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence in any way that is incompatible with the principles set out in the UN Charter or the Helsinki Final Act. Moreover, it reaffirmed an obligation to respect other states' sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, inviolability of borders and national self-determination. Doubtlessly, these basic legal principles, which apply to the entire international community, are a precondition for the NATO-Russia political agreement to be viable."

The legal expert adds that recent developments in Eastern Europe leave little doubt that it is Russia that breached every single principles spelled out in the Founding Act, effectively rendering it null and void.

"In the current situation, therefore, there is little sense in talking about viability of these political obligations," Leonaitė says.

She notes that even if the 1997 Founding Act were a binding international treaty, Russia's aggression against Ukraine could be regarded as a major violation and a sufficient basis for NATO to terminate or suspend the treaty in compliance with the Vienna Convention rules.

NATO bases - violation or not?

Commenting on the oft-quoted argument that the Founding Act precludes setting up permanent NATO bases in the territories of eastern members, Leonaitė notes that the document refers to the security environment as it was in 1997. It has changed significantly since then, she says.

The NATO-Russia Founding Act states:

"NATO reiterates that in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks. In this context, reinforcement may take place, when necessary, in the event of defence against a threat of aggression… Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe."

"The agreement clearly speaks of the 'current' - i.e., 1997 - and 'foreseeable' security situation. It is more than obvious that Russia's aggression against Ukraine (annexing Crimea and sending armed forces to Donbass) as well as its support for armed separatist groups in east Ukraine have effected essential changes in security environment," Leonaitė says.

According to her, in no way could such changes have been foreseen when the agreement was signed.

Leonaitė also notes that the Founding Act refers to "substantial" NATO capabilities in Eastern Europe. Several hundred US soldiers could hardly be treated as "substantial combat forces".

"Third, one cannot ignore Russia's reciprocal pledge to exercise 'similar restraint'. In 2007, Russia suspended its membership in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, which is often described as the cornerstone of European security, and stopped observing restrictions laid out therein. Moreover, Russia deploys significant forces in Kaliningrad, much bigger than any potential NATO bases in the region," the legal expert concludes.

[kaur]

AmericanPride

And I would have serious concerns about the importance of Ukrainian state-hood if there was not an armed response to some extent. That doesn't mean that their strategy and policy are sound, or that even the Ukrainians "should" win the conflict on their terms. It could happen, but I doubt it and there's more at stake than Ukraine's sovereignty. Who's interests will prevail? Who gains by the continuation and escalation of the conflict? I doubt the on-going destruction of one third of Ukraine through armed conflict is in Ukrainians' best interests.

AP, what is the US story with South Korea and Taiwan? Why US has bases there? Why commitments? Domino effect? Communist world revolution? Revival of rogue regime? Who cares about Korean cars and Taiwan computer makers? World is flat and you can outsource those consumer goods from China.

[OUTLAW 09]

AP--you failed to respond--notice this key sentence about a treaty that we even in Europe do not talk about much --notice the timeframe that Russia pulled out of the treaty and then I will take you back to 1939 and remind you of Stalin's words---we can sign treaties if they help us and then we an basically ditch them when we want if they no longer work for us.

Notice by the way the date of pullout 2007 and what then occurred in 2008?

European "Spheres of Influence" is so dead and Russian revivalists will not bring it back.

In 2007, Russia suspended its membership in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, which is often described as the cornerstone of European security, and stopped observing restrictions laid out therein.

Moreover, Russia deploys significant forces in Kaliningrad, much bigger than any potential NATO bases in the region," the legal expert concludes.

[OUTLAW 09]

AP---another example of an "altered state of reality"---after they themselves (separatists and mercenaries) destroyed a rather large part of the Donbas critical infrastructure and via shelling massive civilian population/housing damage they state the following.

Who is going to pay for the improved standard of living---you think Russia will invest ?--ask the Crimea if they have seen the promised "billions yet"?

From Interfax from yesterday:

19:17 DPR administration wants to make living standards in DPR higher than in Ukraine

Now that is "altered".

[OUTLAW 09]

We should not forget the Russian GRU units which are mentioned a number of times --which can be used--when Russia is conducting it new military doctrine of UW.

Confirmation of GRU recon units inside the Ukraine--but of course they "must be on vacation" as Putin has repeatedly stated there are "no Russian troops inside the Ukraine".

Notice the provider of the photo---Ruptly--sits in Berlin with a staff of over 100---200% Russian owned propaganda media provider--right now they have since the Russian invasion a large number of media types with the Russia Army providing photos and videos to Western media outlets.

Ruptly is a key Russian player in the current info war machine.

IF IT SAYS, I'M A DUCK ...
#Russian GRU #Spetsnaz elite military formations,proudly fighting in #Shakhtarsk,#Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/MiddleEast_BRK/s...66611990679552

[OUTLAW 09]

I really do bet that in the "altered state of reality" Putin is currently in---he did not see this one coming at him and his Central Bank.

The Ukraine has more than amble evidence in both POWs to documents to voice intercepts to confirm Russian support, funding and equipment that was used in the destruction of critical Ukrainian infrastructure in an international court of law which has already ruled against Putin once with Yukos.

Ukraine has all grounds to demand from Russia to compensate losses for damage of infrastructure, including in international courts, a managing partner of Volkov & Partners law firm, Oleksiy Volkov has said.

[AmericanPride]

we can sign treaties if they help us and then we an basically ditch them when we want if they no longer work for us.

As usual, your argument proves too much. How is that behavior unique to Russia or uniquely objectionable when conducted by Russia? In June 2002, the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty because in the words of President Bush, he concluded that "the ABM Treaty hinders our government’s ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue-state missile attacks." In other words, the U.S. "ditched" a treaty because it "no longer worked" for it. Now - to follow your line of argument, you must critique every country that abandons a treaty because it perceives the utility of the treaty is no longer sufficient, including the U.S.

You have done this on several occassions. In your attempt to condemn the destruction of a civilian airliner by a air defense missile, you have argued that air defense missiles should be classified as weapons of mass destruction - even though every country employs air defense missiles. In your attempt to discredit my arguments, you have argued that those in closest proximity to the conflict are the most credible - meaning that Russian posters like mirhond should have more credibility than American posters, including yourself. I strongly recommend that you become more circumspect in your arguments.

Who is going to pay for the improved standard of living---you think Russia will invest ?--ask the Crimea if they have seen the promised "billions yet"?

That's a political question and one that will have an impact on the direction of Ukraine's political future and affiliations. How much will the West invest in reconstruction, and under what conditions? Would Kiev even welcome Russian finance at this point, given the obvious implications for continued Russian influence on Ukrainian political affairs? Ukraine does not have the financial resources to rebuild one third of the country. It will have to ask for external aid. And that will have an impact on the country's political alignment.

The Ukraine has more than amble evidence in both POWs to documents to voice intercepts to confirm Russian support, funding and equipment that was used in the destruction of critical Ukrainian infrastructure in an international court of law which has already ruled against Putin once with Yukos.

This is possible - but given that enforcement against Russia is impossible considering its position on the UNSC, I doubt anything will come of it. Russia would likely follow the U.S. lead demonstrated in The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America. In the Yukos case, it was the Permanent Court of Arbitration that made the determination - not the same thing as typical courts, and with even less enforcement mechanisms than the ICJ. So exactly how will Ukraine pursue and enforce a judgment against Russia if Russia refuses to pay up?

[Firn]

Ukraine and pro-Russia rebels sign ceasefire deal

According to the BBC:

The Ukrainian government and pro-Russian rebels have signed a truce deal to end almost five months of fighting.

The two sides, meeting in Belarusian capital Minsk, agreed to stop firing at 15:00 GMT. However, the rebels said the truce had not changed their policy of advocating separation from Ukraine.

Now nobody knows of course how long this ceasefire will last and the political positions are obviously wide apart with the aggressor not even officially involved and only getting 'informed'.

President Petro Poroshenko said the ceasefire was based on a 12-point peace plan that included the release of "hostages", which he said would probably happen on Saturday.

"It is very important that this ceasefire lasts long, and during this ceasefire we continue the political dialogue to bring peace and stability," he said.

One can only speculate what motivated Putin and Poroshenko to reach that ceasefire. Some possible explanations:

The Kremlin's possible views:

1) Putin might want avoid the new turn of heavier sanctions which might hurt heavily and already weak Russian economy

2) Putin could fear a negative public fallout of further casualities in an invasion not supported by the Russian population. There have been already to many to hide.

3) Putin might be convinced that the Ukrainian forces took enough of a beating in the recent fightings to make a new offensive unlikely.


Kyiv's possible views:

1) Right now with so many Russian regulars inside there is no hope of military victory for the time being.

2) The ceasefire gives the Ukrainian forces to regroup and replenish with some Western help after the heavy casualities suffered in the last days.

3) It also means lower loss of life for Ukrainian citiziens, although it is likely that the speratists will continue to kidnapp, torture and murder

4) The heavily suffering economy might get more easily supported without fighting a war.

5) The political elections could give the Poroshenko and his allies a large majority in the legislative branch.

6) The Western sanctions and the weak Russian economy might suffer relatively more in the next months.


The conflicting Western view:

1) Overall of the ceasefire might raise some hope that a 'political solution' if hard to see what it might, could possibly be achieved. Most should be highly sceptical.

2) Some might be happy if no new sanctions 'have to be' put in place: Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Cyprus are very likely among them with Austria, Finland as well as Italy and France being possibly not far behind. Some European economies have suffered some damage and would like to avoid further problems.

3) Others might be disappointed not have pushed the new sanctions through and could see Putin's offering as a smokescreen and cheap diversion.


We will see...

[OUTLAW 09]

[QUOTE=Firn;160911]Ukraine and pro-Russia rebels sign ceasefire deal

What ceasefire plan/agreement---from seven seconds ago this evening.


BREAKING #Russian terrorists in #Donetsk just moments ago started to shell Donetsk airfield again. 

BREAKING #Russian army tank column just moved in for #Debaltseve trying to form new kettle for #Ukraine forces there. Ceasefire?

TODAY from Estonia we get Russian cross border abductions by their special services---that usually means FSB/GRU:


3. Russia admitted this is the work of their special services

2. Just back from KAPO. Confirmed that abduction occurred in the course of cross border corruption investigation. Documented. On Estonian soil.

1.Lithuania's FM tells me abduction in #Estonia a "bold provocation". He learned from Estonian counterpart attackers did not wear uniforms