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

[OUTLAW 09]

Heads up---much more is now coming out on MH17 shot down---First this from BBC today:

BBC investigation: “@BBCr4today: Eyewitness near #MH17 crash told @JohnSweeneyRoar saw BUK missile launcher & crew spoke w/Moscow accents”

NEXT--this is more important--there will be a solid article released on the MH17 shot down by the known open source analyst bellingcat---the last time he released something critical he got hit with a DDoS by both the jihadi's and the FSB.

https://bellingcat.com/

[OUTLAW 09]

Russian winter 2013 conscripts displaying the money they got from Russian "contracts" to fight in the Ukraine.

This is actually why when Putin and his FM state there are no Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine---they are actually correct--but no one in the main stream media asks the follow up question---and what about Russian "contract" fighters?

What is interesting is that those Russian military killed up to now were professional longer term types--now they are shifting to "conscript contractors"--which means the fighting quality will drop off--wonder why---some say due to heavier than planned fort losses by the professionals side.

https://twitter.com/MiddleEast_BRK/s...94770429984768

[OUTLAW 09]

Again AP--I am not the only one using the term "irrational" and Putin in the same sentence--but I like my term better "altered state of reality" as it fits "doublethink" far better than say "irrational".

Ukraine conflict could spill into Romania if Russia takes "irrational actions"

http://euobserver.com/foreign/125504 pic.twitter.com/4XkSkrtTyb

[OUTLAW 09]

AP---see the differences again---but somehow you do not see them.

Has it be US policy to openly threaten neighbors and other superpowers with a nuclear strike--- has it be the policy of say this WH to order the military to hold tactical nuclear strike exercises clearly on say a series of specific countries?--has it be released in US military doctrine the use of first tactical nuclear first strike--updated say since 2012?

Even with our crazy Congress politics not many of those members have in open media declared that the US should use first strike on anyone other than maybe now IS.

Come on AP--you have got to get better at this.

AP--another example of "irrational" nuclear threats that the last time I checked neither NATO nor say the US AF has practiced cruise missile nuclear strikes against any Russia borders.

Can you imagine what the Russian outcall would be if a formation of say
B2s "practiced cruise missile strikes" in the Baltic Sea neutral zone near St. Petersburg?

RUSSIAN STRATEGIC BOMBERS CONDUCT PRACTISE CRUISE MISSILE STRIKES ON THE U.S OVER THE LABRADOR SEA

http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...strikes-on-us/ …

[OUTLAW 09]

If one did not suspect Russia was acting "irrational" here is another example of Russia being "irrational" and using "irrationality" as a political pressure point against a Baltic country.

Russia has reopened 25-year-old cases that may lead to criminal charges against young people who refused to serve in the Soviet army in 1990-1991, shows a request for legal assistance received by the Lithuanian Prosecutor General's Office.

This still affects approximately 1500 Lithuanians who fled and or hid from the Soviet Army when Lithuanian went independent. Lithuanian authorities have refused to cooperative as desertion from the SU Army is not a crime there.

http://en.delfi.lt/lithuania/foreign...d1410174770219

This is like claiming in 2014 that the ancestors of Texans who did not join the Mexican Army during the uprising are now going to be charged and hauled into Mexican court.

Amazed--this perfect example really does go to the heart of "altered state of reality" to think Soviet law applied in 1990/91 still applies today when in theory the Soviet Union does not exist---well in some heads it still does exist.

But then some commenters here assumed that we must thoroughly understand why Russia is angry--actually we need to understand just where it went off the cliff and this "altered reality" set in.
a

[OUTLAW 09]

Open source is far more effective than CIA/DIA/NSA especially if it can search and filter the entire internet much as does the NSA with their photo/video search engines.

Goes to confirm that 80% of all intelligence actually comes from open sources so why does it not get the same massive budgets as the technical side seems to always get?

Today from bellingcat.com an open source UK site they have potentially identified both the Buk itself as equipment from a particular AD unit, but as well from what unit it was assigned to. It is interesting to see his work since the Ukrainian SBU stated shortly after the shot down they knew it was a Russian crew and had the voice intercepts to back it up but it went nowhere in the western mass media.

Should be interesting to see how Russia takes the news--but wait as always---"it ain't me".

By now the FSB must be aware just how badly their internet opsec has been.

https://bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-e...ussian-troops/

[AmericanPride]

Outlaw,

You are hilarous. I count 10 posts in a row from you - spambots would have a hard time keeping up.

Has it be US policy to openly threaten neighbors and other superpowers with a nuclear strike

Yes - at various points in its history, the U.S. has issued explicit nuclear threats to the Soviet Union, People's Republic of China, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. The U.S. also issued nuclear threats against non-state actors and for cyber attacks - I do not recall if Russia has done the same. Again - my point is that your line of argument proves too much.

Orwells' use of the mythical country called "Eurasia"---much as Putin uses it

Oh "come on" outlaw. Orwell refered to a mythical country. Putin is using a well-established term for the combined European and Asian continents. Please stop confusing definitions and concepts. Russia has never viewed itself as fully European or fully Asian - it's always been a unique mix of both.

Doublethink allows a person to state two completely different and many times contradicting statements at the same time---AND this is key "fully believe both statements to be true".

For Putin's statements to qualify as "doublethink" he would have to genuinely believe that Russian troops are not in Ukraine. Are you seriously going to make that argument?

SECONDLY, that is a line in the book where the main character is torturing a victim and he says "Power is not the means BUT the end state" or "goal".

That's the basis for realpolitik and realism in international relations. Why is that such a shock to you?

1. reestablishing Russia as a world power ie superpower
2. the power to destroy the EU
3. the power to declass the US and to decouple it from Europe
4. the power associated with establishing the hegemony of Russia over Europe--we see that is the outright kidnapping on
Estonia soil of an Estonian State Security officer
5. power in destroying western liberal ideas of women's rights, homosexual rights, EU style economics, and the list goes on

That's the general concensus by most analysts of Russia, and something I have stated (repeatedly) in previous posts. That doesn't make Russia "irrationa" - it actually makes Russia fairly predictable.

AP--another example of "irrational" nuclear threats that the last time I checked neither NATO nor say the US AF has practiced cruise missile nuclear strikes against any Russia borders.

If there are motives, means, and opportunity - it is fundamentally not irrational. Just because you personally disagree with Russia's conduct does not mean Russia is behaving irrationally. Just because Russia may be acting aggressively, immorally, and duplicitly, it does not mean it is behaving irrationally. Your constant refrain of an "irrational" Russia contradicts your other constant refrain that Russia is deliberately the pursing the annexation of Ukraine and other east European states - which means you are the one practicing "doublethink". Come on!

[OUTLAW 09]

Outlaw,

You are hilarous. I count 10 posts in a row from you - spambots would have a hard time keeping up.



Yes - at various points in its history, the U.S. has issued explicit nuclear threats to the Soviet Union, People's Republic of China, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. The U.S. also issued nuclear threats against non-state actors and for cyber attacks - I do not recall if Russia has done the same. Again - my point is that your line of argument proves too much.



Oh "come on" outlaw. Orwell refered to a mythical country. Putin is using a well-established term for the combined European and Asian continents. Please stop confusing definitions and concepts. Russia has never viewed itself as fully European or fully Asian - it's always been a unique mix of both.



For Putin's statements to qualify as "doublethink" he would have to genuinely believe that Russian troops are not in Ukraine. Are you seriously going to make that argument?



That's the basis for realpolitik and realism in international relations. Why is that such a shock to you?



That's the general concensus by most analysts of Russia, and something I have stated (repeatedly) in previous posts. That doesn't make Russia "irrationa" - it actually makes Russia fairly predictable.



If there are motives, means, and opportunity - it is fundamentally not irrational. Just because you personally disagree with Russia's conduct does not mean Russia is behaving irrationally. Just because Russia may be acting aggressively, immorally, and duplicitly, it does not mean it is behaving irrationally. Your constant refrain of an "irrational" Russia contradicts your other constant refrain that Russia is deliberately the pursing the annexation of Ukraine and other east European states - which means you are the one practicing "doublethink". Come on!

So AP--then it seems you have not read a statement about two years ago when there was talk of the EU and the Customs Union working together where Putin alluded to a economic union he wanted that stretched from Portugal to the Russian Far East with Russia being considered by Putin to be the lead horse of the whole thing---seems that the EU waved off on him and his idea.

But then you never read anything anyway.

Come on AP---you read absolutely nothing that one should be reading--you absolutely have never read most of what Putin has stated to include his Duma speech so how can I take you seriously--at least show us that you have read Putin's Duma speech at a minimum.

Reference 1984--it seems you cannot even read the linked article of the Yale Professor who actually wrote the article and yet you make comments about me but fail to make critical comments if you have any concerning the actual article---critique, critique, critique, and that is about it--do you even have a serious thought about anything Putin says and or is currently doing?

In the end---you simply drop in make a few comments that sound intelligent but contribute nothing--no wonder JMA had his doubts and voiced them about you.

In the end---we can go back and count the number of times what I have stated has in fact occurred almost to the letter--then let's see what you stated would occur and if it did occur.

And all that you wanted and suggested at the very beginning of your inputs was to do what AP----negotiate?---what has that gotten you?

Sit back and watch the slow but steady move to take Odessa---then come back and talk "altered state of reality".

Why --the Black Sea has been beefed up by four large Russian landing ships and the Russian land force nearly doubled armor/artillery/AD wise on that portion of the Crimea border opposite Mariupol, and the Russian "peacekeepers" in the Moldavian enclave has been tripled in the last two weeks.

By the way I am still awaiting an answer from you concerning Russian fascism--or at least a response that indicates you at least understand what has developed inside Russia since 2001.

So AP--just keep repeating the mantra "negotiation, negotiation"-----

[AmericanPride]

So AP--you had not read a statement about two years ago when there was talk of the EU and the Customs Union working together where Putin alluded to a economic union he wanted that stretched from Portugal to the Russian Far East.

How does that translate into Orwell's mythical political construct?

But then you never read anyway.

You have no idea what I read - so again, this would be a case of you making stuff up.

In the end---we can go back and count the number of times what I have stated has in fact occurred almost to the letter.

Please do. You can start with your prediction about the effects of downing the Malaysian airliner.

And all that you wanted and suggested at the very beginning of your inputs was to do what AP----negotiate?---what has that gotten you?

It would have saved eastern Ukraine from billions of dollars worth of destruction and thousands of lives. But maybe that's not important to you. There were opportunities to negotiate in November 2013, February 2014, March 2014, May 2014, and now there is another opportunity. The conditions for a negotiated settlement for Ukraine are worst now than they were in February and March - and that's a direct result of rushing into conflict The point of war isn't to keep fighting it perpetually but to bring the other side ultimately to the negotiating table on terms favorable to you. . That you fail to recognize this basic premise in warfighting highlights a great gap in your strategic understanding.

By the way I am still awaiting an answer from you concerning Russian fascism--or at least a response that indicates you at least understand what has developed inside Russia since 2001.

I've already discussed at length my views on the Russian regime and its drivers. Your failure to read it is not my responsibility.

So AP--just keep repeating the mantra "negotiation, negotiation"-----

Yes - I will. Conflict is a means, not an end - and so is negotiation.

[Bill Moore]

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/busine...ne/506570.html

Russia Hardens Military Thinking as NATO Fizzes Over Ukraine

Voices swiftly surfaced advocating a hard line. Retired General Yury Yakubov, who serves as an advisor at the Russian Defense Ministry, said last week the doctrine should list NATO not only as the primary threat to Russia, but detail the scenarios in which preemptive nuclear strikes against the alliance would be on the table.

This would far exceed the 2010 doctrine, which sees NATO expansion as a threat to Russian national security without identifying the alliance as a primary adversary and reaffirms Russia's right only to defensive use of nuclear weapons.

To back up the point, Nichols quoted former U.S. Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger: "Nuclear doctrines control the minds of men only in periods of non-emergency. In the moment of truth, when the possibility of major devastation occurs, one is likely to discover sudden changes in doctrine."

[OUTLAW 09]

How does that translate into Orwell's mythical political construct?



You have no idea what I read - so again, this would be a case of you making stuff up.



Please do. You can start with your prediction about the effects of downing the Malaysian airliner.



It would have saved eastern Ukraine from billions of dollars worth of destruction and thousands of lives. But maybe that's not important to you. There were opportunities to negotiate in November 2013, February 2014, March 2014, May 2014, and now there is another opportunity. The conditions for a negotiated settlement for Ukraine are worst now than they were in February and March - and that's a direct result of rushing into conflict The point of war isn't to keep fighting it perpetually but to bring the other side ultimately to the negotiating table on terms favorable to you. . That you fail to recognize this basic premise in warfighting highlights a great gap in your strategic understanding.



I've already discussed at length my views on the Russian regime and its drivers. Your failure to read it is not my responsibility.



Yes - I will. Conflict is a means, not an end - and so is negotiation.

AP--you still do not get it--check Bill M's comment about the nuclear card Russia is and has been playing since 2012 and we did not want to see it coming.

You yourself just flipped something on it's head but then that has been your problem in the entire thread.

This sentence of yours is key and it reflects something you derided in your 1984 comments that applies massively to Putin.

Your sentence :
Yes - I will. Conflict is a means, not an end - and so is negotiation.

1984 sentence as interpreted by the author a Yale Professor:

Power is not the means but the end state and or goal.

AP---see the difference in the approaches in two simple sentences?

If you want to hang onto your thinking then your sentence should have read:

Negotiations are not the means but in fact the end state---then you can see just how a heavily leveled sanctions regime I have been writing about achieves the blocking of Power as the end state or goal.

Your ideas of the West's actions since 1994 being the problem do not reflect Putin's drivers which are a ethno nationalistic neo imperialism tied to dreams of Empire plain and simple---some would in fact call it a fascist revival.

Reference nuclear threat that is now part and parcel of Putin's aims at the West and is a stated strategy to achieve those aims:

Again take the time to read the link and mull it over in the face of everything Russia/Putin and his FM have stated in the last six months.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...dup_inf_treaty

[OUTLAW 09]

AP--using the essence of really what you have been writing here about as your core beliefs:

I will. Conflict is a means, not an end - and so is negotiation.

Notice--negotiations settled these ongoing events right?

Rodnykova, Dokuchaievsk, Tonen'ke, Debaltseve and Donetsk airport came under attack last night. Several times w/#Grad missiles and #mortars.

2 convoys spotted from Rostov towards #Mariupol, incl. 172 tracked vehicles, 30 APCs, 200 trucks - #NSC

Notice: Russian forces increase their daily - and nightly - attacks on Ukrainian positions bit by bit since the start of the 'ceasefire'.

Dutch report completely contradicts earlier claims on Russian State TV that #MH17 was ordered to lower altitude.

By the way a recent massive attack by the Russian FM on the Ukraine for not releasing their ATC tapes seems to have disappeared into thin air as the Dutch did in fact analyze their ATC tapes which Russian claimed would prove their crazy SU25 theory about the Ukraine shooting don MH17.

Explain to us here starting with the Crimea just before the "little green men appeared to the downing of MH17 to a "ceasefire" that has seen both the mercenaries and the Russian Army increase their shellings on Ukrainian positions even though there is a supposedly "ceasefire"---How would negotiations have solved any of the above especially in light of the initial luke warm sanctions that did nothing to stop the above of or to get Putin's attention.

There have been negotiations ongoing over the Moldavian and Georgian annexed enclaves since 2008 and what has been achieved--really what has been achieved especially in light of the fact that Russia has increased the number of "allowed peacekeepers" two fold over in the last three weeks?

See your own disconnected argument--you are stating one thing and oblivious at the same time that reality on the ground and in actions taken daily by Putin in fact negate any and all negotiations.

Example---taken from a number of western media sources;

See Putin contributed to the ceasefire plan and is using his influence on the mercenaries--really?

The last time I checked Russia did not sign the ceasefire and guess what Russian troops and heavy equipment are still flowing into the Ukraine and oh---that nightly shelling and now daytime shellings by Russian troops and mercenaries is what an accident?

The ceasefire plan by Putin was nothing more than a smoke screen to try to get the EU sanctions taken off the table.

And see the threats coming out of Russia---if more sanctions then no overflights--guess what there were no overflights during the Cold War and Aeroflot risks being cut off from all overflights and will lose 400M USD on overflight fees from western airlines--now does that look like a "sanction" to you?

Just like the food ban sanctions against the EU---banned food is flowing still into Russia just with Belarus food names--and the Finns are offering free bus trips to St. Petersburg residents to shop in Finland--and that is what a "sanction"--come on AP

In sanctioning the West Russia is effectively sanctioning itself--does that make sense to anyone other than say Putin?

Come on AP---see and understand.

[kaur]

2 pics how Russia perceives it's geopolitical situation. First one is by Stratfor (I think), second is from Russian military journal.

[AmericanPride]

Your ideas of the West's actions since 1994 being the problem do not reflect Putin's drivers which are a ethno nationalistic neo imperialism tied to dreams of Empire plain and simple---some would in fact call it a fascist revival.

Where did I say that the "West's actions since 1994" are the problem? You're making stuff up again. What I did say several times is that Russia perceives the expansion of NATO and the U.S. missile defense program as threats to its security. That's not relevant to whether or not Putin's government is "ethno nationalistic neo-imperialist". BTW - again you are playing fast and loose with definitions (another feature of making stuff up). The term 'neo-imperialist' names the period of renewed colonialism by Western Europeans so what exactly are you trying to say about Russia?

Notice--negotiations settled these ongoing events right?

Has war? The majority of conflicts end with a negotiated settlement, and this one will too. What you have not recognized is that as time progresses, the political position of Ukraine vis-a-vis Russia becomes worse. So - the longer they pursue the conflict, the higher the cost will be for Ukraine to actually terminate it. How many billions of dollars are they going to borrow to rebuild the east, how much is going to be spent on re-armament and veteran care after the war? Not to mention the difficult process of reincorporating the east into the normal political process. These are all costs of the conflict blithely and typically ignored. But hey - as long as those evil, irrational Russians don't get anything they want, right? Destroy the country to save it.

In sanctioning the West Russia is effectively sanctioning itself--does that make sense to anyone other than say Putin?

Yes - it does, given that as you claim the interest is in power, not profit or principles.

[OUTLAW 09]

Where did I say that the "West's actions since 1994" are the problem? You're making stuff up again. What I did say several times is that Russia perceives the expansion of NATO and the U.S. missile defense program as threats to its security. That's not relevant to whether or not Putin's government is "ethno nationalistic neo-imperialist". BTW - again you are playing fast and loose with definitions (another feature of making stuff up). The term 'neo-imperialist' names the period of renewed colonialism by Western Europeans so what exactly are you trying to say about Russia?



Has war? The majority of conflicts end with a negotiated settlement, and this one will too. What you have not recognized is that as time progresses, the political position of Ukraine vis-a-vis Russia becomes worse. So - the longer they pursue the conflict, the higher the cost will be for Ukraine to actually terminate it. How many billions of dollars are they going to borrow to rebuild the east, how much is going to be spent on re-armament and veteran care after the war? Not to mention the difficult process of reincorporating the east into the normal political process. These are all costs of the conflict blithely and typically ignored. But hey - as long as those evil, irrational Russians don't get anything they want, right? Destroy the country to save it.



Yes - it does, given that as you claim the interest is in power, not profit or principles.

AP---you really think Putin is interested in profits and or principles-you really must learn Russian--come on AP


AP---here you go again--the end of all events is a negotiation---pray tell then what is the negotiated results for the Crimea and the annexation of southeastern Ukraine or the New Russia. Hope you are not using the negotiated examples of the Moldavian and Georgian enclaves as best case examples are you?

Just how long do you envision the negotiations taking to return the Crimea and or "New Russia"--certainly not in yours or you children's life times.

AP you do realize that the positions Putin has taken foreclose any ability to negotiate over the Crimea and now the "New Russia"---you and others were all about face saving, understanding the apparent Russia "needs" or the Russians have a valid series of complaints against the West---right that was your line of reasoning --not once did you stop to think that neo imperialism demands a far different sets of approaches especially when one side fully believes it's own propaganda or as they say in 1984--"doublethink".

But again you dismissed a series of thoughts that 1984 in fact brings to light within fascism and in neo imperialism---POWER is in fact the goal not negotiations as that is perceived as being "weak". You really do need a course in imperialism/fascism.

AP---you have realized that every move Putin is making since actually starting in 2001 is all about reestablishing POWER both his and Russia--right you do see this?

You did realize that the Russia school book manufacturers were already given ten months ago orders to include two chapters on the historical background of "New Russia"---ever wonder why and ever notice the timing of that order?

You do realize that the "New Russia" solution cuts the Ukraine completely off from the Black Sea making it a land locked country right with it's industrial center cut off as well--right AP?

Then as you state the end result is always a negotiated settlement---well then in this particular case of the Ukraine what have we learned/seen/experienced in the current Russian military/political doctrine about their new neo imperialism.

1. let's see---the first time since 1945 via violence borders of a European country have been changed
2. the breaking of at least four internationally by Russia signed treaties and the violation of two other key treaties
3. the use of Russian military outside of their existing borders--now the fourth time since 2008 if I recall
4. the expansion of a totally new nuclear doctrine to include stated first time strike as an option---AP notice the Russians do not state we will negotiate before we fire nuclear weapons---they envision going straight to nuclear weapons
5. the demand that the EU change their regulations to fit the EEC or basically Russian demanded changes
6. the use of a monopolistic gas position to demand and force other countries to change their policies to conform to Russian standards.

AP you do fully understand that Putin is at war against western liberal values, the EU regulations, the splitting of the Us from the EU and the destruction of NATO---right?

But most of all he fears the Maidan movement reaching Moscow. Some here call it the fear of a population defining it's own rule of law and good governance.

So does that strike you as an individual really interested in negotiations at this moment in time?

So again AP just what are your negotiations to achieve in the face of the above.

[OUTLAW 09]

AP--in an effort to boost your knowledge of Russian Federation neo Nazi's/ultra nationalists/open fascists who are presently at 13 groups and counting--all of which function openly inside Russia--some even supported openly by the Russian Orthodox church--seven of them have fighting units inside the Ukraine.

Notice how they slide that word "patriotic" into the name---also a feature found in 1984. Yet you dismiss it.

Far-right national-patriotic international gathering in St Petersburg, #Russia, early October

http://buff.ly/1waxhKl

pic.twitter.com/kTbot2qujk

[AmericanPride]

AP---you really think Putin is interested in profits and or principles-you really must learn Russian--come on AP

'Come on' Outlaw, where did I say that? Stop making stuff up.

AP---here you go again--the end of all events is a negotiation---

Again - stop making stuff up. I did not say that the "end of all events is a negotiation". In fact - I said the opposite: negotiations are a means, not an end. For you, maybe your thinking stops when the war stops - but that would be pretty shallow.

---pray tell then what is the negotiated results for the Crimea and the annexation of southeastern Ukraine or the New Russia.

That's for the Ukrainians and Russians to decide - and there have been a number of proposals floated by a wide range of politicians, officials, analysts, and academics. At the risk of you once again misquoting me and inventing meaning where none exist, the proposals range from the complete and immediate unconditional withdrawal of Russian forces to Ukraine to the de jure independence of whole region. The final settlement will be somewhere in between.

Just how long do you envision the negotiations taking to return the Crimea and or "New Russia"--certainly not in yours or you children's life times.

Probably not - and that's the consequences of forgoing a negotiated settlement to resolve Ukraine's internal political problem before Russian intervention and the Donbass revolt. Remember that short-lived Februrary agreement facilitated by the EU to resolve the conflict between Maiden opposition and the Yanukovych government by mandating new electons? That was the second missed opportunity for a political solution.

AP you do realize that the positions Putin has taken foreclose any ability to negotiate over the Crimea and now the "New Russia"---

That's been one of my points since the beginning - and no amount of sanctions will reverse that. No U.S. soldier is going to die for Crimea's return to Ukraine so discussing how the U.S. will use a military solution is also pointless. Now that Russia's position vis-a-vis Ukraine continues to improve over-time, at some point it will be preferable for Ukraine to negotiate than to continue the conflict. That's the unfortunate result of short-sighted policies that quickly dismiss the opposition as "irrational".

-you and others were all about face saving, understanding the apparent Russia "needs" or the Russians have a valid series of complaints against the West

It's less about face saving and more about minimizing one's losses in an obviously losing situation. What has the U.S. or Ukraine gained since the start of military activities? Is the political situation relative to Russia worse or better now than in Februrary?

not once did you stop to think that neo imperialism demands a far different sets of approaches especially when one side fully believes it's own propaganda or as they say in 1984--"doublethink".

Again - you are inventing your own definitions to establish terms. Russia is not "neo-imperialist". Nor is Putin practicing "double think".

POWER is in fact the goal not negotiations as that is perceived as being "weak". You really do need a course in imperialism/fascism.

Again - you are making stuff up. I have always said power is the goal.

AP---you have realized that every move Putin is making since actually starting in 2001 is all about reestablishing POWER both his and Russia--right you do see this?

If you have actually bothered to read any of my comments instead of inventing your own meaning to what I am saying, you will see that I have been saying this for months now. Thank you for agreeing. Now that the goal is established (power), and that we also know the means and opportunities, explain to me again how Russia is "irrational".

You do realize that the "New Russia" solution cuts the Ukraine completely off from the Black Sea making it a land locked country right with it's industrial center cut off as well--right AP?

Sounds like the behavior of a rational state pursuing its material interests to me.

new neo imperialism.

'Neo' already means new.

AP you do fully understand that Putin is at war against western liberal values, the EU regulations, the splitting of the Us from the EU and the destruction of NATO---right?

Evidently you have ignored all of my previous posts stating this repeatedly.

let's see---the first time since 1945 via violence borders of a European country have been changed

Really? Did you just erase Yugoslavia from the history books? And the Turkish invasion of Cyprus?

the use of Russian military outside of their existing borders--now the fourth time since 2008 if I recall

This is the fifth external conflict for Russia since 1991 - sixth if you count Crimea and Donbass separately. By the way - the first four conflicts ended with a negotiated settlement.

the expansion of a totally new nuclear doctrine to include stated first time strike as an option---AP notice the Russians do not state we will negotiate before we fire nuclear weapons---they envision going straight to nuclear weapons

How is that relevant to a negotiated settlement for the current Ukraine conflict?

So again AP just what are your negotiations to achieve in the face of the above.

What's the end-state of open-ended perpetual conflict?

[OUTLAW 09]

AP---so after all these reports coming in about massive amounts of tanks and artillery and more troops flowing in---just what do you propose the West should negotiate about that they have not all ready indicated?

You do admit the Minsk ceasefire meetings were "negotiations"--right?--if so then why was Russia not a signatory of the ceasefire--since they are the largest weapons suppliers and providers of fighters on "vacation"?

Russian 101 on "negotiations" never place a signature on something you will deny in the future.

#BreakingReport "Two Russian army tank regiments" are positioned east and north east of #Mariupol, waiting for orders to start the storm.

They will not stop fighting, before they've got it all.

And the 10.000s of Russian invaders will not stop, before the have #Odessa.

#BreakingStatement
"The DNR is all Donetsk region and the LC is all the Lugansk region."

-"Prime Minister" of the DNR Alexander Zaharchenko

Be prepared for a collapsing ceasefire over the next 72 hrs
Rus of all factions want to continue the battle
Military set-up almost complete.

Latest news raise the question, if #Putin only agreed to the ceasefire to gather enough troops for his final push on the entire #Donbas.

[OUTLAW 09]

AP---more on your education of Russian fascism which you seem to have a deficient on.

http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-e...xy-363958.html

Not only me seeing it for what it is---by the way you need to sit in a party circle with late 20s early 30s young professional Russians here in Berlin and listen to some of their comments--one would think Obama is personally driving an American Abrams tank all the way to Moscow and NATO truly wants to build tens of bases in the Ukraine and that it is the US that wants to physical occupy the Ukraine.

Some of the group were Russian Jews who came to Berlin in the early 2000s---they even gave up arguing with them and would only roll their eyes with each comment from them.

Seriously virtually every propaganda messaging from Russian TV was heard that evening---and this from so called educated Russians.

That is why the SOCEUR Breedlove likened the current Russian info war to a total "blitz krieg".

[AmericanPride]

AP---so after all these reports coming in about massive amounts of tanks and artillery and more troops flowing in---just what do you propose the West should negotiate about that they have not all ready indicated?

And what you are clearly missing is that the West, since the start of this conflict in March, has been in the weaker position. Sanctions have not and will not reverse Russia's gains in Ukraine. Contrary to your prediction, the destruction of the Malaysian airliner has no discernable impact on the conflict's outcome. Russia physically occupies Crimean while its proxies remain sufficiently strong in Donbas. That's called leverage - something the West clearly lacks in Ukraine and has not been able to gain. The cycle of action and counter-action escalating the tensions between the US/EU and Russia outside of Ukraine have their limits too. The Ukrainians know this - they also know given their economic and political situation, they cannot wage a perpetual war against Russia no matter how much U.S. hawks want to arm them with American weaponry.

That Russia had and continues to have the upper-hand given its geographic proximity and large amount of military materiel in the region, no one at all should be surprised about the outcome of this conflict. And what have the Ukrainians gained from fighting it besides a burdensome reconstruction projection in the future or the loss of thousands of lives? Is the Ukrainian government any more stable or independent? You are calculating the gains and losses using the February status quo as your baseline - hate to break it to you but the Russian intervention has changed that calculus, and not in favor of Ukraine. That's the point of the whole operation in the first place.

Ukraine's de jure claims in a negotiation will mean less over time so long as the de facto conditions favor Russia. That you continue to push for escalation knowing that Russia holds all the cards is very short-sighted and will only cost Ukraine more lives, treasure, and land in the long run.