What's new

Civil war in Ukraine: News & discussion

I think the most hilarious thing is Putins 86% approval rating,

As a nazi once said

Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country

The Russian people believe anything, its why so many of them die whenever a war happens.

Я Русский Оккупант | I'm a Russian Occupant [ENG Subtitles]
No, why do Russians mention Hitler, Napoleon etc? you won those wars against nations a quarter of your size after suffering years of beatings and only managed to turn the tide when other nations were pushing against them, this idea of a undefeatable Russia is laughable, a nation a third of your size inflicted heavy casualties and was a tiny amount of time away from conquering you, it took you millions more and other nations attacking to finally force your way back. Napoleon, Britain lost more and won more battles than Russia, he only lost there because it was cold, which isnt really an issue facing a modern army. Russia is weak against nations a third of its size, so if America did come calling then I cant imagine it will be the same, Russian soldiers are like drunks, low morale, low pay and training that looks like it comes out of 1930s prisons.
 
.
No, why do Russians mention Hitler, Napoleon etc? you won those wars against nations a quarter of your size after suffering years of beatings and only managed to turn the tide when other nations were pushing against them, this idea of a undefeatable Russia is laughable, a nation a third of your size inflicted heavy casualties and was a tiny amount of time away from conquering you, it took you millions more and other nations attacking to finally force your way back. Napoleon, Britain lost more and won more battles than Russia, he only lost there because it was cold, which isnt really an issue facing a modern army. Russia is weak against nations a third of its size, so if America did come calling then I cant imagine it will be the same, Russian soldiers are like drunks, low morale, low pay and training that looks like it comes out of 1930s prisons.
Napoleon and Hitler had under their command almost all of Europe. Napoleon's army at the moment of the invasion was almoust 3 times bigger then Russia army, and Russian forces was separated. Gitler had the best army in the world - the whole of Europe worked hard to German man could fight. Russia won not French or Germans, but the power of a united Europe.
 
.
10408122_773502589394525_956641847501611775_n.jpg
 
.
Washington supplying Kiev with satellite intelligence of conflict in east – report

25.si.jpg


The US is supplying Kiev with spy satellite imagery of enemy positions in eastern Ukraine, but does so by deliberately reducing the quality, apparently so as not to anger Russia too much, according to The Wall Street Journal.

A debate has been on in the US for some time on whether the Obama administration should provide the Kiev government with actionable intelligence. As with providing “defensive” weapons, the disagreements are similar.

However, imagery reduced in quality has apparently been green-lighted, but only arriving to the Ukrainians 24 hours late at the least. This step is apparently to ensure the US isn’t in any way thought of as a participant in the conflict, the newspaper said, referencing its own sources.

Another reason for why the images are somewhat degraded is in the event of the photos accidentally ending up with the Russians, who as a result would learn more about American spy satellite capabilities.

Ukraine does not like the way things are at the moment, complaining that it hampers its efforts against what it calls Russia-backed troops.

“This assistance is not sufficient… We don’t have a day to wait for satellite images. The information should be real time,” Andriy Parubiy, first deputy chairman of the Ukrainian Rada told WSJ.

Moscow has repeatedly denied aiding the rebels.

Parubiy, on the other hand, adds that a deal is already in place with Canada to supply more real-time and more high-resolution data.

His concerns about timeliness and quality are shared by many within the American political elite, especially the famously anti-Russian Senator John McCain, who has been making claims of weapons support for the uprising from Russia.

Nonetheless, the White House has last year agreed to Kiev’s request for intelligence on east Ukraine, albeit after things are done to it. This also allegedly includes blacking out Russian territory.

These compromises are there allegedly to give the Ukrainians a better idea of what they’re dealing with at home, rather than what takes place a stone’s throw away on foreign soil.

READ MORE: US, UK meddling in OSCE’s mandate in Ukraine – Russia's envoy to UN

Ukraine meanwhile continues to pressure the US for weapons as well, from radars to missiles to drones, but only getting so much, as it’s not a NATO member – unlike Russia’s other immediate neighbors Poland, Lithuania and Estonia, who have all got Javelin missiles.

Ukraine’s non-membership is thought to have led to a consensus among NATO members to hold off on supplying it with lethal aid, according to an unnamed military official.

However, Anti-Kiev hacking group, CyberBerkut, said that they have obtained documents proving that the US plans to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine through private military companies.

“We’ve accessed files stored on an electronic device of one of the members of the Green Group private military company, who recently visited Kiev as part of the US army delegation,” the group said on its website.

The hacktivists also posted online the copies of documents, suggesting that the Washington hasn’t given up the idea of arming the Kiev government, but wants to receive support for the move from its allies in Europe.

According to CyberBerkut, the supply of weapons will be entrusted to experience professionals from private US military companies, who will arrive in south-eastern Ukraine to take part in the war.
 
.
How was look like the organized withdrawal from Debaltsevo cauldron, an article from ukrainian side completely different than official propaganda:

For those EMPR readers who would like to learn more about Ukrainian armed forces withdrawal from the encircled town of Debaltseve in the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine. Yuriy Butusov published a report from one of the "Vega" squadron fighters (part of the Special Forces of the National Guard) who was sent to Debaltseve where he fought in battles and broke out of Debaltseve in the organized withdrawal. This story is differ of those presented by Ukrainian officials. Make your own conclusions...

Ukrainian officer: "The first time we learned about the organized planned withdrawal of the troops we laughed''.

More:
Ukrainian organized withdrawal from Debaltseve is questionable
 
. .
wa-logo_0.png


Ukraine's Orange Blues
Alexander J. Motyl
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/users/alexander-j-motyl

Why Russia Will Lose in Ukraine
24 February 2015
shutterstock_251896078.jpg


So who’s winning the war in eastern Ukraine—Russia or Ukraine? The answer is not as simple as it might seem, because victory means different things for each side.

A Russian victory could take one of two forms: territorial expansion into large parts of southeastern Ukraine or the imposition on Ukraine of disadvantageous peace terms. Or it could take both forms. But neither has happened, and neither is likely to happen.

Anything short of such a victory amounts to a defeat for Russia. Having destroyed the Russian economy, transformed Russia into a rogue state, and alienated Russia’s allies in the “near abroad,” Vladimir Putin loses if he doesn’t win big.

In contrast, Ukraine wins as long as it does not lose big. If Ukraine can contain the aggression, it will demonstrate that it possesses the will and the military capacity to deter the Kremlin, stop Putin and his proxies, and survive as an independent democratic state.

The balance of forces could change. Russia could throw hundreds of thousands of regular troops against Ukraine in order to seize Kyiv or build a land corridor to Crimea. But this would dramatically increase Putin’s risk factor. In that case, Ukrainians would fight to the finish, a partisan war would ensue, the United States would supply weapons to Ukraine, other Eastern European countries might get involved in the fighting, Western sanctions would be ratcheted up, and Russia would be excluded fromthe SWIFT international banking system. Russian losses—human, financial, and material—would likely be enormous, inviting a palace coup against Putin.

Although Putin is driven by a bizarre vision of reestablishing Holy Russia’s greatness, he is enough of a realpolitik policymaker to understand that attempting to overrun Ukraine would have dire consequences for Russia and himself.

Putin is therefore likely to maintain the military pressure on Ukraine—having the separatists strike here, strike there, withdraw, regroup, make nice, and then repeat the cycle—in the hope of draining Ukraine’s economic, military, and human resources.

But that, too, won’t result in territorial expansion into large parts of southeastern Ukraine or the imposition on Ukraine of disadvantageous peace terms.

Thus far skittish about military aid, the Obama administration is coming under increasing pressure to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons and real-time intelligence. Provided that meaningful economic reforms move forward in Kyiv, chances are good that other Western states and institutions will give Ukraine significant economic assistance, especially now that the IMF has committed itself to a $40 billion aid package. And the more Western money is sunk into Ukraine, the greater the likelihood that Western states will follow with military aid, if only as a guarantee of their financial investment. Meanwhile, Ukrainian elites—prodded by the West and compelled by Putin’s threat to annihilate Ukraine—will embark on (more or less) radical economic reforms.

The Ukrainian armed forces are getting stronger and more effective by the day, inflicting high casualties on the militants and Russians and maintaining their positions. Even the retreat from the Debaltseve salient, mistakenly portrayed in the Western press as a “debacle,” was anything but. (In order to know that, however, you need to be able to read Ukrainian- and Russian-language sources.) According toone of Ukraine’s top military analysts, Yuri Biryukov, Ukraine’s losses were 179 dead and 89 missing and presumed dead in the period from January 18th to February 18th, while Russian and proxy losses amounted to 868 dead—roughly three to four times as many. And small wonder. As Ukraine’s other top military analyst, Yuri Butusov, has repeatedly argued on his Facebook page, there is simply no comparison between the Ukrainian army of today and the ragtag band of soldiers that was Ukraine’s armed forces in March of 2014, when Putin seized the Crimea. More important, Ukraine’s less than competent military command appears to be on the verge of a major change in personnel.

The situation on the front is a military stalemate that is as deleterious to the Donbas enclave’s economic viability as it is beneficial to Ukraine’s ability to survive as an independent political entity. As this blog has argued ad nauseam, a frozen conflict—which may be in the process of emerging, even though everyone denies it—would be the best thing that could possibly happen to Ukraine.

Finally, although Ukrainians are one-fourth as many as Russians, Ukrainians are fighting for their homeland. In both eastern and western Ukraine, they know this is perhaps their last chance to break free of Moscow’s imperial grip. The remarkable thing about Ukraine’s dedicated volunteer battalions is the high number of eastern Ukrainians in them. Western Ukrainians dominated in both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 Maidan Revolution. Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainians have demonstrated that, when it comes to defending their own homes, they’re more than willing to step up.

Russia can’t win big. Ukraine can’t lose big. And that means that Russia is losing and Ukraine is winning—and that Russia will lose and Ukraine will win.

The West should know that, in supporting Ukraine, it’s not just doing the right thing. It’s also betting on the winner.


 
.
wa-logo_0.png


Ukraine's Orange Blues
Alexander J. Motyl
Why Russia Will Lose in Ukraine
24 February 2015
shutterstock_251896078.jpg


So who’s winning the war in eastern Ukraine—Russia or Ukraine? The answer is not as simple as it might seem, because victory means different things for each side.

A Russian victory could take one of two forms: territorial expansion into large parts of southeastern Ukraine or the imposition on Ukraine of disadvantageous peace terms. Or it could take both forms. But neither has happened, and neither is likely to happen.

Anything short of such a victory amounts to a defeat for Russia. Having destroyed the Russian economy, transformed Russia into a rogue state, and alienated Russia’s allies in the “near abroad,” Vladimir Putin loses if he doesn’t win big.

In contrast, Ukraine wins as long as it does not lose big. If Ukraine can contain the aggression, it will demonstrate that it possesses the will and the military capacity to deter the Kremlin, stop Putin and his proxies, and survive as an independent democratic state.

The balance of forces could change. Russia could throw hundreds of thousands of regular troops against Ukraine in order to seize Kyiv or build a land corridor to Crimea. But this would dramatically increase Putin’s risk factor. In that case, Ukrainians would fight to the finish, a partisan war would ensue, the United States would supply weapons to Ukraine, other Eastern European countries might get involved in the fighting, Western sanctions would be ratcheted up, and Russia would be excluded fromthe SWIFT international banking system. Russian losses—human, financial, and material—would likely be enormous, inviting a palace coup against Putin.

Although Putin is driven by a bizarre vision of reestablishing Holy Russia’s greatness, he is enough of a realpolitik policymaker to understand that attempting to overrun Ukraine would have dire consequences for Russia and himself.

Putin is therefore likely to maintain the military pressure on Ukraine—having the separatists strike here, strike there, withdraw, regroup, make nice, and then repeat the cycle—in the hope of draining Ukraine’s economic, military, and human resources.

But that, too, won’t result in territorial expansion into large parts of southeastern Ukraine or the imposition on Ukraine of disadvantageous peace terms.

Thus far skittish about military aid, the Obama administration is coming under increasing pressure to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons and real-time intelligence. Provided that meaningful economic reforms move forward in Kyiv, chances are good that other Western states and institutions will give Ukraine significant economic assistance, especially now that the IMF has committed itself to a $40 billion aid package. And the more Western money is sunk into Ukraine, the greater the likelihood that Western states will follow with military aid, if only as a guarantee of their financial investment. Meanwhile, Ukrainian elites—prodded by the West and compelled by Putin’s threat to annihilate Ukraine—will embark on (more or less) radical economic reforms.

The Ukrainian armed forces are getting stronger and more effective by the day, inflicting high casualties on the militants and Russians and maintaining their positions. Even the retreat from the Debaltseve salient, mistakenly portrayed in the Western press as a “debacle,” was anything but. (In order to know that, however, you need to be able to read Ukrainian- and Russian-language sources.) According toone of Ukraine’s top military analysts, Yuri Biryukov, Ukraine’s losses were 179 dead and 89 missing and presumed dead in the period from January 18th to February 18th, while Russian and proxy losses amounted to 868 dead—roughly three to four times as many. And small wonder. As Ukraine’s other top military analyst, Yuri Butusov, has repeatedly argued on his Facebook page, there is simply no comparison between the Ukrainian army of today and the ragtag band of soldiers that was Ukraine’s armed forces in March of 2014, when Putin seized the Crimea. More important, Ukraine’s less than competent military command appears to be on the verge of a major change in personnel.

The situation on the front is a military stalemate that is as deleterious to the Donbas enclave’s economic viability as it is beneficial to Ukraine’s ability to survive as an independent political entity. As this blog has argued ad nauseam, a frozen conflict—which may be in the process of emerging, even though everyone denies it—would be the best thing that could possibly happen to Ukraine.

Finally, although Ukrainians are one-fourth as many as Russians, Ukrainians are fighting for their homeland. In both eastern and western Ukraine, they know this is perhaps their last chance to break free of Moscow’s imperial grip. The remarkable thing about Ukraine’s dedicated volunteer battalions is the high number of eastern Ukrainians in them. Western Ukrainians dominated in both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 Maidan Revolution. Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainians have demonstrated that, when it comes to defending their own homes, they’re more than willing to step up.

Russia can’t win big. Ukraine can’t lose big. And that means that Russia is losing and Ukraine is winning—and that Russia will lose and Ukraine will win.

The West should know that, in supporting Ukraine, it’s not just doing the right thing. It’s also betting on the winner.


lol

look at this joker's list of articles
Capture.JPG
 
. .
As a nazi once said
This coming from you is so so rich.This is exact method used by "truth" loving MSM you like so much and getting your info from.Btw the quote belong to the man(same war-criminal like the ones in the West) who openly admitted he did learn art of propaganda from UK media.Need to pay much better attention and learn the history.

Number of death people from both sides are over 50 000 already.Just last summer after the first so-called "South cauldron" official Kiev has addmitted over 3000 dead and missing.There was a video of commanding Ukr officer(who as coward stayed behind and send whole brigade to fight and die) he had information for around 80 from over 4000 soldiers.In August DNR has said dead people from their side are over 4000...UN numbers are pure BS and fraction from real death count.West is responsible for all these dead people,destruction of another country and suffering of its people.
In other news neo-nazis did destroy last remaining railroad bridge (used to transpot mainly coal) from LNR to former Ukraine.Well guess next winter no coal for them.But fear not West will "help" them...with sweet words.
 
. . .
Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine
By SPIEGEL Staff


AP
Top NATO commander General Philip Breedlove has raised hackles in Germany with his public statements about the Ukraine crisis.

US President Obama supports Chancellor Merkel's efforts at finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis. But hawks in Washington seem determined to torpedo Berlin's approach. And NATO's top commander in Europe hasn't been helping either.

It was quiet in eastern Ukraine last Wednesday. Indeed, it was another quiet day in an extended stretch of relative calm. The battles between the Ukrainian army and the pro-Russian separatists had largely stopped and heavy weaponry was being withdrawn. The Minsk cease-fire wasn't holding perfectly, but it was holding.
On that same day, General Philip Breedlove, the top NATO commander in Europe, stepped before the press in Washington. Putin, the 59-year-old said, had once again "upped the ante" in eastern Ukraine -- with "well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery" having been sent to the Donbass. "What is clear," Breedlove said, "is that right now, it is not getting better. It is getting worse every day."
German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didn't understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasn't the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany's foreign intelligence agency, did not share the view of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

The pattern has become a familiar one. For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.

The German government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at mediation led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous propaganda." Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even found it necessary recently to bring up Breedlove's comments with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.

The 'Super Hawk'

But Breedlove hasn't been the only source of friction. Europeans have also begun to see others as hindrances in their search for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. First and foremost among them is Victoria Nuland, head of European affairs at the US State Department. She and others would like to see Washington deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans as well as many powerful Democrats.

Indeed, US President Barack Obama seems almost isolated. He has thrown his support behind Merkel's diplomatic efforts for the time being, but he has also done little to quiet those who would seek to increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine. Sources in Washington say that Breedlove's bellicose comments are first cleared with the White House and the Pentagon. The general, they say, has the role of the "super hawk," whose role is that of increasing the pressure on America's more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.




Getty Images
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and US President Barack Obama after a Feb. 9 meeting in Washington: Increasing pressure on America's more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.

A mixture of political argumentation and military propaganda is necessary. But for months now, many in the Chancellery simply shake their heads each time NATO, under Breedlove's leadership, goes public with striking announcements about Russian troop or tank movements. To be sure, neither Berlin's Russia experts nor BND intelligence analysts doubt that Moscow is supporting the pro-Russian separatists. The BND even has proof of such support.
But it is the tone of Breedlove's announcements that makes Berlin uneasy. False claims and exaggerated accounts, warned a top German official during a recent meeting on Ukraine, have put NATO -- and by extension, the entire West -- in danger of losing its credibility.

There are plenty of examples. Just over three weeks ago, during the cease-fire talks in Minsk, the Ukrainian military warned that the Russians -- even as the diplomatic marathon was ongoing -- had moved 50 tanks and dozens of rockets across the border into Luhansk. Just one day earlier, US Lieutenant General Ben Hodges had announced "direct Russian military intervention."

Senior officials in Berlin immediately asked the BND for an assessment, but the intelligence agency's satellite images showed just a few armored vehicles. Even those American intelligence officials who supply the BND with daily situation reports were much more reserved about the incident than Hodges was in his public statements. One intelligence agent says it "remains a riddle until today" how the general reached his conclusions.

Much More Cautious

"The German intelligence services generally appraise the threat level much more cautiously than the Americans do," an international military expert in Kiev confirmed.

At the beginning of the crisis, General Breedlove announced that the Russians had assembled 40,000 troops on the Ukrainian border and warned that an invasion could take place at any moment. The situation, he said, was "incredibly concerning." But intelligence officials from NATO member states had already excluded the possibility of a Russian invasion. They believed that neither the composition nor the equipment of the troops was consistent with an imminent invasion.

The experts contradicted Breedlove's view in almost every respect. There weren't 40,000 soldiers on the border, they believed, rather there were much less than 30,000 and perhaps even fewer than 20,000. Furthermore, most of the military equipment had not been brought to the border for a possible invasion, but had already been there prior to the beginning of the conflict. Furthermore, there was no evidence of logistical preparation for an invasion, such as a field headquarters.

Breedlove, though, repeatedly made inexact, contradictory or even flat-out inaccurate statements. On Nov. 18, 2014, he told the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that there were "regular Russian army units in eastern Ukraine." One day later, he told the website of the German newsmagazine Stern that they weren't fighting units, but "mostly trainers and advisors."


He initially said there were "between 250 and 300" of them, and then "between 300 and 500." For a time, NATO was even saying there were 1,000 of them.


The fact that NATO has no intelligence agency of its own plays into Breedlove's hands. The alliance relies on intelligence gathered by agents from the US, Britain, Germany and other member states. As such, SACEUR has a wide range of information to choose from.

Influencing Breedlove

On Nov. 12, during a visit to Sofia, Bulgaria, Breedlove reported that "we have seen columns of Russian equipment -- primarily Russian tanks, Russian artillery, Russian air defense systems and Russian combat troops -- entering into Ukraine." It was, he noted, "the same thing that OSCE is reporting." But the OSCE had only observed military convoys within eastern Ukraine. OSCE observers had said nothing about troops marching in from Russia.

Breedlove sees no reason to revise his approach. "I stand by all the public statements I have made during the Ukraine crisis," he wrote to SPIEGEL in response to a request for a statement accompanied by a list of his controversial claims. He wrote that it was to be expected that assessments of NATO's intelligence center, which receives information from all 33 alliance members in addition to partner states, doesn't always match assessments made by individual nations. "It is normal that not everyone agrees with the assessments that I provide," he wrote.

He says that NATO's strategy is to "release clear, accurate and timely information regarding ongoing events." He also wrote that: "As an alliance based on the fundamental values of freedom and democracy, our response to propaganda cannot be more propaganda. It can only be the truth." (Read Breedlove's full statement here.)

The German government, meanwhile, is doing what it can to influence Breedlove. Sources in Berlin say that conversations to this end have taken place in recent weeks. But there are many at NATO headquarters in Brussels who are likewise concerned about Breedlove's statements. On Tuesday of last week, Breedlove's public appearances were an official item on the agenda of the North Atlantic Council's weekly lunch meeting. Several ambassadors present criticized Breedlove and expressed their incredulity at some of the commander's statements.

The government in Berlin is concerned that Breedlove's statements could harm the West's credibility. The West can't counter Russian propaganda with its own propaganda, "rather it must use arguments that are worthy of a constitutional state." Berlin sources also say that it has become conspicuous that Breedlove's controversial statements are often made just as a step forward has been made in the difficult negotiations aimed at a political resolution. Berlin sources say that Germany should be able to depend on its allies to support its efforts at peace.

Pressure on Obama

German foreign policy experts are united in their view of Breedlove as a hawk. "I would prefer that Breedlove's comments on political questions be intelligent and reserved," says Social Democrat parliamentarian Niels Annen, for example. "Instead, NATO in the past has always announced a new Russian offensive just as, from our point of view, the time had come for cautious optimism." Annen, who has long specialized in foreign policy, has also been frequently dissatisfied with the information provided by NATO headquarters. "We parliamentarians were often confused by information regarding alleged troop movements that were inconsistent with the information we had," he says.

The pressure on Obama from the Republicans, but also from his own political camp, is intense. Should the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine not hold, it will likely be difficult to continue refusing Kiev's requests for shipments of so-called "defensive weapons." And that would represent a dramatic escalation of the crisis. Moscow has already begun issuing threats in anticipation of such deliveries. "Any weapons deliveries to Kiev will escalate the tensions and would unhinge European security," Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia's national security council, told the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda on Wednesday.

Although President Obama has decided for the time being to give European diplomacy a chance, hawks like Breedlove or Victoria Nuland are doing what they can to pave the way for weapons deliveries. "We can fight against the Europeans, fight against them rhetorically," Nuland said during a private meeting of American officials on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference at the beginning of February.




AP
US diplomat Victoria Nuland: Paving the way for weapons deliveries.

In reporting on the meeting later, the German tabloid Bild reported that Nuland referred to the chancellor's early February trip to Moscow for talks with Putin as "Merkel's Moscow stuff." No wonder, then, that people in Berlin have the impression that important power brokers in Washington are working against the Europeans. Berlin officials have noticed that, following the visit of American politicians or military leaders in Kiev, Ukrainian officials are much more bellicose and optimistic about the Ukrainian military's ability to win the conflict on the battlefield. "We then have to laboriously bring the Ukrainians back onto the course of negotiations," said one Berlin official.
Nuland Diplomacy

Nuland, who is seen as a possible secretary of state should the Republicans win back the White House in next year's presidential election, is an important voice in US policy concerning Ukraine and Russia. She has never sought to hide her emotional bond to Russia, even saying "I love Russia." Her grandparents immigrated to the US from Bessarabia, which belonged to the Russian empire at the time. Nuland speaks Russian fluently.

She is also very direct. She can be very keen and entertaining, but has been known to take on an undiplomatic tone -- and has not always been wrong to do so. Mykola Asarov, who was prime minister under toppled Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, recalls that Nuland basically blackmailed Yanukovych in order to prevent greater bloodshed in Kiev during the Maidan protests. "No violence against the protesters or you'll fall," Nuland told him according to Asarov. She also, he said, threatened tough economic and political sanctions against both Ukraine and the country's leaders. According to Asarov, Nuland said that, were violence used against the protesters on Maidan Square, information about the money he and his cronies had taken out of the country would be made public.

Nuland has also been open -- at least internally -- about her contempt for European weakness and is famous for having said "F uck the EU" during the initial days of the Ukraine crisis in February of 2014. Her husband, the neo-conservative Robert Kagan, is, after all, the originator of the idea that Americans are from Mars and Europeans, unwilling as they are to realize that true security depends on military power, are from Venus.


When it comes to the goal of delivering weapons to Ukraine, Nuland and Breedlove work hand-in-hand. On the first day of the Munich Security Conference, the two gathered the US delegation behind closed doors to discuss their strategy for breaking Europe's resistance to arming Ukraine.


On the seventh floor of the Bayerischer Hof hotel in the heart of Munich, it was Nuland who began coaching. "While talking to the Europeans this weekend, you need to make the case that Russia is putting in more and more offensive stuff while we want to help the Ukrainians defend against these systems," Nuland said. "It is defensive in nature although some of it has lethality."

Training Troops?

Breedlove complemented that with the military details, saying that moderate weapons aid was inevitable -- otherwise neither sanctions nor diplomatic pressure would have any effect. "If we can increase the cost for Russia on the battlefield, the other tools will become more effective," he said. "That's what we should do here."



In Berlin, top politicians have always considered a common position vis-a-vis Russia as a necessary prerequisite for success in peace efforts. For the time being, that common front is still holding, but the dispute is a fundamental one -- and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful without the threat of military action. Additionally, the trans-Atlantic partners also have differing goals. Whereas the aim of the Franco-German initiative is to stabilize the situation in Ukraine, it is Russia that concerns hawks within the US administration. They want to drive back Moscow's influence in the region and destabilize Putin's power. For them, the dream outcome would be regime change in Moscow.
A massive troop training range is located in Yavoriv in western Ukraine near the Polish border. During Soviet times, it served as the westernmost military district in the Soviet Union. Since 1998, though, it has been used for joint exercises by Ukrainian forces together with the United States and NATO. Yavoriv is also the site where US soldiers want to train members of the Ukrainian National Guard for their future battle against the separatists. According to the Pentagon's plans, American officers would train the Ukrainians on how to use American artillery-locating radar devices. At least that's what US Army in Europe commander Lt. Gen. Hodges announced in January.

The training was actually supposed to start at the beginning of March. Before it began, however, President Obama temporarily put it on hold in order to give the ceasefire agreement reached in Minsk a chance. Still, the hawks remain confident that they will soon come a step closer to their goal. On Tuesday, Hodges said during an appearance in Berlin that he expects the training will still begin at some point this month.

By Matthias Gebauer, Christiane Hoffmann, Marc Hujer, Gordon Repinski, Matthias Schepp, Christoph Schult, Holger Stark and Klaus Wiegrefe
 
.
Ukraine – the relief of Debaltsevo

One month on from the junta’s ill-fated winter offensive, the relief

When the illegal junta in Kiev began its winter offensive on 18 January, Poroshenko and his NATO masters had high hopes that the breathing space that had been afforded by last September’s Minsk “ceasefire” accords would have given them long enough to replenish their forces and crush the resistance forces of the Donbass. Instead, the spectacular collapse of the new offensive has driven the junta to sue for peace, signing the Minsk II accords that agreed a new ceasefire from 15 February.

Needless to say, the junta is no more sincere in its adherence to the ceasefire provisions of Minsk II than it proved itself to be in the case of Minsk I, still dreaming that a future third or fourth offensive could transform the whole of Ukraine into an outright colony of NATO. But it is far from clear that, as the war drags on, Germany and France, who played such a significant role in brokering Minsk II, will be prepared indefinitely to stake their own economies on the uncertain fortunes of a war designed primarily to serve the geopolitical interests of US imperialism.

If Washington presses on with its plans openly to run lethal weapons to the junta, and puts pressure on European faint-hearts to follow suit, it could find itself shaking the very ground on which NATO now stands: the unequal imperialist alliance led by the US and tail-ended by Europe. Minsk II, whether it holds or not, will be universally understood as a Russian initiative, brokered with Europe, and running against the grain of US imperialist policy.

Kiev’s January offensive

Kiev’s mid-January attempt to resume the military offensive, officially suspended since the Minsk accords of last September, has backfired spectacularly on the Kiev regime. At no point had Kiev adhered to the ceasefire upon which the accords insisted, continuing to shell schools, factories and hospitals at will. Yet the September deal, brokered by Russia and coming on the back of the striking advances made by the liberation forces in late August, nevertheless marked the beginning of a long and bloody stalemate.

In this period, the junta contented itself with a grisly war of attrition against the people’s militias and against the civilian population on the south and east of Ukraine. In parallel with this came the economic war of attrition against Russia and the regime’s severing of all public service and infrastructural links with the Donbass. And the soundtrack for this many-sided war of attrition was provided by the media, pumping out ever more reckless and brazen lies designed to keep public opinion in the imperialist homelands ignorant of what was really being done in the name of freedom and democracy.

But with the dawning of a new year, and with the anti-fascist militias showing no signs of folding their tents, the junta (doubtless having been tipped the wink by its imperialist masters, and having profited from the phony “ceasefire” to replenish its forces) roused itself to attempt a decisive military offensive, in order to break the stalemate and win back the initiative. Yet despite deploying tanks, artillery and air forces, the Ukrainian forces gained little or no ground. Worse, in just the first 16 days of the onslaught, Ukraine’s army succeeded in losing 136 tanks, 110 combat infantry vehicles and armoured vehicles, 80 artillery units and mortars and 58 cars.

Setbacks for the junta

The militia’s recapture of Donetsk airport, the regime’s sole toehold in Donetsk, was a major blow to the junta, and highlighted the incompetence and desperation of the Ukraine army’s military leadership. An article in the Los Angeles Times by Sergei L. Loiko reveals something of the mentality of the leadership.

“At one point, in a desperate bid to rescue his men, Moysyuk borrowed a couple of armored vehicles with drivers from another brigade. But the drivers refused to go into what they knew was a fiery hell. So Moysyuk’s own officers drove into the fog that had descended on the tarmac. Misled by the fog, they arrived at a different building, where they were surrounded by the enemy… The next day, the remaining paratroopers were ordered to attack the airport head-on.’This is just sheer idiocy!’ exclaimed an airborne battalion commander, Maj. Ruslan Prusov. ‘We are not infantry; we are paratroops. We need some armor to travel on into battle. We don’t have it.'” (‘How Ukraine’s outgunned “Cyborgs” lost Donetsk Airport’, 28 January)

Worse was to come for Poroshenko, with the news that 8,000 of the regime forces, thrusting deep into liberated territory but over-stretching supply lines, had found themselves being cut off and surrounded by militia forces. On 5 February the Russian TV Channel REN-TV reported that the Debaltsevo “cauldron” has at last been closed, trapping the hapless Kiev forces inside. In the town of Debaltsevo itself, junta forces remained trapped when the new ceasefire kicked in, and continued to try to fight their way out. This military action was necessarily countered by the surrounding resistance forces, and on 18 February the town was finally liberated by the resistance. An unknown number of Ukrainian forces remain trapped within the “cauldron”. The junta itself estimates that at least 1,500 of their troops are missing in action.

The liberation of Debaltsevo and the encirclement of enemy forces is a very important achievement of the resistance. The town is a strategic rail junction and effectively links up the forces of the two people’s republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.

Raising the Russian bogeyman

Such setbacks for their protégés have inspired panic and dismay in the West. Exactly as happened last August, when the Ukraine army met with similarly startling reverses, Washington and Kiev are squawking about “Russian invaders” – anything rather than admit that the country’s official army is no tactical match for the despised “separatist gangs” which are now (literally) running circles around it.

Yet no less a personage than the chief of staff of Ukraine’s army, General Viktor Muzhenko, has gone on record to state that the only Russians that are fighting in Ukraine either live there or have come from Russia under their own steam (as “members of illegal armed groups“). Lest there should be any remaining confusion, Muzhenko spells it out: “The Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army“. (Eric Zuesse, ‘Ukrainian Government: “No Russian Troops Are Fighting Against Us'”, posted on Global Research on 31 January).

Leaving aside what the Russian foreign ministry has contemptuously dismissed as the “hallucinations of Russian invasion”, the only substantiated sightings of Russian trucks streaming over the border are of those ferrying in humanitarian assistance to the Donbass. On Saturday 31 January two such convoys of over 170 trucks crossed the border, carrying several tons of food, medicine and building materials. The convoy underwent inspection by Ukrainian border control with the help of specially trained sniffer dogs, and the whole operation was overseen by the OSCE. This is the twelfth such humanitarian operation undertaken by Russia.

The real culprits are imperialism and its lackeys

Meanwhile, whilst Obama publicly anguishes over whether or not to supply lethal weapons to the junta, on 2 February TASS reported the speaker of Lugansk’s People’s Council as revealing that NATO is already in it up to the neck. ” “The fact that in the past several days LPR’s specialists have recovered fragments of munitions bearing NATO marks from sites of shelling by the Ukrainian army is of special concern. Now, the North Atlantic Alliance is killing our fellow countrymen not only with the hands of Polish and Lithuanian gunmen who were earlier commissioned to the so-called ‘Ukrainian volunteer battalions,’ but also it provides lethal weapons so that the Kiev regime continue to shed the blood of children and the elder people.”

We should expand the roster of fascist expats to accommodate such as Mikael Skillt, whom the BBC reported in July last year as being an ex-Swedish army white supremacist recruited into the fascist Azov Brigade as a sniper, one of four Swedish recruits. Azov’s leader brags that the brigade has recruited from Ireland, Italy, Greece and Scandinavia. Russia’s Ren-TV investigated the involvement of mercenaries from a number of EU states. Its journalists visited Sweden, Poland, the UK and Italy and found proof that ‘consulting agencies’ were sending hired guns to fight for the Ukrainian army.

It is well known that at the height of the Iraq war private security personnel hired by contractors like Blackwater actually outnumbered the regular troops. A German business consultant, Michael Luders, told Phoenix TV on 23 January that there are 500 mercenaries in the Ukraine, all of them trained experts, requisitioned in cooperation between the US and Kiev.

Low morale of Kiev forces

If and when the West chooses to go public on its supply of lethal weapons, this of itself offers no guarantee that fortune will smile on the junta’s genocidal efforts. Kiev’s flat-footed stormtroopers have already demonstrated how easy it is to lose vast quantities of war materiel when the army is led by donkeys, and doubts have been raised in the imperialist camp over how quickly the junta’s forces could hope to master all that hi-tech wizardry. TheSunday Times interviewed a forme(!) British soldier of Ukrainian descent who told them that “Six out of ten casualties among the Ukrainian volunteers occur because of blue-on-blue shooting [i.e. so-called “friendly fire”] and the inability to handle weapons“. The same mercenary averred that there are around thirty volunteer battalions operating with no central command, no coordination and no standard radio frequencies for mutual communication. (Bojan Pancevski, ‘Half Ukrainian fighters killed by poor kit and friendly fire’, Sunday Times,22 February 2015).

It is hard to overestimate the appalling levels of morale now prevalent in Ukraine’s armed forces and in the ‘home front’. At the beginning of February, hundreds of people tried to storm Poroshenko’s presidential administration office, breaking through a cordon of National Guard in full riot gear. They demanded the resignation of the Defence Minister and the Prosecutor-General, and the withdrawal of the 25th Kievan Rus battalion from Debaltsevo. Meanwhile, at the front, ‘anti-retreat’ units drawn from special battalions were used against the regular troops to prevent them from retreating or surrendering during a night battle. Despite such efforts, 70 Ukrainian soldiers have surrendered since 9 January. So many officers have been lost that students fresh out of military school have had their studies curtailed and been sent half-trained to fill the gaps in the officer ranks. Parents are responding by staging protest rallies and blockading the military academies and universities.

The regime’s lack of confidence in its ability to enthuse its own population into fighting a war against their brothers in the south and east is evident from the manner in which the draft is being unrolled. The mobilisation for 2015 is intended to squeeze another 100,000 recruits out of a population already close to the end of its tether. Recruitment will focus on men aged between 25 and 60 – ‘old men’ in military terms. Female nurses will also be caught in the net. The popularity of these measures may be judged by the proliferation on the internet of offers of legal advice and promises of fake medical certificates for those wanting to dodge the draft. Threats of five-year jail sentences for draft dodgers are supplemented by new powers for army commanders to gun down deserters on the spot.

By contrast, the armed forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), for all their inferiority in numbers and weapons, have no need to resort to such measures to persuade the militiamen to fight. Unlike the demoralised troops of a national army hijacked by a fascist junta and dedicated to the service of NATO, the militias are engaged in a people’s war, well aware of the historic revolutionary and anti-fascist traditions of the Donbass. On 2 February the DPR too announced the plan to raise their forces to 100,000 in a voluntary mobilisation. The purpose of the mobilisation is to be prepared for a likely attack by the enemy massing its troops in the south. Five or more additional units will be formed and trained, including motorised rifle, artillery and tank brigades.

The junta’s prisoner exchange negotiator, noting that morale among the captured Ukrainian troops is bad, acknowledged that the Donetsk people’s militia had provided wounded POWs with medical assistance. The resistance has been hindered in the humane task of collecting and identifying the enemy slain by the fact that Ukrainian troops and National Guards have been trained to booby-trap corpses with explosives.

Thieves fall out

The crucial talks in Moscow between Vladimir Putin and German chancellor Angela Merkel along with French president François Hollande, talks at which John Kerry was nowhere to be seen, came just at the moment when the US and its creature NATO are indulging in ever-louder thinking on the question of delivering lethal weapons to the Kiev forces, and give a startling glimpse of the potential abyss opening up within the imperialist camp over the Ukraine war. Germany, France, Italy and Finland have all ruled out the supply of weapons to Kiev, and even Britain has sounded a note of caution. It is not left to reactionary maverick John McCain’s to attack Merkel’s position; the US Congress itself recently called for the provision of lethal assistance.

This spat over lethal weapons comes on the heels of disagreements between Europe and the US on the question of sanctions against Russia, sanctions which are doing a great deal more economic damage to Europe than to the US. Vice President Joe Biden fumed that European questioning of sanctions is ” annoying and inappropriate“, unacceptable in the face of supposed Russian plans to “redraw the map of Europe“. In an article posted on the ICH website (‘Europe wary of US “All Options” Threat to Russia’, 8 Feb 2015), Finian Cunningham notes that:

“An all-out war on the European landmass is an obvious calamity for the European Union. But even as it is, before an all-out war erupts, the EU is suffering far more from US-led hostilities than America would ever incur. With EU-Russia trade standing at ten times the volume of US-Russia trade, the Europeans have much more to lose. And are losing already -painfully. Germany is the biggest EU loser from the confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. German exports to Russia are projected to fall by 20 per cent this year compared with the previous year. That amounts to a gaping shortfall of €8 billion to the Germany economy. And what’s bad for Germany is equally bad for the economic prospects of the whole EU, mired as it is in recession and increasing unemploy-ment across the 28-member bloc.”

The massive overproduction crisis that is driving the world to wars of national oppression will increasingly poison relations between the imperialist warmongers themselves.

Victory to the Donbass resistance! Death to NATO!
 
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom