[DmitryLeontiev]

...

Here is a conspiracy theory:

The real reason of war in Ukraine is Crimea. New Israel in Сrimea. Kissinger have already told that "in ten years israel will cease to exist".

In 1930s, the sionists had three options for "israel": Palestine, Madagaskar island and Crimea.
Joseph Stalin refused to establish israel in crimea in 1940s. Instead, he offered a jewish autonomoust region in siberia.
That's why sionists decided to settle in palestine.

All "ancient" monuments in palestine are fake. ISIS proved it by destroying "ancient" artifacts: they've found stell fittings inside. However, Ukraine is a homeland for jew for more than 10 centuries(google: khazars).

The problem is that the government is weak and increasingly depends on right wing militias for survival.

The goverment is not weak. It is bankrupt but it is not weak. It already forced "right wing militias" to disband.

[DmitryLeontiev]

Surely western liberals should be allowed to believe and say whatever they want to say in endorsement of their own position

Western liberals do support muslim immigration to europe. In my opinion, they want to replace europeans with muslims. In my opinion, you are not an ethnic european.

[Rei Murasame]

Western liberals do support muslim immigration to europe. In my opinion, they want to replace europeans with muslims.

Well, whether that will actually happen, remains to be seen. The immigration debate is not taking a front and centre position at the moment though, so there's no point to trying to warn them about that problem if they are presently not listening.

In my opinion, you are not an ethnic european.

Indeed, you are obviously more European than I am. There is some point that you are going to follow that up with, right?

[Political Interest]

Joseph Stalin refused to establish israel in crimea in 1940s. Instead, he offered a jewish autonomoust region in siberia.
That's why sionists decided to settle in palestine.

Its a pity they didn't accept his offer. It would have saved the world a lot of trouble if the Jewish state was not established in a place where people had already been living for centuriees.

[Dagoth Ur]

Except the Crimeans...

I don't really think the premise of moving a huge population with an entrenched culture to an "uninhabited" land could ever result in anything short of intense violence.

[Rei Murasame]

Joseph Stalin refused to establish israel in crimea in 1940s.

Not true, Stalin was indeed moving Jews to Crimea, that was on the historical record, it's not even disputed. The reason that a Jewish region ended up not being established in Crimea, is because the German 11th Army and Einsatzgruppe D along with some Tatar collaborators all decided to reverse the Soviet decision by force in 1941. The Jewish colonists ran for their lives as soon as Axis showed up -- it was a very dramatic reaction.

This was then followed by the Soviets throwing a massive international-legislative tantrum after the war about those events, because apparently what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Why do you all think that right-wing quote about "I will fight against Jews and Russians until I die" (I'm sure you all remember which person in Ukraine uttered this) was a quote that appeared in this war in Ukraine that is happening now? It is a quote that had to appear in Ukraine, Ukraine is like 'ground zero' for that kind of fighting. Once you understand the meaning of that quote, it adds another piece to the puzzle, but that's the piece that of course no one wants to talk about.

[Rich]

There were of course Jews that were anti Communist. And there were plenty of non Jews who were anti Communist but opposed racism, discrimination and bigotry against Jews. What you could not be though was Communist and anti Jewish. Its often forgotten that it was only after Stalln was dead, Beria had fallen and finally a Russian (although a Ukrainophile) was leader of the Soviet Union that the SU broke with Israel.

In a sense when Putin came to power in 2000, he finally brought to an end eighty three years of foreign occupation.

[Rei Murasame]

Putin did what? Don't be deceived, the same old game continues with Putin. They do it on purpose. That is what Russia is.

[Atlantis]

Excellent analysis by Dmitri Tenin, worth reading in full.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/eur ... down-12597

Europe’s Nightmare: Ukraine’s Massive Meltdown

The Minsk II accord is not a peace deal. It is a cease-fire agreement, and a fragile one at that. Beyond suspending large-scale hostilities, pulling back heavy weapons and exchanging prisoners of war, Minsk can hardly be implemented.
Kiev cannot and will not pay for the Donbass’ rehabilitation, and would not talk to the rebel leaders. Economic ties are not being restored, and human contacts are restricted. Reintegrating Donbass into the rest of Ukraine is only acceptable to Kiev if the rebel forces de facto surrender and their administrative structures disappear, allowing Ukraine to resume control over the section of the border that links Donetsk and Lugansk to Russia. Theoretically, this could only be achieved through Kiev’s military victory, or the Kremlin’s political collapse. Neither of these is realistic at this point. The conflict is currently frozen.

Would Russia, for its part, seek a decisive military victory itself, to precipitate Kiev’s political collapse, and mount a spring offensive, within the next few days and weeks? A year ago today, this issue was reportedly debated. The decision then, as we know today, was to limit Moscow’s engagement in supporting the “people’s republics” in Donbass, but avoid a large-scale military intervention in the rest of Ukraine.

Can this decision be revisited, and possibly reversed now? It’s not likely. Not only would an invasion be costly in every conceivable way, but it would be utterly unnecessary. Moscow banks on peace, not war—and for a reason.

With the fighting in Donbass having largely stopped, the focus in Ukraine has shifted back to Kiev. There, the picture is not pretty. The oligarch Igor Kolomoisky wasted no time sending in his militias to take over business assets in the capital, provoking a clash with interior troops loyal to President Petro Poroshenko. Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk is under fire from his rivals, and former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko is rising to claim her bit of power in the land. Meanwhile, the Rada, divided not so much along party lines as oligarchical clan interests, is busy discussing the procedures for privatization.

One can argue that the Maidan revolution of 2014 has changed everything except Ukraine’s oligarchical politico-economic system. True, Viktor Yanukovych is gone, but the rest have only become more powerful with his departure. The one-clan-rule regime is finished, but the corrupt oligarchical regime has been restored. To expect that the Ukrainian oligarchs and their political allies or agents will now work for deep economic reform and come together in the name of the country’s national interest means to ignore the entire history of post-Soviet Ukraine. Against this background, the sense of unity in broader society borne out of the unfinished war in the east may not last long.

This could be dangerous in several ways. Ukraine needs major financial support, but its EU and other donors are not feeling overly generous with money, given their various other commitments (such as that to Greece). They are also intensely distrustful of their partners in Kiev, yet unwilling and unable to take charge of such a large country themselves. Miracles sometimes happen, and Sauls may yet turn into Pauls, but gambling on the future of a place like Ukraine is unwise as a policy prescription. A much more active commitment to Ukraine is required; doing nothing can turn out to be much costlier than engaging heavily.

Those in Russia who, despite—or maybe because of—everything that has happened in the last sixteen months, still delude themselves into seeing Ukraine as part and parcel of the Russian world and a candidate for Eurasian economic integration wait for the eventual collapse of the Maidan-installed regime and a new chance for Novorossiya. The problem is that if Ukraine enters a new round of massive instability, it will hardly be a boon to Russia. Rather, it could become a vortex into which Russia and the West, including the United States, will be sucked—with unpredictable and likely dire results.

Hardly anyone in the United States should wish for that. However, Washington needs to be careful. It is normal for military men to remain watchful and always be prepared for the worst, i.e. an enemy attack. It is equally important, however, to make sure that one’s own allies—either out of hubris, like Georgia’s former president Mikheil Saakashvili in 2008, or out of desperation, such as a Ukrainian government fearful of losing control of the country at some point in the future—do not jump the gun, expecting the United States to rush in to defend them. Prime Minister Yatsenyuk has made a habit of saying the Ukrainians are fighting for Western civilization. This time, the miscalculation could have much more serious consequences than what happened in South Ossetia.

In strategic terms, Russia is much closer to Ukraine than is the United States, has much more at stake there and, if push comes to shove, has escalation dominance in the region. The chain of events leading to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, including the leftist-led revolution against the corrupt U.S.-supported regime of Fulgencio Batista; the new regime’s subsequent affiliation with the communist Soviet Union; the unsuccessful U.S. military intervention on the island where the United States had a military base; and finally, the Soviet move to support the Castro regime by deploying nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba will not be repeated elsewhere more than half a century later, but it should give us food for thought—and pause. The roles might be reversed, but the risks are comparable.

Above all, what Ukraine needs today is for the West to lean hard on Kiev in support of economic and political reform. Not Mariupol, but a meltdown of Ukraine itself is a clear and present danger that needs to be addressed.

[Frollein]

The problem is that this has devolved into a pissing contest between Europe (whose governments are much louder in their "we must defend Western values with sanctions" rhethoric than the US) and Russia long ago, and with so much ego at stake, I doubt that they will "lean hard on Kiev" for reforms. And what alternative do they have in Ukraine anyway? They can choose between oligarchs and oligarchs, all equally corrupt. There is no genuine political opposition in Ukraine, which makes Maidan look even more hollow.

[DmitryLeontiev]

Indeed, you are obviously more European than I am. There is some point that you are going to follow that up with, right?

Europeans(Germans, Frenchs, Brits and so on) are logical, rational and are not ideologized. Russians(as most of exUSSR population) are not rational and ofter are stuck with some ideology which prevents them from seeing the reality.

You are ideological and that's why you don't see obvious things. That's why I've decided you are not a european.

[Frollein]

Europeans(Germans, Frenchs, Brits and so on) are logical, rational and are not ideologized.

That's really sweet.

But still not true.

[Ganeshas Rat]

Europeans(Germans, Frenchs, Brits and so on) are logical, rational and are not ideologized.

300 years before this moment.
Now the world is just a post-apocalyptic ruin of irrational ideologized XIX century.

[Atlantis]

The problem is that this has devolved into a pissing contest between Europe (whose governments are much louder in their "we must defend Western values with sanctions" rhethoric than the US) and Russia long ago, and with so much ego at stake, I doubt that they will "lean hard on Kiev" for reforms. And what alternative do they have in Ukraine anyway? They can choose between oligarchs and oligarchs, all equally corrupt. There is no genuine political opposition in Ukraine, which makes Maidan look even more hollow.

I think even the last retards start to suspect that all this talk about defending Western values abroad is just so much hegemonial BS. And if you feel that EU governments are more verbal about “defending Western values”, it’s probably because the Americans don’t need any such pretexts. To them it’s just a matter of applying brute force in the logic of empire.

And yes, the analysis is correct in that Europe needs to lean hard on Kiev, if there is to be any solution to the conflict. I don't mean this domestically. The EU has no means of installing transparent government in Kiev. I mean this in regard to achieving a negotiated settlement with the separatists/Russia. If we are to avoid a further military escalation, Europe finally needs to play the role of honest broker, putting equal pressure on Moscow and on Kiev. Just sanctioning Russia, while giving Kiev nationalists a license to kill won't solve the problem.

[Atlantis]

In an interview with euroactive, the Russian ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, claims that Kiev is not fulfilling its part of Minsk II:

Returning to the Minsk agreement, do you think it was implemented from the EU side? The declaration of the four leaders in Minsk reads that they support trilateral talks with the EU, Ukraine and Russia, with the aim of addressing the concerns of Russia, in relation with the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement (AA) and the DCFTA.

Strictly speaking, the EU is not a party to the Minsk agreement.

But as we read from the declaration of the leaders, the Commission has duties specified by the Minsk agreement.

Yes. Overall, we understand that the EU has a lot of leverage with Kiev, and actually the President of the Commission and the President of the European Council will be flying to Kiev on Monday (27 April) for a summit meeting. This gives them a perfect opportunity to apply necessary pressure on Kiev. And that pressure is essential, because at this point, it is evident to all unbiased observers that the Ukrainian government is [delaying] the implementation of the Minsk agreement, and even backtracking on a number of issues.

Trilateral discussions on the impact of the AA on the Russian economy and on trade relations with Ukraine did take place on 20-21 April. A total of ten hours of talks, with sizeable delegations of about 20 people from each of the three sides. They did not lead to a breakthrough. Russian concerns were voiced, substantiated, taken note of - and then we will see what happens.

Who is reluctant? It looks like it’s Ukraine?

Yes.

Not so much the Commission?

The Commission acts as a mediator in this. But overall, the Minsk agreements provided for a certain sequence of acts and a number of actions should have been implemented, but they were not. What we hear from Ukrainian officials points in the opposite direction.

I have here the Minsk agreement. Can you perhaps say what Ukraine hasn’t implemented?

Point 4. On the first day after the heavy arms withdrawal, a dialogue should be started on the modalities of conducting local elections [in Donetsk and Lugansk regions]. On the contrary, Ukrainian officials have been stressing, a number of times already, that they are not going to sit at the same negotiating table with the current leaders of Donestk and Lugansk.

Then, the second paragraph of the same article: "Not later than 30 days of the signing of this document, to adopt a resolution of the Verhovna Rada, defining the exact territories which will be covered by a special regime on the basis of Ukrainian law." Instead of that, they changed the law, defining the special status not as an autonomous status, but as one of occupied territories. And that of course drives the entire process in the opposite direction.

Next, article 5: "Ensure pardon and amnesty by introducing a law." Nothing of the sort has taken place. On the contrary, public statements by Ukrainian officials indicate they don’t even intend to consider that.

By the way, does this amnesty include the perpetrators, yet to be determined, of the downing of the Malaysian airliner?

We’ll see, but first the investigation has to be completed.

But certain perpetrators exist…

Certain perpetrators certainly exist.

But are those perpetrators covered by amnesty?

This text [of the Minsk agreement] doesn’t indicate that. That could be the subject of additional discussions perhaps, when the investigation is completed. But the way the investigation was carried out since the tragic event of last July has been totally unsatisfactory in our view. For many months, only Russia plus, to be honest, the government of Malaysia, we were the only two countries insisting on expediting procedures before winter came and snow fell. That was not done. I don’t want to draw direct comparisons, but look how swift the investigation of Germanwings was…

But it didn’t happen in rebel-held territory.

I would say in difficult terrain in the Alps. But that part of territory where the Malaysian airplane fell was quite accessible from the very beginning, except that the Ukrainian army started shelling the place each time investigators approached it.

I have seen in social media comparisons drawn by “Russian patriots” between the two crashes, but frankly, Mr. Ambassador, I’m refraining from comparing them.

So am I. But I repeat that the investigation of the Malaysian plane has been done in a very unsatisfactory manner. A few days ago, investigators went again to the site to collect debris and even some human remains. Why wasn’t that done earlier? Anyway, we should wait for the ultimate result of the investigation before producing judgement.

Returning to the rebel-held territories, I read in the press that Russia has sent the bill to Ukraine, or at least has said how many millions Ukraine needs to pay for the Russian gas supplied there, although Ukraine cannot collect the fees. Why such an approach?

If Ukraine considers these regions part of their territory, they should have maintained financial transactions, and that would have included of course gas payments. But it was the government of Kiev who cut them off, doing its best to isolate those areas and in effect push them away.

But the Minsk agreement also speaks of restoring the banking transactions under some international mechanism.

Yes, this is article 8, and it has not been fulfilled.

But why?

Because the Ukrainian government closed all the bank branches there and stopped all the transactions. You know, Donbass means “Donetsk coal basin.” It’s a huge compound of the coal industry. Now the rest of Ukraine is running short of energy and they are importing coal from South Africa. And high-quality coal is heaped up in Donbass. That looks ridiculous to any outsider.

The way politics are going these days, maybe tomorrow the EU will import shale gas from the USA and no longer buy from Russia.

Well, we do not intend to produce shale gas for the foreseeable future (laughs). And the US, as far as I know does not intend to open its shale gas market to Europe.

My point was that with such a deterioration in relations, what else could you expect? Of course, the coal may be nearby, but they will import it from South Africa, and especially if the price is right.

Actually, it appears that the price was wrong, otherwise they wouldn’t have opened a criminal investigation against the former energy minister, Yuri Prodan, for that particular deal with South Africa.

But returning to my question about the general climate, it’s worrying. I was in the European Parliament a few days ago, and the largest political group, the EPP, spoke of being ready to go to war with Russia.

That’s very bad. You know, people tend to fuel each other’s fears, and that is contagious.

In Russian, they say that a “bad example is always contagious”.

Yes (laughs). Unfortunately, much more than good examples.

[Ganeshas Rat]

Point 4. On the first day after the heavy arms withdrawal, a dialogue should be started on the modalities of conducting local elections [in Donetsk and Lugansk regions]. On the contrary, Ukrainian officials have been stressing, a number of times already, that they are not going to sit at the same negotiating table with the current leaders of Donestk and Lugansk.

Ukraine really never withdrew the artillery. It was moved, checked by OSCE as 'moved', covered and returned to neighbor positions by night. DPR & LPR were forced to return their arms after Ukrainians started offensive operation with using those cannons along the entire front on April 24. Now this point is dead.

[pikachu]

This probably doesn't deserve its own thread since it is pretty much an extension of the Ukraine conflict:


The EU almost managed to maintain unity on the issue, only the President of Cyprus disappointed by showing up at the parade.


The rest, including the presidents and prime ministers of Greece, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary first confirmed their participation, but later either canceled or downgraded participation without any apparent reason. I'm sure that it was an earnest change of heart on their part, it just took them a while to remember that Putin is evil.

Zeman and Fico showed up in Moscow and commemorated the event with Putin, but avoided the parade itself.

For some reason the Macedonian president (Gjorge Ivanov) showed up as well. I didn't realize that Macodonian-Russian relations were particularly good?

Then there's a whole array of new guests... Castro, Maduro, Zuma, Mugabe, Yong-nam of North Korea (he's officially DPRK's head of state), and a couple of guests from the Middle East to make up for Israel's absense. No, not Bashar al-Assad, that guy would probably love to come, but he is afraid to leave Damascus for the past 4 years. Instead, Sisi and Abbas showed up, marking their countries' first time participating in the event.


Curiously, all of these countries had relatively little to do with World War 2.

Finally, Bosnia's president Mladen Ivanić and of course Dodik of Republika Srpska made an appearance for the first time. In Bosnia's case, it's simply a coincidence that the current president (a rotating position) happens to be a Serb.

Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan was in Moscow on May 8th to participate in the CIS summit, there he got into an argument with the president of Kyrghizstan and left in a bad mood on the same day. Angela Merkel of Germany will be visiting Moscow on May 10th.

[roxunreal]

ANNA reporters not being sane people by default, while filming a skirmish in Spartak one of them managed to videotape what it looks like to be shot at by an anti-tank guided missile, in HD, and lived to tell the tale, though injured.

6:54
[youtube]Fl5qECTkR20[/youtube]

[Rugoz]

^

They were posing for the camera and apparently didn't expect the other side to react to their little show.

Either that or they're hopeless amateurs.

[roxunreal]

It's usually always posing when they're standing right there in the open and taking random potshots. They are obviously beyond sniper range, so no way their random bursts are hitting anywhere within 100 meters of where they pretend to be shooting. The distance is exactly why the other side shot a guided anti-tank missile at infantry in the first place, it has range.