Russian Tanks Move Across Ukraine Border: NATO Chief Breedlove

a reply to: kitzik

Kaliningrad (Königsberg) belonged to Germany before Stalin annexed it and force deported the Germans. If we are going to use your logic then Russia should return it to Germany. If they refuse Germany should forcibly take it back.

That is, after all, the way Russia operates is it not?


and I am confident in my knowledge and history of the region. I am guessing you are not with your response to my simple and straight forward question. Or did you not realize Stalin stole it from Germany and mass deported the people who li9ved there. You know, like he did to tartars in Crimea and like Putin is doing to them now.

or is this another one of your one way conversations?

As for Kaliningrad, I'm inviting green polite Germans to visit if they dare.

heheh, good little bit of humor there in a thread that seriously needs some. kudos.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The more I see you guys make these idiotic arguments the more I think Gen. Patton was right with his views towards the USSR at the end of WWII.

Russia is not USSR, you are living in the first cold war.

Btw, I was just pretending to be that ignorant, wanted to see what you really thinking how Russia gonna lose in second cold war, bye.

Vehicles used to transport soldiers' bodies have been seen crossing the Russian-Ukrainian border, monitors from Europe's security body have said. The OSCE monitors said in one case a vehicle marked "Cargo 200" - Russia's military code for soldiers killed in action - crossed from Russia into Ukraine on Tuesday and later returned.

www.bbc.com...



maybe the Russian casualties (rip) got lost in the Ukraine?

originally posted by: kitzik
Russia is not USSR, you are living in the first cold war.

Good - we agree on Russia not being the USSR. Now if Putin can get that through his head we might make some progress.

originally posted by: kitzik
Btw, I was just pretending to be that ignorant, wanted to see what you really thinking how Russia gonna lose in second cold war, bye.

I don't think you were pretending.

a reply to: canucks555

If there is no Russian military units fighting in Ukraine then why are Russian military convoys "removing" Russian bodies? I mean if they are not there officially as soldiers then why is the Russian government treating them as Russian soldiers?

Could it be Russia sees them as Russian military fighting in Ukraine?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Even "vacationing" soldiers should get a proper military cargo van funeral procession.

a reply to: canucks555

Merely seeing a truck with Cargo 200 written on it means little and more so when dealing with Russia. As to what really is inside those trucks is unknown as Russian ways of doing things is little fishy and reality is not out in open all the time.

However, there is no denying of the fact that Russia is involved in helping NAF in fighting the Ukrops. Both men and machines are being provided to the NAF by Russian military and various ministries.

However, Russia should not send these valuable men into a high causality zone without proper protection of full body armor and other advanced weapons and systems to lower the probabilities of getting even injured.

As to the fact that more than 4000 civilians have been killed by mere artillery shelling is alone a reason for full scale intervention by Russia. Dessertation in Ukrops will increase by 10x once they know fight is with Russia and its military might. Only fascist idiots of junta will stick around and fight and be killed in next 24-48 hours.

a reply to: victor7

The 4k deaths is caused by both sides and not just Kiev.

The death count would have been lower had Russia not invaded Ukraine... Food for thought.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The death count would be a hell of a lot lower if Kiev wasn't lobbing shells into population centers....food for thought

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: victor7

The 4k deaths is caused by both sides and not just Kiev.

The death count would have been lower had Russia not invaded Ukraine... Food for thought.

As always you are distorting the fact just for the sake of "stale" argument. 95% of civilian causalities have occurred because Kiev forces have been shelling the residential areas.

Russia is to blame in that they have provoked a conflict but done so in clumsy and bloody manner without providing adequate military support to the separatists. Recognition of Donbass region right from onset and immediate supply of funds to NovoRossiya government would have allowed them to purchase tonnes of weapons from "rogue" arms dealers all around the world. Victor Bout comes to mind right away who is now in US prison on various charges.

With NAF getting $100K a piece T-72 tanks, $100K a piece Mig-23 fighter bombers etc. etc. Kiev Junta would not have launched the bloody and destructive ATO.

Making it easier for Putin, he need not have even recognized NovoRossiya. He just had to instruct one of his oligarchs to openly provide $2-3B of funds as personal donation to NAF and rest would have been a matter of getting the weapons to NAF from various "underground" sources.

If Putin is too scared of sanctions then even now such methods can be applied. Sad to see poor Russian soldier stripped of the body armor and made to fight as a civilian volunteer in high causality environment. Guess little respect for common man in the RusLand. Only Tsars and Oligarch matter and that has always been the trend.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: Xcathdra

The death count would be a hell of a lot lower if Kiev wasn't lobbing shells into population centers....food for thought

Like the rebels are doing now for Mariupol?

a reply to: victor7

Feel free to link us to your source that gives a break down on the casualty list.

Also stop accusing me of BS crap you have absolutely no way of supporting - Its getting old.

Both sides are guilty of fighting in civilian areas.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Both sides are guilty of fighting in civilian areas.

Feel free to link us to your source that gives a break down on the which side is attacking the civilian areas with artillery and mortar shells.

Both sides are guilty of fighting in civilian areas.Text

Truth.
For one side of the debate to say only one entity is responsible for collateral damage is off base.

a reply to: victor7



You are the one who gave specifics, not me.

You need to support your specific claim as I requested.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: Xcathdra

The death count would be a hell of a lot lower if Kiev wasn't lobbing shells into population centers....food for thought

Like the rebels are doing now for Mariupol?

I never said Russia or the seperatists are innocent. I just like to counter your one sided view. Plus there's a difference between rebels attacking their enemies and the government attacking its own people

a reply to: tavi45

The poster I responded to insinuated the separatists were innocent and I corrected that. My view was not one sided as it was a response to a one sided statement from someone who feels the separatists are innocent.

Your argument is off base in both areas. Since my comment was in response to another poster, and you have failed to understand that, lets move on to your lopsided argument about rebels and government.


Rebels attacking the government is the same as the government attacking the rebels.

The government is the enemy to the rebels and the rebels are the enemy to the government.

You cannot be a rebel and take up arms against the government while trying to argue the government has no right to defend itself against them.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ahhhh but the government has a greater responsibility to respect the lives of its citizens than does the rebel . I'm not saying it's right or good but it's the nature of things.

If a group of people in my town here in America rebelled and the US government launched airstrikes on my town that would be much worse than if the rebels bombed my town. Treason is equal to or greater than murder.

originally posted by: tavi45

Ahhhh but the government has a greater responsibility to respect the lives of its citizens than does the rebel

. I'm not saying it's right or good but it's the nature of things.

International law does not agree with you. Armed confrontations do not have differing standards for parties involved. As an example international law states religious buildings, schools, hospitals etc cannot be targeted. However when the people you are fighting are attacking from those locations that protection is invalidated, not by the people attacking it, but the people who used the site in the first place.

originally posted by: tavi45
If a group of people in my town here in America rebelled and the US government launched airstrikes on my town that would be much worse than if the rebels bombed my town. Treason is equal to or greater than murder.

The people in your community should not be hiding themselves among non combatants.

The goal is to restrict civilians casualties as much as possible. That goal is not always possible and to expect a government to not engage rebels because of their location is naïve.