Russia's Ghost Army in Ukraine

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Must be difficult to accept the fact Russia won't let dirty US politics destroy it

Too bad eh

a reply to: TDawg61
As the Ukrainians are bulldozing trenches and throwing their dead, along with civilian casualties into mass graves.

Also, these aren't infantry regulars being sent to the front lines of a secret war. These are men dedicated to their country and their country's end means. There is little doubt that Russia is meddling, but the men who are doing the meddling aren't innocent naive green infantryman. These men are highly specialized and are fulfilling a duty to what they evidently feel and paid for with their lives as a important and worthwhile service to their country.

It's the job they signed up to do. Enough with the tiny violins.

a reply to: Shadow1024

NATO was not supposed to be in even East Germany and here it is encroaching on Russian borders.

C-E nations were bankrupt and inefficiently run, presence in NATO would have helped them entry into the EU plus reducing their defense budget given NATO guarantees their defense. Ex: 3 Baltic nations do not even have 10 fighter jets among them.

Russia has acted pretty nice since 1991 but has to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: Shadow1024

NATO was not supposed to be in even East Germany and here it is encroaching on Russian borders.

C-E nations were bankrupt and inefficiently run, presence in NATO would have helped them entry into the EU plus reducing their defense budget given NATO guarantees their defense. Ex: 3 Baltic nations do not even have 10 fighter jets among them.

Russia has acted pretty nice since 1991 but has to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

"C-E nations were bankrupt and inefficiently run"
You mean when they run under Soviet occupation until '89/'91? Unquestionably. That was the reason why it was a high priority for govs here to join the West.

NATO did not help here in any way in EU accession.

You mean occupation of part of Georgia and Moldovia as being pretty nice? Or maybe as example of being nice you mean leveling Chechenya? Or maybe informal sanctions that they implement against countries in the region every few years?

So you mean that countries in my region are not sovereign states and can not join a defensive military alliance of their choice?

originally posted by: LotToTell2
Thousands of dead as a result of Russian invasion ???

Is that so ??

Yes, that's so.

originally posted by: LotToTell2
Nothing to do with Kiev sending army to kill people who decided to separate due to ILLEGAL Kiev government

No nothing to do with that

1. The democratic election in Kiev was fully and entirely legal. Nothing you can claim about this being illegal is ever going to be made correct, saying the same lie over and over again does not make it true. The people ousted their corrupt Russian puppet, and they formed an interim government, held elections recognized and supported under international law, and then installed an elected government. That's the reality.

originally posted by: LotToTell2
The dead are dead because Russia killed them

Oh wow

The dead are now dead as a result of the Russian military invading their country, stealing land, for which the Ukrainian military then had to fight.

The dead are now dead because of the actions of that invading army, regardless of which side fired a shot.

You see, even if you want to pretend that Russia hasn't invaded Ukraine, there is absolutely no excuse for what the supposed "Rebels" did. In several other countries we've seen devolution done the RIGHT way, without any shots fired, through a political process, which gives the people of a region the clear and genuine right to self-determination. The fact that the "Rebels" refused to do this only supports the belief that this was not what the public wanted and Russia KNEW it. If the people of E Ukraine really wanted to become "NEW RUSSIA" they should have CAMPAIGNED to do it, legally and without anyone firing a gun - it's called democracy, and you really should look into it.

a reply to: Rocker2013

In several other countries we've seen devolution done the RIGHT way, without any shots fired, through a political process, which gives the people of a region the clear and genuine right to self-determination.

You mean like Crimea? I don't know what sort of twilight zone the Ukraine is in where Something like Maiden with violent protests, firebombs, armed groups storming the government and 80+ fatalities is completely legal, above board and 'democracy in action', whereas Crimea, with not a shot fired, no fatalities and people just putting their vote in a box is considered 'illegal'. And with subsequent polls showing the majority content with the outcome. If you like, you can show me armed Russian soldiers forcing the people to vote, and I'll reconsider my position.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
You mean like Crimea? I don't know what sort of twilight zone the Ukraine is in where Something like Maiden with violent protests, firebombs, armed groups storming the government and 80+ fatalities is completely legal, above board and 'democracy in action',

As you point out, the two are completely different things.
Viktor Yanukovych fled the country, after forming an agreement which he then rejected at the last minute.

The people if Kiev had a peaceful protest ongoing, until the government cracked down on them and attempted to use force and extreme violence against the people.

You can try to rewrite history all you like, the world watched what happened in Kiev and we know the truth from the people actually on the ground experiencing the bullets of Viktor Yanukovych's personal army.

At the absolute most it could be claimed that there was then a coup when the ELECTED GOVERNMENT brought in the protesters to FORM ANOTHER ELECTED GOVERNMENT. Of course, international law doesn't allow you to arbitrarily claim that a coup occurred when the elected remained in place (apart from their despot and few radicals who followed him out the door) and was immediately followed by an election.

Like it or not, there was a legally backed and recognized democratic election in Ukraine, the government was NOT overthrown, the leader was rejected when he ran away from his responsibilities and the justice the people wanted.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
whereas Crimea, with not a shot fired, no fatalities and people just putting their vote in a box is considered 'illegal'. And with subsequent polls showing the majority content with the outcome. If you like, you can show me armed Russian soldiers forcing the people to vote, and I'll reconsider my position.

People putting their vote in a box under the guard of armed men from Russia - is not a democratic process. You CANNOT have a democratic referendum in another country against the government of that country. Pay attention here, because this is important... in a democratic country with democratic processes, you cannot have an invading army simply asking those around whether they want to join another country, it does not work that way. The people of Ukraine decide when of if they want to "hand over" a chunk of their country to a nation that has invaded.

This was in no way a democratic process, there was no international monitoring, it was done against the laws of Ukraine (the ELECTED GOVERNMENT) and it was done at the barrel end of a Russian gun.

It doesn't matter how much you attempt to rewrite history, we know the reality. The Kiev government was elected democratically though an internationally monitored election process, Crimea was snatched from Ukraine by an invading army which used the idea of a "referendum" to give it some kind of ridiculous notion of "credibility" with the incredibly stupid.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: Rocker2013

In several other countries we've seen devolution done the RIGHT way, without any shots fired, through a political process, which gives the people of a region the clear and genuine right to self-determination.

You mean like Crimea? I don't know what sort of twilight zone the Ukraine is in where Something like Maiden with violent protests, firebombs, armed groups storming the government and 80+ fatalities is completely legal, above board and 'democracy in action', whereas Crimea, with not a shot fired, no fatalities and people just putting their vote in a box is considered 'illegal'. And with subsequent polls showing the majority content with the outcome. If you like, you can show me armed Russian soldiers forcing the people to vote, and I'll reconsider my position.

You know most of those casaulties were victim of some sniper(s). Ukrainians fail to find who did it, even though it's priority and somewhat personal (for both former Maidan and former security forces).

So your point is that if Russian hired snipers shot a few dozens during Maidan, then its OK for Russia to invade Crimea and East Ukraine?

Anyway, I thought that in democracy that gov comes from the people? Or in your country you would not protest against awful mismanagement and instead prefer to see your country going to a disaster because of crisis and rampant corruption?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

But can we really excuse Putin's actions simply because the west has made similar or even worse decisions?

"Putin" isn't trying to dominate the world.

a reply to: Rocker2013

People putting their vote in a box under the guard of armed men from Russia - is not a democratic process.

Isn't that what happened in Iraq? That was recognized as legal.

This was in no way a democratic process, there was no international monitoring, it was done against the laws of Ukraine (the ELECTED GOVERNMENT) and it was done at the barrel end of a Russian gun.

Actually, I believe there was around 135 international observers, and I've yet to see any evidence that it was done at 'the barrel end of a Russian gun'. Have you ever considered that maybe the Crimeans were still a little peeved about being given away like a birthday present by some drunken yob in Moscow (who happened to be Ukrainian by the way...)? All the videos, and all the results of the polls afterward show that the vast majority of Crimeans are more than happy with the outcome. That's democracy in action. And hey, I'm sure they're quite happy not being shelled by the UAF day and night....

a reply to: Shadow1024

So your point is that if Russian hired snipers shot a few dozens during Maidan, then its OK for Russia to invade Crimea and East Ukraine?

You see, that's where logic fails in these sort of threads. There is no evidence that Russia was behind the snipers. It's just the trend to blame them for absolutely everything. Why would they help overthrow their own puppet?

a reply to: Flatcoat

Actually, I believe there was around 135 international observers, and I've yet to see any evidence that it was done at 'the barrel end of a Russian gun'.

The West was a little pissed because they were going to lose a few gas fields (they knew damn well what the outcome was going to be), so they refused to send in observers or they would no be able to slap The Kremlin on the wrist anymore because of it.

Funny how the Pro-Russians don't want to actually talk about the Vice story this thread is all about. They have been saying Russian soldiers aren't in Ukraine fighting but people are finding the grave sites and talking to the mothers. These Russians are not 'volunteers' as their mothers explain.

It must be another provocation against Russia. Everyone hates them so much they will lie endlessly to make Russia look bad.

OR

The truth tends to come out if people dig a little bit.

a reply to: Shadow1024

Since you ignored or didn't see my post to you, let me repeat it


****************
Let me tell you something REAL as opposed to Internet fake stuff

Ukraine is about to economically collapse because they listened to US and EU criminals who destroyed the country

Where are now those 5 billion dollars Victoria Nuland sent to Ukraine to foster the anger and revolution against the government

Can that money help them now ?

a reply to: noeltrotsky

Please quote what I am about to post anywhere, and have it plastered all over ATS if you wish.

Because it comes from the heart.

Not only do I support Russia defend the Eastern Ukrainians covertly and overtly -- who Kiev tried to have all killed.

IT WOULD BE MY WET DREAM TO SEE RUSSIAN ARMY ENTER IN AND CLEANSE KIEV OF BANDERA AND CIA PUPPETS

How about that ??

clear enough ?

a reply to: LotToTell2

Everyone sees your extreme national attitude.

I wonder if they see when your account was started coinciding with someone else being banned from ATS. I do.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

I already talked about Russians being involved when the first defeat of the Ukrainian happened late August/early September.

Despite all the talk about the "glories victories" of the Ukrainian army last summer, they weren`t even able to take Donetsk and Lugansk back in early July, so they did nothing else as just trying to block and shell the cities.

The tactic back then was nothing more as genocide and if anything, Russian intervention prevented and even bigger humanitarian catastrophe. Putin had a meeting with Poroshenko right before the first collapse of the Ukrainian army, same as it was right before the second collapse.

Russia wasn`t involved earlier on, the Ukrainian army was just really terrible and because of that, they couldn`t win and were making a horrendous siege out of Donetsk and Lugansk. Even before the hostilities started, Putin already told Poroshenko to go start and talk to the Eastern Ukrainians, but he would have none of it.

If anything, you can accuse Putin of stopping the atrocities which were going on...


...but that`s not something which you will hear in our precious media, because it would make Putin look like a good guy.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: noeltrotsky

I already talked about Russians being involved when the first defeat of the Ukrainian happened late August/early September.

No, you keep saying it's 'volunteers' and all the same Russian propaganda. The Russian soldiers in the Vice Video are already dead in Ukraine by the middle of August. Clearly they were operating inside Ukraine earlier. And they didn't volunteer for anything.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
Isn't that what happened in Iraq? That was recognized as legal.

So you admit that this is what happened in Crimea? Good, it's about time.

And aside from the actions of one country not being an excuse for the actions of another, nope, that's not what happened.
Iraq was a failed state with no functioning government.
Although I disagree with ever going in there, it was nothing like what happened in Crimea.

Again, saying "but 'merika did this!!!!" is not an excuse for ignoring what Russia did.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
Actually, I believe there was around 135 international observers, and I've yet to see any evidence that it was done at 'the barrel end of a Russian gun'. Have you ever considered that maybe the Crimeans were still a little peeved about being given away like a birthday present by some drunken yob in Moscow (who happened to be Ukrainian by the way...)? All the videos, and all the results of the polls afterward show that the vast majority of Crimeans are more than happy with the outcome. That's democracy in action. And hey, I'm sure they're quite happy not being shelled by the UAF day and night....

Okay, you're clearly irrational.
There were no credible observers in the Crimean referendum, so where you pulled that BS from is anyone's guess.
The OSCE were forcibly rejected from entering Crimea and shots were fired at them when they attempted to get access.

You cannot possibly claim that Russian-backed "observers" were in any way credible during this process, if you claim this then you are basically admitting that the referendum was coerced. You cannot have it both ways, either you claim it was not coerced (in which case international observers would not have been refused) or you admit it was coerced and this is why no international observers were present.

Either way, a region of a country with a democratically elected government cannot just vote to leave that nation and join another, especially not when that region is occupied by a foreign force.

You claim this is "democracy", when it is blatantly anything but.