Merkel Apparently Fears Devastating Defeat of the Ukrainian Army

So I don't hit the quote limit continueing with the previous:
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20140712.aspx
and http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20140812.aspx
Note the continued decline for the seperatist. The following report from September show why things start to turn around again:
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20140921.aspx

And this one indicates how active the Russian troops have been:
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20141013.aspx

And from: http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20141120.aspx

They do occasionally get something wrong or overstate things though. Looking at:
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20150126.aspx

You are living proof of the above (or perhaps not). Of course they did rather implay that they didn't mean this litteraly as they say "most UN members".
Also note the following from that article:

Here's another article of interest:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20150208.aspx

 

Democracy is voting not taking guns and shooting people. Why did protetants declare a flull scale war on all fronts, and why has Russia declared a month long military practice in Russia close to Ukraine and Crimea. Why is Russia the only country that can violently protect its citicens? Even if there ´s only their word for it. Bundesluftwaffe your true name is proPutin Russian propagndist.We can criticize our leaders without a problem, and you don´t feel bad about it.But Putin is "pure". You are like a bear shot in the arse even for a slightest criticism. You don´t know what democracy is.

 

Thanks Kai-Petri I take this as a compliment. However even if you are so nice to me, I am still waiting for your evidence re. MH17. I guess LWD claimed too he has it. None of you came up with it, but just claim you have it. Until then I can not take you both serious on this matter.-

However I am not pro Putin (where did I write this - point me to it please?). Why would I be pro Putin ? But I am pro Europe and pro truth That does not mean pro EU or pro € btw.

 

What exactly are you looking for? I have provided enough evidence and logic that (IMO) any one with a reasonably open mind should see that at the very least I have presented a strong case and most would agree with me. Who do you think shot down the plane?

We have a saying to the effect of "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's a duck:. Your posts to date leave few other interpretations to a reasonable individual.

 

So in a nutshell you (LWD, Kai Petri and more here ??) don´t like people that question things right ? Eg. you LWD provided links from 1 single site, most articles have no sources on this site and also are not signed by an author. So veryyyy reliable. And you dismiss any info that doesn´t agree with "your" site. Very open minded. You both say MH17 was shot down by rebels. But provide no proof, the investigation is still ongoing. But you both know everything about it. Then bring it on finally and don´t dance around

I say let´s wait for evidence and proof you say rebels are too blame but have no evidence ? Mh....so because I want evidence I am suddenly pro Putin ? Where is the connection there ?

Example: I say LWD robbed my house and present some tape and some pics (whcih both can be made up) that you made a "wardance" because my house was robbed. Is this proof you robbed my house ? I would say no, I would say eg. fingerprints, video surveilance and DNA of you is

 

You've spoken to almost all Europeans, I suppose. Or do you actually not have any real evidence to back this claim either?

 

You are right I haven´t asked anyone. But the "mood" here is a) no weapons to UKR and b ) no more sanctions vs. Russia.

I can only give you this poll result: Only 19% do want more sanctions:

http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/deutschlandtrend-umfrage-deutsche-wollen-keine-schaerferen-sanktionen-gegen-russland/11014360.html

If you want more, maybe look in French, Italian and Spanish (Sadly I don´t speak these languages )

And yes, I apparently can´t speak for every European but I guess maybe between 20-40% or so may be in favor of above measures. Generally I bet the the southern countries oppose sanctions cause they suffer in their trade even more than the north - as the Spanish already said. Spain used to export fruit etc to Russia now the planters there lose that important portion of trade. (same probably for Italy&Greece). Also there are some Spanish volunteers fighting for the rebels I recently learned.

Another one from Serbia, Serbians like Russia more than EU:

http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/umfrage-russland-in-serbien-beliebter-als-eu/11179554.html

 

dAMN:

Die Seite wurde nicht gefunden
Diese Seite ist auf unserem Server im Augenblick nicht vorhanden. Mögliche Ursachen:

• • ein Systemfehler
• • ein Tippfehler in der Adresse
• • ein fehlerhafter Link

 

Actually I do. If you look back through my posting history you will see that that is pretty clear. I guess I should make the qualification of I like people questioning things if they have some logical or factual reason to do so.

It's a site that I have been following for years and has a very good track record. It's also pretty easy to find out that the main individuals responsible for the site are [SIZE=9pt]Jim Dunnigan, Al Nofi, and Austin Bay. More to the point is that you have produced nothing that indicates the information there is wrong. Others have also produced information from other sites. So far you haven't produced anything nearly as reliable.[/SIZE]

That's hardly the case. It's not that I have dismissed "info" that disagrees with the site. I have dismissed the utility of opinion posts and in most cases videos. The latter because they are in most cases opinon posts and when they do contain real information it can be hard to dig out. Simply put on most history oriented sites videos are considered the equivalant of a "shotgun" referance at best. In case you aren't familiar with the term a "shotgun" reference is saying look at book x but giving no page number or exerpt to indicate where to look or doing the same with a large web page (simply saying look it up on the strategy page would be a shotgun reference). Most such sites don't consider them acceptable. You'll get more credit for siteing wiki.

I'm not sure that either of us has said it was shot down by rebels, indeed I've made a point of it being possible that the Russians did it themselves. As for providing "proof" that depends on exactly what you mean by "proof". Certainly we haven't provided enough evidence or if you prefer proof to say with absolute certainty that it was either the Russians or the seperatists. However the preponderence of evidence clearly points to that conclusion. Furthermore it is my opinion that the evidence todate would be enough to get that verdict out of a US court (i.e. with the criteria of "beyond a reasonable doubt"). The investigation is indeed ongoing but given the evidence we have to date that doesn't mean a reasonable person can't come to at least a prelimanary conclusion does it? None of us have made any claim of knowing everything either so that's a straw man.

???

Wrong. We have presented evidence. The fact that you ignore it and have been unable to present any creditable counter evidence is why we have come to the conclusion that you are pro Putin. Of course from the very beginning the way you described the Ukrainian government, seperatist, and Russians was in and of itself enough to warrent that conclusion as well.

Well a confession that I did would be proof as well wouldn't it? That's what we had in the case of the shot down airliner. There's also the fact that the evidence to date pretty well eliminates anyone else. What I find of particular interest is not that the airliner was shot down by the way (it's not like it is the first time such a thing has happened) it's the reactions to it. If it was say the seperatist and they had admitted it and apologized then as far as I'm concerned there would be little more to say on the matter. The avoidance, hindering of the investigation, promotion of rediculous counter theories and such though make it seem like a lot mroe is involved.

 

DUH...I KNOW A FAMILY THAT WAS KILLED IN THE MH17 MURDER/DISASTER. And to all related around them this whole charade by Putin around it (not admitting mistake, not taking responsibility, not compensating, not putting to trials (in russia itself) the asshole RUSSIAN operators of the BUCsystem, still continuing pouring heavy systems into East Ukraine) , makes them all the more determined that you can't deal/negociate with Putin on this.
He chose that path,and one way or other he (and all the russkies backing him) are going to pay.

And all the schmucks you relate to who don't want further sanctions because they lose a little sales/market...or ooh , we live 200 km closer to Kiev than people in London, and the 500 km is really really close; GROW SOME BACKBONE. !
Why do you think NATO was set up and why do you think it actually worked in keeping the soviets out of europe (to which they had COUNTLESS DETAILED plans of how to overrun west europe) !?
PLease find the definition of "solidarity".

 

Since Russia backed them and at least to some extent the EU opposed them when the Yugoslavia broke up that's hardly surprising is it. Nor is it likely to be a source of unbiased opinions on the matter.

 

LWD, here are links (which you will dissmiss?) one of these links the OFFICIAL DUTCH SITE (the Dutch are the leaders in the investigation), it takes you 10 seconds "Status of investigation: OPEN".

http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/nl/onderzoek/2048/onderzoek-crash-mh17-17-juli-2014

You can also download their first report from there.

Another link from Malaysia:

"Has Malaysia been left out of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) probing the MH17 crash because the country would not point fingers at Russia, asks the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) today. - See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/why-is-malaysia-not-part-of-mh17-investigation-asks-group#sthash.GpaDVBtH.dpuf

Chandra said it had been alleged that Malaysia was left out because the country, unlike the four JIT members, would not point a finger at Russia as the cause of the MH17 disaster.
He said Malaysia would not blame Russia or pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine or anybody else "without hard, incontrovertible evidence".
"Neither Ukraine nor the US Administration has been able to offer such evidence to the public. Comprehensive military data from satellite images of the incident would have convinced a lot of people.



@ Dude: My condolensces. So DO YOU HAVE the evidence ? You should be the fist one, to want a fair investigation, or not ?????


I am done of you guys, saying you have evidence and even dissmiss the Dutch & Malysian research up to now. THESE were the countries that lost many many victims you want to deny their families the truth and fair examination ??????
-

And @ Kai-Petri: I just noticed you are a mod, if you don´t like my views (which I understand as I am a new guy) please ban me from this forum, so we are clear on this topic.

And I don´t waste more time here people putting words in my mouth I never said....

 

I have repeatedly agreed that the investigation is on going. So what is your point? The fact that it is ongoing doesn't mean by any means that sufficient data is not already available to form an informed opinion.

Unfortunately I can't seem to get to the site right now. Care to quote the parts you think are of import to our discussion?

So we have the opinions and position of the Malayian government. One that has already been accused of being biassed not that that matters as the above is at best marginally relevant to the current discussion.

We all "have" evidence. It's been presented on this thread in some detail. That you ignore it clearly illustrates your bias.

Straw man. None of us has dissmissed the Dutch or Malaysian reserch. Indeed I haven't even seen any evidence of Malaysian research so I could hardly dismis it. Nor have we denied anyone the truth or a fair examination.

I any way do take exception to your posturing on this. Indeed your insistence on some sort of strict legal defintion is absurd. As a clear example of such if we kept the same critieria we couldn't claim that Hitler and Stalin were responsible for starting WWII as neither were convicted. Utter rubish. The guilty parties are guilty whether or not they can be proven so. In this case enough evidence is present to draw reasonable conclusions as to who lthe likely parties are, bury your head in the sand if you wish to just don't expect us to copy you.

 

Guys, I cannot argue against a complete forum, maybe if it were 30:70 perhaps but not 100:0. I have neither time for this nor want to be the only one who sees both sides and wants evidence. Also if I want evidence I am suddenly pro Putin, and another one side I have no backbone, cause I don´t want to accuse Russia without hard evidence.

LWD, my lastword in this matter: It´s clear everything which does not conform to your opinion is either irrelevant or absurd or rubbish - that´s the position of a denier. Ignored.

Dude: I demand an appology for I have no backbone. I have more than you, you believe everything that is fed to you it seems. So WHO has no backbone.... ? Otherwise: ignore.

 

Well it's not 100% as there is one other poster who has occasionally supported your position. However if you look back over various issues especially here in the swamp you will find that it's rare to get that many supporting one position. The inference is pretty clear. If a bunch of people from a bunch of countries with widely ranging political stances support one position and you find yourself and possibly another poster or two in oppositoin it would behoove you to look closely at your position.

Guess what, you aren't. It was clear from your initial posts what side you supported and the way you denigrated the Ukrainian position and government to the point of factual error and insult gave lie to you seeing both sides. We also want evidence but we do have some and have presented it while you continue to ignore it and yet present none of your own.

Not at all. We are stating you are pro Putin becuase you keep parrotting his and the Russian position, ignoring facts, and denigrating the other side. Indeed one could hardly tell the difference between your postings and those of a Russian propagandist. Remember the duck rule?

I don't remember seeing that claim being made. Of course you continue to ignore that you have been presented with hard evidence.

I dobut anyone who objectivly looks at my posting on this board will agree. Present any reasonable evidence and I'll take a close look at it. If it's good it may even change my opinion, that's happened more than a few times on this board. The problem is you don't seem to have any idea what constitutes a decent source or how to present it or how to look at things logically. My postion on this was formed by looking at the facts I have and applying logic and reason. I didn't even have to resort to Occam's Razor. You may ingore what you want and I hope it doesn't come back to bite you.

Ah that explains the "no backbone" reference. I missed it. I agree it was uncalled for. Continueing to argue an untenable possition in the face of as many of us as you have certainly challenges that. As for the rest it looks to me like a case of the Pot calling the Kettle black

 

Just noticed this. I'm not sure the moderators here can ban someone but you aren't likely to see it from a mod who is involved in the discussion unless you step way over the line. That means something on the order of cursing fellow members or spouting Holocaust Denial garbage. You haven't done either so far. On the other hand I don't see that he has "put words in your mouth" either. PLS point out where he has.

 

Bundesluftwaffe,

where have you criticised the separatists and Putin? Or said they might have acted too aggressively?

If you think it´s ok to do what they do, then that is your view, not ours. And we say that. All that you say is give more proof
that the separatists shot down the plane. Of course the search is on and will continue for a long time, especially as the separatists will probably hold the area forever now. I am not saying sorry because the separatists leader put the video on their site and proudly presented that they shot it down. naturally they took it off once they found out it was a civil plane. However I did not even think of putting the so-called taped conversation because it doesn´t tell anyhting true for sure. It could be fake unless the voices are analyzed. However it is not my duty to start making the arresting of those in the film, but I believe they will for what they said and laughed at.

So far you have said that the separatists are fighting better, are on the right side and have better morale. You say the "kiew nazis". I say that is a pro-Putin sentence. word to word. Can you deny that? BTW, whose side is the right side??? God´s? Putin´s? Satan´s?

The only correct way is to make peace and arrange a democratic voting under UN securing neither army is in the area. If you don´t get it, but want to fight, or at least that your "brothers" fight, then that is not democracy. If the right side is preferring war then we know how this ends. Not in peace anyway. Thanx to you and your kind.

 

Thinking a bit more about this:

It is indeed a single site and it contains both facts and analysis (i.e. informed opinion). It also clearly challenges many of your apparent beliefs. However the above is rather lacking as a crtique of that site. So PLS present any evidence of misstatements of facts of faulty logic the have a signficant impact on our discussion. In my experiance the "facts" presented by that site are real "facts" far more often that what is presented by the news media and on a par with the better history books. Likewise the analysis is very good especially if you are not talking about US domestic politics. I've told you what is wrong with your sources how about returning the favor? At least with text it's easy to get down to the exact problem and anyone intersted in the context can look back to the original. Videos are rather problematic that way.

 

Another question I have (hope this isn't considered flogging a dead horse but ...). NATO aggression has been mentioned. Is there a single valid instance of it in relation to the Ukraine? Can anyone point to a source that gives any details at all on it?

 

Some more updates/info


- One of the best European politicians: Farrage (UK)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uNsXEu8ljM

- McCain - loudmouthed and dangerous (Switzerland, Tagesanzeiger)

http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/ausland/amerika/Laut-dreist-und-gefaehrlich/story/24911325

- Biden & Ukraine - son of vice president works for UKR gas company (Germany, Spiegel)
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/biden-und-ukraine-sohn-des-us-vizepraesidenten-arbeitet-fuer-gaskonzern-a-969348.html

- Nuland: Obamas "chaos" dimplomat "fuck the EU": (Germany, Spiegel)
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/victoria-nuland-barack-obamas-problem-diplomatin-a-1017614.html#ref=plista

- Washington was behind coup de etat ( CAN, Global research)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-was-behind-ukraine-coup-detat-in-response-to-russias-stance-on-syria-stratfor/5421026

@ Kai Petri: You can take a look in the "Russian navy" thread and follow the leads from there I provided.