Ukraine: After the May 25 Election

[cirrrocco]

You must have just about the busiest job in the world, as you are yet to reply to my response about Iraq. You will be pleased to know that the Australian ground forces who just deployed to Iraq (mostly advisors & trainers) waited weeks before entering Iraq in order to gain the appropriate agreements with the home nation.

Odd that you seem more upset by Australia taking military action inside a nation with the approval of a legally constituted government than you are by Russia taking action in a nation against the express wishes of one. Ok, not so much 'odd' as 'entirely and tediously predictable'.

what does this post have to do with Ukr army destroying residential neighborhoods with cluster bombs. Oh that's right, the second poodle of the US govt will go ravage any country that the master commands and the internet warriors lap it all up and say cheers

come back when your country actually has an actual foreign policy instead of it being colonized and directed from washington.

anyway thanks for the update the the aussies waited until they got permission from the govt. at that point of time, it was not clear.

[cirrrocco]

How many actually died in Ilovaisk?

Numbers range from 107 to more than 1000

some interesting links and quotes

According to Semen Semenchenko�the commander of the volunteer �Donbas� battalion that led the assault on Ilovaisk�after having taken the city center, Ukrainian forces were surrounded by the rebels and totally cut off. Russian media sources suggest that as many as 7,000 Ukrainian soldiers were trapped, along with several hundreds of military vehicles.

1000 dead - Ukrainian Donbas battalion commander: 1,000 dead in Ilovaysk operation | EUROMAIDAN PRESS | News and Opinion from Across Ukraine

107 - Ukranian News - Heletei States Death Of 107 Ukrainian And 300 Russian Soldiers Near Ilovaisk, Donetsk Region

No less than 200 - Под Иловайском погибли минимум 200 силовиков – генпрокурор - Korrespondent.net

100's - Награждается именной ответственностью… - Внутренняя политика Украины – аналитика, статьи, эксклюзивы - gazeta.zn.ua

[Doktor]

Hey Troung,



Gonna wait for another PH?

[Chunder]

come back when your country actually has an actual foreign policy instead of it being colonized and directed from washington.

Do I detect a deep seated aura of hatred and contempt?

Never a good idea, it lets the reader build up a mental picture of the individual at the other end of the keyboard.

Let me demonstrate:
It's probable that you've never done a humanities subject at University... otherwise you would likely have a better in-depth, realistic assessment other than your inference.
It's also probable that you don't actually have a grasp of the Westminster system... or concepts of Cabinet.
It's more or less highly probable apart from perhaps the feckless surety of a first year student, the sheer indiscretion of your remark indicates profound base concept.
The personal implications of this could be becoming uncomfortable. But it is through your own hand this is laid bare, no one elses.
The response to the above is a given.

Point taken?

If it isn't, then consider this.

I don't think anyone is remotely surprised that an army from a political society rife with corruption, and an army hierarchy rife with incompetence, infiltration and the rest of it is stupid enough to use cluster munitions, artillery, or other completely retarded methods of gaining control in civilian areas.

Again, politically, do you think it even remotely feasible that as soon as a bunch of goons with guns rock up at local government buildings and say 'this is ours now' that the central government would accept that? That is a rhetorical question.

Do you believe anyone reasoned enough is stupid enough to believe the Ukrainian army is a competent fighting force, directed by competent ministers, using competent methods? This is where political, flesh & steel mechanisms come into contact to form an outcome?! That only appeals to the whimsical arbitrariness of those upset enough to form basic convictions.

Best wishes for a happy & memorable day in a few weeks.

[troung]

Hey Troung,

[ATTACH]38356[/ATTACH]

Gonna wait for another PH?

1. Not every guy who pushes his frontier out a bit is Hitler.
2. The Balts would march with one of those flags in the front of their parades.
3. How the fuck are we going to exterminate Putin?
4. Why the fuck should I want to exterminate Putin for a bunch of dumb ass Ukrainians who rode the bear and ended up bitten?
5. I'm fine not having a nuclear war on behalf of the Ukraine.

The Ukraine behaved foolishly for years and now wants people to come rescue it from its ally.

[snapper]

If they also pay nothing for their defense and expect us to keep them safe then they deserve it.

They are not allies they are dependents.

BS attempt to bootstrap Ukraine in. Let Eastern Europe defend itself.

Ukraine acted liked like a bitch and now it is being treated as one. That's a good lesson.

troung, From what I can make of it your view is 'isolationist'. Presumably in the same manner that you now say "Let Eastern Europe defend itself." you might extend it to a more general 'Let Europe defend itself'; Lend/Lease and the WW2 convoys of support to Uncle Joe's USSR, in fact the whole war against Hitler in general, was, even after Pearl Harbour, not the US's business? Is this correct or is it only Eastern Europe in particular which you consider unworthy of your concern? In that case where is the line? What was West Germany to do when the Berlin Wall fell? Build another wall to keep 'Eastern Europeans' in? But if your isolationism extends to all Europe presumably the Cold War was not the US's concern? If it is specifically 'Eastern Europeans' who must defend themselves what is the difference between a person living one side of a border and another living perhaps only yards away on the other side of a border? Are they innately different or is it the proximity to Russia which makes their defence their own problem? If so then presumably you must accept that Russia has some innate 'right of the bully' to influence the lives of those who by chance leave in it's 'sphere of influence'? Or in other words the geographical location of your home dictates your rights. Presumably you do not believe that Poland, Romania etc should have NATO membership? Do they properly belong in Moscow's 'sphere of influence'? Since when? Presumably not when Sobieski saved Vienna? Do the Balkans belong in the Turkish 'sphere of influence'? Should India be returned to Britain? Hell... Spain belongs to the Caliphate maybe? Or perhaps you are willing to sacrifice 'Eastern Europe' and feed peace-meal to a crocodile, to paraphrase Churchill on appeasement, in the hope that once satisfied it may not eye you hungrily? Was it satisfied when the border was on the Elbe?

If your position is entirely isolationist, which has some logical consistency at least, then presumably it wouldn't have mattered if all Europe had fallen to either Hitler of Stalin? I have to tell you that had the US stood by and done nothing to prevent either or both these possibilities the US itself would almost certainly have had to come to terms and would never have enjoyed the post WW2 and post Cold War supremacy it had. It's a 'what if?' but the US, in historical terms, was the winner of both WW2 and the Cold War - financially too. Certainly to hear anyone speak so must warm the cold heart of heart of an old KGB man. Perhaps you should listen to Putin's latest speech to the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi. It is not Ukraine he blames - or Germany or even the UK... "The US has been destabilizing the world order of checks and balances for its own gains." Of course Russia (cos really they's so cuddly) has done nothing wrong... Even a reference to the latin saying "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" meaning "What is permissible for Jove is not permissible for an ox."... but the Russian "bear" won't ask anyone for permission and demands that its views on global issues should also be respected.

As I say I am somewhat confused to the seemingly arbitrary distinctions you draw and hope you will clarify how you justify such arbitrary lines either morally or strategically. Let me set you straight on this though; Ukraine, Poland, Moldova and Romania aren't the enemy in neo imperialist Russian eyes; you are. Your front line right now is in Donetsk airport defended by 'cyborgs' whether you like it or not. Nor will it serve you well to sacrifice 'Eastern Europe' to the crocodile; it will only encourage the appetite.

[troung]

Learn to use paragraphs.

Your front line right now is in Donetsk airport defended by 'cyborgs' whether you like it or not.

Err... umm... no it's not...

Nor will it serve you well to sacrifice 'Eastern Europe' to the crocodile; it will only encourage the appetite.

Clowns jumped off a cliff all on their own.

. It is not Ukraine he blames - or Germany or even the UK... "The US has been destabilizing the world order of checks and balances for its own gains.

Seeing as right now we are pulling our best Pakistan regarding Islamic Terrorism against the Heretics running Syria... yeah maybe our government does need to check itself.

even after Pearl Harbour, not the US's business?

After Pearl Harbor it was America's war.

Let me set you straight on this though; Ukraine, Poland, Moldova and Romania aren't the enemy in neo imperialist Russian eyes; you are.

Ukraine was all up in Russia's bed and is now getting checked for stepping out, the Ukraine will be Russia's bitch again in a couple years.

Presumably not when Sobieski saved Vienna?

Let Vienna protect them then.

resumably you do not believe that Poland, Romania etc should have NATO membership?

Not at all. Meaningless push East which brought in nobodies with Russian issues under our protection. If these guys have a Russia problem let them sort it out. I was not put on this world to be taxed to protect some SS pensioners in the Baltics, Greater Romania, and protect the Ukraine from her pimp.

WW2 analogues are tiresome - it's one hundred years from a time when some dirt bag Balkan state (who was emboldened by having a protector) triggered a war which killed millions thanks to stupid alliances, dumb-ass diplomats dreaming of grand style diplomatic check mates, and fools talking about national honor, image, etc...

I would not risk one American life to save the entire Ukraine,much less risk WW3 over WW1 style alliances. Putin is not Hitler and the Ukraine is not six million Jews.

[Bigfella]

what does this post have to do with Ukr army destroying residential neighborhoods with cluster bombs. Oh that's right, the second poodle of the US govt will go ravage any country that the master commands and the internet warriors lap it all up and say cheers

come back when your country actually has an actual foreign policy instead of it being colonized and directed from washington.

anyway thanks for the update the the aussies waited until they got permission from the govt. at that point of time, it was not clear.

You brought up the issue of my nation in Iraq in some attempt to distract from your own trolling. You made quite a song & dance about it. When the example blew up in your face you did a disappearing act for weeks & haven't mentioned it since. Contrary to your assertions it WAS clear at the time that Australia had Iraqi permission, you were just too busy trolling to do a google search.

[Bigfella]

Hey Troung,

[ATTACH]38356[/ATTACH]

Gonna wait for another PH?

Not, but another Srebrenica might do it. Your post would have more weight if we didn't find ourselves arguing about Kosovo every other month.

[Doktor]

Not, but another Srebrenica might do it. Your post would have more weight if we didn't find ourselves arguing about Kosovo every other month.

So what if it was a mistake or the right thing to do. Serbs didn't have the capacity to go to Berlin or Sofia for that matter.

[JAD_333]

Pragmatism in foreign policy is 'temperamental whim' by another word.

To be pragmatic is to choose the most self-serving course among all those available while rejecting all those driven solely by emotion or sentimentality.

What may seem pragmatically wise to one person may not to another depending on how they see things or even slept the night before. I recognise that pragmatic and whimsical factors can never be totally expunged from human decisions but that is why we have 'rules' which our Governments are in some part obliged to follow.

Yes, the king may wake up with a hangover and say screw 'em. But these days, more often than not, policy formation is a collaborative process. One policy adviser's hangover won't have any affect on policy, whether it turns out to be right or wrong in the end.

Keep in mind when calibrating your expectations vis a vis Ukraine that US policy derives from its vital interests, or primary policies. These have not changed since WWII: first and foremost to maintain national security; second to keep the sea lanes open for commerce with its trading partners; and third to honor international alliances.

Keep in mind also that Ukraine cannot spurn centuries of intimacy with Russia and expect Russia to not react like a jilted lover. Theirs is a domestic abuse case complicated by appropriations of territory in violation of international law. The US understands the ramifications for world order of letting the latter stand uncontested and has acted by leveling sanctions in hopes of at least reigning in Russia anger, and at most getting get her to relinquish territory already taken. But military action or the threat of it would be counter to US vital interests. Call it selfish, pragmatic or what have you, but it's just common sense in the small, rarefied community of nations.

I should hasten to add that what individual Americans believe the US ought to do is influenced more by their sense of right and wrong in a social rather than an international relations context. They see a damsel in distress and are willing to risk their lives to help her. However, nations that follow the same ethic, when not directly threatened, risk their very existence. Nations may do all manner of good and say righteous things, but when it comes to that risk, all bets are off. I know you are not asking for much, but it doesn't take much to start a tit for tat game that leads to war. Ukraine will soon have a new Rada. Let's see where things go from there.

[Bigfella]

So what if it was a mistake or the right thing to do. Serbs didn't have the capacity to go to Berlin or Sofia for that matter.

My point is that when America does 'exterminate evil' (and with a pretty light touch at that) people spend decades bitching about it. So what if the Serbs couldn't get to Sofia, they had sufficient reach to kill tens of thousands of people whose only crime was not to be Serbian and they weren't finished. They were dealt with & the 'evil' was exterminated. The total death toll in Ukraine isn't even close to Srebrenica yet, let alone the rest. No matter what America does it is always wrong.

For the record, I don't have a dog in this particular fight. I think all those arguing are making good points. There is a part of me that would love to see a US armoured division appear in E. Ukraine to put Putin back in his box, but I understand that it isn't likely to happen for a variety of reasons, some good. There is another part of me that entirely understands why someone wouldn't want Americans to die for a collection of nations who have shown limited willingness to look out for their own defence until pushed (and sometimes not even then) or have a history of stupid/unsympathetic behaviour.

[snapper]

Learn to use paragraphs.

I used three. You used 7. Are we counting this for a reason?

After Pearl Harbor it was America's war.

Against Japan surely? Except I assume that the supplies to Uncle Joe were correct? The brave Russians (and Ukrainians) couldn't be let down?

Ukraine was all up in Russia's bed and is now getting checked for stepping out, the Ukraine will be Russia's bosom buddy in a couple years.

Only if subverted. If Russia introduced 'little green men' into Alaska and held a referendum that it return to the 'homeland' etc BS how would the US feel?

Let Vienna protect them then.

Not at all. Meaningless push East which brought in nobodies with Russian issues. If these guys have a Russia problem let them sort it out. I was not put on this world to be taxed to protect some SS pensioners in the Baltics, Greater Romania, and protect the Ukraine from her pimp.

So where is the border? Who has a right and who is upto the 'goodwill' of the Russian mafiosi police state? Do you know a thing about the regime to which you are willing to sacrifice whole nations? Please reveal their 'caring side' if so.

WW2 analogues are tiresome - it's one hundred years from a time when some dirt bag Balkan state triggered a war which killed millions thanks to stupid alliances, dumb-ass diplomats dreaming of grand style alliances and fools talking about national honor, image, etc...

Some "dirt bag Balkan state" was one small bunch of assassins wishing for national sovereignty. An unreasonable request for the 'dirt bag Eastern Europeans' who you clearly discount as unworthy of the same rights and aspirations as others. You clearly disagree with the Declaration of Independence.

I would not risk one American life to save the entire Ukraine,much less risk WW3 over WW! style alliances. Putin is not Hitler and the Ukraine is not six million Jews.

No Ukraine is 40m + slaves that have broken free and have been Holodomor - ed before. According to some estimates over 7m died. You really believe they wanted Russian 'ownership' then? You believe the Prague Spring and other insurrections in Soviet bloc were not for real maybe? That Eastern European 'dirt bags' haven't tasted the Russian yoke and rejected it? That Katyn and the gulags never happened? That endless numbers 'vanished'?

Ukraine never asked for war - just better and less corrupt governance yet international laws were broken because of this wish. Do they have a right to govern themselves? If not then neither does any nation. I am aware you would be willing to cast many to the crocodile but on what basis do they somehow 'belong' to Russian slavery other than proximity to a mobile Russian army?

Poland and Hungary and Romania etc did not bring Russian issues 'with them'. Russia has an issue and has had it for centuries.

Ukraine acted liked like a bitch and now it is being treated as one. That's a good lesson.

No doubt all the 'dirt bag Eastern Europeans' did the same in your view and deserve a similar 'lesson'? How many lives before they 'learn their lesson' and do you believe that others too do not deserve the same 'lesson' after? You have not the right to denounce nations that were saving themselves and others west before the Americas were even discovered. Our ancestors were born and died defending front lines of which you know little because you never had to. They are still doing it but need time.

[Mihais]

Sara,you're wasting time and energy.The man doesn't give a damn.And about the old frontlines,which are going to be new,he doesn't give a damn also.He would have been on the other side.
Realistically speaking,there won't be any help for Ukraine,besides what is already done or planned.

As for the flags, this shitty rag is ten times worse than anything the baltic veterans are waving The flags of those who fought them are ok in this context.Unlike our latest appeaser,those guys have a history of fighting the greatest evil of all times.

[SteveDaPirate]

troung, From what I can make of it your view is 'isolationist'. Presumably in the same manner that you now say "Let Eastern Europe defend itself." you might extend it to a more general 'Let Europe defend itself'; Lend/Lease and the WW2 convoys of support to Uncle Joe's USSR, in fact the whole war against Hitler in general, was, even after Pearl Harbour, not the US's business?

Keep in mind when calibrating your expectations vis a vis Ukraine that US policy derives from its vital interests, or primary policies. These have not changed since WWII: first and foremost to maintain national security; second to keep the sea lanes open for commerce with its trading partners; and third to honor international alliances.

It may not require an isolationist stance from someone to reach the conclusion that America shouldn't be heavily involved in Ukraine. The tenets of "offshore balancing" explain why the US jumped into WW2 so heavily but is now reluctant to become very involved in Ukraine.

In addition to the vital interests listed by JAD, I would add a 4th saying that America will strive to prevent a single power from dominating the Eurasian landmass. If any one entity can consolidate power over Eurasia they could shut down America's prosperity by denying trade by sea, and would possess the population and economic might to threaten the American homeland.

Hitler's Germany appeared to many to be poised to accomplish this consolidation of power over Eurasia, thus the US was compelled to intervene. I think it was this imperative rather than Hitler's repulsive policies that truly forced America's hand.

In contrast, Putin's Russia does not appear to have the wearwithal to conquer or even seriously threaten most of Europe (aside from nukes). The consensus seems to be that European NATO members could stop a Russian invasion in its tracks without any help at all so long as the US prevents the Russians from bringing their nukes into the fight.

As long as major European and Asian powers cannot conquer each other, American should be able to safely sit on the sidelines and just give a little boost to whichever side appears to be lagging a bit behind.

Personally, I would like to see the US supply Ukraine with discounted access to military hardware and training until they can take care of themselves. A helping hand is fine, but I don't see any reason to spill American blood protecting Ukraine.

I don't think America should be the first line of defense for European countries. The US should instead act as Europe's safety net by shielding them against the threat of nuclear weapons and intervening should it appear Europe may be in imminent danger of falling to a new Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin.

Unfortunately, I think America's willingness to intervene is part of the reason you see ISIL running rampant in the Middle East and pitiful defense spending in much of Europe. To many countries have come to the conclusion that they don't need to get their hands dirty solving the problems in their own neighborhood since America will eventually come solve it for them.