Vapymid

Tna0Mmu1XlI

Regards

 

I dunno... Almost a million people protested in London just before the Iraq war in 2003 and a fat lot of good did that do.

 

Regards

 

Of course, the UK isn't an authoritarian country. The people we see here could only be the few who are willing to risk themselves by going into the streets.

The point I was trying to make was that when a huge mass protest is totally ignored by the authorities in a "free" country (and mind you, with all the problems I do still consider the UK as being among the free-est ones) then it is to be expected that a protest in an "authoritarian" country will be shrugged off just as easily, no matter how many people did protest.

I understand your point though - that a protest where a million people would take part because they do not expect any reprisals, would be much less populous if they feared repercussions for themselves personally. Conversely, that a protest smallish by a "free" country measure is much more significant if happens in an "authoritarian" one.

Regards

I dunno... Almost a million people protested in London just before the Iraq war in 2003 and a fat lot of good did that do.

Regards

LuMW-mcywd0

"Birds of Paradise, smiles and alibis

Heard by no-one on the shores of Loch Lomond"

Regards

Yes, but those people would not have offered the silly money that MSFT was paying.

Microsoft is desperate for something that could take it out of stagnation and desperate people often pay desperate prices.

That poses a dilemma: is Notch twice as immoral - selling to evil Microsoft AND, at the same time, gouging the buyer? Or does taking advantage of Microsoft somehow neutralises the evilness of dealing with the devil in the first place? I'm confused

Regards

Regrettable as it is it does not surprise me. Russians are throwing the book at Obama, basically saying that if he won't get a UN approval first, any strikes will be unlawful. Which, technically, is correct, of course.

There are two main reasons why the Russians are doing that - one, they are trying to protect Assad as when the fun will start, it will be very difficult to exclude a possibility of a stray missile suddenly hitting him on the head - purely by accident, mind! And - two, they will try to be as obstinate with the US as possible given the treatment they've received with Ukraine.

Surely, the Americans can be trusted to do likewise with anything that Russia will do...

Regards

Again, they never gave an indication that they were puppeteers.

Quite the opposite. It was exactly like a discussion between a CEO of a large corporation and her No.2 about some management reshuffling in one of the regional sales departments. They've agreed who should be promoted, who - sidelined and then simply agreed who will break the news to whom. And lo and behold - that's exactly what's happened afterwards.

Regards

Right wing fanatic? Hardly, even by European standards... Did you read the article? I really recommend you do.

Regards

That the US was running the show behind the scenes with the opposition?

Here is a quote from a blog of Jack Matlock, a former US Ambassador to USSR (under Reagan and Bush the First) which I found today:

"The American Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs discussed with our ambassador in Kyiv, on an easily intercepted cell phone call, possible replacements of the Ukrainian prime minister in terms that suggested that she was making an appointment. (“Yats. He’s the man!”) And indeed, “Yats” became prime minister after an armed rebellion. His government, which replaced a corrupt but constitutionally elected regime, received instant recognition from the United States, invitations to Washington and visits not only by American senators but also by the American Vice President (who, during his 2008 run for the presidency, had boasted that he could best “stand up to Vladimir Putin”—whatever that meant), and—of all people—the director of the Central Intelligence Agency."

The entire blog entry is actually an interesting reading and I feel somewhat vindicated in that it actually says, rather more eloquently, more-or-less what I have been trying to post here all along. For contrast - read the last comment by Jon Gundersen, a current DoS official. I thought I was reading some kind of mirror-image "Pravda", for a moment...

Regards

Yanukovich being an asshole does not stop the coup being a coup. Two separate things and two wrongs don't make a right.

A smoking gun? No, it's more like a CCTV snapshot of the bullet leaving the barrel...

Regards

Regarding the timing - do you the intercept of Nuland's phone call to Geoff Pyatt before the final coup on Maidan in February?

"Yats", "Klich"? She clearly is in charge and is instructing the Ambassador to just go and tell the Ukrainians who will and who will not be in the government. Oh, and of course, "fuck the EU"

Regards

The new government is a good sign in my opinion and it shows already the results of cooperation between the US and Iran on this issue. Let's hope it will last.

Regards

Another stellar conspiracy theory.

I'm glad you like it!

Seriously, yes, this is my working hypothesis. Not strictly speaking a "puppet regime" in the sense that they only do what they are told by the US DoS but I'm 100% sure that the US exerts strong influence on the key people in the government, in the armed forces and among the "oligarchy".

Regards

Not after. At best - simultaneously, but most likely even before the February coup in Kiev.

We know that the State Department was directly shaping and instructing the future interim government even months before the coup happened. The 5 billion dollars which Nuland admitted the US (officially) spent on "democracy" in Ukraine is a lot of money and it buys you a lot in a country where power is concentrated in a very small group of people, so you can be sure your "advice" will be listened to, when needed.

I have no reasons to believe that the Department of Defense did not establish the necessary connections ahead of time in a similar, if a bit more clandestine fashion.

Regards

would be like supporting Hitler because he was an anti communist.

Well, there was plenty of that in Europe and the US before the WWII (even as he and Stalin were negotiating on their non-aggression pact. The irony of politics...).

Regards

No, it's not that he was a smuggler but the Estonians are saying he was a special agent investigating cross-border smuggling. My personal inference is that he may have become sufficient nuisance to the local contrabandists that they have arranged with the police to arrest him on suspicion of espionage.

About the US presence in Ukraine? Well, the US sends "advisors" to all conflicts where they have an interest (that's pretty much every conflict on Earth) so the probability is that they did so in Ukraine as well. Even Western media is talking about the US providing Ukraine with intelligence support, military training and advice as already de facto taking place.

This is not even counting the earlier reports of Academi or similar companies supplying mercenaries to Ukraine (largely attributed to RT but, as far as I can see, originating from Germany with reference to some US intelligence sources).

Regards

But you cannot do anything about ISIS without suppressing them in Syria as well. The only alternative is for the US to go into Syria without Assad's agreement and the fight on two fronts there. Do you think they will do that?

Regards

There are no US advisors in or near Ukraine.

Oh. What makes you think so?

http://online.wsj.com/articles/estonian-officer-abducted-near-border-with-russia-1409928475

I've heard about this too. Probably disrupted some local smugglers operation and they pulled their strings with the authorities. Or could it be a revenge for Obama's tour of Tallinn? Time will tell, but I don't envy that Kohver guy, anyway...

Regards

AxqbtUtvyGQ

Regards

Yeah, funny how the centre of the Axis of Evil and the Satan State suddenly found a common language when a real threat appeared.

Next in line is an unofficial political truce with Assad, I think...

Regards

These kinds of conflicts always attract people from the outside. Some are hired professionals, but some are volunteers who either go there because they have nothing better to do or to support the cause or when they think it's fun (this I can never fully understand).

Last week I saw reports of 2 Czech guys having been killed while fighting on the separatist side...

And, of course, in these situations there are always "advisors" and "specialists" from the main antagonists, such as Russia and the US in the case of Ukraine, fighting a proxy war.

Regards

First, the Ukrainian army was responding to a case of foreign aggression, and had to respond.

Hmmm, I think you are totally confused about the events sequence now. Anyway, let's see if the ceasefire will hold and what will come out of further negotiations...

Regards

You move away from the fighting, not toward it.

You mean the other 200-odd thousand were just so moronic that they could not tell where the rockets were coming from and tried to escape towards the front?

And you refuse to answer my question of what the Ukrainian Army is supposed to fight the rebels with, considering that they fired on Ukrainian troops.

A) they shouldn't have been fighting anyone, shouldn't have been sent there even, in the first place. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along.

B) if you do decide to fight against an insurgency then an indiscriminate artillery shelling of residential areas of a large city is not the way to do it because 1) it doesn't work and 2) it is a war crime.

Funny, how both in Georgia and now in Ukraine, the valiant forces of "democracy and freedom" have been caught using the same criminal tactics against their own civilian population. Is that because they've been receiving their instructions from the same "advisers"?

But, of course, we disregard some other important factors here, such as that the Ukrainian army is poorly equipped (everything is stolen by ministers and high ranking officers before it reaches the front-line troops) and demoralised (the most they could do was the stand-off artillery barrages as the troops would otherwise rebel or defect if ordered to fight hand-to-hand).

Regards

Interesting you mention the referendum. Firstly, in my opinion, participation in a poll that may not have been approved by the government should not be an offence punishable by heavy artillery shelling. Secondly, according to a BBC news report based on the UN data, over 1 million people have fled the conflict region, out of whom about 80% went to look for shelter in Russia. This actually ties up statistically with the results of the referendum, no matter what its legality was.

Isn't it strange that people who are supposedly in mortal fear of the bullying Russia chose to seek refuge there?

Regards

No, you must have read a different website.

Yes, first there were protests. Then the government sent tanks and IFVs, which promptly surrendered to the protesters without anyone firing a shot. The government then sent more tanks and troops from the Western regions of the country who started killing of the rebel volunteers at checkpoints. That's how it started.

How to clear out the rebels? Well, history says you can't, not without wholesale slaughter of the entire population base of the rebellious region. The rebels rebel for a reason and the fighters are only the tip of the iceberg, a symptom. The only way is to negotiate and try to address the grievances.

OK, you can seize a few leaders and punish them as an example and a demonstration of your force, if you can, but you can't start killing the civilians in numbers. If you do, then there are two possible outcomes - a) wholesale slaughter, see as above and b) eventual negotiations from a weaker position than if you didn't start the war originally.

Regards