Russians in Ukraine

[Tazak]

Who is winning the media battle

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

Who is winning the media battle

This doesn't surprise me at all. Even during the Cold War, the Europeans were reluctant to take their defence obligations seriously. The good news is, that despite everything, the Americans still show a responsible attitude and understand their international obligations. Due to that NATO can be still considered a major international military player, with real deterrence capabilities.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Jagger2002

does it have an agenda?

Everybody has an agenda of some kind.

I still remember Powell at the UN making bald statements of fact about Iraqi WMDs which were later proven false. Of course, it wasn't just Powell, it was everyone establishment. Anyway, because we have seen the "big lie" become the dominant mode of government and think tank communication over the last 10-15 years, I won't blindly accept on authority a document so specific on facts but so completely lacking in evidence. I am now from the "show me" state and this article doesn't really show me anything. I am very sceptical.

I'm big into "show me" too. With matters of military intelligence that's often times not possible. If you look at the Battle for Normandy for instance I can show you multiple different 'facts' about the fighting that are far apart in what was/is reported.

When it comes to things like them lying about the WMD's in Iraq I'm going to want to see something that shows they actually lied about it and weren't simply wrong. That may not happen in my lifetime. (I can only live for so long) It's often convenient for us to assume that people lied when they simply didn't know the truth to tell in the first place.

Good Hunting.

MR

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Jagger2002

does it have an agenda?

Everybody has an agenda of some kind.

I still remember Powell at the UN making bald statements of fact about Iraqi WMDs which were later proven false. Of course, it wasn't just Powell, it was everyone establishment. Anyway, because we have seen the "big lie" become the dominant mode of government and think tank communication over the last 10-15 years, I won't blindly accept on authority a document so specific on facts but so completely lacking in evidence. I am now from the "show me" state and this article doesn't really show me anything. I am very sceptical.

I'm big into "show me" too. With matters of military intelligence that's often times not possible. If you look at the Battle for Normandy for instance I can show you multiple different 'facts' about the fighting that are far apart in what was/is reported.

When it comes to things like them lying about the WMD's in Iraq I'm going to want to see something that shows they actually lied about it and weren't simply wrong. That may not happen in my lifetime. (I can only live for so long) It's often convenient for us to assume that people lied when they simply didn't know the truth to tell in the first place.

Good Hunting.

MR

I can't add anything specific about WMDs (except the mold in my basement, perhaps) but I always say, "never ascribe to conspiracy what one can blame on incompetence." In my experience, it's far more likely that people screw up than that they carefully plan an execute a deception or a conspiracy of some sort. Doesn't mean they don't--a lot of things are possible, maybe even likely. But Occam's Razor sort of points first at least to stupidity.

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

When it comes to things like them lying about the WMD's in Iraq I'm going to want to see something that shows they actually lied about it and weren't simply wrong. That may not happen in my lifetime. (I can only live for so long) It's often convenient for us to assume that people lied when they simply didn't know the truth to tell in the first place.

One thing is certain: Putin has been consciously and repetitively lying, about non-involvement of Russian army in Ukraine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8AMsRx2jjY

[Tazak]

ORIGINAL: katukov

Even during the Cold War, the Europeans were reluctant to take their defence obligations seriously.

seriously where are you finding this drivel

[Tazak]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

When it comes to things like them lying about the WMD's in Iraq I'm going to want to see something that shows they actually lied about it and weren't simply wrong. That may not happen in my lifetime. (I can only live for so long) It's often convenient for us to assume that people lied when they simply didn't know the truth to tell in the first place.

I recall that NATO couldn't convince the UN (lack of evidence) so the US resorted to getting their congress to approval military action. There is a british review of the events leading up to the war and if the British leadership mis-lead the nation into the war due for release soon, I'll post a link once its available as it should be interesting reading

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

ORIGINAL: katukov

Even during the Cold War, the Europeans were reluctant to take their defence obligations seriously.

seriously where are you finding this drivel

http://www.kentuckypress.com/live/title ... XiHMs-qqko

Of course during Cold War the potential threat was much greater, but proportionally not enough was done in terms of conventional NATO forces ( at least until the 80's ), so the Alliance was forced to depend on the nuclear deterrence.

[Tazak]

So the book you linked makes the assumption that Europe didn't take its defence seriously, not sure how it can make that assumption as it indicates is covers 1948-1968 thus missing out on over 20 years of the cold war???

Or are you making a comparison between defence plans/spending during the cold war and the current period

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

So the book you linked makes the assumption that Europe didn't take its defence seriously, not sure how it can make that assumption as it indicates is covers 1948-1968 thus missing out on over 20 years of the cold war???

Or are you making a comparison between defence plans/spending during the cold war and the current period

I'm making a comparison of the attitudes of NATO members towards the collective defence obligations now and then.

During the first 20 years of Cold War the probability that it will turn into a real war, was greater than in the 70's or 80's. By the end of 60's Soviet Union caught up and eventually surpassed USA in terms of nuclear weapons, so the conventional forces become more irrelevant, than during the earlier period. So it's interesting to highlight some issues within NATO at the beginning of it's existence. In 1952 it was agreed that the alliance would form 50 divisions that would stand on the path of some estimated 175 divisions of the Soviets. This goal was never achieved and was reduced first to 30 divisions in mid 50's and eventually in 1962 NATO had 24 divisions in Europe ( againts 50 Soviet divisions in the first strategic echelon and another 100 in the follow up forces ). So the reliance on massive nuclear retaliation can't come as a surprise. During this period, the first weak Bundeswehr divisions were formed so the French, Dutch and British used this as an opportunity to reduce their forces. France actually withdrew from the NATO military structures in 1966. At the same time the number of US troops in Europe shrunk from 400 thousands to 300 thousands at the end of 60's ( mostly due to the involvement in Vietnam ). Today we see the same process on a different scale. USAREUR is getting smaller due to the different priorities. This fragment of the book seems to me very illuminating:

A more serious issue was fraying German-American relations over American demands for burden sharing. Unhappiness in Washington over the cost of maintaining forces in Europe had been building since Kennedy administration when discontent in the US Senate threatened the removal of American troops unless the Europeans , particularly Germans, helped solved imbalance of payments.

Does this not sound all too familiar? It's quite shocking that such a frictions could take place at the height of Cold War. In my opinion the above proves, that a strong and united Cold War NATO, is to some extent a myth.

[ivanov]

This time an Ukraininian column. Some interesting stuff there - few BTR-3, BTR-4 and even S-300 at the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lRzmfbnC9o

[IronMikeGolf]

Bunch of vehicles in parade trim paint jobs.

[Tazak]

ORIGINAL: katukov

I'm making a comparison of the attitudes of NATO members towards the collective defence obligations now and then.

So your drawing a conclusion between war ravaged Europe facing years of another devastating war against the warsaw pact and a Europe that has not seen a direct threat in over 15 years........

During the first 20 years of Cold War the probability that it will turn into a real war, was greater than in the 70's or 80's. By the end of 60's Soviet Union caught up and eventually surpassed USA in terms of nuclear weapons, so the conventional forces become more irrelevant, than during the earlier period. So it's interesting to highlight some issues within NATO at the beginning of it's existence. In 1952 it was agreed that the alliance would form 50 divisions that would stand on the path of some estimated 175 divisions of the Soviets. This goal was never achieved and was reduced first to 30 divisions in mid 50's and eventually in 1962 NATO had 24 divisions in Europe ( againts 50 Soviet divisions in the first strategic echelon and another 100 in the follow up forces ). So the reliance on massive nuclear retaliation can't come as a surprise. During this period, the first weak Bundeswehr divisions were formed so the French, Dutch and British used this as an opportunity to reduce their forces. France actually withdrew from the NATO military structures in 1966. At the same time the number of US troops in Europe shrunk from 400 thousands to 300 thousands at the end of 60's ( mostly due to the involvement in Vietnam ). Today we see the same process on a different scale. USAREUR is getting smaller due to the different priorities. This fragment of the book seems to me very illuminating:

A more serious issue was fraying German-American relations over American demands for burden sharing. Unhappiness in Washington over the cost of maintaining forces in Europe had been building since Kennedy administration when discontent in the US Senate threatened the removal of American troops unless the Europeans , particularly Germans, helped solved imbalance of payments.

Does this not sound all too familiar? It's quite shocking that such a frictions could take place at the height of Cold War. In my opinion the above proves, that a strong and united Cold War NATO, is to some extent a myth.

The fact that Europe was still rebuilding after 6 years of war, a Europe that had suffered horrendous losses to both military and civilians, a Europe that was still rebuilding its infrastructure and economies, a Europe that had a big brother across the pond that would come and save the day (again!!), a Europe that was paying of massive loans and lend-lease payments. A huge standing army was something Europe could ill afford, and lets not overlook the cost of the war to the USSR who suffered even worst losses in terms of military/civilian/infrastructure/economy and who was reducing the size of its forces in Europe during this time period anyway so Europe didn't need to create and maintain 50 divisions, all it had to do was hold of defeat until additional forces could be brought in from the US and other 'overseas' countries.

Is it really any surprise that Europe couldn't (or didn't want to) maintain a huge standing army, not really and likewise the US didn't want to be incurring the cost of maintaining a large force on the other side of the world, but no one wanted to inflict crippling reparations on Germany as it seen as one of the causes of political instability during the 1920's that lead to the Nazi's rise in power

There have always been divisions within NATO and will always be divisions within NATO, sometimes the divisions are clear and visible other times not - when the US invaded Grenada in 1986(?) it was Britian who lead the condemnation of the invasion in the UN meetings, and Britain has, since WW2, viewed itself as having a 'special relationship' with the US.

Fast forward to the end of the cold war, and you'll notice that post 1991 there was no visible direct threat to NATO/Europe resulting in the cut backs in military spending across Europe, after the breakup of the Warsaw pact and the USSR Russia was not viewed as a direct threat to European stability until the situation in Ukraine and Crimea occurred.

Does this mean the western governments and think-tanks get it wrong - maybe
Does this mean

Even during the Cold War, the Europeans were reluctant to take their defence obligations seriously

No and I find this sort of comment demeaning to the men and women who risked and gave their lives daily during the cold war to ensure that we never saw WW3.

[ivanov]

I've started a new thread

tm.asp?m=3877800&mpage=1&key=&#3877800

[delete1]

This is where all the WMD context is/was about...

Obama and the Royals: Human Rights Aren’t a Concern, When Oil is at Stake

Finian Cunningham
AP / Hasan Jamali

Whereas American support for Israel has both religious antecedents and is based on a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, elsewhere in the region, the supply of oil and lucrative arms contracts continue to drive conflicts and regimes which at times seem centuries behind the rest of the world.

While pandering to the most repressive regimes on Earth with the finest American hospitality last week, President Obama came out with some outlandish, ludicrous statements.

Barack Obama was hosting the royal rulers of the six Persian Gulf Arab states in Washington. First there was the VIP treatment and photo-ops on the White House's South Lawn, then a fireside chat in the Oval Office, followed by a private meeting at the president's mountain retreat at Camp David in Maryland, some 100km north of the capital.

The oil-rich Arab guests hailed from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain. These sheikhdoms — historically carved out of the Arabian desert by the British Empire — are among the most wealthy and the most repressive regimes in the world.

Their rulers are pampered hereditary scions who systematically curtail free speech and public gatherings, ruling with an iron-fist. In all of these despotic regimes, people are routinely flung into dungeons for daring to make public comments that might be deemed critical of the ruling elite. In Qatar, for example, a young poet was jailed for 15 years because he wrote a poem that was mildly critical of the ruling Al Thani family, whose emir, Tamim bin Hamad al Thani, was in Obama's company this past week.

In Saudi Arabia, the ruling House of Saud has publicly beheaded 80 people this year alone; their blood-stained corpses were then dangled from helicopters as a warning to would-be offenders. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef was also among those enjoying Obama's hospitality.

Furthermore, the warped version of Islam espoused by the Gulf despots — called Wahhabism — is rabidly intolerant of any other form of religion, including more conventional forms of Sunni or Shia Islam, let alone Christianity and other faiths. All are condemned as "infidels" by the Gulf Arab rulers in their obscurantist, backward ideology.

This extreme intolerance under Wahhabism was encouraged by the British imperialists when Saudi Arabia was first formed as a state in 1932. It proved back then to be an efficient tool for imposing tyranny and crushing any dissent toward the rulers and their imperial master.

The same holds today. Washington has replaced London as the main international patron of the Gulf Arab dynasties. But their extremism still continues to serve as a tool for exerting geopolitical control in this vital oil-rich region.

In response to the high cost of US shale, Saudi Arabia has been selling its massive stockpile of crude oil at rock-bottom prices.

That explains why the Arab sheikhs in Washington this past week are among the foremost treasurers and arms suppliers for the myriad terror groups ranging from Al Qaeda to ISIL. These groups continue to threaten the Middle East, inciting sectarian conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon, destabilizing governments and fomenting regime change, as in Libya and Syria.

The financial and armaments links between the Saudis, Qataris and other Gulf despots on the one hand and terrorist mercenary groups on the other is well documented. Even US officials have acknowledged this; for example, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was revealed through WikiLeaks disclosures to be well aware of the role of Saudi Arabia in supporting Al Qaeda-linked terror networks. So too was the former US ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, who is also on record in 2010 as saying that the Saudi regime was instrumental in fuelling sectarian violence in that country.

Yet Obama regaled the Arab tyrants in Washington last week, saying that the US and the sheikhdoms are the "cornerstone of peace, stability and security in the Middle East."

The president added: "The United States and Saudi Arabia have an extraordinary friendship and relationship that dates back to Franklin Roosevelt [in 1945]."

All this was said by Obama with a straight face and sincere intonation. Which raises the question: is he a very good liar, or is this guy just really stupid? Why does the US continue to funnel billions of dollars of weapons every year to the Gulf dictatorships in the hopes that this will ensure peace and stability if these regimes are complicit in the terrorist activity that threatens the tranquility of the Muslim world?

Right now and for the past nearly seven weeks, the Saudi-led Gulf states have been pounding the people of Yemen day and night with American-supplied warplanes and bombs, including internationally banned cluster bombs that kill everything in their blast radius. Thousands of Yemeni women and children have been slaughtered in this US-backed campaign against the poorest country on the Arabian Peninsula.

Saudi Arabia may trigger a new kind of arms race in the middle east, as leaders insist the gulf state wants to match Iran's newly established nuclear enrichment capabilities.

The Saudi-led aerial bombardment has blockaded Yemen from air and sea routes delivering food, fuel and medical aid. The country depends on exports for 90 per cent of its food and fuel. Some 80 per cent of the Yemeni population of 24 million are now feared to be facing starvation and extreme privation. Children are dying from wounds and diseases because there is no transportation. Families are huddling in sewers to avoid air strikes.

In this desert country, diesel fuel is essential for drawing drinking-water from wells. Because of the Saudi-imposed blockade on Yemen, people are left without any drinking-water. This Saudi-led and American-backed barbarity breaks every precept of international and humanitarian law under the baseless, contemptible pretext of "protecting Yemen from Iranian-supported rebels."

This barbarity of collective punishment meted out to civilians was condemned this week by United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator Johannes van der Klaauw.

On April 28, American-supplied Saudi fighter jets bombed the runway and traffic-control tower of the international airport in Yemen's capital, Sanaa, in order to prevent an Iranian civilian cargo plane from landing with humanitarian aid. An Iranian cargo ship, coordinated with the International Red Cross Committee, is due to dock in Yemen next week with food and medical supplies. The vessel may again be blocked by Saudi forces, thus provoking a possible war with Iran.

These are the kind of maniacal, lawless regimes that Washington considers "extraordinary friends", who together, allegedly, maintain peace, stability and security in the Middle East.

We, of course, shouldn't exempt Israel from condemnation; right up until last year it has been jumping at every excuse to fight one-sided wars of annihilation against its Palestinian neighbors. The 2014 Gaza conflict claimed over 2,100 Palestinian civilian lives; despite deafening state propaganda in the social and traditional media promoting the state's response to the Gaza menace, only six civilians died on the Israeli side.

While it can be argued that American support for Israel has both religious antecedents and is based on an extremely powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, elsewhere in the region, the supply of oil, the propping up of the petrodollar, and lucrative contracts for arms dealers continue to drive ongoing conflicts and regimes which at times seem centuries behind the rest of the world.

If American activity in the region seems confusing, it's instructive to view it as a reaction to Arab nationalism and the British experience in the region. When British assets were nationalized in countries like Iran and Egypt, the British and the Americans were made to understand that local leaders such as Mohammad Mosaddegh answered to their citizens and could not relied upon to facilitate the transfer of oil to companies like the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). As long as the US had a reliable local regime to work with which was fundamentally anti-communist, it would be ensured that the oil would continue to flow. The establishment of monarchies in the region as client states was a modern-day Metternich-style solution.

Unfortunately, the establishment of OPEC and other similar events eventually revealed to the US that it couldn't control the region completely; the Saudi monster it had helped to perpetuate was one that was easier to appease than to tame. President Obama was compelled, for example, to cut a major state visit to India short earlier this year to attend the funeral of Saudi King Abdullah, and was joined by Vice President Joe Biden as well as Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA Director John Brennan, former Secretaries of State James Baker and Condoleezza Rice, not to mention Senator John McCain. Perhaps the question shouldn't be whether or not Obama is ignorant to praise the Saudis; maybe we should ask how much power the Saudis really have.

[HeinzBaby]

+Daniel Rincon
I sometimes wonder who is the 'Evil Empire'
regarding the fanfare from the G7 meeting in Bavaria with all the press, to the complete press lockdown of the Bilderburg Group meeting in Austria a week later makes you thing that our National governments are nothing more than caretakers to these silent movers and and shakers.

[delete1]

I agree HeinzBaby. No innocence and no misinformation in geopolitics. They all know exactly what they are doing and want to do, specially world powers. I think that is even more strong today as it looks like every single phone and PC is being monitored worldwide.

Russians are in Ukraine, yes they are. Americans are in Ukraine, yes they are. Right at the beginning, involved in actions that lead to the coup in Kiev. That place is a geoestrategic chessboard, similar as to other places around the globe, south China sea, Middle East and so on. Power, money and influence. Those are the ingredients of foreign policies actions.

Perhaps the only innocents involved in all this are the ordinary people. The 10 years old boy in Donbass crying along the body pieces of his family spreaded out after a Grad shell and the bus driver father trying to hold in his hands his 3 young children dead in Yemen after a Soudi Arabia bombing. We can just imagine hundreds of those similar stories.

I just dont buy the general picture of the evil, soulless tyrant Valdimir Putin, the holy blessed, pure, source of all peace, stability and love Obama and its allies and the poor, helpless Poroshenko stuff that the majority of the western media try to describe. I am not saying that I agree 100% with Putin actions or the russian foreign policy.

Just my opinion.

[Jafele]

Yep, there´s a lot of propaganda out there. History repeats himself again and again.

The best solution is impartial information, however in the past it was difficult to get. [:(] Most of our ancestors were extremely biased.

[ivanov]

Examining Russian drone shot down by Ukrainians

Apparently shot down from DShK at the altitude of 250 meters.

[delete1]

Back in time prior the coup...

"The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957