Go Back   Ukraine.com Discussion Forum > Society > Politics


Inform napalm about putin’s ultimatum, or “the ss-26 are still laughing”

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 8th February 2015, 12:59
Van Proft Van Proft is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3
Van Proft is on a distinguished road
Inform napalm about putin’s ultimatum, or “the ss-26 are still laughing”

Yesterday we received a few messages from our colleagues abroad about the results of the meeting of Merkel, Hollande, and Putin.

We can’t tell all the details, but to make a long story short, Putin’s blackmailing Europe by saying that he is willing to launch a nuclear missile attack in Ukraine.

The ultimatum was submitted three days ago, which is why European leaders darted off and went to Moscow … No one knows what they agreed on. The press makes hazy claims that they “agreed to finalize the Minsk Agreement”, but at the same time Merkel and Hollande returned looking quite shocked.

However the last part of the negotiations on Ukraine will be held by phone on Sunday. It is obvious that Merkel wants to shift the responsibility on the US and dissociate herself from the decision-making and assume a more passive stance. Obama’s defence-strategy pendulum has swung back toward Europe, but his hesitancy has earned him the status of “paper tiger”, so we can state that Putin has finally led the world to a split. We should note, however, the strength of the “hawk” lobby in the United States, notably in the Congress, so it is still too early to speak of a complete surrender of the West to Putin’s ultimatum.

Nevertheless, Europe’s passivity may soon backfire.

It’s important to remember that in the second half of December 2014 German media outlets tripped over each other while shouting about the deployment of Russian Iskander tactical missile systems (PTRC) in the Kaliningrad region. In response, the Russian Defence Minister, Sergei Shoigu, said that the Iskanders will be placed where the Russian leadership sees fit. Furthermore, #Shoigu made it clear that Russia does not want peace and is preparing for war, stating that: “In 2015, we will have largely completed the troop deployment program on Franz Josef Land and Novaya Zemlya, and will still be conducting research on Wrangel Island. Thus, the entire zone will be closed [with Iskanders – Ed].

As for Ukraine, it is absolutely not in vain that Putin called Crimea – “a sacred place.” Iskanders were planted there after last year’s occupation and it’s from there that Putin would make good on the ultimatum and launch his rocket attacks. Perhaps the strikes would target the fortified areas and the headquarters of the Ukrainian forces. Perhaps, the main target will be Dnipropetrovsk or Kyiv. In the longer run, Crimea is also a good base to control the Mediterranean, and we think that Turkey will not consider such a neighborhood to be safe.

In the near future it will become clear what conclusion the world leaders have come to, but the decision is not easy for them to make: it is impossible to continuously make concessions – it only strengthens the enemy, makes it more daring, and leaves nowhere to retreat… Putin allows himself to blackmail the world with the threat of a new world war and it must be stopped before it’s too late. However effective sanctions may be, it is a very slow way to crush a dictator, and this one is becoming even more aggressive and unpredictable…
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 8th February 2015, 15:30
Hannia Hannia is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,003
Hannia will become famous soon enough

That Didn't Take Long: The First Lie about Moscow Meeting

Kerry claims the initiative came from Moscow
By Pepe Escobar


Not much has filtered out of the Medusa Merkel/General Hollande/Vlad tense threesome in Moscow. And yet John Kerry, as usual, is already lying through his teeth about their trip to the Kremlin.

He said Putin had sent “a couple of ideas” to France and Germany, and Merkel/Hollande were responding. Nonsense: Merkel/Hollande – in desperation – went to Moscow to talk to Putin because Putin has the ONLY possible plan to stabilize Ukraine - and that has been the case for months now.

Otherwise, there WILL be war, which is exactly what Empire of Chaos masterminds in D.C. want.

Kerry lied the extra mile when he said the US wanted a diplomatic solution. BUT then came the usual talk of “reviewing all options”, including “the possibility of providing defensive systems to Ukraine”.

Do that – and the Russian response will be devastating.

No wonder the absolute majority of the EU – apart from crackpot Lithuanians – is opposed to weaponizing Kiev’s goons.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung – a very decent paper – last Sunday featured Russian military expert Yevgeny Buchinsky warning that if that happens, “Russia will have to intervene, and then, bluntly speaking, to take Kiev. Then NATO would be in a difficult situation. Then you would have to start World War III, which no one wants.”

That may be a bit Dr. Strangelovian and over the top – but the Süddeutsche Zeitung was on the money to stress Washington weaponizing Kiev’s goons would be interpreted by Russia as a declaration of war.

Medusa Merkel, on the record, is against it. But Chocolateshenko is, what else, hysterical: “I don’t have any doubt that the US and other partners will provide help with lethal weapons so that Ukraine will be able to defend itself.”

"If that happens, all hell will break loose. Russia will act. And the Empire of Chaos will spin it as "more aggression". Escalation will be inevitable. And then all bets are off.

Predictably, Western corporate media is spinning this whole debacle is now due to FEAR OF THE DEVIL – as in Vlad. The fears apparently rampant in Brussels and assorted European capitals (among pol clowns, for sure; NOT in the streets)

The rhetoric is beyond ominous.

Carl Bildt, former Swedish foreign minister, said war “between Russia and the West” was now CONCEIVABLE.

General Hollande, on the record, talked about the risk of “total war”.

General Sir Richard Shirreff, top British banana, sorry, NATO “commander” until last March, said a “strong message” should be sent to Putin if MAINLAND EUROPE (!!!) was to avoid “total war”.

Fogh of War Rasmussen – the Return of the Living Dead! – said that Putin could expand “Soviet revisionism” to NATO and the EU. In the Baltics, he said Putin would go for a little exercise in “hybrid warfare”.

There will be more (minor) EU sanctions on Monday. The hardcore economic sanctions against Russian banks and companies lapse only in July. Italy and Greece may torpedo them for good when that happens.

Even EU bureaucrats admit – off the record – sanctions are ridiculous, sanctioning in fact the EU for least 15% of exports to Russia. The Brits, predictably – shades of the Great Game never vanish – lead the pro-sanction crowd.

Some idiot in the Grauniad passing as “Europe editor” (where do they find these people? Getting pissed in a pub after an Arsenal match ?) wrote that “Putin is increasingly seen as a reckless gambler who calls bluffs and takes risks, and is inscrutable, paranoid and unpredictable.” Looks like this was ghostwritten by a State Department hack.

And other rags go on the same road: the real nightmare for Europe is not Ukraine, bur Evil Vlad. NO ONE dares to criticize the Empire of Chaos.

And now back to…


Make sure to fully check out credibility of this site.
Interesting that Van Proft's post is based on what is here, but url has not been provided.
** That Didn't Take Long: The First Lie about Moscow Meeting :* Information Clearing House - ICH

æ, !

Hannia - Hania - Mighthelp
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 8th February 2015, 15:40
Hannia Hannia is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,003
Hannia will become famous soon enough
Leaders Aim to Hold Ukraine Summit in Minsk Wednesday
By Associated Press | February 8, 2015 EPOCH TIMES

MUNICH— The leaders of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine aim to hold a summit in Minsk this week as they try to stem fighting in eastern Ukraine, officials in Germany and France said Sunday.

The plan for a meeting Wednesday in the Belarusian capital emerged from a phone call between German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, described the call as “intensive.”

The aim is to draw up a package of measures that breathes new life into a much-violated September peace plan. Seibert and the French government said preparations for the summit will take place Monday in Berlin, without elaborating.

There will also be a meeting in Minsk by Wednesday of the signatories to last September’s accord, including Russia, Ukraine and representatives of separatists in eastern Ukraine, they said.

Before the summit Merkel, who met Friday night in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin, is scheduled to meet with President Barack Obama in Washington Monday on a previously scheduled trip.

At an international security conference in Munich, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. and its European allies are “united in our diplomacy” on Ukraine. He said the U.S. supports efforts by France and Germany to produce a new plan to end the conflict that is now raging in east Ukraine.

Kerry denied that there is a U.S.-Europe rift over how to respond to the crisis and how to deal with Russia’s role in it despite a debate over whether to arm the government in Kiev.

“There is no division, there is no split,” Kerry said. “I keep hearing people trying to create one. We are united, we are working closely together.”

His comments came amid reports of a deep trans-Atlantic rift over the Obama administration’s consideration of providing defensive weaponry to Kiev. Germany and France oppose such a move, saying it could lead to an escalation and that they do not believe the conflict can be resolved militarily. Russia, which is accused of supporting separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine, has said the introduction of U.S.-supplied weaponry will have grave consequences.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, speaking alongside Kerry, reiterated that he considers delivering weapons “not just highly risky but counterproductive.”

Kerry said the United States agrees that there is no military solution to the Ukraine crisis that has now killed more than 5,300 people, according to the United Nations.

At the same time, U.S. officials say Obama is rethinking his previous opposition to sending arms to Ukraine despite fears it could lead to a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The officials have, however, suggested that any such weaponry would be intended to help Kiev defend itself once a peace agreement is reached.

Kerry likened the U.S.-European debate over arms to previous consultations over the breadth and strength of sanctions against Russia.

“The discussion taking place today is absolutely no different — it’s tactical, it is not strategic,” Kerry said. “On the fundamental goal with respect to Ukraine, we are absolutely united … we want a diplomatic solution.”
Leaders Aim to Hold Ukraine Summit in Minsk Wednesday

æ, !

Hannia - Hania - Mighthelp
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 9th February 2015, 01:00
Szary Szary is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: west coast USA
Posts: 219
Szary is on a distinguished road
No, just because I am posting this New York Times article does not make me a Kremlin lover, it just means that like this professor I think arming Ukraine further will escalate things further as Putin is nuts and a loose cannon. Merkel is no fan of Putin but she recognizes this, which is why she has said Germany will not send arms. Not because she doesn't want to help, but because sees it spiraling out of control. After things settle down and there and peace is restored, that would be a good time to send arms for future security..

Don't Arm Ukraine
New York Times

The Ukraine crisis is almost a year old and Russia is winning. The separatists in eastern Ukraine are gaining ground and Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, shows no signs of backing down in the face of Western economic sanctions.

Unsurprisingly, a growing chorus of voices in the United States is calling for arming Ukraine. A recent report from three leading American think tanks endorses sending Kiev advanced weaponry, and the White House’s nominee for secretary of defense, Ashton B. Carter, said last week to the Senate armed services committee, “I very much incline in that direction.”

They are wrong. Going down that road would be a huge mistake for the United States, NATO and Ukraine itself. Sending weapons to Ukraine will not rescue its army and will instead lead to an escalation in the fighting. Such a step is especially dangerous because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and is seeking to defend a vital strategic interest.

There is no question that Ukraine’s military is badly outgunned by the separatists, who have Russian troops and weapons on their side. Because the balance of power decisively favors Moscow, Washington would have to send large amounts of equipment for Ukraine’s army to have a fighting chance.

But the conflict will not end there. Russia would counter-escalate, taking away any temporary benefit Kiev might get from American arms. The authors of the think tank study concede this, noting that “even with enormous support from the West, the Ukrainian Army will not be able to defeat a determined attack by the Russian military.” In short, the United States cannot win an arms race with Russia over Ukraine and thereby ensure Russia’s defeat on the battlefield.

Proponents of arming Ukraine have a second line of argument. The key to success, they maintain, is not to defeat Russia militarily, but to raise the costs of fighting to the point where Mr. Putin will cave. The pain will supposedly compel Moscow to withdraw its troops from Ukraine and allow it to join the European Union and NATO and become an ally of the West.

This coercive strategy is also unlikely to work, no matter how much punishment the West inflicts. What advocates of arming Ukraine fail to understand is that Russian leaders believe their country’s core strategic interests are at stake in Ukraine; they are unlikely to give ground, even if it means absorbing huge costs.

Great powers react harshly when distant rivals project military power into their neighborhood, much less attempt to make a country on their border an ally. This is why the United States has the Monroe Doctrine, and today no American leader would ever tolerate Canada or Mexico joining a military alliance headed by another great power.

Russia is no exception in this regard. Thus Mr. Putin has not budged in the face of sanctions and is unlikely to make meaningful concessions if the costs of the fighting in Ukraine increase.

Upping the ante in Ukraine also risks unwanted escalation. Not only would the fighting in eastern Ukraine be sure to intensify, but it could also spread to other areas. The consequences for Ukraine, which already faces profound economic and social problems, would be disastrous.

The possibility that Mr. Putin might end up making nuclear threats may seem remote, but if the goal of arming Ukraine is to drive up the costs of Russian interference and eventually put Moscow in an acute situation, it cannot be ruled out. If Western pressure succeeded and Mr. Putin felt desperate, he would have a powerful incentive to try to rescue the situation by rattling the nuclear saber.

Our understanding of the mechanisms of escalation in crises and war is limited at best, although we know the risks are considerable. Pushing a nuclear-armed Russia into a corner would be playing with fire.

Advocates of arming Ukraine recognize the escalation problem, which is why they stress giving Kiev “defensive,” not “offensive,” weapons. Unfortunately, there is no useful distinction between these categories: All weapons can be used for attacking and defending. The West can be sure, though, that Moscow will not see those American weapons as “defensive,” given that Washington is determined to reverse the status quo in eastern Ukraine.

The only way to solve the Ukraine crisis is diplomatically, not militarily. Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, seems to recognize that fact, as she has said Germany will not ship arms to Kiev. Her problem, however, is that she does not know how to bring the crisis to an end.

She and other European leaders still labor under the delusion that Ukraine can be pulled out of Russia’s orbit and incorporated into the West, and that Russian leaders must accept that outcome. They will not.

To save Ukraine and eventually restore a working relationship with Moscow, the West should seek to make Ukraine a neutral buffer state between Russia and NATO. It should look like Austria during the Cold War. Toward that end, the West should explicitly take European Union and NATO expansion off the table, and emphasize that its goal is a nonaligned Ukraine that does not threaten Russia. The United States and its allies should also work with Mr. Putin to rescue Ukraine’s economy, a goal that is clearly in everyone’s interest.

It is essential that Russia help end the fighting in eastern Ukraine and that Kiev regain control over that region. Still, the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk should be given substantial autonomy, and protection for Russian language rights should be a top priority.

Crimea, a casualty of the West’s attempt to march NATO and the European Union up to Russia’s doorstep, is surely lost for good. It is time to end that imprudent policy before more damage is done — to Ukraine and to relations between Russia and the West.

John J. Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, is the author of “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.”

Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 9th February 2015, 02:41
Hannia Hannia is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,003
Hannia will become famous soon enough
Dr. Mearsheimer is a well-known proponent of the principle of war deterrence, so there's no surprise as to his position on Ukraine.
Merkel is on her way to Washington to inform Obama. She will likely leave D.C. w/Obama's skepticism ringing in her ears. Many in his administration believe that Putin will use the talks only as a stalling tactic. Putin does have a track record. He has already failed to live up to the previously signed Minsk peace agreement. The threat of U.S. arms shipments won’t harm the talks, but if the diplomatic efforts fail then the option to ship arms becomes likely.

æ, !

Hannia - Hania - Mighthelp
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 9th February 2015, 02:47
AkMike AkMike is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 918
AkMike is on a distinguished road
Originally Posted by Szary View Post
the West should seek to make Ukraine a neutral buffer state between Russia and NATO.
Gee do you think that Ukriane might want to have a say so in who they align with and possibly have a say so in their own future?

There op-ed pieces are so funny in that they know sooooo much more than even the ones involved.

Retirement sucks! You never get a day off!!!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 9th February 2015, 03:51
stepanstas stepanstas is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,146
stepanstas is on a distinguished road
Originally Posted by Szary View Post
After things settle down and there and peace is restored, that would be a good time to send arms for future security..
Regretfully this will never happen. At what point can peace be restored if Russia is actively funding and arming one side?
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:05.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC4 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.