Ukrainian Crisis

by **Regnum Dominae** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:07 pm

Srboslavija wrote:
Regnum Dominae wrote:RT? No thanks.

Real source please.

It videos, but whatever.

Let's stick with the reliable Twitter updates of the ebil Russian invasion, huh.

Twitter? wat?

I've mostly been using BBC for my news regarding Ukraine.

(also, it's very easy to completely misrepresent videos through editorializing. especialy when the target audience doesn't speak Russian/Ukrainian)

by **Mike the Progressive** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:08 pm

Apparently, American mercenaries and gay rights groups are to blame!

by **Srboslavija** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:08 pm

Chechen Leader Ready to Send Peacekeepers, Humanitarian Aid To Crimea
http://www.rferl.org/content/kadyrov-offers-crimea-aid/25281734.html

Massive respect for President Kadyrov, he has a pretty badass Instagram if anyone is interested - http://instagram.com/kadyrov_95

by **Geilinor** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:09 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:Apparently, American mercenaries and gay rights groups are to blame!

It's not surprising. All hail the Russian Propaganda Machine!

by **Jinwoy** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:12 pm

Geilinor wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:Apparently, American mercenaries and gay rights groups are to blame!

It's not surprising. All hail the Russian Propaganda Machine!

Why does Russia make it so hard to support them. :/

by **Soviet Russia Republic** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:13 pm

Geilinor wrote:No, let's stick with internationally renowned sources, like the BBC and Reuters, for example.

Reuters...yeah they are not basied at all and don't have an overly clear agenda in their reporting on a great deal of subjects. :lol:

by **Costa Fierro** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:13 pm

Srboslavija wrote:
Regnum Dominae wrote:RT? No thanks.

Real source please.

It videos, but whatever.

Let's stick with the reliable Twitter updates of the ebil Russian invasion, huh.

It'd be more objective than a site directly funded by the Kremlin.

by **Connori Pilgrims** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:14 pm

Jinwoy wrote:
Geilinor wrote:It's not surprising. All hail the Russian Propaganda Machine!

Why does Russia make it so hard to support them. :/

Since when did Russia care who supported them?

That's why I find all the people who try to justify what Russia is doing funny. They don't need, nor have they ever needed apologists for what they do.

by **Mike the Progressive** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:15 pm

Soviet Russia Republic wrote:
Geilinor wrote:No, let's stick with internationally renowned sources, like the BBC and Reuters, for example.

Reuters...yeah they are not basied at all and don't have an overly clear agenda in their reporting on a great deal of subjects.

Everybody is biased and has an "agenda." But I'd rather trust a group that has and is willing to critique not only the US but other world powers than media sources that only praise Russia and Putin.

by **Srboslavija** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:18 pm

Costa Fierro wrote:
Srboslavija wrote:
It videos, but whatever.

Let's stick with the reliable Twitter updates of the ebil Russian invasion, huh.

It'd be more objective than a site directly funded by the Kremlin.

No need to be afraid of a different viewpoint.

Though I guess it makes sense when you choose to look at conflicts as "good guys vs bad guys" and CNN/BBC et al are more than willing to simplify it for the masses.

by **Viritica** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:18 pm

Sarah Palin was right. Just putting this out there.

by **Jinwoy** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:19 pm

Viritica wrote:Sarah Palin was right. Just putting this out there.

Sarah Palin is one of those people who are never right, even when they are.

by **Geilinor** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:19 pm

Srboslavija wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:
It'd be more objective than a site directly funded by the Kremlin.

CNN/BBC et al are more than willing to simplify it for the masses.

Do you even read their stories are you just pulling this out of your ass?

by **Occupied Deutschland** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:21 pm

Srboslavija wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:
It'd be more objective than a site directly funded by the Kremlin.

No need to be afraid of a different viewpoint.

Though I guess it makes sense when you choose to look at conflicts as "good guys vs bad guys" and CNN/BBC et al are more than willing to simplify it for the masses.

1) You mean the country that invaded another country isn't having its praises sung by international media?
Awww, poor pobrecito.

2) Russia is, at worst, being judged by its own standard.

If that is too much for them, that's too-goddamned bad.

3) CNN/BBC are hardly slanting things as 'good guys vs. bad guys'.
But the Russian imaginary abuse complex rolls on.

by **Estruia** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:22 pm

Geilinor wrote:
Srboslavija wrote: CNN/BBC et al are more than willing to simplify it for the masses.

Do you even read their stories are you just pulling this out of your ass?

Going off what he's posted in the past, he's pulling this out of his ass.

by **Srboslavija** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:22 pm

Regnum Dominae wrote:
Srboslavija wrote:
It videos, but whatever.

Let's stick with the reliable Twitter updates of the ebil Russian invasion, huh.

Twitter? wat?

I've mostly been using BBC for my news regarding Ukraine.

(also, it's very easy to completely misrepresent videos through editorializing. especialy when the target audience doesn't speak Russian/Ukrainian)

How many BBC articles have you read about the current Ukranian government having 5 active members of Svoboda - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yatsenyuk_Government

You know that Svoboda, which among other radical stances include the removal of Crimea's autonomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)#Stances

oh right, these are the peaceful guys who helped remove Yanukovych, they are pro-EU heroes :roll:

by **Mike the Progressive** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:23 pm

Geilinor wrote:
Srboslavija wrote: CNN/BBC et al are more than willing to simplify it for the masses.

Do you even read their stories are you just pulling this out of your ass?

I also find it comical he's bitching about western media outlets being "biased" and having an "agenda" when Russia media outlets have blamed everybody from American and German mercenaries to ze gayz.

by **Estruia** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:23 pm

Srboslavija wrote:
Regnum Dominae wrote:Twitter? wat?

I've mostly been using BBC for my news regarding Ukraine.

(also, it's very easy to completely misrepresent videos through editorializing. especialy when the target audience doesn't speak Russian/Ukrainian)

How many BBC articles have you read about the current Ukranian government having 5 active members of Svoboda - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yatsenyuk_Government

You know that Svoboda, which among other radical stances include the removal of Crimea's autonomy.

oh right, these are the peaceful guys who helped remove Yanukovych, they are pro-EU heroes

Are you going to just keep repeating the same old, tired stories? Or are you going to actually contribute something?

by **Geilinor** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:24 pm

Srboslavija wrote:
Regnum Dominae wrote:Twitter? wat?

I've mostly been using BBC for my news regarding Ukraine.

(also, it's very easy to completely misrepresent videos through editorializing. especialy when the target audience doesn't speak Russian/Ukrainian)

How many BBC articles have you read about the current Ukranian government having 5 active members of Svoboda - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yatsenyuk_Government

You know that Svoboda, which among other radical stances include the removal of Crimea's autonomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)#Stances

oh right, these are the peaceful guys who helped remove Yanukovych, they are pro-EU heroes

This is a temporary government, wait for the election in 2 months and we'll see what the voters decide.

by **Shofercia** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:24 pm

United States Of Devonta wrote:According to the former Georgian president via CNN interviewthe Ukrainians have the capabilities to shoot down many Russian aircraft. Ukrainians Air defense is surprisingly strong.

Saakashvili giving anti-Russian military advice is comedy gold. "When Russians come, do opposite of what I do!"

Costa Fierro wrote:
United States Of Devonta wrote:If Turkey gets involved that would be extra troops and planes for the Ukrainians and might drag in Nato.

Also Navy support. Although this is very unlikely.

The Turks are willing to get involved at least militarily because of how they view fellow Turkic peoples such as the Tartars, whom they view as "compatriots" due to some misguided idea of ethnic nationalism.

Poland's also invoked Article 4 of the NATO treaty so God only knows what they're planning.

Pounding their chests, huffing and puffing

United States Of Devonta wrote:
Jinwoy wrote:
Wait, we are trusting an external source on this?
He would he know - he's the President of Georgia?

Well I seen this on Cnn, In an interview. The Ukrainian ministry told them this.

The Air Defense Force is a relatively new service within the Armed Forces, established in 2004-2005, through the merging of the Air Force and the Air Defense Force. It allowed the Armed Forces of Ukraine to adopt the tri-service structure, common to most modern armies.

The Air Defense of Ukraine performs key tasks in the protection of Ukraine’s sovereignty and the inviolability of its borders and air space. It has clearly defined functions in both peacetime and wartime, is intended to prevent any enemy air and missile strikes, to defend the most important administrative, political and industrial centers, to aid in the concentration of Army and Navy units, to intercept enemy aircraft and other military objects, and to protect against enemy air and cruise missile strikes.
-Wikipedia

They have some S-200s and many S-300s more then capable of detecting and destroying many of the types Russian aircraft Russia can muster. As you can see there in there own divisions so unit its more like a modern army like Russia and other strong nations. Ukraine has a way stronger Air defense then Georgia did when they where invaded.

You mean when they attacked a Russian Peacekeeping Base, and were invaded as a result, right? Anyways, Georgia had the same defenses that Ukraine currently has, except Ukraine's are weakened due to poor maintenance: http://samlib.ru/m/marchenko_r_a/q1.shtml

United States Of Devonta wrote:
Jinwoy wrote:
Was Air Defence used during the Russian invasion of Georgia?

As what I have read before, Yes. Although Georgia did not have much Air Defense or unit cohesion with Air Defense. If I am right they took down 5 Russian aircraft. Read the loses section further down the link, Each side claimed differently. Although Russia said they downed six.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_war

Mmmhhhmmm. The Tu-22 was downed because of the Tu-22's mistake and/or misuses, i.e. it was operating below the "safe floor" or operations. That's not happening in Ukraine. 2 Su-24s were downed due to their operational misuse. Su-24s are intended to hit a single target, and/or target areas, and not to multi-task. The 2 Su-25s that were downed, well, one was downed by the Ossetians, because it failed to send up signal flares. Might've been a technical flare release error. Another was downed when the pilot became overzealous. The pilot survived, was picked up by SpetzNaz, and came back into action on another Su-25. The one that the Russians reported was downed was an Su-25 that took too many hits, and had to crash land on Russian territory. The pilot survived and was picked by the SpetzNaz.

Srboslavija wrote:
Shofercia wrote:
You too. How's it going?

A bit anxious for all of these shenanigans to end already and peace to return.

наконец украинская угроза будет раздавлен раз и навсегда

Eh, I doubt it'll escalate into full scare warfare. If there's going to be any fighting, it's probably going to be in Western Ukraine after the economy goes kaboomey.

by **Regnum Dominae** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:24 pm

Srboslavija wrote:
Regnum Dominae wrote:Twitter? wat?

I've mostly been using BBC for my news regarding Ukraine.

(also, it's very easy to completely misrepresent videos through editorializing. especialy when the target audience doesn't speak Russian/Ukrainian)

How many BBC articles have you read about the current Ukranian government having 5 active members of Svoboda - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yatsenyuk_Government

You know that Svoboda, which among other radical stances include the removal of Crimea's autonomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)#Stances

oh right, these are the peaceful guys who helped remove Yanukovych, they are pro-EU heroes

On the fringe of every social movement are lunatics.

by **Connori Pilgrims** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:26 pm

Srboslavija wrote:
Regnum Dominae wrote:Twitter? wat?

I've mostly been using BBC for my news regarding Ukraine.

(also, it's very easy to completely misrepresent videos through editorializing. especialy when the target audience doesn't speak Russian/Ukrainian)

How many BBC articles have you read about the current Ukranian government having 5 active members of Svoboda - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yatsenyuk_Government

You know that Svoboda, which among other radical stances include the removal of Crimea's autonomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)#Stances

oh right, these are the peaceful guys who helped remove Yanukovych, they are pro-EU heroes

5 out of 20 positions. Call again if half or all of them are of that party

by **Communist Winnipeg** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:27 pm

by **Jinwoy** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:28 pm

Estruia wrote:
Srboslavija wrote:
How many BBC articles have you read about the current Ukranian government having 5 active members of Svoboda - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yatsenyuk_Government

You know that Svoboda, which among other radical stances include the removal of Crimea's autonomy.

oh right, these are the peaceful guys who helped remove Yanukovych, they are pro-EU heroes

Are you going to just keep repeating the same old, tired stories? Or are you going to actually contribute something?

He will continue to repeat until people learn to listen.
Its in one ear and out the other with Euromaiden supporters who don't seem to realise how bad the current government is compared to the previous administration.

by **Costa Fierro** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:29 pm

Srboslavija wrote:No need to be afraid of a different viewpoint.

It's not an alternative viewpoint. It's propaganda. That's why it was created. If RT was about presenting an alternative viewpoint, it'd do what other "independent" media companies do and look at the facts and come to a conclusion, not simply parrot what the Kremlin says.

Though I guess it makes sense when you choose to look at conflicts as "good guys vs bad guys" and CNN/BBC et al are more than willing to simplify it for the masses.

It's not though. I'm looking at this from what facts I know and have come to my own conclusion. And so far, I have concluded that the Russian occupation of Crimea is illegal according to whatever international laws that are relevant, and that any political solution needs to involve all parties that have vested interests and that it needs to be settled in a democratic fashion. Not at the barrel of a gun.

Ukrainian Crisis

Who is online