[mpyne]

> why is it OK for the West to support regime that kills Ukrainian civilians en masse.

Why do you try to imply that identifying pro-Putin shills is equivalent to supporting "a [Ukrainian] regime that kills Ukrainian civilians en masse"?

Assuming your supposition is true for now, why do you not go further and think to imply that these civilians would not be getting killed en masse if Putin would withdraw forces of the Russian Federation from the sovereign territory [1] of Ukraine?

History shows that the truest way to harm civilians in conflict between groups that are not trying to kill civilians (either directly through systemic action or indirectly through things like famine) is to prolong the armed conflict by interceding on behalf of one side or the other.

But even if you're completely right and not involuntarily affected by propaganda yourself, just because someone tries to keep a comment board free of "shills" of all types doesn't mean someone is necessarily aligned with any side, which is an issue you appear to be conflating here.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

[pipy]

> Why do you not go further and think to imply that these civilians would not be getting killed en masse if Putin would withdraw forces of the Russian Federation from the sovereign territory of Ukraine?

Because there are no forces of Russian federation, probably apart from some Spec Ops, logistics and reconnaissance units.

> History shows that the truest way to harm civilians in conflict between groups that are not trying to kill civilians (either directly through systemic action or indirectly through things like famine) is to prolong the armed conflict by interceding on behalf of one side or the other.

So you say that Russia should abandon support of people of Donetsk and Luhansk and leave them at the mercy of Kiev government, who is committing crimes against them? [1]

I actually watch Ukrainian mainstream television and recently one of the experts was openly talking about the need to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" [2]. And he didn't get fined or jailed for these words, or even challenged by the TV host. If this is not Fascism, I don't know what is.

Why don't you ask questions such as: who started this mess? What has Russia done to stop it? What has the West done to stop it?

[1] http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-haw...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCD4RS9LsTI

[mpyne]

> Because there are no forces of Russian federation, probably apart from some Spec Ops, logistics and reconnaissance units.

Or in other words, Russian military forces have invaded a neighboring nation, unless there is permission from Kiev for such uniformed armed forces to be on the sovereign territory of Ukraine?....

As far as I can tell, your link [1] implies that the only reason Kiev is using air strikes or artillery is because of the presence of hostile military forces in their sovereign territory.

So, yes, I would suggest Russia should "abandon" the people of Donetsk and Luhansk (and for that matter, Crimea), return to its own sovereign territory, and then the fighting will stop as there will quickly be no hostile forces to launch artillery or air strikes against.

You implied with that link [1] that Russia intervened only after Kiev started committing atrocities against people in Donetsk and Luhansk, but the order appears to be completely opposite.

> I actually watch Ukrainian mainstream television and recently one of the experts was openly talking about the need to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" [2].

> And he didn't get fined or jailed for this words, or even challenged by the TV host.

He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"?

Maybe the TV host didn't challenge him because his comments are already so backward and idiotic as to not need further emphasis.

And either way, are you trying to imply that some random asshole on T.V. spouting their stupid backward opinion about a million people he's never met, is justification enough to invade the sovereign territory of another nation. I mean, even Bush 43 tried to put a better case together than that when he went off to disaster in Iraq...

[pipy]

> As far as I can tell, your link [1] implies that the only reason Kiev is using air strikes or artillery is because of the presence of hostile military forces in their sovereign territory.

No, it doesn't. Because there is no evidence of massive Russian troop presence, not to my knowledge. This is why you cannot attribute the sheer scale of Ukrainian Government actions to this issue.

I will quote the article for your convenience:

Poroshenko’s “peace plan” and June 21 cease-fire may have seemed such an opportunity, except for their two core conditions: fighters in the southeast first had to “lay down their arms,” and he alone would decide with whom to negotiate peace. The terms seemed more akin to conditions of surrender, and were probably the real reason Poroshenko unilaterally ended the cease-fire on July 1 and intensified Kiev’s assault on eastern cities, initially on the smaller towns of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, which their defenders abandoned—to prevent more civilian casualities, they said—on July 5–6. [1]

The fact that there is a genuine insurgency by the Eastern Ukrainians that is not attributable to Russian influence has been supported by multiple experts from different countries. [2]

Even the sociologist that gets his money from US State Department says that:

"And the polls which were done in the first half of [May--and?] it means after massacre in Odessa and after very brutal attack on Mariupol by Ukrainian forces, they were showing that at least even in Donbass there are various--some sort of support for the claims of separatists, and the people in Donbas saw their seizure of governmental buildings as people's [incompr.] not as a terrorist act, not as a Russian intervention. But this were the public opinion in Donbass." [3]

>He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"?

OK, for me it was too emotional to claim this and to talk about this TV show.

[1] http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-haw...

[2] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=...

[3] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=...

[mpyne]

I don't doubt that there are people in Ukraine actually supportive of, and legitimately participating in, that separatist movement.

But that is not, by itself, justification for Russia to intervene, especially unilaterally. It's not, never will be.

Think of the logic: If there were a group of 5,000 Americans living in Russia (who had been forced to move there 50 years earlier during a period of American rule in Russia), and they rebelled against Moscow (after lengthy exhortations and propaganda from D.C.), would you really be OK with America sending military forces to intervene on behalf of those separatists? Would you be OK with America providing very advanced weaponry, passports, military support, intelligence support, international top cover and more, all to support this separatist movement?

Or would you say that it was an internal matter for Russians to resolve amongst themselves, and that other states should stay out of the sovereign territory of the Russian Federation? I can tell you the U.S. certainly didn't want outside intervention during our own civil war.

See, this isn't two states playing covert war games in a third state, this is Ukraine fighting for its sovereignty against a separatist movement (however many legitimate aspects it might contain), with Ukraine's bordering neighbor deliberately intervening to tilt the scales as they wish.

[pipy]

> I can tell you the U.S. certainly didn't want outside intervention during our own civil war.

So, you say that US has the right to support one side, including an anti-constitutional coup against democratically elected president, and Russia has no right to support the other side? I beg to disagree.

In fact, Kiev has been Washington’s military proxy against Russia and its “compatriots” in eastern Ukraine for months. Since the political crisis began, Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA Director John Brennan and Vice President Joseph Biden (twice) have been in Kiev, followed by “senior US defense officials,” American military equipment and financial aid. Still more, a top US Defense Department official informed a Senate committee that the department’s “advisers” are now “embedded” in the Ukrainian defense ministry. [1]

> This isn't two states playing covert war games in a third state, this is Ukraine fighting for its sovereignty against a separatist movement.

This is one way to see it. Hopefully, I gave you enough information to explain how it is possible to view the issue from completely different point of view.

[1] http://www.thenation.com/article/180825/why-washington-riski...

[mpyne]

> So, you say that US has the right to support one side, including an anti-constitutional coup against democratically elected president, and Russia has no right to support the other side?

All outside parties have the right to be supportive of whichever side they wish.

The ways in which that support is expressed are not all allowable under international law, however. For instance, Obama supports the "moderate Syrian opposition", yet the U.S. has not invaded parts of Syria and annexed it, and then sent further military forces into the remainder of Syria to fight against Assad.

> Hopefully, I gave you enough information to explain how it is possible to view the issue from completely different point of view.

You didn't need to remind me that there are alternate POVs. I'm sure that Russia has interests in Ukraine that are much different that the E.U., or the U.S., or NATO, or even Ukraine itself.

But having interests is no right to do whatever you wish. I've already expressed Obama's interest in the situation in Syria, yet you don't see him breaking down in a teary-eyed fit in international media about how Assad simply won't listen to him.

Obama is doing what he thinks he can and the situation will either resolve itself in the U.S.'s favor or it won't. But even if it doesn't go the U.S.'s way, he still won't invade. We used to be able to say the same of Putin, until Crimea (something he did finally admit to lying about, after the fact).

"Covert" action is one thing. Sending weapons and money is one thing. These are all things that are generally understood to be allowable ways for outside parties to aid (or not) belligerents. But even the things that are allowed come at the price of responsibility, which is why Obama won't give all the Super Ray Guns to Syrian moderates.

Some things, however, are never allowed, such as sending military forces to invade and annex the sovereign territory of another nation. Russia supported the rest of the world in stopping the last time a tinpot dictator tried that exercise, in Kuwait. But now Russia is the aggressor itself...

[PerfectDlite]

> real reason Poroshenko unilaterally ended the cease-fire on July 1

Real reason was that pro-russian bandits continue to fire on Ukrainian forces despite all the arrangements.

And as for "would decide with whom to negotiate peace" this is absolutely acceptable, because there are a lot of bandit leaders in play and it's hard to understand who's responsible for peace negotiating.

[xi]

Maybe the TV host didn't challenge him because his comments are already so backward and idiotic as to not need further emphasis.

I'll give you a better explanation: the TV host didn't challenge him because it never happened. The "expert" (another journalist, in fact) never suggested to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" or anything close to it.

[pipy]

Hello, Kirill. :)

The expert is a journalist, from a newspaper «Тиждень». [1]

Here are the qoutes:

Донбасс – это не просто депрессивный регион. Там дикое количество ненужных людей. Я абсолютно осознанно об этом говорю. В Донецкой области примерно 4 миллиона жителей. И не менее 1,5 миллионов лишних. Нам не надо понимать Донбасс. Нам надо понимать украинский национальный интерес. А Донбасс нужно использовать как ресурс. [...] В отношении Донбасса: я не знаю рецепта, как это сделать быстро. Однако наиглавнейшее, что нужно сделать: есть люди, которых необходимо просто убить.

Which means that there is an "excess of 1.5 millions of people" in Donetsk Region, that "[people of] Donetsk Region mustn't be undestood [by the people from the rest of Ukraine], and Donetsk Region [and it's people] must be used as a resource instead" and "I don't know how to solve that problem [to remove excessive civilians], but the main thing is that some people must be physically eliminated".

So:

1. There are 1.5 millions of civilians of Donetsk region that are excessive.

2. People of Donetsk region mustn't be understood by the rest of Ukraine. Which literally means that they do not fit in Ukrainian Nation, they are not part of it.

3. He doesn't know the recipe how to remove the excessive civilians, but some people must be physically eliminated.

In the context of the whole TV show he is talking about elimination of excessive civilians. One could argue if he considers possible to physically eliminate 1.5 million of them, or only part of them and drive others by away by force or by economical means, etc.

> The "expert" (another journalist, in fact) never suggested to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" or anything close to it.

So, even though I have already claimed that it was too emotional for me to mention this TV show, I consider myself to have provided reasonable translation of his words.

P.S.

I've actually used pyyaml parser. :)

Edit: here is the relevant part of the show for you to check: [2]

[1] http://tyzhden.ua/Author/76/Publications/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhYyj5l9Lx0

[xi]

Which means that there is an "excess of 1.5 millions of people" in Donetsk Region, that "[people of] Donetsk Region mustn't be undestood [by the people from the rest of Ukraine], and Donetsk Region [and it's people] must be used as a resource instead" and "I don't know how to solve that problem [to remove excessive civilians], but the main thing is that some people must be physically eliminated".

Wow, this is truly creative editing. None of your insertions are implied from the context and the quotes you picked up are several minutes apart. In particular, he talks about 1.5 millions of people lacking meaningful job prospects as one of the causes of the unrest (which is true). A few minutes later, when he talks about about killing people, nowhere he implies millions of civilians, in fact, it's obvious he means armed militants.

[pipy]

I've probably been too emotional about this interview, sorry about that. You are right, he can be interpreted differently.

I have people that I know on both sides of Ukraine and everything that is going on creeps me out completely.

[PerfectDlite]

How wonderful of you to provide link [2] to a real interview, but trying to support kremlin fakes with that link.

TL;DR - he didn't said "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation"

[BugBrother]

>>Why don't you ask questions such as: who started this mess?

You mean Ukraine when it militarily destabilized and took over Krim?

Oh, wait... :-)

[pipy]

> You mean Ukraine when it militarily destabilized and took over Krim?

How many people have died in Crimea?

[BugBrother]

(Karma 34 account.)

I can only see that comment as this argument:

You REALLY think that dead civilians are on the heads of those countries defending themselves from military takeovers by non-democratic juntas, like Putin's.

Ah wait!

You also claim that this about large Russian military support of the rebels is just another Western conspiracy.

After the Krim takeover, Putin thanked the responsible Russian army units for good work and handed out medals. Before the Krim takeover, Putin claimed that there were no Russian military involvement. An obvious lie.

It is ridiculous to even consider that there are "just volunteers" again. The similarities makes it look like excerpts out of some internal Russian play book of how to do military takeovers.

Especially since there are contradicting satellite pictures, recorded conversations, etc. From USA and Ukraine.

Edit: Mainstream news references, not "therealnews", of moved tanks. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/14/us-ukraine-crisis-...

Edit 2: There are similar articles about the BUK anti air system (with varying explanations out of Moscow and interviews (/social media) with rebels). There have also been articles about satellite pictures showing Russian artillery firing on Ukraine military units. Google yourself. Then you have recorded discussions of Russian and rebel discussions, etc, etc. Again, this is mainstream over the last few weeks -- let me know if you really need me to Google for you. Here is the BBC with voice recordings etc. Denied (with demands not to lay blame!!) from Putin. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28357880

Edit 3: Russia shot artillery at Ukraine (just more lies, of course): http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28476153

Edit 4: Anything else I should Google for you?

Edit 5: Is this your position? You seem to not argue against that Putin lied about military involvement before the Krim takeover. You claim that there aren't enough proofs (and/or that all Western media lies) that his junta is doing exactly the same thing now, just because it looks so similar in action/time? (I am sorry if this makes you sound stupid/dishonest, but...)

[pipy]

>Dead civilians are on the heads of those countries defending themselves from military takeovers by non-democratic juntas, like Putin's

There is no evidence that supports your argument about Russian military takeover of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. You are talking about something so significant that must have left some verifiable trace, right?

> (Karma 34 account.)

You don't provide a single footnote, and I actually provide sources to my claims.

I give you simple questions and you prefer to ignore them.

Yes, I rarely participate in internet discussions. Is appealing to my low karma your last and most powerful argument?

> Especially with satellite pictures, recorded conversations, etc.

So, let's bring these to the table?

Edit:

>Edit: Mainstream news references, not "therealnews", of moved tanks. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/14/us-ukraine-crisis-....

1. Money quote from NATO statement from Reuters article that you've provided: "but where they came from is in dispute."

> There are similar articles about the BUK anti air system

2. There is no solid evidence for the claim that BUK came from Russia also. But let's assume that it did, just for the sake of not forking the discussion.

3. What's wrong with "therealnews" interviews with acclaimed experts which credentials you are free to check?

>You seem to not argue against that Putin lied about military involvement before the Krim takeover.

4. Yes, what I argue is that the current insurgency is supported by population of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and I've provided sources for that statement. Which means that Kiev Government is at war with (part of) it's own population.

5. What I also state is that reunification with Russia has had overwhelming support from the people of Crimea.

>You claim that there aren't enough proofs (and/or that all Western media lies) that his junta is doing exactly the same thing now, just because it looks so similar in action/time?

What "same thing" are you talking about? (I am asking this just to be sure that we are talking about the same thing).

> (I am sorry if this makes you sound stupid/dishonest, but...)

I's OK. I appreciate that you are assuming good faith on my part.

Edit 2:

>Edit 3: Russia shot artillery at Ukraine (just more lies, of course): http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28476153

Money quote from the BBC article: "the US says it has evidence that Russia has fired artillery across the border targeting Ukrainian military positions".

The US has also said that pre-invasion Iraq has had WMD. And that Assad has used nerve gas.

[BugBrother]

TL;DR: I read two points. One is contradicted by multiple sources at Wikipedia, the other argues that everything pipy dislikes from USA can be ignored. I quit the discussion in disgust over wasted time. :-(

>>Yes, what I argue is that the current insurgency is supported by population of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and I've provided sources for that statement

(I don't bother to look up your references, since it certainly won't be from mainstream media or similar.)

You are contradicted by Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_People%27s_Republic#Pub...

In a poll [..] in the first half of February 2014, 33.2% of polled in Donetsk Oblast believed "Ukraine and Russia must unite into a single state".[27]

According to a poll [...] 66% of Donetsk residents view their future in a united Ukraine

A second poll conducted 26–29 March showed that 77% of residents condemned the takeover of administrative buildings, while 16% support such actions. Furthermore, 40.8% of Donetsk citizens support rallies for Ukraine's unity, while 26.5% support rallies which are pro-Russia

And so on.

>> Money quote from the BBC article: "the US says it has evidence that Russia has fired artillery across the border targeting Ukrainian military positions". [Etc.]

The first thing I check is contradicted by Wikipedia (that and its sources is a conspiracy too?).

The second "argument" I read is "We can ignore that, USA just lies". (It is hardly just USA that claimed Assad used nerve gas. Any proofs against? Never mind, you read it in Putin's media so it must be true.)

Seriously? That is what you have?

I have spent too much time on this. :-(

[pessimizer]

>Why do you try to imply that identifying pro-Putin shills

Identifying pro-Putin shills is not what's being done here. This is just accusing people that don't agree with everything said about Russia and the depiction in the US media of the current conflict in Ukraine of being Russian shills.

I remember when people who questioned the Iraq war had to constantly defend themselves from accusations of being terrorist shills. This has the exact same chilling effect.

edit: I am honestly interested in evidence of shill posting. I enjoy the detective work. If your evidence of shilling is that you think that the opinions people hold could only be held by shills, you're just stifling dissent in the traditional way that it has always been done. It's no more noble or complex than that.

[pipy]

@pessimizer, if you are interested:

1. You can provide me with your disposable one-time Gmail address (needed for GA).

2. I will send you my real name, give you temporary access to Google Analytics account for the website and some selected Google-translated pages from it. Possibly provide more information if needed.

3. You can support that I am not a shill in this discussion and that my claim about the law in OP affecting me is true.

[pessimizer]

I don't think in any way that you are a shill. And if you were, it wouldn't affect the validity of your arguments in any way. Shills only rise to the level of concern to me if they drown out all discussion that disagrees with them - and people who do that don't even have to be paid for me to consider them shills.

i.e I already support that you aren't a shill, and people who are interested in journalism or the protection of freedom of expression would do well by listening to your own experience in your own country under your own country's laws rather than poisoning the well with accusations (and no evidence.)

[jacquesm]

It's very sad that this should even be required. What a nonsense.

[lotsofmangos]

The Ukraine forces do appear to be using unguided grad rockets in areas where they end up hitting civilians, which is a war crime. http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-...

The insurgents are also accused of using grads, but this whole thing is far from being one sided.