U.S. says Russia firing artillery over border at Ukraine military

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Mh-17:
U.S. claims rebels shot it down with backing from Russia: No evidence.
U.S. claims BUK missile launcher used, fired 1 shot: No evidence.
U.S. Then say "no direct evidence" to Russia.

U.S. claims Russia firing shells into Ukraine, no evidence apart from some satellite images which don't prove anything.
U.S. now claims Russia has violated nuclear arms treaty: Once again, no evidence.

That's roughly also in the right timeline

And the Russians haven't directly made any claims towards America.

EDIT: Just popped up, albeit from RT, the source is from CNN:

rt.com...

Kiev firing ballistic missiles into East Ukraine, wonder how many more Ukranians they're going to kill

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Kiev firing ballistic missiles into East Ukraine, wonder how many more Ukranians they're going to kill

Funny that the reporter in Donetsk for CNN had this to say...

However, CNN’s correspondent in Donetsk, Nick Paton Walsh, said he had heard nothing of ballistic launches in the area and nothing of that kind has been openly discussed. He added, though, that it is no secret that both sides of the conflict were using “very heavy weaponry” against each other.

rt.com...

I am pretty sure if this were happening a reporter in the middle of this conflict would have been told, or would have heard talk about this.

If a balistic missile was used that would be noticeable and talked about by the separatists and locals, yet we have nothing from that area saying this happened.

And here is the funny thing...Western media supposedly always lies about what is happening in Ukraine, but now it is telling the truth so how does that work exactly?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

You seem to have missed that the separatists claimed downing the plane, before they realized it was not a cargo plane...then they started crawfishing. Statements were removed from social media etc etc...

There is zero doubt that either the Russians or the separatists downed MH-17. None. Deny ignorance. Please do not embrace it.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

You seem to have missed that the separatists claimed downing the plane, before they realized it was not a cargo plane...then they started crawfishing. Statements were removed from social media etc etc...

There is zero doubt that either the Russians or the separatists downed MH-17. None. Deny ignorance. Please do not embrace it.

swap 'doubt' with 'evidence' and I completely agree with you.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

And here is the funny thing...Western media supposedly always lies about what is happening in Ukraine, but now it is telling the truth so how does that work exactly?

It's not that the media lies mate, it's just that they never truly give an accurate version of the events (depending on what side of the line you fall on of course).

Maybe this is a brief moment of clarity, they can't skew things all the time.


a reply to: bbracken677

You seem to have missed that the separatists claimed downing the plane, before they realized it was not a cargo plane...then they started crawfishing. Statements were removed from social media etc etc...

That's still not evidence and it was never proven to be genuine, if it had been, then the U.S. wouldn't have released their "no direct link to Russia" statement.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

So there is an automatic direct link to Russia if the separatists shot the plane down? I think the key word was direct: The Russians did not shoot the plane down. No?

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

So there is an automatic direct link to Russia if the separatists shot the plane down? I think the key word was direct: The Russians did not shoot the plane down. No?

There is NO evidence of EITHER side shooting down the plane at this moment in time

And if I had to choose a guilty party, I'd pick Kiev as they had most to gain. However, rebels making a mistake can't be ruled out either.

EDIT: If the last option turns out to be proven true, then surely questions must be asked as to why the plane was diverted south from the commercial airline fly zone.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

FYI... planes routinely flew over the zone of conflict until MH-17 was shot down. There is no conspiracy of the plane being directed to fly over the area so it could be shot down, blaming whoever.

Pilots were pissed because they had been flying over the area in regular flight paths unaware there was a missile there capable of reaching 32k feet. They thought there were only the shoulder fired varieties.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

FYI... planes routinely flew over the zone of conflict until MH-17 was shot down. There is no conspiracy of the plane being directed to fly over the area so it could be shot down, blaming whoever.

Pilots were pissed because they had been flying over the area in regular flight paths unaware there was a missile there capable of reaching 32k feet. They thought there were only the shoulder fired varieties.

The plane did fly south/easterly though

I'm aware of that and I never said it was diverted deliberately.

And a correction on what you say, Kiev had moved a lot of Buks into that area previous to MH-17 going down, there were plenty there (60 units I believe).

There's also a lot of points of consideration in this piece:

www.globalresearch.ca...

And, if you note, instead of being like the U.S. way of presenting things eg. just blame the other side without actually having evidence. The points raised in the above article are not claims of blame, they're just points worth considering

a reply to: victor7

LOL, wut?! The US has more than enough reserves to buy up any currency Russia dropped. Not that it would need to-- any nation worth its salt would pick up dumped US treasury bonds. Also, Russia relying on China and India seems like a bad idea, since they took a decade to nail down a natural gas deal with the former and the latter just doesn't have the infrastructure to utilize all the exports Russia would need to economically recover. The EU on the other hand have some real options that would lead to long term economic prosperity. Cutting off Russia would be the kick in the pants EU needs to start accessing shale reserves. But they would probably just buy from the US. Either way only Russia is left out in the cold.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

FYI... planes routinely flew over the zone of conflict until MH-17 was shot down. There is no conspiracy of the plane being directed to fly over the area so it could be shot down, blaming whoever.

Pilots were pissed because they had been flying over the area in regular flight paths unaware there was a missile there capable of reaching 32k feet. They thought there were only the shoulder fired varieties.

The plane did fly south/easterly though

I'm aware of that and I never said it was diverted deliberately.

And a correction on what you say, Kiev had moved a lot of Buks into that area previous to MH-17 going down, there were plenty there (60 units I believe).

Um..it's hard to correct something I never said. Never said Kiev didn't have buks...?? Early on it was established that the Ukraine had them, which is why their shooting the plane down was always a possible possibility, so to speak.

Going to quote you:

EDIT: If the last option turns out to be proven true, then surely questions must be asked as to why the plane was diverted south from the commercial airline fly zone.

originally posted by: bbracken677

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

FYI... planes routinely flew over the zone of conflict until MH-17 was shot down. There is no conspiracy of the plane being directed to fly over the area so it could be shot down, blaming whoever.

Pilots were pissed because they had been flying over the area in regular flight paths unaware there was a missile there capable of reaching 32k feet. They thought there were only the shoulder fired varieties.

The plane did fly south/easterly though

I'm aware of that and I never said it was diverted deliberately.

And a correction on what you say, Kiev had moved a lot of Buks into that area previous to MH-17 going down, there were plenty there (60 units I believe).

Um..it's hard to correct something I never said. Never said Kiev didn't have buks...?? Early on it was established that the Ukraine had them, which is why their shooting the plane down was always a possible possibility, so to speak.

Going to quote you:

EDIT: If the last option turns out to be proven true, then surely questions must be asked as to why the plane was diverted south from the commercial airline fly zone.

I can't completely confirm the veracity, and seeing as we're being hypothetical on who is to blame anyway:

www.globalresearch.ca...

originally posted by: Nanashiroshi
a reply to: victor7

LOL, wut?! The US has more than enough reserves to buy up any currency Russia dropped. Not that it would need to-- any nation worth its salt would pick up dumped US treasury bonds. Also, Russia relying on China and India seems like a bad idea, since they took a decade to nail down a natural gas deal with the former and the latter just doesn't have the infrastructure to utilize all the exports Russia would need to economically recover. The EU on the other hand have some real options that would lead to long term economic prosperity. Cutting off Russia would be the kick in the pants EU needs to start accessing shale reserves. But they would probably just buy from the US. Either way only Russia is left out in the cold.

that is a long distance shot or dreaming to say at least. For next 5-6 years they have to use Russian gas.
I am not even going into the cost of shale gas from US.
Nor environmental issues related to shale gas.

a reply to: cosmonova

Actually, production of natural gas in the US is being throttled to maintain reasonable prices and not glut the market here driving prices down. Price is not going to be an issue.

Once the US has the capability to seriously export then much more will be produced. Infrastructure has to be built first.

a reply to: bbracken677

I might be wrong but shale gas and oil technology has other environmental costs that have not been taken into consideration. Just like it is said war in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $2 Trillion but final costs will be $6 Trillion example: tending the to returning soldiers with injuries and mental issues.

Also cost to build an onshore pipeline of gas and oil is roughly $1.5 million per mile. When offshore i.e. in the sea it becomes $3.5 million per mile. This massive investment can raise serious gamble issues as when prices drop for oil and thus also gas, then extracting these energy sources can become a loss enterprise.

Still pipelines are the cheapest and fastest way to transport gas and oil. However, this pipeline with USA written all over it can become a major "punching bag" for those who do not like the Yankees and their foreign policies. Protecting a 7800 mile pipeline from New York to Hamburg, Germany can further increase the costs.

a reply to: victor7

The infrastructure I spoke of is in Texas. Good luck using Texans as a punching bag. None of the pipeline I mentioned is undersea or even in water. It will run to a port, where the gas will be loaded on/into a ship for transportation overseas.

Right now natural gas is running at less than $5/million BTU. It has been under $2.50 this decade due to oversupply.

a reply to: bbracken677

I doubt anyone would dare "punch bag" an infrastructure inside the US, so a plus point there. Still hard maths need to be done by both the sides. Shipment via boats is worst for environmental matters. If it comes to that it will be a complicated process. For U.S. gas to get to, say, Germany, it would have to be produced, transported to a liquefaction facility, liquefied, put onto an LNG carrier boat, shipped, go into an LNG receiving facility in a special port there and then re-gasified.

I might be wrong but most of this gas coming out as a byproduct of fracking technology is dependent on the prices of oil. I think it is not cost effective to do fracking based oil production if oil prices fall below $80/barrel.

Btw, Russia has a direct undersea pipeline to Germany which bypasses Ukraine all together. Thus for Germans to totally refuse Russian supplies would take some deep discounted prices from a new supplier before they would want to break the current set up. One major fear can be that US invests heavily into the infrastructure and ending maths depending on gas prices might make it cost inefficient. One place I heard that it might make more sense for US to export gas to Japan rather than Europe.

a reply to: victor7
I agree with your assessment of the economics for Germany. I am not in favor of using a resource we should be profiting from as a tool in international politics.

However, Germany having the option to take natural gas from us does provide them with protection should Russia decide to turn off the spigot.

I might be wrong but most of this gas coming out as a byproduct of fracking technology is dependent on the prices of oil. I think it is not cost effective to do fracking based oil production if oil prices fall below $80/barrel.

Not true. The price of natural gas today is mostly dependent on normal and natural market forces. Supply and demand. It is possible that should some external or internal event cause the price of oil to jump significantly you might also see a jump in natural gas, but not solely because oil increased.

I have followed the price of natural gas rather consistently... it is pretty easy to predict the movement and, as such, is a marvelous way to make money.

Here is the best source of information I have found:

Natural Gas Prices-Henry Hub

Nice article about natural gas pricing

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: victor7
I agree with your assessment of the economics for Germany. I am not in favor of using a resource we should be profiting from as a tool in international politics.

And yet this is the current world order: the geopolitics of resource accumulation and control. The countries that control the resources are the empires, while those who require resources are the colonies.

a reply to: Vovin

I totally understand, but I am still not in favor of using our resources in a non-profitable deal solely for political gain. Nope...

Our trade balance is negative enough that we should never pass on an opportunity to help it balance out a bit better. We are hemorrhaging dollars....