NATO General: Kiev already lost the battle in Ukraine

a reply to: Bassago

A couple of days ago I heard a Dutch news reporter in Mariupol interviewing 2 residents of there. One was opposed the Separatist coming to them, and the other was, "we don`t war again over here, but the fascist government in Kiev needs to go." After that he remarked, there was a clear divide between residents in that matter over at Mariupol, so that clearly states Kiev hasn`t has much support as the MSM wants us to believe.

a reply to: Taggart

I'd don't like how the Germans seem to be itching to get at Russia, that wouldn't be due to history now would it?
of course not .

Like the people at the top have forgotten histories lessons. Napolean could't take Russia, neither could Hitler… oh, but we will. After all we conquered Afghanistan, lol.

No country can win a war with Russia. No country can win a war with the US. Everyone loses except those who have bunkers. This is leading to an escalation that will effect everyone in the world if NATO sides with Ukraines present government and starts a war with Russia.

The ones who will survive WW3 are the worst of the worst, those who desire power and are best at deceit. We need to bury their bunker entrances after all hell breaks loose and before we all die from the radiation poisoning. We have big construction equipment all over the place.

OOPs. Thinking out loud again.

Well worth the read :

Group of Former US Intel Officials open letter to Merkel :

We the undersigned are longtime veterans of U.S. intelligence. We take the unusual step of writing this open letter to you to ensure that you have an opportunity to be briefed on our views prior to the NATO summit on September 4-5.

You need to know, for example, that accusations of a major Russian "invasion" of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the "intelligence" seems to be of the same dubious, politically "fixed" kind used 12 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-led attack on Iraq. We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then; we see no credible evidence of a Russian invasion now.

We trust that your advisers have kept you informed regarding the crisis in Ukraine from the beginning of 2014, and how the possibility that Ukraine would become a member of NATO is anathema to the Kremlin. According to a February 1, 2008 cable (published by WikiLeaks) from the US embassy in Moscow to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, US Ambassador William Burns was called in by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who explained Russia’s strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine.

antiwar.com...

This is a very long vid that I just started listening to and wanted to post it for some more historical context to my previous post . a reply to: the2ofusr1

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Funny how they retreated to a place where Russia could supply them.

Funny?

Ukraine's been hijacked by a foreign agency. Retreat is what you do when your country has had it's democratically elected government overthrown by an outside power (USA), you retreat to where you can get arms to fight back.

More money to keep on fighting...?

So all the West has to do is stop sending money to stop the war ?

It`s clear to say, if the West keeps sending money, they want to keep the war going on, absolutely no denial in that!

Ukraine May Need Additional Bailout of $19Bln if Hostilities Continue: Agency Citing IMF

MOSCOW, September 2 (RIA Novosti) – Ukraine may need an additional international bailout of $19 billion if the civil conflict in the east of the country continues into next year, Reuters reported Tuesday citing the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) detailed review of its Stand-By Arrangement for Ukraine. “The IMF warned that if the fighting continued into next year, Ukraine may need as much as $19 billion in additional financing from donors,” the agency said.

en.ria.ru...

Much talk of this situation.

Realistically the US and it's allies are getting a huge win here no matter what happens and there will only be 2 outcomes...

1: The most likely, Russia gets it's corridor to Crimea, part of Ukraine returns to Russia

2: Ukraine ends up entirely with the West, unlikely.

Russia might "beat" Ukraine, but in the end it's not going to try to "hold" the almost entirely pro western portion of the country, it's going to take the ethnically Russian portion and keep Crimea to keep it's port open

meanwhile... Isis finally let's us get into Syria while Russia is busy....

and the line in Ukraine let's Nato be within 100 miles of Crimea anyway, this essentially dampens the hell out of Russian force projection in the Mediterranean... we screw Ukraine to a degree, but get rid of the Russian Syrian presence and basically can wipe Crimea at will within a couple of years, cutting it off doesn't mean anything else but firing...

originally posted by: criticalhit
Much talk of this situation.

Realistically the US and it's allies are getting a huge win here no matter what happens and there will only be 2 outcomes...

1: The most likely, Russia gets it's corridor to Crimea, part of Ukraine returns to Russia

2: Ukraine ends up entirely with the West, unlikely.

Russia might "beat" Ukraine, but in the end it's not going to try to "hold" the almost entirely pro western portion of the country, it's going to take the ethnically Russian portion and keep Crimea to keep it's port open

meanwhile... Isis finally let's us get into Syria while Russia is busy....

and the line in Ukraine let's Nato be within 100 miles of Crimea anyway, this essentially dampens the hell out of Russian force projection in the Mediterranean... we screw Ukraine to a degree, but get rid of the Russian Syrian presence and basically can wipe Crimea at will within a couple of years, cutting it off doesn't mean anything else but firing...

Russia has no problem in nuking US-carriers and bases near it when push comes to shovel.

Russia isn`t going to be pushed around, but the West doesn`t seem to come in grasp with that reality. Instead of just accepting they can`t win, they actually think they can, and that`s the dangerous and recklessness part of it all.

NOBODY of any WORTH is going to win this one regardless..............the loser will always be the ordinary people.....
Nothing changes.....

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: criticalhit
Much talk of this situation.

Realistically the US and it's allies are getting a huge win here no matter what happens and there will only be 2 outcomes...

1: The most likely, Russia gets it's corridor to Crimea, part of Ukraine returns to Russia

2: Ukraine ends up entirely with the West, unlikely.

Russia might "beat" Ukraine, but in the end it's not going to try to "hold" the almost entirely pro western portion of the country, it's going to take the ethnically Russian portion and keep Crimea to keep it's port open

meanwhile... Isis finally let's us get into Syria while Russia is busy....

and the line in Ukraine let's Nato be within 100 miles of Crimea anyway, this essentially dampens the hell out of Russian force projection in the Mediterranean... we screw Ukraine to a degree, but get rid of the Russian Syrian presence and basically can wipe Crimea at will within a couple of years, cutting it off doesn't mean anything else but firing...

Russia has no problem in nuking US-carriers and bases near it when push comes to shovel.

Russia isn`t going to be pushed around, but the West doesn`t seem to come in grasp with that reality. Instead of just accepting they can`t win, they actually think they can, and that`s the dangerous and recklessness part of it all.

Ants can eat an Elephant

For all the talk of how "stupid" America is, Nato is a paper Tiger etc, etc... we are actually especially combined ridiculously powerful, incredibly wealthy and have been learning to plan ahead quite well.

Nibble, Nibble, Nibble... like I said before this is done the Syrian issue will be resolved in our favor, Crimea will be within Artillery range,

"they will nuke our carriers" Will that be over the most recent additions to our missile defense system outside Kiev in a few years, with no ability to launch ships from Crimea for any kind of logistical support and at a future point of not this but NEXT conflict when their is no Putin in office most likely?

Geo Politically Russia can get away with mashing Ukraine and and taking back ethnic Russian regions, beyond that they face the same Nuclear option, this is chess not doomsday

In all reality, Russia, one day, will likely be a part of Nato despite this....

Here is Russian reality, much of their money comes from energy sales to Europe, they could absolutely frag Europe but it's all a loose, loose situation, they don't have the population, it's 120 Million vs 800 million to occupy squat, we have the missile defense shield not vice versa and demographically even if they fought in any manner they are done as a people via the population bleed...

Meanwhile in Siberia, Chinese yearly immigration vastly outstrips the entire population of the region and in central Russia they face an Islamic problem

Putin will be the last Russian Strongman

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Russia has no problem in nuking US-carriers and bases near it when push comes to shovel.

And the United States has proven that it will use nuclear weapons. Putin knows that.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Are you fellow travelers beginning to change your story on Russian involvement? First you post this:

According to the NATO General (who wanted to remain anonymous) it`s best for the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to get his "troops alive out of the grip of the Russians."

Your first post.

Then you link to a strategic analysis that says this:

The anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine enjoy considerable local support, partly as a result of government artillery strikes on major population centers. And we believe that Russian support probably has been pouring across the border and includes, significantly, excellent battlefield intelligence. But it is far from clear that this support includes tanks and artillery at this point – mostly because the federalists have been better led and surprisingly successful in pinning down government forces.

At the same time, we have little doubt that, if and when the federalists need them, the Russian tanks will come.

Your own source, emphasis mine.

a reply to: criticalhit

meanwhile... Isis finally let's us get into Syria while Russia is busy.... and the line in Ukraine let's Nato be within 100 miles of Crimea anyway, this essentially dampens the hell out of Russian force projection in the Mediterranean... we screw Ukraine to a degree, but get rid of the Russian Syrian presence and basically can wipe Crimea at will within a couple of years, cutting it off doesn't mean anything else but firing...

Putin will not allow ANY part of Ukraine into NATO. He will take Kiev before it happens.

Is the ISIS your friend to allow you into Syria? Last I know they were chopping Americans with extra relish. Why do your types spew NONSENSE with ease.

Russia is very powerful in its neighborhood. So you comments on Crimea hold no weight. Russia takes out your aircraft carriers and your force projection drops by 80%.

Bombing the heavily sanctioned third world countries and feeling like a drunk goon in the marketplace.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Are you fellow travelers beginning to change your story on Russian involvement? First you post this:

According to the NATO General (who wanted to remain anonymous) it`s best for the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to get his "troops alive out of the grip of the Russians."

Your first post.

Then you link to a strategic analysis that says this:

The anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine enjoy considerable local support, partly as a result of government artillery strikes on major population centers. And we believe that Russian support probably has been pouring across the border and includes, significantly, excellent battlefield intelligence. But it is far from clear that this support includes tanks and artillery at this point – mostly because the federalists have been better led and surprisingly successful in pinning down government forces.

At the same time, we have little doubt that, if and when the federalists need them, the Russian tanks will come.

Your own source, emphasis mine.

The West has been given support, just like the Russians have, no surprise for me, but the West exaggerated about an invasion.

And like I said several times before (see link), the Kremlin had drawn the line at Ukraine becoming a Western-puppet state...so the West knew it, and still they tried to make the Ukraine their puppet state...

So who`s responsible for the war, Russia or the West ?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Russia has no problem in nuking US-carriers and bases near it when push comes to shovel.

And the United States has proven that it will use nuclear weapons. Putin knows that.

Yes, we all know who the bad guy is, no need to emphasize that...US uses it when it isn`t even needed.

Why the Atomic Bombings Could Have Been Avoided

www.ihr.org...

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Over 1 million people in Ukraine have so far left their homes for fear of the violence. 814,000 of them are in Russia

I believe that one line pretty much shows who the eastern Ukrainians trust.

80% of them prefer Russia. Can't say I blame them.

80% of the people who left prefer Russia. That says that 2% of the population has left their homes and less than that have fled to Russia. 98% of them felt secure staying at home in the Ukraine regardless of their political bent. Talk about manipulating a statistic...

originally posted by: criticalhit

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: criticalhit
Much talk of this situation.

Realistically the US and it's allies are getting a huge win here no matter what happens and there will only be 2 outcomes...

1: The most likely, Russia gets it's corridor to Crimea, part of Ukraine returns to Russia

2: Ukraine ends up entirely with the West, unlikely.

Russia might "beat" Ukraine, but in the end it's not going to try to "hold" the almost entirely pro western portion of the country, it's going to take the ethnically Russian portion and keep Crimea to keep it's port open

meanwhile... Isis finally let's us get into Syria while Russia is busy....

and the line in Ukraine let's Nato be within 100 miles of Crimea anyway, this essentially dampens the hell out of Russian force projection in the Mediterranean... we screw Ukraine to a degree, but get rid of the Russian Syrian presence and basically can wipe Crimea at will within a couple of years, cutting it off doesn't mean anything else but firing...

Russia has no problem in nuking US-carriers and bases near it when push comes to shovel.

Russia isn`t going to be pushed around, but the West doesn`t seem to come in grasp with that reality. Instead of just accepting they can`t win, they actually think they can, and that`s the dangerous and recklessness part of it all.

Ants can eat an Elephant

For all the talk of how "stupid" America is, Nato is a paper Tiger etc, etc... we are actually especially combined ridiculously powerful, incredibly wealthy and have been learning to plan ahead quite well.

Nibble, Nibble, Nibble... like I said before this is done the Syrian issue will be resolved in our favor, Crimea will be within Artillery range,

"they will nuke our carriers" Will that be over the most recent additions to our missile defense system outside Kiev in a few years, with no ability to launch ships from Crimea for any kind of logistical support and at a future point of not this but NEXT conflict when their is no Putin in office most likely?

Geo Politically Russia can get away with mashing Ukraine and and taking back ethnic Russian regions, beyond that they face the same Nuclear option, this is chess not doomsday

In all reality, Russia, one day, will likely be a part of Nato despite this....

Here is Russian reality, much of their money comes from energy sales to Europe, they could absolutely frag Europe but it's all a loose, loose situation, they don't have the population, it's 120 Million vs 800 million to occupy squat, we have the missile defense shield not vice versa and demographically even if they fought in any manner they are done as a people via the population bleed...

Meanwhile in Siberia, Chinese yearly immigration vastly outstrips the entire population of the region and in central Russia they face an Islamic problem

Putin will be the last Russian Strongman

And Russia has no subs with nuclear missiles of course ?

You`re greatly overestimating NATO military power. Russia still has enough tricks up their sleeves to not being another some kind of Iraq/Afghanistan/Libia, etc :

Rasmussen...We also saw a remarkable change in the Russian military approach and capability since, for instance, the Georgian war in 2008.

"We have seen the Russians improve their ability to act swiftly. They can within a very, very, short time convert a major military exercise into an offensive military operation."

"Quite clearly, Russia is involved in destabilising eastern Ukraine … You see a sophisticated combination of traditional conventional warfare mixed up with information and primarily disinformation operations. It will take more than Nato to counter such hybrid warfare effectively."

If western leaders have been surprised and also impressed by the sudden display of Russian military prowess, Ukraine, by contrast, is in a pitiful condition militarily, according to Nato officials.

"If we are two steps behind the Russians, the Ukrainians are 16 steps behind," said a Nato source recently in Kiev. "Their generals just want to blow everything up. But it's not a shooting war, it's an information war."

www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Over 1 million people in Ukraine have so far left their homes for fear of the violence. 814,000 of them are in Russia

I believe that one line pretty much shows who the eastern Ukrainians trust.

80% of them prefer Russia. Can't say I blame them.

80% of the people who left prefer Russia. That says that 2% of the population has left their homes and less than that have fled to Russia. 98% of them felt secure staying at home in the Ukraine regardless of their political bent. Talk about manipulating a statistic...

There was no war in the the whole of the Ukraine, because the Easterners did not attack, so talking about manipulating a statistic...and why all of sudden there are now more people on the move (see OP), oh wait, lots were trapped. Sure the statistic is right, it gave the preference of all the fled Easterners. He talked about the Easterners, now didn`t he ?