Ukraine 'agrees truce' with Putin

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: DJW001

That won't wash with me...

I used to be a cadet at an army barracks in London that was the target of a terrorist attack, a childhood friend lost his hand, his eye and became deaf in one ear...
So by your statement he was a human shield of the Armed forces of Britain...

I disagree also because all nations have army situated in public areas...
Are they not all potentially using us as human shields?

I'd say no, your argument says otherwise!

That is not my argument. There was no state of war when the barracks were attacked. The rebels could have based themselves in a defensible position outside the city limits. They chose to enhance any collateral damage the loyalists made by situating themselves inside the city. It was a strategic choice.

a reply to: DJW001

Ok there was no state of war, fair enough....

Let's speak hypothetically if you will indulge me...

Why are army barracks and bases all over the US & Europe is civilian areas...
If a state of war erupts tonight with Russia over this situation...
Are we not all potential human shields!

Or is the strategy different for our Armed Forces...
Did they not think about this previously...

Edit: Then hopefully they'll do us the favour of closing the bases and moving them elsewhere!

originally posted by: DJW001
The United States does not need to provide evidence; they were in no way involved. They have not even made any official claims, just speculation that it may have been an honest mistake on the part of the rebels.

what the hell have you been smoking?

seriously, WTF?

a reply to: DJW001

Basically I'm of the idea that a human shield is someone who is forced into it...

The current definition of Human shields didn't matter in Nagasaki or Hiroshima!
Or during drone strikes... By the same government condemning the rebels!!!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Why are army barracks and bases all over the US & Europe is civilian areas...
If a state of war erupts tonight with Russia over this situation...
Are we not all potential human shields!

Or is the strategy different for our Armed Forces...
Did they not think about this previously...

In the United States and Europe, military installations are generally located outside of heavily populated areas, not in the middle of town. (The Tower of London is a notable exception to this, I suppose.)

Edit: Then hopefully they'll do us the favour of closing the bases and moving them elsewhere!

I agree, that would be nice.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: DJW001
The United States does not need to provide evidence; they were in no way involved. They have not even made any official claims, just speculation that it may have been an honest mistake on the part of the rebels.

what the hell have you been smoking?

seriously, WTF?

Are you accusing the United States of shooting down MH17? What have you been smoking?

originally posted by: DJW001
Correct. The government currently in Kyiv was legally elected. That in Donetsk was not:

and now you've just made a huge mistake. no paycheck from uncle sam for this one.

you've used a photo, showing presidential elections in donetsk region, and rebels destroying ballot boxes (for those presidential elections) to claim that the government in kiev was legally elected?

lockerdome.com...

epic fail.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: DJW001
The United States does not need to provide evidence; they were in no way involved. They have not even made any official claims, just speculation that it may have been an honest mistake on the part of the rebels.

what the hell have you been smoking?

seriously, WTF?

Are you accusing the United States of shooting down MH17? What have you been smoking?

no. but they've blamed russia, quite openly. they even released some wannabe-evidence on twitter, showing some retarded photoshop work, i mean intelligence material, supposedly supporting the claim that russia gave rebels BUK missiles at that time.

and you've said they've made no official claims. seriously, you're either thinking everyone around is an idiot or you have alzheimers.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

I doubt if Russia had anything to do with this Ukraine thing that plane would have been shot down. How ever you look at it - Russia is to blame.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: jedi_hamster

I doubt if Russia had anything to do with this Ukraine thing that plane would have been shot down. How ever you look at it - Russia is to blame.

russia had no reason to shoot it down. they've been already blamed for everything bad going on there, when in reality it's the west that is - quite openly - keeping the fire burning. the propaganda of the western media, together with the lies of kiev folks, are so blatant it makes you wonder how anyone can believe this stockpile of BS.

the speed at which the media backtracked from the whole MH-17 case speaks on its own as well.

there's far more going on in ukraine that meets the eye. far more than is being reported.
research tip: nuclear materials.

Kiev plans to build a wall on the border with Russia. This way they hope to control the flow of supplies to the rebels.

In the meantime, the proposed cease fire will buy then time to regroup and rearm and then break the cease fire again.

It would be truly idiotic on the part of parties involved on the side NovoRossiya to agree to this cease fire. They should plan to go all the way to Odessa and Dnieper river boundaries.

Cursed Junta Criminals involved in shelling civilians need not be trusted by anyone, including the people that they deceived to steal power in Kiev by force.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

no. but they've blamed russia, quite openly.

Indulge me. Show me where an official spokesperson for the United States government has accused Russia of shooting down the plane. (Newspaper columnists and publicity seeking politicians are not government spokespeople. The US isn't Russia.)

a reply to: jedi_hamster

you've used a photo, showing presidential elections in donetsk region, and rebels destroying ballot boxes (for those presidential elections) to claim that the government in kiev was legally elected?

No, it is intended as a reminder of how the "Donetsk People's Republic" feels about democracy. They seized power in a coup and refused to allow the citizens under their regime to vote in Federal elections. They are Fascists.

originally posted by: 2012newstart
a reply to: stumason

"Era of peace" has arrived, at least temporarily.

Good news

originally posted by: victor7
Kiev plans to build a wall on the border with Russia. This way they hope to control the flow of supplies to the rebels.

In the meantime, the proposed cease fire will buy then time to regroup and rearm and then break the cease fire again.

It would be truly idiotic on the part of parties involved on the side NovoRossiya to agree to this cease fire. They should plan to go all the way to Odessa and Dnieper river boundaries.

Cursed Junta Criminals involved in shelling civilians need not be trusted by anyone, including the people that they deceived to steal power in Kiev by force.

Once again they did NOT TAKE THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE.They protested,and the president got nervous and ran to russia. then they had a election THAT PUTIN RECOGNIZED which means he considered them LEGITIMATE. Repeating a LIE over and OVER does not make it any more true.( i do nto use caps for signifing yelling I use it for EMPHASIS)

a reply to: yuppa

Who is Putin to recognize when people of DPR and LPR did not even vote.

THUGS IN KIEV WILL REMAIN THE "ILLEGAL JUNTA" UNTIL THEY LEAVE THE OFFICES. THEIR POSITIONS WERE ATTAINED BY USING THE RIGHT SECTOR TYPE ELEMENTS WHO THREATENED PEOPLE ALL AROUND.

After all the gruesome killing of both barely armed rebels and peaceful civilians, it is best for Kiev Junta to go their own ways.

NovoRossiya will be a new country that will solve the ethnic issues in that region for a long long time.

This is no suprise. The entire reason Russia went from supporting the rebels with arms and volunteers and instead began to pour Russian troops over the border was to save the rebels. If the rebels had been eliiminated Russia would have lost a card to play in talks. Putin started talking about a cease fire then and of course Ukraine added a card be declaring it would apply to join NATO. So now talks can go along the lines of the rebels will go away if Ukraine does agrees to not join NATO etc.

Although it is kind of funny how nobody negotiates with the rebels themselves. Talks are always with Russia who then says yes we agree the rebels with enter a ceasefire but, we still have nothing to with any of this. It is almost like a wink wink nudge nudge. Nobody is really suppose to believe it but, they keep it up for appearances sake.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: jedi_hamster

you've used a photo, showing presidential elections in donetsk region, and rebels destroying ballot boxes (for those presidential elections) to claim that the government in kiev was legally elected?

No, it is intended as a reminder of how the "Donetsk People's Republic" feels about democracy. They seized power in a coup and refused to allow the citizens under their regime to vote in Federal elections. They are Fascists.

kiev folks seized power in a coup, sponsored by the west, and don't even try talking about democracy and fascism when their forces kill the civilians, when right sector was turned into national guard instead of being disarmed and when they even wanted to delegalize russian language, amongst others. all their actions call 'fascism'. heck, some of them (fortunately not in charge, at least not yet) called for nuking the whole eastern ukraine.

and you should use a link to an article, not a photo taken out of context, posted as a screenshot so it'll be harder to find the source, just to twist the facts. you blame them for being against presidential elections, when they're against the whole kiev junta? that's how people react to staged elections. you've made it look like those are some local elections for donetsk administration or something, when in reality it was all about presidential elections.

i'm polish. i live in poland. in EU. and i can tell you this: there is NO such thing as democracy in this world, not in so called first world countries. polls are twisted, results are manipulated to support the propaganda, and the voting itself is being tampered with. i saw a proof of that, in my country, when there was a voting to the european parlament. people got pissed, one opposition party even rised the subject. and you know what? the decission was that 'there were flaws, but they didn't influence the results'. and those flaws were nothing else than valid votes ending up in the trashcan, amongst other things.

people live in illusive world, but there's a line which cannot be crossed, because then you're sure to get someone pissed. there's only that much that average person can stand, and eastern ukraine had enough. kiev folks sold their country to the west, so they opposed. for their opposition, they got a death sentence, and you say that it's the eastern ukraine that's against democracy? all they wanted were equal rights.

the whole kiev junta should be sentenced to death for what they've done.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
How on earth can Putin agree to a truce if he isn't behind the rebel violence? Hmm...

Hello Russian trolls...
Your boss has agreed a ceasefire.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Let's speak hypothetically if you will indulge me...

Why are army barracks and bases all over the US & Europe is civilian areas...
If a state of war erupts tonight with Russia over this situation...
Are we not all potential human shields!

Or is the strategy different for our Armed Forces...
Did they not think about this previously...

Edit: Then hopefully they'll do us the favour of closing the bases and moving them elsewhere!

Let's not speak hypothetically, as a pad brat and member of a military family that has seen dozens of us serve, I can tell you that the vast majority of military bases are actually outside of major towns and cities. The one's in London are all historical, based in buildings dating back to the Napoleonic era or beyond.

The "barracks" you were apparently at (Shepherds Bush) is a TA (Army Reserve now) facility - used for training part time soldiers - and could hardly be called a "base" in any stretch of the word. In fact, it is a former Military hospital dating back to the First World War.

As for actual bases, take Aldershot, or Arborfield, or Catterick, or Lyneham, or Brize Norton or any of the other large real bases and you'll find they are outside of major cities and towns, in fact usually forming their own small town or village in their own right.

However, all that said, I am not one to criticise the rebels for fighting in cities - every army ever has attacked and defended positions in urban area's.

The trick is for the defenders to allow civilians to evacuate and the attackers to make real efforts at minimising civilian casualties - I think both sides, for the most part, have allowed this to happen. For 4 months of heavy fighting, the civilian casualty figure is pretty low and we're not seeing a wholesale bombardment of entire cities indiscriminately from either side, which is what would constitute any sort of war crime.

Compare this conflict to Syria - where all sides have notably less advanced and heavy weaponry - the casualties after 4 months of fighting came close to 20,000 killed, because neither side there has any respect for civilians, really.