Battle For Strategic Mariupol Begins, NATO Vows To Do "Whatever It Takes"

a reply to: Xcathdra

You may check as much as you want lol.
Why I should follow what RT says ?

People like you often say that RT is unreliable, besides, let me find this agreement in Russian, it seems to me there are some mistakes in translation. I've seen faxmile copy, just can't find it now.

a reply to: kitzik

Most pro Russians reject western media so I use their sources.

That being said you made your position clear by rejecting both and substituting your own reality.

a reply to: Xcathdra
going back to your original question

Do you think "ceasefire" will hold ?
Let me say, that military commanders of rebels clearly saying, there is no ceasefire.

Are we here to discuss just what is cited in MSM ?

I can give you a link to video where one of the most important field commanders clearing his view points
It is all in Russian, in short there is no cease fire with people that actually held weapons and they are not going to disarm.
He is also giving ideological explanation why they are fighting.
I will simplify it like this- they are fighting against NWO for something like communism ( better society).
He is not saying communism, but it is similar to.
youtu.be...

It is very possible that after Putin one of those commanders will be in charge of nuclear Russian potential.
Putin already fearing them, thats why all this war is so strange and inconsistent.

a reply to: CollisioN

And in spite of all, most of you posters are part of the west. Why are you against expansion of NATO? Because it can bring WW3?

Maybe because some of us are old enough to remember watching the news when the USSR was trying to move their missiles unto Cuba, watching the tense military standoff and wondering if/when the nukes were going to come.

That was a bad time and now NATO is playing the same game in reverse. It's just as wrong now as it was then regardless of who's doing it.

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: CollisioN

And in spite of all, most of you posters are part of the west. Why are you against expansion of NATO? Because it can bring WW3?

Maybe because some of us are old enough to remember watching the news when the USSR was trying to move their missiles unto Cuba, watching the tense military standoff and wondering if/when the nukes were going to come.

That was a bad time and now NATO is playing the same game in reverse. It's just as wrong now as it was then regardless of who's doing it.

NATO has no purpose, every mission they do since the fall of the warsaw pact is what they call "OUT OF AREA" missions. That means, they are operating out of their mandated area of purpose.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You said that rebels agreed to be part of Ukraine however in RT article that you also referencing it is said

It has been decided that once the military conflict is settled, Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk will have to return to the negotiations table to discuss Donbass region’s status again.

“However, the ceasefire does not mean a shift from our course of breaking away from Ukraine. This is a compulsory measure,” he said.

And you blaming me that I'm inventing my own reality ?

I agree, that paragraph 10 seems strange. Blame stupid people who signed this.
Anyway, in reality all they want is exchange of POW. Ukrainian side also waiting to receive some help from the West, since they almost exhausted their reserves. And Ukrainian government itself is in big troubles also. Who signed ceasefire from Kiev ? Kuchma. He was president of Ukraine in the past, but he doesn't holding any official position at present. So, we have agreement between Kuchma and also very shaky DNR/LNR government rulers. Neither of them in reality representing forces fighting on the ground.


about situation in Kiev government
youtu.be... - Webster Tarpley is an American historian, economist, journalist.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: kitzik

Most pro Russians reject western media so I use their sources.

That being said you made your position clear by rejecting both and substituting your own reality.

But, but, but...

I think it is now safe to assume that anything Russian media reports on should be called into question before accepting it since it is now obvious they have no interest in the truth. Russian media can no longer be trusted.

Your Words

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: CollisioN

And in spite of all, most of you posters are part of the west. Why are you against expansion of NATO? Because it can bring WW3?

Maybe because some of us are old enough to remember watching the news when the USSR was trying to move their missiles unto Cuba, watching the tense military standoff and wondering if/when the nukes were going to come.

That was a bad time and now NATO is playing the same game in reverse. It's just as wrong now as it was then regardless of who's doing it.

Wait did i miss something did NATO put missiles in Ukraine? I must have missed that for one. Than my next question since the USSR fell and supposedly is a democracy now what relevance does this even make. Russia could have asked to join NATO if it chose. They even had offices inside NATO headquarters and went on joint missions. Oddly NATO was never a threat to the new Russia unless of course you think that was all an act and the ols Soviet Union was alive amd well just hiding under a new name?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ok, I found original document in Russian
english translation source seems not working there though.

www.osce.org...

Looking on this piece of paper you can conclude that serious agreement it can not be.
2 surnames from supposedly rebel side don't have even description who they are.

from one of social forums avmalgin.livejournal.com...
It seems this document was signed only in Russian language lol

a reply to: dragonridr

Wait did i miss something did NATO put missiles in Ukraine?

They haven't yet. They're too busy trying to boost Poland's missile defense at the moment. Of course that has nothing to do with Russia.

Ukraine will have to wait a bit but if you think that isn't the plan well I'll just have to disagree with your opinion.

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: dragonridr

Wait did i miss something did NATO put missiles in Ukraine?

They haven't yet. They're too busy trying to boost Poland's missile defense at the moment. Of course that has nothing to do with Russia.

Ukraine will have to wait a bit but if you think that isn't the plan well I'll just have to disagree with your opinion.

So in other words no they didnt see was that so hard? As for Poland why would poland want NATO to re position NATO defenses to cover Poland if they have some there. So let me guess they havnt done Poland yet either right?

a reply to: Bassago

NATO was not involved in the Cuban missile Crisis.

a reply to: Bassago

The missile defense shield was not designed to stop a flood of ICBM's, like Russia can accomplish. They were designed to stop a couple of them, which would be the possible number coming from North Korea or Iran.


Since Russia has moved missile units and others to Kaliningrad it only makes sense to boost the NMD in Poland.

originally posted by: Bassago
They haven't yet. They're too busy trying to boost Poland's missile defense at the moment. Of course that has nothing to do with Russia.

Strange, because this administration abandoned the EIS complex five years ago... Instead it opted for discussing much more limited Patriots and SM-3 sites in the future. Any talk going now of beefed up missile defense in Poland, is the result of the Ukraine crisis, no matter how you would like to spin it as the cause.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Since Russia has moved missile units and others to Kaliningrad it only makes sense to boost the NMD in Poland.

That makes sense and actually I don't blame them for that. I think even the idea of missile creep has Russia on edge even though the last I heard there was talk of possibly moving to sea based armaments instead of boosting many of the land based sites.

a reply to: Bassago

Bombing Civilian areas for Intimidation according to Ukrop General.


www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: Bassago

Bombing Civilian areas for Intimidation according to Ukrop General.


www.youtube.com...

I thought social media was not reliable?

Secondly when you post info from an account called anti-maiden it tends to lose neutrality.

3rd do you guys ever use facts? All we see is youtube videos.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You are making too many assumptions about what is good or bad source of information.
Watch video and make up your mind. Those are interviews from Ukrainiam military commanders.
Or you think Hague courts will easily dismiss such self acknowledgement of liability concerning deliberate bombing of civilian population just because it was posted on anti-maidan account ?

a reply to: kitzik

A UN report has already stated both sides, Ukraine and pro Russians, have committed war crimes.

Video can be edited, and Russia has done this to often in the past to accept anything coming from them at face value. Secondly the videos can be edited, changing completely what the people talking about.

Context can be missing, questions can be edited in or out.

Finally its coming from an anti Ukraine account.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So, from now on we should accept only UN approved reports on this board as a fact ?

I know it is off topic , but those military people didn't seemed to be intimidated like this boy

youtu.be...