Russian newspaper claims to have an official strategy document.

a reply to: sosobad

Lets ignore that the majority of deaths in each of those countries were at the hands of extremists and despots within those countries bombing each other.
Lets also ignore that these countries have more freedoms and a safer existence after than they did before living under their despots and religious fanatics.
Lets also ignore that the US and allies don't claim these nations as property the way Russia does.

No one disagrees that our actions in many places leave our countries with little credibility, but to use this as some kind of excuse for Russia to invade and carve up other nations for its own is extremely simplistic and another method of distracting and discrediting.

No matter what any other country has ever done in the history of Humankind, it is unjustifiable for Russia to invade another nation. Comparing it to the actions of other countries does not make it in any way more acceptable or any less disgusting.

a reply to: earthling42

Why would they be planning the invasion when the previous govt was closer to Russia. Unless it was one of those contingency plans countries have for dealing with any country. Or they drew it up knowing a collapse was coming.

I dont think it was like the US planning for Iraq and making it happen. Obviously because yhe fall was due to west backed rebels.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Mastronaut

It does seem a bit of a stretch to create a fake coup to remove a leader YOU put there that didn't give any sign of will to "jump the fence". It does make more sense that after a coup supported by enemies you go "protect" your biggest naval base and the closest side of your border.

Even in the scenario where your goal is to divide a country and annex part of it, there must be a driving force due to some change of mind. Up to 2013 Ukraine had no need to have issues with Russia, they were the biggest reason why Ukraine had business with EU, and this move screwed up Ukraine, Russia and EU itself.

I understand that some of you are of the idea that some leaders are fool expansionists with a 19th century mindset, but today you don't expand your territory with proxy wars unless you are Israel, because none else would stand a chance against UN votes and would give legitimate reasons to intervene militarily.

I can see Russia going in Georgia or Chechnya, 2 regions that have no connections with EU market and have a very different situation. I can't see how the same thing can apply to Ukraine, it's just asinine to think it's the same.
It's like China invading Mongolia rather than building fake islands in the south China sea.

On the other side, we know for sure that egemony is mantained as long as there is no competitor, and this move only favour USA (EU issues with energy provisions and costs raise, Russia issues with sanctions and lack of revenues and so on). We also have some intercepted call much before this that cast some doubt on who's behind this coup and this situation.

I think most major military forces in the world have a plan to react/proact against any country at their borders or any country in their scope of interests, so it wouldn't surprise me to see a document about military intervention in Ukraine by Russia. I would be much more surprised to see a USA document about it, or I'd expect them to have a plan of invasion n every single country in the world. However I don't really see any document, and I don't understand why we trust those sources when they claim they have some anectodal evidence, but we dismiss them when they have "official" proofs against some western plan.

If you think Putin is any different from Bush (or any POTUS to some extent) you are just rooting for one side and not considering the consequences. Stalin, Hitler and such are caryatids in therms of strategical moves, they lived in a day where there was no TV, no Internet and a very different view of the world.

It's a big mistake to take a side in this conflict, and proactivity is just an excuse: in these days and with western mindset you MUST let the enemy do the first move, especially if you know you have military supremacy to respond. If you don't do this you are either THE PROBLEM (in the sense of hegelian dialectic) or you think you don't have such supremacy. It seems more likely the former.

I have no doubt that evil is on either side, because heroes are fakes for the masses. Fact is the Ukraine affaire is giving Putin a massive support which he doesn't deserve, and I suspect we must thank NATO greed for this.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: sosobad

Whether Russia invaded Crimea or not is debatable and best suited for another thread, the people of Crimea like it. I was responding to his claims painting them as some genocidal country set on world domination.

Yes, I too would love to see Russia invade more countries. We can really rack up a good death count, make Stalin proud.

The fact I stated about Crimea was true as was the facts about the US. If the poster wants to spout off fallacies he should be prepared for someone coming back with facts.

Lets ignore that the majority of deaths in each of those countries were at the hands of extremists and despots within those countries bombing each other.

Something that has increased ten fold since the "intervention" from the west. Deaths the would not have been caused without the west pushing "democracy". The leaders taken out were scum but what the hell has popped up into existence since they all got killed?

Lets also ignore that these countries have more freedoms and a safer existence after than they did before living under their despots and religious fanatics.

Really Rocker? Have you heard of this group calling themselves ISIS? I didn't hear about them bringing great freedoms and a safer existence. The people that are currently in ISIS used to be locked up in prisons before being "saved" by the west.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: sosobad

No matter what any other country has ever done in the history of Humankind, it is unjustifiable for Russia to invade another nation. Comparing it to the actions of other countries does not make it in any way more acceptable or any less disgusting.

Can you please point out where Russia expanded their borders? Because I see a lot of people assuming these things, but I still see Georgia borders, I still see Abkhazia in Georgia and not in Russia, despite a contested border and I still see Crimea having voted for their separation, despite I would understand (but not agree with) a military intervention to protect Russia's biggest navy asset.

a reply to: Mastronaut

"Why destabilize a country you already "own" politically?"

Indeed that'd be true if Russia had ownership of Ukraine, but it didn't, so what if it was pulling away from Russia? The majority of the former Soviet union states have done so already.

Nobody sees a pattern ?

Russia warns about dramatic consequences, Debaltsevo pocket and Donetsk Airfield became meat grinders, now plans about military actions resurface, Russian military fighting and another bomb attack.

The moral of the Ukrainian troops is being destroyed.

This doesn`t go as The West thought it would go with Russia going in like in Georgia and the nationalists going to do guerrilla warfare just as the Mujahideen did in Afghanistan in the 80s.

originally posted by: DodgyDawg
a reply to: Mastronaut

"Why destabilize a country you already "own" politically?"

Indeed that'd be true if Russia had ownership of Ukraine, but it didn't, so what if it was pulling away from Russia? The majority of the former Soviet union states have done so already.

Yanukovich was hardly against Russia, it's more likely he was put there by Putin himself (like the USA favoured most if not all "liberated" countries after WWII). The only reason why Ukraine would leave Russia was to not pay their debt, but by parting with Russia, Ukr was going to kill their economy for no real reason (unless it was bribed).

Do you have any source to support the idea that Ukr under his former (elected) president was pulling away from Russia? Because honestly I don't see this majority of former Soviet states parting from Russia. Their entire economies are based on Russian links, resources, know-how and military protection, except some smaller state with ethnics diversity (part of which russians) that have problems which seem to stem from economical ties.

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

In my second reply i posted an article on Yanukovych, i don't think that Yanukovych was pro-russian, at least that is what i read in the articles from Der Spiegel and RT.
He also was not pro-eu but wanted for Ukraine to be a bridge between the two trade blocks.
There is much we do not know, but what seems clear is that the large protests came as a surprise, the lack of leadership as mentioned in the article from RT might have led to this reaction and strategy.
It certainly is quite different from what the US did in Iraq, that was planned and accompanied with false accusations, there is simply no base for comparison.

a reply to: earthling42

Echo of Moscow is US subsidiaries. Need we say more? Actually yes, I would like to point out to freedom of speech critics in Russia that non of such radical radio outlets are possible in your country. Oh, yes, 'Democracy Now'' with Amy Goodman. Sorry, never mind. Hahahaha)))

Have a nice day.

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

In my second reply i posted an article on Yanukovych, i don't think that Yanukovych was pro-russian, at least that is what i read in the articles from Der Spiegel and RT.
He also was not pro-eu but wanted for Ukraine to be a bridge between the two trade blocks.
There is much we do not know, but what seems clear is that the large protests came as a surprise, the lack of leadership as mentioned in the article from RT might have led to this reaction and strategy.
It certainly is quite different from what the US did in Iraq, that was planned and accompanied with false accusations, there is simply no base for comparison.

What surprise everyone knew Ukraine was having problems years before this. This was there second revolution after all. What made this one different is Russia realized throwing money at the problem this time was a waist. Last time they bailed Victor out this time they let him fall. Even before the Olympics people were surprised Putin didn't make an offer to Ukraine.He made no attempt to save Victor. And i think he resented that too that was his jab about Russia needs to stay out of Ukraine after he ran there.

Oddly enough also the last time we heard from him.I always found that odd being the former president and being from that region you think he would have lead the sepratists That was his base. But than if you realize Putin is behind it than it makes sense. They can't have him in the picture.

a reply to: dragonridr

He spoke just two day ago...

A year since the coup: Yanukovich interviewed by Russia 1 (Video)

I want to start by saying that the existence of such a strategy by no means implies that an invasion of Ukraine is imminent or will even occur at all. One of the things that military commanders and their staffs do is devise plans, publish reports, analyze potentials, and basically devise potential strategies and contingencies, whether they are likely to happen or not. The high command of every military has hundreds and thousands of such strategic plans lying around. As I've said before, the US probably has some for the invasion of Canada. But this does not mean the US will invade Canada. It is just how the system operates.

So this is by no means a smoking gun, even if these documents exist. Coming from the point of view of military strategy, I have been trying to get across to those on these forums that the fighting going on in Ukraine, and what Russia is accused of doing, makes no sense from a strategic point of view. Either Russia is prepared to commit its military to Ukraine or it is not. If it is, there will be no wondering as to whether the offensive has occurred. It will be quite obvious. To send small roving bands of soldiers or partisan forces into Ukraine makes very little sense to me, and here is why: no military decisions, or conflicts for that matter, occur just for the sake of fighting. There are various levels of objectives, or goals, that are being pursued. At the highest level these goals are known as policy. Policy dictates military strategy, and military commanders must develop strategies based upon the policies of the government.

And it makes no sense to me that the military high command in Russia would attempt to achieve their specific objectives by committing piecemeal forces of handfuls of soldiers, as there is very little combat power to be found in such units. The combat power they do possess is only sufficient for the achievement of very limited tactical objectives, because there just are not enough forces for anything greater. And the achievement of such limited objectives would only make sense in a strategic picture if they were meant to support the achievement of larger strategic objectives. But as I already mentioned, there are no military forces working to achieve these greater objectives. It would just make more sense for Russia, if it has military objectives that have been derived from political objectives, to commit much larger military forces and to seize these objectives outright. They are either prepared to use military force or they are not. If they are, economy of force would dictate using larger numbers of troops. You commit as many military resources as necessary to achieve the defined objectives. And committing a handful of small contingents is not enough to achieve really anything of a strategic value. And wars are not fought on the tactical or operational levels alone. Thus I would be very interested in seeing the supposed documents, not as much for the deployments and allocation of forces to various sectors, or the offensive itself, but instead to see both the political and military objectives that have been defined, as such information is often contained in plans on anything above the tactical or operational levels.

a reply to: darkorange

But the newspaper is russian.

a reply to: earthling42

It is. That's the beauty of free speech. Whos point of view it presents, you decide if you have read what I said above.


cheers.

P.s. would us of a tolerate known Russian sponsored news outlet on radio or on print as open and ligit as Echo of Moscow or Rain radio?

Hehe))) I doubt. The best alternative us of a can afford is 'Democracy Now'. Who is pretty lame compared to what Echo conducts.

a reply to: darkorange

Well it is the russian newspaper who plans to publish this document they have obtained.
So let's wait and see.

Should it not be 'freedom of press' instead of 'free speech'? if not, can you clarify your point of view a little more?

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: darkorange

But the newspaper is russian.

Wouldn't want to be the editor he's going to be put in to a deep hole. But I'll say people are starting to question Putin again there all ready trying to organize anti Putin rallis to be honest didn't think that was going to happen for a at least a year or more.

a reply to: dragonridr

You are pathetic. To question what? The only premises people question is us of a 'friendship' pretence. How the hell you can speak for Russians, dude?
Are you complete nuts?

originally posted by: darkorange
a reply to: dragonridr

You are pathetic. To question what? The only premises people question is us of a 'friendship' pretence. How the hell you can speak for Russians, dude?
Are you complete nuts?

Sorry if you choose to remain uninformed but yes an tI Putin movements are starting up. And we've had several cracks starting to appear. It started with mothers of soldiers dying in Ukraine. Than some politicians started talking about Ukraine. Moved on from there to Russian newspapers wrighting things like articles in the oP. And now there organizing rallies against Putin. He'll do what he does the best clamp down on the public. But the fact that it's even a pear ing in public means he's making enemies.
rt.com...

PS you seem to be the one with a true lack of understanding what's going on. Help if you looked what all the news is and stop wearing blinders. Putin planned this before Victor left office he wants his trade union ie old soviet union

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Nice analysis of the situation! I believe Russia sends TVs i.e. "trained volunteers" to Ukraine. These are not regular or enlisted military men. These are civilians given military training aka nearly as good as soldiers. Also, found that these are scantly armed and protected. Do not see these NAF guys with body armor or even a helmet. This goes to the fact that soldiers are used as cannon fodder in Russian military thinking..............even now!

Three times in Ukraine war, Russia has sent in its regular forces and they immediately made the difference. First time in Iloviask, second time at the airport and third time in Debaltsevo. Spetsnaz from FSB and other departments are always in the rear 24x7 directing the tactics. Tankers/artillery/snipers are not regular also but TVs, until the regular RF units are sent in the situations like mentioned above.

It is the NAF that does the dirty work first and the RF units play the decisive role. Strategy is similar to cold war battle plans. Send in Bulgarians, Czechs, Polish etc. against NATO first.............bleed and exhaust them........then Soviet forces conduct the final punch and break the adversary.

Russia is still afraid of more economic sanctions and that is why is not conducting full scale invasion. However, the moment, DC and Brussles start to give lethal weapons to Ukes, the RF forces will go full throttle and reach Kiev in two weeks using everything in the kitty except the WMDs.

West knows this and that is why is hesitating in providing weapons to Ukes. Kremlin will also do the same to US in other global set ups and it will not be pretty for western interests.