RE: Russians in Ukraine (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series



Message


ivanov -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (5/15/2015 4:23:11 PM)

http://www.janes.com/article/51295/saceur-analysts-see-russia-renewing-invasion-of-ukraine-in-next-two-months

quote:

NATO's assessment, he added, is that the Russian military's goal is to secure the gains made on territory already taken in the Ukraine Donbass region, as well as to deploy for the launch of a late spring attack. "Many of their [the Russians'] actions are consistent with preparations for another offensive," he said, adding that Russian forces' activities were not just exercises but "preparing, training, and equipping to have the capacity again to take an offensive."


quote:

The other is that Russia's military has moved to exert enhanced positive control on the battlefield over the formations of "separatist" combatants and to more closely integrate their actions with those of Moscow's regulars "because there was disunity in some of the earlier attacks. We do see a very distinct Russian set of command-and-control in the eastern part of Ukraine," he stated. "Command-and-control, air defence, support to artillery, all of these things have increased - making a more coherent, organised force out of the separatists."


quote:

The Russian use of "political agents, Spetsnaz, 'little green men', volunteers, and mercenaries provide a variety of low visibility insertion, sabotage, training, and advisory options" and mean it has been able to prosecute its action in Ukraine "…in such a way that allows some European nations to pretend that they cannot recognise the direct control of Moscow in this conflict," Karber said.


quote:

"We are probably looking at three potential scenarios at this point," said Karber. "One is that this situation stays as it is now: a frozen conflict with Ukraine partially dismembered and its economy in such disarray that it will never be eligible for EU membership - a central goal of Putin."

"The second scenario," he continued, "is that the Russian forces move out and occupy all of the Donbass [Lugansk and Donetsk] regions. They run up the separatist flag and say 'we play the Abkhazia/South Ossetia [Georgia] game again' and just declare these regions protectorates of Russia."

"The third option that could play out is Putin orders an all-out offensive and the Russian army swings south to take Dnepropetrovsk, Zapaprozhye, and Mariupol, which gives him the land bridge to the Crimea that he wants."




ivanov -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (5/17/2015 11:06:00 PM)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32776198




ivanov -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (5/17/2015 11:35:11 PM)

Check out this pretty comprehensive document.

https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/201503_BP_Russian_Forces_in_Ukraine_FINAL.pdf


This part is especially interesting:

quote:

A further example of such actions is the deployment of the Russian Ministry
of the Interior’s Dzerzhinskiy Division in the role of ‘barrier squads’ – punitive
action, anti-retreat troops – behind the lines of rebels and Russian regulars.
This has been reported at both the northern part of the rebel-controlled
territory near Debaltseve and near Mariupol on the southern operational
axis. On five identifiable occasions, detachments of the Dzerzhinskiy Division
have undertaken punitive action against Russian regulars; rebels have also
reported punitive actions by the Dzerzhiskiy Division against them.





Jagger2002 -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (5/20/2015 4:04:20 AM)

quote:

Check out this pretty comprehensive document.


I read most of the article. It makes quite a few claims as fact without any supporting evidence. So I wonder if Rusi is a government organization or private think tank? I notice the board of directors is a who's who of British establishment with some US military as well. That is not a good sign. What is the background of the author? How and from who is he getting this information and where is the proof? Is the document truly independent analysis or does it have an agenda? Lack of supporting evidence coupled with statements of fact is a real red flag for me.

I still remember Powell at the UN making bald statements of fact about Iraqi WMDs which were later proven false. Of course, it wasn't just Powell, it was everyone establishment. Anyway, because we have seen the "big lie" become the dominant mode of government and think tank communication over the last 10-15 years, I won't blindly accept on authority a document so specific on facts but so completely lacking in evidence. I am now from the "show me" state and this article doesn't really show me anything. I am very sceptical.




bayonetbrant -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (5/20/2015 12:10:27 PM)

We make the case for Russian interventionism (from their point of view, of course) on episode #7 of The GrogCast

http://grogheads.com/?podcast=the-grogcast-episode-7




ivanov -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (5/20/2015 11:55:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagger2002

I read most of the article. It makes quite a few claims as fact without any supporting evidence.


I think that only the intelligence services could present some "evidence" or "proof" of Russian army involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. In my opinion they don't do it for two reasons. First, given the massive scope of Russian propaganda, any information could be immediately diluted and made insignificant, like it happened in case of the satellite photos showing the troops participating in the August invasion:

[img]http://s8.postimg.org/afo0xqdlx/140828_ukrsatellite_editorial.jpg[/img]
subir fotos gratis

Sure enough, the disinformation campaign, always starts along the lines: "they lied about Iraq, they are lying now [ the evil American imperialists ].

Secondly, US doesn't want to antagonize Russia any further, so the evidence is being withheld. For the same reasons, no lethal arms shipments have been approved for Ukraine.


As to the RUSI report, it doesn't show any evidence either, but I must say that it's pretty consistent with information I've managed to find online over the past year. If you really scrutinize what's available on the internet, you could easily identify the Russian army units that to various degree have been participating in the Ukrainian conflict. Of course much more information can be found in the Russian speaking internet ( for example by analyzing the social media frequented by young Russian soldiers ). I'll give you an example. In the late November 2014, pictures of troops from the 5th Independent Tank Brigade emerged. The unit permanent base is located in Ulan-Ude, in the Russian Far East:

https://en.informnapalm.org/news-deployment-5th-tank-brigade-russian-eastern-military-district-ukrainian-border/

[img]http://s28.postimg.org/5w80pox99/tanki_v_stroiu_1024x842.jpg[/img]
imagen jpg

In February during the fighting around the Debalceve pocket, many videos showing Asian looking tankers on the separatist side surfaced. Then this video appeared, showing the T-72B3's equipped with the Sosna-U sights ( version used only by Russian army ):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkbVnpEbVwY

The immediate response of the separatist side was: "America supports Ukraine [ how?], so why Russia can't support us"?

And then this interview with a badly burned tanker from the 5th Brigade appeared. The soldier explains clearly, that at least one battalion combat group from the brigade went to fight to Ukraine:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b5e_1427019399



The Russian efforts to cover up it's army involvement are extensive. The reports, that the destroyed equipment had been removed from the battlefield and hauled back to Russia, were initially ridiculed until those photos appeared:

[img]http://s8.postimg.org/rhguztsh1/Sin_t_tulo5.png[/img]
imagenes gratis

They show BTR's destroyed during the August incursion. They had been removed from the battlefield and brought back to Rostov base.


Last but not least meaning, there are various organizations of Russian mothers. Their goal is to look for dozens of soldiers who "went missing" during their military service. It's worth mentioning that those organizations have been declared in Russian as being anti-state and that they represent the interests of foreign powers...




delete1 -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (5/21/2015 2:14:59 AM)

+1 Jagger2002!




ivanov -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (5/28/2015 7:35:04 PM)

Here they come:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/27/us-ukraine-crisis-russia-military-idUSKBN0OC2K820150527

I think the most telling aspect of this new deployment is this one:


quote:

Many of the vehicles have number plates and identifying marks removed while many of the servicemen had taken insignia off their fatigues. As such, they match the appearance of some of the forces spotted in eastern Ukraine, which Kiev and its Western allies allege are covert Russian detachments.




TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (5/28/2015 8:48:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: katukov

Here they come:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/27/us-ukraine-crisis-russia-military-idUSKBN0OC2K820150527

I think the most telling aspect of this new deployment is this one:


quote:

Many of the vehicles have number plates and identifying marks removed while many of the servicemen had taken insignia off their fatigues. As such, they match the appearance of some of the forces spotted in eastern Ukraine, which Kiev and its Western allies allege are covert Russian detachments.



And this just as Putin lambastes the US over the FIFA raids! It's all about football!




ivanov -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/9/2015 4:08:31 PM)

According to the pro-russian sources, this is how the current separatist OOB looks like :

-Lugansk Armed Forces

2 Motor Rifle brigades
1 Motor Rifle batalion tactical group
1 Military Security Regiment
1 Spetsnaz / Reconnaissance battalion
2 Separate - "Ghost" brigade and 1st "Cossack" regiment

-Donesk Armed Forces:

7 Motor Rifle brigades
1 Artillery brigade
1 Military Security Regiment
1 Spetsnaz / Reconnaissance brigade
1 Republican Guard (3-6 separate BTG's used as strategic reserve)
3 Separate - Sparta, Somalia, Vostok BTG's

-Donesk Ministry of Interior

3 Security battalions
1 OMON Berkut battalion
1 SOBR Falcon (SWAT)

Those forces number about 45000 troops and poses the following quantities of equipment:

-500 tanks

-700 APC's

-800 artillery pieces.

http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2015-05-22/1_ukraina.html

It's worth noting, that this is more tanks, than British Army, Bundeswehr, French Army, Italian Army or Spanish Army. When the rebellion started a little more than a year ago, it were mobs of thugs armed with clubs and baseball bats, with a support of Russian special forces, attacking the police stations and regional authority offices. Right now, they are one of the most heavily armed forces of Europe. Does anyone believe that it would be possible to arm, equip and supply this force without a help of Russia?

Recent video showing a column of BMP's rumbling through a city centre of Lugansk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dv9AnfNnMg




Tazak -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/10/2015 9:04:40 AM)

Who is winning the media battle




ivanov -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/10/2015 3:41:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazak

Who is winning the media battle


This doesn't surprise me at all. Even during the Cold War, the Europeans were reluctant to take their defence obligations seriously. The good news is, that despite everything, the Americans still show a responsible attitude and understand their international obligations. Due to that NATO can be still considered a major international military player, with real deterrence capabilities.




Mad Russian -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/10/2015 5:30:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagger2002

does it have an agenda?


Everybody has an agenda of some kind.


quote:


I still remember Powell at the UN making bald statements of fact about Iraqi WMDs which were later proven false. Of course, it wasn't just Powell, it was everyone establishment. Anyway, because we have seen the "big lie" become the dominant mode of government and think tank communication over the last 10-15 years, I won't blindly accept on authority a document so specific on facts but so completely lacking in evidence. I am now from the "show me" state and this article doesn't really show me anything. I am very sceptical.


I'm big into "show me" too. With matters of military intelligence that's often times not possible. If you look at the Battle for Normandy for instance I can show you multiple different 'facts' about the fighting that are far apart in what was/is reported.

When it comes to things like them lying about the WMD's in Iraq I'm going to want to see something that shows they actually lied about it and weren't simply wrong. That may not happen in my lifetime. (I can only live for so long) It's often convenient for us to assume that people lied when they simply didn't know the truth to tell in the first place.

Good Hunting.

MR




TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/10/2015 5:38:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagger2002

does it have an agenda?


Everybody has an agenda of some kind.


quote:


I still remember Powell at the UN making bald statements of fact about Iraqi WMDs which were later proven false. Of course, it wasn't just Powell, it was everyone establishment. Anyway, because we have seen the "big lie" become the dominant mode of government and think tank communication over the last 10-15 years, I won't blindly accept on authority a document so specific on facts but so completely lacking in evidence. I am now from the "show me" state and this article doesn't really show me anything. I am very sceptical.


I'm big into "show me" too. With matters of military intelligence that's often times not possible. If you look at the Battle for Normandy for instance I can show you multiple different 'facts' about the fighting that are far apart in what was/is reported.

When it comes to things like them lying about the WMD's in Iraq I'm going to want to see something that shows they actually lied about it and weren't simply wrong. That may not happen in my lifetime. (I can only live for so long) It's often convenient for us to assume that people lied when they simply didn't know the truth to tell in the first place.

Good Hunting.

MR



I can't add anything specific about WMDs (except the mold in my basement, perhaps) but I always say, "never ascribe to conspiracy what one can blame on incompetence." In my experience, it's far more likely that people screw up than that they carefully plan an execute a deception or a conspiracy of some sort. Doesn't mean they don't--a lot of things are possible, maybe even likely. But Occam's Razor sort of points first at least to stupidity.




ivanov -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/10/2015 6:16:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

When it comes to things like them lying about the WMD's in Iraq I'm going to want to see something that shows they actually lied about it and weren't simply wrong. That may not happen in my lifetime. (I can only live for so long) It's often convenient for us to assume that people lied when they simply didn't know the truth to tell in the first place.




One thing is certain: Putin has been consciously and repetitively lying, about non-involvement of Russian army in Ukraine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8AMsRx2jjY




Tazak -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/10/2015 6:29:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: katukov

Even during the Cold War, the Europeans were reluctant to take their defence obligations seriously.


seriously where are you finding this drivel




Tazak -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/10/2015 6:38:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

When it comes to things like them lying about the WMD's in Iraq I'm going to want to see something that shows they actually lied about it and weren't simply wrong. That may not happen in my lifetime. (I can only live for so long) It's often convenient for us to assume that people lied when they simply didn't know the truth to tell in the first place.



I recall that NATO couldn't convince the UN (lack of evidence) so the US resorted to getting their congress to approval military action. There is a british review of the events leading up to the war and if the British leadership mis-lead the nation into the war due for release soon, I'll post a link once its available as it should be interesting reading




ivanov -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/10/2015 6:56:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazak


quote:

ORIGINAL: katukov

Even during the Cold War, the Europeans were reluctant to take their defence obligations seriously.


seriously where are you finding this drivel



http://www.kentuckypress.com/live/title_detail.php?titleid=2441#.VXiHMs-qqko

Of course during Cold War the potential threat was much greater, but proportionally not enough was done in terms of conventional NATO forces ( at least until the 80's ), so the Alliance was forced to depend on the nuclear deterrence.




Tazak -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/10/2015 7:20:56 PM)

So the book you linked makes the assumption that Europe didn't take its defence seriously, not sure how it can make that assumption as it indicates is covers 1948-1968 thus missing out on over 20 years of the cold war???

Or are you making a comparison between defence plans/spending during the cold war and the current period




ivanov -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/10/2015 8:50:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazak

So the book you linked makes the assumption that Europe didn't take its defence seriously, not sure how it can make that assumption as it indicates is covers 1948-1968 thus missing out on over 20 years of the cold war???

Or are you making a comparison between defence plans/spending during the cold war and the current period


I'm making a comparison of the attitudes of NATO members towards the collective defence obligations now and then.

During the first 20 years of Cold War the probability that it will turn into a real war, was greater than in the 70's or 80's. By the end of 60's Soviet Union caught up and eventually surpassed USA in terms of nuclear weapons, so the conventional forces become more irrelevant, than during the earlier period. So it's interesting to highlight some issues within NATO at the beginning of it's existence. In 1952 it was agreed that the alliance would form 50 divisions that would stand on the path of some estimated 175 divisions of the Soviets. This goal was never achieved and was reduced first to 30 divisions in mid 50's and eventually in 1962 NATO had 24 divisions in Europe ( againts 50 Soviet divisions in the first strategic echelon and another 100 in the follow up forces ). So the reliance on massive nuclear retaliation can't come as a surprise. During this period, the first weak Bundeswehr divisions were formed so the French, Dutch and British used this as an opportunity to reduce their forces. France actually withdrew from the NATO military structures in 1966. At the same time the number of US troops in Europe shrunk from 400 thousands to 300 thousands at the end of 60's ( mostly due to the involvement in Vietnam ). Today we see the same process on a different scale. USAREUR is getting smaller due to the different priorities. This fragment of the book seems to me very illuminating:

quote:

A more serious issue was fraying German-American relations over American demands for burden sharing. Unhappiness in Washington over the cost of maintaining forces in Europe had been building since Kennedy administration when discontent in the US Senate threatened the removal of American troops unless the Europeans , particularly Germans, helped solved imbalance of payments.


Does this not sound all too familiar? It's quite shocking that such a frictions could take place at the height of Cold War. In my opinion the above proves, that a strong and united Cold War NATO, is to some extent a myth.




ivanov -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/10/2015 8:58:34 PM)

This time an Ukraininian column. Some interesting stuff there - few BTR-3, BTR-4 and even S-300 at the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lRzmfbnC9o




IronMikeGolf -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/11/2015 2:47:28 AM)

Bunch of vehicles in parade trim paint jobs.




Tazak -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/11/2015 5:18:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: katukov

I'm making a comparison of the attitudes of NATO members towards the collective defence obligations now and then.


So your drawing a conclusion between war ravaged Europe facing years of another devastating war against the warsaw pact and a Europe that has not seen a direct threat in over 15 years........

quote:


During the first 20 years of Cold War the probability that it will turn into a real war, was greater than in the 70's or 80's. By the end of 60's Soviet Union caught up and eventually surpassed USA in terms of nuclear weapons, so the conventional forces become more irrelevant, than during the earlier period. So it's interesting to highlight some issues within NATO at the beginning of it's existence. In 1952 it was agreed that the alliance would form 50 divisions that would stand on the path of some estimated 175 divisions of the Soviets. This goal was never achieved and was reduced first to 30 divisions in mid 50's and eventually in 1962 NATO had 24 divisions in Europe ( againts 50 Soviet divisions in the first strategic echelon and another 100 in the follow up forces ). So the reliance on massive nuclear retaliation can't come as a surprise. During this period, the first weak Bundeswehr divisions were formed so the French, Dutch and British used this as an opportunity to reduce their forces. France actually withdrew from the NATO military structures in 1966. At the same time the number of US troops in Europe shrunk from 400 thousands to 300 thousands at the end of 60's ( mostly due to the involvement in Vietnam ). Today we see the same process on a different scale. USAREUR is getting smaller due to the different priorities. This fragment of the book seems to me very illuminating:

quote:

A more serious issue was fraying German-American relations over American demands for burden sharing. Unhappiness in Washington over the cost of maintaining forces in Europe had been building since Kennedy administration when discontent in the US Senate threatened the removal of American troops unless the Europeans , particularly Germans, helped solved imbalance of payments.


Does this not sound all too familiar? It's quite shocking that such a frictions could take place at the height of Cold War. In my opinion the above proves, that a strong and united Cold War NATO, is to some extent a myth.


The fact that Europe was still rebuilding after 6 years of war, a Europe that had suffered horrendous losses to both military and civilians, a Europe that was still rebuilding its infrastructure and economies, a Europe that had a big brother across the pond that would come and save the day (again!!), a Europe that was paying of massive loans and lend-lease payments. A huge standing army was something Europe could ill afford, and lets not overlook the cost of the war to the USSR who suffered even worst losses in terms of military/civilian/infrastructure/economy and who was reducing the size of its forces in Europe during this time period anyway so Europe didn't need to create and maintain 50 divisions, all it had to do was hold of defeat until additional forces could be brought in from the US and other 'overseas' countries.

Is it really any surprise that Europe couldn't (or didn't want to) maintain a huge standing army, not really and likewise the US didn't want to be incurring the cost of maintaining a large force on the other side of the world, but no one wanted to inflict crippling reparations on Germany as it seen as one of the causes of political instability during the 1920's that lead to the Nazi's rise in power

There have always been divisions within NATO and will always be divisions within NATO, sometimes the divisions are clear and visible other times not - when the US invaded Grenada in 1986(?) it was Britian who lead the condemnation of the invasion in the UN meetings, and Britain has, since WW2, viewed itself as having a 'special relationship' with the US.

Fast forward to the end of the cold war, and you'll notice that post 1991 there was no visible direct threat to NATO/Europe resulting in the cut backs in military spending across Europe, after the breakup of the Warsaw pact and the USSR Russia was not viewed as a direct threat to European stability until the situation in Ukraine and Crimea occurred.

Does this mean the western governments and think-tanks get it wrong - maybe
Does this mean
quote:

Even during the Cold War, the Europeans were reluctant to take their defence obligations seriously
No and I find this sort of comment demeaning to the men and women who risked and gave their lives daily during the cold war to ensure that we never saw WW3.





ivanov -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/11/2015 12:19:23 PM)

I've started a new thread

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3877800&mpage=1&key=�




delete1 -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/11/2015 5:30:32 PM)

This is where all the WMD context is/was about...

Obama and the Royals: Human Rights Aren’t a Concern, When Oil is at Stake

Finian Cunningham
AP / Hasan Jamali

Whereas American support for Israel has both religious antecedents and is based on a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, elsewhere in the region, the supply of oil and lucrative arms contracts continue to drive conflicts and regimes which at times seem centuries behind the rest of the world.

While pandering to the most repressive regimes on Earth with the finest American hospitality last week, President Obama came out with some outlandish, ludicrous statements.

Barack Obama was hosting the royal rulers of the six Persian Gulf Arab states in Washington. First there was the VIP treatment and photo-ops on the White House's South Lawn, then a fireside chat in the Oval Office, followed by a private meeting at the president's mountain retreat at Camp David in Maryland, some 100km north of the capital.

The oil-rich Arab guests hailed from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain. These sheikhdoms — historically carved out of the Arabian desert by the British Empire — are among the most wealthy and the most repressive regimes in the world.

Their rulers are pampered hereditary scions who systematically curtail free speech and public gatherings, ruling with an iron-fist. In all of these despotic regimes, people are routinely flung into dungeons for daring to make public comments that might be deemed critical of the ruling elite. In Qatar, for example, a young poet was jailed for 15 years because he wrote a poem that was mildly critical of the ruling Al Thani family, whose emir, Tamim bin Hamad al Thani, was in Obama's company this past week.

In Saudi Arabia, the ruling House of Saud has publicly beheaded 80 people this year alone; their blood-stained corpses were then dangled from helicopters as a warning to would-be offenders. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef was also among those enjoying Obama's hospitality.

Furthermore, the warped version of Islam espoused by the Gulf despots — called Wahhabism — is rabidly intolerant of any other form of religion, including more conventional forms of Sunni or Shia Islam, let alone Christianity and other faiths. All are condemned as "infidels" by the Gulf Arab rulers in their obscurantist, backward ideology.

This extreme intolerance under Wahhabism was encouraged by the British imperialists when Saudi Arabia was first formed as a state in 1932. It proved back then to be an efficient tool for imposing tyranny and crushing any dissent toward the rulers and their imperial master.

The same holds today. Washington has replaced London as the main international patron of the Gulf Arab dynasties. But their extremism still continues to serve as a tool for exerting geopolitical control in this vital oil-rich region.

In response to the high cost of US shale, Saudi Arabia has been selling its massive stockpile of crude oil at rock-bottom prices.

That explains why the Arab sheikhs in Washington this past week are among the foremost treasurers and arms suppliers for the myriad terror groups ranging from Al Qaeda to ISIL. These groups continue to threaten the Middle East, inciting sectarian conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon, destabilizing governments and fomenting regime change, as in Libya and Syria.

The financial and armaments links between the Saudis, Qataris and other Gulf despots on the one hand and terrorist mercenary groups on the other is well documented. Even US officials have acknowledged this; for example, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was revealed through WikiLeaks disclosures to be well aware of the role of Saudi Arabia in supporting Al Qaeda-linked terror networks. So too was the former US ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, who is also on record in 2010 as saying that the Saudi regime was instrumental in fuelling sectarian violence in that country.

Yet Obama regaled the Arab tyrants in Washington last week, saying that the US and the sheikhdoms are the "cornerstone of peace, stability and security in the Middle East."

The president added: "The United States and Saudi Arabia have an extraordinary friendship and relationship that dates back to Franklin Roosevelt [in 1945]."

All this was said by Obama with a straight face and sincere intonation. Which raises the question: is he a very good liar, or is this guy just really stupid? Why does the US continue to funnel billions of dollars of weapons every year to the Gulf dictatorships in the hopes that this will ensure peace and stability if these regimes are complicit in the terrorist activity that threatens the tranquility of the Muslim world?

Right now and for the past nearly seven weeks, the Saudi-led Gulf states have been pounding the people of Yemen day and night with American-supplied warplanes and bombs, including internationally banned cluster bombs that kill everything in their blast radius. Thousands of Yemeni women and children have been slaughtered in this US-backed campaign against the poorest country on the Arabian Peninsula.

Saudi Arabia may trigger a new kind of arms race in the middle east, as leaders insist the gulf state wants to match Iran's newly established nuclear enrichment capabilities.

The Saudi-led aerial bombardment has blockaded Yemen from air and sea routes delivering food, fuel and medical aid. The country depends on exports for 90 per cent of its food and fuel. Some 80 per cent of the Yemeni population of 24 million are now feared to be facing starvation and extreme privation. Children are dying from wounds and diseases because there is no transportation. Families are huddling in sewers to avoid air strikes.

In this desert country, diesel fuel is essential for drawing drinking-water from wells. Because of the Saudi-imposed blockade on Yemen, people are left without any drinking-water. This Saudi-led and American-backed barbarity breaks every precept of international and humanitarian law under the baseless, contemptible pretext of "protecting Yemen from Iranian-supported rebels."

This barbarity of collective punishment meted out to civilians was condemned this week by United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator Johannes van der Klaauw.

On April 28, American-supplied Saudi fighter jets bombed the runway and traffic-control tower of the international airport in Yemen's capital, Sanaa, in order to prevent an Iranian civilian cargo plane from landing with humanitarian aid. An Iranian cargo ship, coordinated with the International Red Cross Committee, is due to dock in Yemen next week with food and medical supplies. The vessel may again be blocked by Saudi forces, thus provoking a possible war with Iran.

These are the kind of maniacal, lawless regimes that Washington considers "extraordinary friends", who together, allegedly, maintain peace, stability and security in the Middle East.

We, of course, shouldn't exempt Israel from condemnation; right up until last year it has been jumping at every excuse to fight one-sided wars of annihilation against its Palestinian neighbors. The 2014 Gaza conflict claimed over 2,100 Palestinian civilian lives; despite deafening state propaganda in the social and traditional media promoting the state's response to the Gaza menace, only six civilians died on the Israeli side.

While it can be argued that American support for Israel has both religious antecedents and is based on an extremely powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, elsewhere in the region, the supply of oil, the propping up of the petrodollar, and lucrative contracts for arms dealers continue to drive ongoing conflicts and regimes which at times seem centuries behind the rest of the world.

If American activity in the region seems confusing, it's instructive to view it as a reaction to Arab nationalism and the British experience in the region. When British assets were nationalized in countries like Iran and Egypt, the British and the Americans were made to understand that local leaders such as Mohammad Mosaddegh answered to their citizens and could not relied upon to facilitate the transfer of oil to companies like the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). As long as the US had a reliable local regime to work with which was fundamentally anti-communist, it would be ensured that the oil would continue to flow. The establishment of monarchies in the region as client states was a modern-day Metternich-style solution.

Unfortunately, the establishment of OPEC and other similar events eventually revealed to the US that it couldn't control the region completely; the Saudi monster it had helped to perpetuate was one that was easier to appease than to tame. President Obama was compelled, for example, to cut a major state visit to India short earlier this year to attend the funeral of Saudi King Abdullah, and was joined by Vice President Joe Biden as well as Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA Director John Brennan, former Secretaries of State James Baker and Condoleezza Rice, not to mention Senator John McCain. Perhaps the question shouldn't be whether or not Obama is ignorant to praise the Saudis; maybe we should ask how much power the Saudis really have.




HeinzBaby -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/13/2015 9:53:34 AM)

+Daniel Rincon
I sometimes wonder who is the 'Evil Empire'
regarding the fanfare from the G7 meeting in Bavaria with all the press, to the complete press lockdown of the Bilderburg Group meeting in Austria a week later makes you thing that our National governments are nothing more than caretakers to these silent movers and and shakers.





delete1 -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/13/2015 2:29:00 PM)

I agree HeinzBaby. No innocence and no misinformation in geopolitics. They all know exactly what they are doing and want to do, specially world powers. I think that is even more strong today as it looks like every single phone and PC is being monitored worldwide.

Russians are in Ukraine, yes they are. Americans are in Ukraine, yes they are. Right at the beginning, involved in actions that lead to the coup in Kiev. That place is a geoestrategic chessboard, similar as to other places around the globe, south China sea, Middle East and so on. Power, money and influence. Those are the ingredients of foreign policies actions.

Perhaps the only innocents involved in all this are the ordinary people. The 10 years old boy in Donbass crying along the body pieces of his family spreaded out after a Grad shell and the bus driver father trying to hold in his hands his 3 young children dead in Yemen after a Soudi Arabia bombing. We can just imagine hundreds of those similar stories.

I just dont buy the general picture of the evil, soulless tyrant Valdimir Putin, the holy blessed, pure, source of all peace, stability and love Obama and its allies and the poor, helpless Poroshenko stuff that the majority of the western media try to describe. I am not saying that I agree 100% with Putin actions or the russian foreign policy.

Just my opinion.




Jafele -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/13/2015 4:41:11 PM)

Yep, there´s a lot of propaganda out there. History repeats himself again and again.

The best solution is impartial information, however in the past it was difficult to get. [:(] Most of our ancestors were extremely biased.




ivanov -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/13/2015 6:11:48 PM)

Examining Russian drone shot down by Ukrainians

Apparently shot down from DShK at the altitude of 250 meters.




delete1 -> RE: Russians in Ukraine (6/13/2015 8:34:47 PM)

Back in time prior the coup...

"The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375