Britain sending military personnel to Ukraine in "advisory" role

[pap]

Well, if we hadn't picked a side before, we definitely have now. David Cameron has announced that the UK will be sending military personnel to Ukraine, there to provide advice and training, apparently.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31610026

 

I think it's a píss-poor idea myself. Not only will it provoke the Russians a little more, but I'm also tickled by the notion that the UK thinks its in a position to provide advice on a land war with Russia, who let's not forget, emerged victorious in the largest land war that humanity has ever fought.

 

Other thoughts are welcomed, as always.

[Seaford Saint]

It appears that the UAE are going to send arms to Ukraine.

[buctootim]

Three thoughts:

 

1. Russia was jointly responsible for starting WW2. If they had stood with Britain and France against Germany instead of collaborating with them and invading Poland and the Baltic States, then Germany would have baulked and WW2 would never have happened.

 

2. The Russian winter won WW2. Of the c2m German losses on the Eastern front the Russians probably only actually killed around 500,000- 1m, at a cost of around 8.5-14 million Russian soldiers. Every time they have been called upon Russian forces have been **** poor. They even managed to rack up big losses against Georgia, population 4 million. They have some good units but more than half the Russian army is poorly trained and equipped conscripts - labourers with rifles. War isn't like that any more. A third of their armed forces budget goes on nuclear weapons - so their conventional forces budget is actually similar to the UK's - and a tiny fraction of the combined resources of the US and western Europe. Much of their equipment dates from the 1970s and is outclassed by modern western weapons

 

3. If you want to prevent war in Europe we need to arm Ukraine. We don't need to go overboard - anti-aircraft and anti-armour missile systems would do it.

Edited 25 February, 2015 by buctootim

[pap]

Three thoughts

1. Russia was largely responsible for starting WW2. If they had stood with Britain and France against Germany instead of collaborating with them and invading Poland and the Baltic States, then WW2 would never have happened.

 

The Brits, French and Russians had talks about containing Hitler long before the non-aggression pact. Britain and France never really put any serious effort or commitment behind it, hence the non-aggression pact.

 

2. The Russian winter won WW2. Everytime they have been called upon Russian forces have been **** poor. They even managed to rack up big losses against Georgia, population 4 million. They have some good units but more than half the Russian army is poorly trained and equipped - labourers with rifles. War isnt like that anymore. A third of their armed forces budget goes on nuclear weapons - so their conventional forces budget is actually similar to the UK's - and a tiny fraction of the combined resources of the US and western Europe. Much of their equipment dates from the 1970s and is outclassed by modern western weapons

 

At best, that's simplified nonsense. The Russian winter did not win the war. You could certainly argue that Hitler's refusal to issue winter wear was a factor, or play what-ifs with many of the decisions made earlier in the war, such as pulling back Army Group Central from going after Moscow the first time.

 

Some of the Russian decision making was píss poor in the early days of Barbarossa. Stalin refused to believe that the Germans were about to attack, despite receiving notification from almost every arm of his intelligence apparatus. He also disappeared for a week when hostilities kicked off too. That said, I'd argue that it was command decisions on both sides that led to the Russian victory.

 

First, the German mission in Russia was to conduct a war of annihiliation. Casualties of thirty million were mandated to make the lebensraum that Hitler wrote about in Mein Kampf. Mistake number one. Many of the people in the Soviet Union didn't like living there, and would have helped the Germans a lot more had the mission been different. However, the Germans resumed their usual tricks of wartime atrocities and collective punishment, apparently justified because the Soviets hadn't signed up to the Hague Convention.

 

On the Soviet side, several command decisions provided the foundation for victory. First, they dismantled their factories and moved them to the base of the Urals, taking military production and training well outside of any would be German attackers. Given the huge tank battles later in the war at places like Kursk, this may have been the most important decision in the war. Other orders were more totalitarian, such as shooting those that won't fight and going after their families back home.

 

Russian Winter? Meh. This was a titanic clash of two totalitarian regimes. Hitler probably had the Soviet's recent disaster against the Finns in mind when planning Barbarossa, and may have also considered their capitulation when they signed Brest-Litovsk. Let's not forget that Hitler thought Soviet Bolshevism was a Jewish-led movement, and believed that his people were racially superior. He conflated their performance as an invading force of Finland with their ability to resist against an existential threat, and his prejudices told him they'd be weak anyway. Hitler underestimated them.

 

3. If you want to prevent war in Europe we need to arm Ukraine. We dont need to go overboard - anti-aircraft and anti-armour missile systems would do it.

 

I reckon if you want to prevent war in Europe, Europeans should make their own decisions, not blindly go along with whatever the US wants, which let's face it, doesn't have to deal with the consequences.

[Torres]

. Every time they have been called upon Russian forces have been **** poor. They even managed to rack up big losses against Georgia, population 4 million. They have some good units but more than half the Russian army is poorly trained and equipped conscripts - labourers with rifles. War isn't like that any more. A third of their armed forces budget goes on nuclear weapons - so their conventional forces budget is actually similar to the UK's - and a tiny fraction of the combined resources of the US and western Europe. Much of their equipment dates from the 1970s and is outclassed by modern western weapons

 

 

Doesn't really matter whether their equipment dates from the 1870's - the effort in Georgia proves that the Russian leaders haven't changed since then either and are still willing to sacrifice large numbers of lives in pursuit of victory.

[buctootim]

Doesn't really matter whether their equipment dates from the 1870's - the effort in Georgia proves that the Russian leaders haven't changed since then either and are still willing to sacrifice large numbers of lives in pursuit of victory.

 

I don't disagree - so you then have only two choices. You either acquiesce and let them take whatever they want - with the demands gradually getting bigger and bolder, or you front them up. If we arm Ukraine you make the costs for Russia much higher, higher than the benefits of action.

[pap]

We're doing it to help a friend in need, apparently. Here are some of their friends.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

[buctootim]

We're doing it to help a friend in need, apparently. Here are some of their friends.

 

 

 

Lame. The Azov Battalion is not part of the Ukrainian defence forces. However the leadership of the Donetsk Peoples Republic at the time of the rebellion was almost exclusively neo nazi. Zakharchenko currently 'Prime Minister' of Donetsk has said he believes Ukraine's leaders are " miserable representatives of the great Jewish people."

 

If you are against neo nazis, and sometimes I do wonder, you are backing the wrong horse.

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b04_1400827553

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukraine-crisis-who-are-russian-neo-nazi-groups-fighting-separatists-1463489

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=42481#.VO3tdfmsU9Y

Edited 25 February, 2015 by buctootim

[sussexsaint]

[pap]

Lame. The Azov Battalion is not part of the Ukrainian defence forces. However the leadership of the Donetsk Peoples Republic at the time of the rebellion was almost exclusively neo nazi.

 

If you are against neo nazis, and sometimes I do wonder, you are backing the wrong horse.

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b04_1400827553

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukraine-crisis-who-are-russian-neo-nazi-groups-fighting-separatists-1463489

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=42481#.VO3tdfmsU9Y

 

"The Azov Battalion has now been incorporated into and is armed by Ukraine’s interior ministry. A ministerial adviser, Anton Gerashchenko, [was asked] if the battalion had any neo-Nazi links through the Social National Assembly. ‘The Social National Assembly is not a neo-Nazi organisation,’ he said. ‘It is a party of Ukrainian patriots…’"

 

I don't mind you thinking I might be a neo-Nazi. If your thinking is anywhere near your Ostfront, or indeed reading expertise, I don't think it'll be a concern.

 

Besides, the Pakistani relatives might get upset.

[buctootim]

"The Azov Battalion has now been incorporated into and is armed by Ukraine’s interior ministry. A ministerial adviser, Anton Gerashchenko, [was asked] if the battalion had any neo-Nazi links through the Social National Assembly. ‘The Social National Assembly is not a neo-Nazi organisation,’ he said. ‘It is a party of Ukrainian patriots…’"

 

I don't mind you thinking I might be a neo-Nazi. If your thinking is anywhere near your Ostfront, or indeed reading expertise, I don't think it'll be a concern.

 

Besides, the Pakistani relatives might get upset.

 

I honestly dont think you are bright enough to understand the nature of the people you dabble with. To you its just an exciting anti-establishment pastime. To them its more than that.

[pap]

I honestly dont think you are bright enough to understand the nature of the people you dabble with. To you its just an exciting anti-establishment pastime. To them its more than that.

 

Post #4 - Tim getting owned on the Eastern Front

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?53535-Britain-sending-military-personnel-to-Ukraine-in-quot-advisory-quot-role&p=2143426#post2143426

 

Post #11 - Tim accuses me of being thick

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?53535-Britain-sending-military-personnel-to-Ukraine-in-quot-advisory-quot-role&p=2143580#post2143580

 

Coincidence?

[buctootim]

Thats the trouble. You dont know your history so think you've 'won' because you've asserted something backed by nothing.

[pap]

Thats the trouble. You dont know your history so think you've 'won' because you've asserted something backed by nothing.

 

Sorry, am I meant to take that seriously?

 

My rebuttal to your nonsensical parroting of "the russian winter won the war" was comprehensive, ta.

 

Yet you feel confident enough to say I'm backing my opinions with nothing, yet oddly enough, producing one-liners backed with precisely that.

 

What part of my summary do you dispute, expert?

[buctootim]

[buctootim]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Rkom1RpKA

[Tokyo-Saint]

We're doing it to help a friend in need, apparently. Here are some of their friends.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

 

This is a bit racist on gingers Pap. How come all the rest of the crew get the their eyes disguised to help them evade the KGB eye recognition revenge machine but the Ed Sheeran gets left high and dry?

[Killers Knee]

Novorossiya all the way, I fuc kin hate Nazi's

[Killers Knee]

Three thoughts:

 

1. Russia was jointly responsible for starting WW2. If they had stood with Britain and France against Germany instead of collaborating with them and invading Poland and the Baltic States, then Germany would have baulked and WW2 would never have happened.

 

2. The Russian winter won WW2. Of the c2m German losses on the Eastern front the Russians probably only actually killed around 500,000- 1m, at a cost of around 8.5-14 million Russian soldiers. Every time they have been called upon Russian forces have been **** poor. They even managed to rack up big losses against Georgia, population 4 million. They have some good units but more than half the Russian army is poorly trained and equipped conscripts - labourers with rifles. War isn't like that any more. A third of their armed forces budget goes on nuclear weapons - so their conventional forces budget is actually similar to the UK's - and a tiny fraction of the combined resources of the US and western Europe. Much of their equipment dates from the 1970s and is outclassed by modern western weapons

 

3. If you want to prevent war in Europe we need to arm Ukraine. We don't need to go overboard - anti-aircraft and anti-armour missile systems would do it.

Talking out your arse there son. Have a look at this document from US Army Command & General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth from 1983.

 

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/LP8_AugustStormSovietTacticalAndOperationalCombatInManchuria_1945.pdf

[buctootim]

This is a bit racist on gingers Pap. How come all the rest of the crew get the their eyes disguised to help them evade the KGB eye recognition revenge machine but the Ed Sheeran gets left high and dry?

 

That's a breakdown van numbnuts

[buctootim]

Novorossiya all the way, I fuc kin hate Nazi's

 

Don't go to Russia then, its stacked full of them.

[pap]

Or look at Tim's avatar

[Killers Knee]

Don't go to Russia then, its stacked full of them.

You are correct in they are in general national socialists, and Putin is responsible for shaping their national identity, but I would not say their economics are those of Fascism, those you will find far closer to home.

 

As for British involvement in Ukraine, that is empty posturing from Cameron. They may train a small army and arm them with IMF loans to be spent on US weapons in deals brokered by the UAE but this war, although a very long time in the planning in the US, will only end with Russia winning. How much blood gets spilt is up to our idiot leaders.

[buctootim]

You are correct in they are in general national socialists, and Putin is responsible for shaping their national identity, but I would not say their economics are those of Fascism, those you will find far closer to home.

 

As for British involvement in Ukraine, that is empty posturing from Cameron. They may train a small army and arm them with IMF loans to be spent on US weapons in deals brokered by the UAE but this war, although a very long time in the planning in the US, will only end with Russia winning. How much blood gets spilt is up to our idiot leaders.

 

I'm not sure there is a specific model to fascist economics, but apart from that dont disagree.

 

Putin wants to reunite the ethnic Russian people, whether they want to be re-united or not. He wants to counter Russia's very real demographic problem of an aging population and low birth rate - but hes not stupid. He makes careful calculations about the costs and benefits and the likely reaction from the west and was encouraged by lack of serious reaction in relation to Chechnya, Georgia and Transnistria - hence Crimea.

 

If you want peace in Donbass and no further expansionist conflict then arming Ukraine is the way to go. Not doing so will lead to more deaths, not fewer.

[pap]

The traditional definition of a fascist economy is when state and corporate interests collaborate to achieve together what they cannot alone. You could argue that there has been a bit of that since the birth of the military industrial complex, but we've never really had the ideology. We're making up ground on that front.

[Killers Knee]

The traditional definition of a fascist economy is when state and corporate interests collaborate to achieve together what they cannot alone. You could argue that there has been a bit of that since the birth of the military industrial complex, but we've never really had the ideology. We're making up ground on that front.

HSBC? Wells Fargo? Honestly the list is endless.

 

Everything you ever needed to know about the war in Ukraine was written by Obama's groomer: https://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=0GfvVOmLMsrJPfW4gbAL&url=http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261&ved=0CBwQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGEZXA6EvlGmOgF7forYlJ8hvqsYQ&sig2=UZzsPOCzJv-bSU-DU65m9Q

[pap]

A fantastic piece on modern day fascism by the incomparable John Pilger.

 

Excerpt:-

 

The intensity of the smear campaign against Russia and the portrayal of its president as a pantomime villain is unlike anything I have known as a reporter. Robert Parry, one of America's most distinguished investigative journalists, who revealed the Iran-Contra scandal, wrote recently, "No European government, since Adolf Hitler's Germany, has seen fit to dispatch Nazi storm troopers to wage war on a domestic population, but the Kiev regime has and has done so knowingly. Yet across the West's media/political spectrum, there has been a studious effort to cover up this reality even to the point of ignoring facts that have been well established... If you wonder how the world could stumble into world war three - much as it did into world war one a century ago - all you need to do is look at the madness over Ukraine that has proved impervious to facts or reason."

 

 

http://johnpilger.com/articles/why-the-rise-of-fascism-is-again-the-issue

[Batman]

outside of Ukraine, Russia is sure interested in see how capable we are these days with our military

Russia now using ports in Cyprus will cause the MoD a headache. When I say Cyprus, I mean the now russian colony

[aintforever]

I think we're right to question this, it wasn't long ago Cameron was going to make our country go to war in Syria on the side of ISIS, the Russians were right in that case.

[buctootim]

I think we're right to question this, it wasn't long ago Cameron was going to make our country go to war in Syria on the side of ISIS, the Russians were right in that case.

 

We are right to question but its not true that Cameron was considering going to war "on the side of IS". He was discussing active involvement in bringing down Assad. There are a lot of armed groups trying to do that - some much better than Assad and some, like IS, far worse. Im glad we didn't get directly involved. The problem with Libya was the simplistic idea that anyone was better than Gadaffi. Whats been proved is that no effective government is probably worse than an effective one, even if it was lead by a despot

[pap]

We are right to question but its not true that Cameron was considering going to war "on the side of IS". He was discussing active involvement in bringing down Assad. There are a lot of armed groups trying to do that - some much better than Assad and some, like IS, far worse. Im glad we didn't get directly involved. The problem with Libya was the simplistic idea that anyone was better than Gadaffi. Whats been proved is that no effective government is probably worse than an effective one, even if it was lead by a despot

 

Cameron and Hague wanted in with the same people who ended up becoming ISIS.

 

If what you say is true, that there were many armed groups and we'd only help or fight alongside the ones we liked, do you mind telling us how the hell that'd work in practice? Would members have to wear name badges, along with something denoting which group they're in? Perhaps they could colour code. All the people that ended up being ISIS that like us could have worn green. All the people that ended up being ISIS that wanted to blow our f**king heads off could have worn red

 

If you'd read Pilger's article, you might also have a different view on Libya. A country with a despot is probably better than one without a functional government, unless that country decides it wants to start flogging oil in a currency other than US dollars. Libya is a clear case, as was Iraq.

[Killers Knee]

Libya's problem was it was becoming too wealthy and Gaddafi had a workable strategy via his leadership of the AU to really change the fortunes of the continent for the better. From a country with a better standard of living than the UK to a failed state. We should feel so proud.....

[pap]

Libya's problem was it was becoming too wealthy and Gaddafi had a workable strategy via his leadership of the AU to really change the fortunes of the continent for the better. From a country with a better standard of living than the UK to a failed state. We should feel so proud.....

Britain was particularly duplicitous when studied over the long-term. Labour's government reconciled itself with the regime, making a very unpopular decision regarding the Lockerbie bomber. Cameron's government was instrumental in bringing it down, supposedly in a bi-lateral action with the French.

 

The US are the key beneficiaries. The US dollar remains the reserve currency for buying oil. I wonder what would happen to the US economy were that to change.

[buctootim]

The US invades countries in order to make them keep using the dollar for trade is myth beloved on conspiracy folks. If you have even smigeon's grasp on economics you'd know it makes very little difference to the US whether trades are denominated in $, £, or orange juice futures, its just a method of counting.

[pap]

The US invades countries in order to make them keep using the dollar for trade is myth beloved on conspiracy folks. If you have even smigeon's grasp on economics you'd know it makes very little difference to the US whether trades are denominated in $, £, or orange juice futures, its just a method of counting.

 

There's only one place that makes dollars, and without international value, only one place to spend them.

 

If US dollars are the de facto trading currency of oil, it's going to create a demand for US dollars. Anyone with a smidgeon's grasp of economics would know that. Ultimately, that demand is sated by the Federal Reserve in the US.

[buctootim]

There's only one place that makes dollars, and without international value, only one place to spend them.

 

If US dollars are the de facto trading currency of oil, it's going to create a demand for US dollars. Anyone with a smidgeon's grasp of economics would know that. Ultimately, that demand is sated by the Federal Reserve in the US.

 

The first sentence is classic Pap nonsense - a failure to understand. Do you really think there is only one place to spend US dollars? So if Russia sells China gas and gets dollars they can only buy US products with the proceeds? c'mon no-one is that thick. The dollar is frequently used as a unit of exchange because it is liquid and relatively stable - more so than the other options. No more no less than that. People can and do use other markers of exchange - including oil, gold, the euro and pound. There have been many other global reserve currencies in the past, including the pound. Its always the currency of the dominant economy of the day and changes over time. As the US has gradually lost its dominance over the past 20 years so the volume of trades denominated in dollars or reserves held by foreign banks has gradually changed. It will continue to change as national economies wax or wane. The end result will largely be zero, apart from a little loss of national prestige. Even the argument that being the reserve currency gives acccess to cheaper debt doesn't hold up. The yield on 10 year British treasuries is frequently cheaper than US.

 

How does the dollar being the reserve currency benefit the US economy? Why is it so vital that the US invades other countries to maintain control of it?

Edited 27 February, 2015 by buctootim

[pap]

So how does that benefit the US economy? Why is it so vital that the US invades other countries to maintain control?

 

The Federal Reserve creates every dollar at a rate of interest. They benefit immensely.

 

The US hasn't got a functioning economy. You can't really call a country that "budgets" every year simply by declaring an even scarier debt ceiling. As for how demand for dollars benefits the US, are you kidding? Every transaction that involves oil props up the dollar. That means that you've either got to have a ready supply of dollars, or you need to buy them from someone who does. Several approaches are taken to the former; companies either take on US cost centres, trade with American companies and/or get paid in dollars. The latter, no matter how many levels deep, started with a rate of interest on the creation of the money and converted at a rate of interest as it left the US.

 

The dollar's status as reserve currency creates demand and/or business opportunities in the US economy that simply wouldn't exist otherwise, and gives the dollar a value it doesn't deserve. That's why foreigners haven't got huge stockpiles of say, Canadian dollars.

[buctootim]

The Federal Reserve creates every dollar at a rate of interest. They benefit immensely.

 

 

Presumably disaster befell all those other countries when they ceased to get those 'immense benefits'? No? Presumably when the US dollar became the global reserve in 1921 they got a huge boost to their economy? Err no within a couple of years the great depression had started.

 

 

Edited 27 February, 2015 by buctootim

[buctootim]

The Federal Reserve creates every dollar at a rate of interest. They benefit immensely.

 

Every country does. There are regular auctions of debt. The interest payable (yield) is determined by how long the repayment period is, how good the economic prospects are (including inflation) and the risk of default. If your notion had any credence at all the US would be paying a substantially lower rate of interest than UK, Germany etc. It isnt. Last time I looked UK two year treasuries were being bought at yields (interest rates) of around 0.5%. Thats lower than inflation and why it makes sense for established economies to borrow - its free money.

Edited 27 February, 2015 by buctootim

[pap]

Every country does. There are regular auctions of debt. The interest payable (yield) is determined by how long the repayment period is, how good the economic prospects are (including inflation) and the risk of default. If your notion had any credence at all US debt would be substantially cheaper than UK, Germany etc. It isnt

 

I don't think you've got the point, and have ignored others.

 

Reserve currency status creates demand for US currency, which has to be bought or traded. The Federal Reserve, a private corporation which has sole authority to create the money, benefits from all of that demand. It is the permanent beneficiary of that ever increasing and residual interest. Reserve currency status renders the dollar a commodity in its own right. You need A to buy B. The dollar is therefore a pre-requisite for all purchases of one of the most sought after commodities in the world.

 

Let's not forget the fact that the US economy gets a huge advantage because it gets to buy oil in its own currency, something no other country on the planet gets to do. They either have to have a ready supply of dollars, or buy them from someone who does.

[buctootim]

I don't think you've got the point, and have ignored others.

 

What is the point? where are the 'immense benefits' for the US? Why didn't they get an immense boost to their economy when the dollar became reserve currency in 1921? Why didnt Britain hit a brick wall when we lost those same 'immense benefits' the same year? Why are the US paying higher rates of interest than the UK or Germany if they get to set the interest rates for using dollars? What are the huge benefits of buying oil in your own currency?

 

Quantify it - not more sweeping assertions not based in fact. If you are certain of these immense benefits you can put numbers to them.

Edited 27 February, 2015 by buctootim

[buctootim]

"I'm Afraid Putin Will Kill me in the Near Future" Boris Nemtsov 10th February 2015

http://sobesednik.ru/politika/20150210-boris-nemcov-boyus-togo-chto-putin-menya-ubet

 

Russian Politician Nemtsov Shot Dead. 15th February 2015

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31669061

[pap]

What is the point? where are the 'immense benefits' for the US? Why didn't they get an immense boost to their economy when the dollar became reserve currency in 1921? Why didnt Britain hit a brick wall when we lost those same 'immense benefits' the same year? Why are the US paying higher rates of interest than the UK or Germany if they get to set the interest rates for using dollars? What are the huge benefits of buying oil in your own currency?

Quantify it - not more sweeping assertions not based in fact. If you are certain of these immense benefits you can put numbers to them.

 

Ha. Loved that you asked that. You need figures before you'll believe that buying something in your own currency is easier than buying something in another? Ever been on holiday at all?

 

You can't even get your own dates right. 1921? It's like Bretton Woods, or indeed Nixon never happened. The dollar was effectively given reserve currency status at Bretton Woods. The dollar's convertibility into gold was removed in 1971. Nixon convinced the likes of Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC countries to still continue trading in dollars, despite the fact that promises to pay aside, it's backed by nothing.

 

Let's remember the point you're arguing here, that the dollar's status as reserve currency makes no difference to the US economy.

 

The buyers need to find dollars if they want to buy. The sellers will be paid in dollars. Historically, many had so many coming in that it was literally impossible to spend at the rate they were coming in. Now if you've a shítload of dollars, you've two choices. Convert the currency into something else, or spend it in another market which accepts US dollars as payments.

 

I wonder where that might be.

[JackFrost]

Lame. The Azov Battalion is not part of the Ukrainian defence forces. However the leadership of the Donetsk Peoples Republic at the time of the rebellion was almost exclusively neo nazi. Zakharchenko currently 'Prime Minister' of Donetsk has said he believes Ukraine's leaders are " miserable representatives of the great Jewish people."

 

If you are against neo nazis, and sometimes I do wonder, you are backing the wrong horse.

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b04_1400827553

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukraine-crisis-who-are-russian-neo-nazi-groups-fighting-separatists-1463489

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=42481#.VO3tdfmsU9Y

 

Er, you do realise that the Azov Battalion are armed and financed by Ukraine's interior ministry? They are a multinational far-right militia, better trained and better equipped than the Ukrainian defence forces themselves even if they of a vastly inferior number. Even the Western press acknowledge them to be neo-Nazi.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11025137/Ukraine-crisis-the-neo-Nazi-brigade-fighting-pro-Russian-separatists.html

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis

 

 

If anyone hasn't seen it, Ross Kemp covered this conflict pretty well

 

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

[JackFrost]

"I'm Afraid Putin Will Kill me in the Near Future" Boris Nemtsov 10th February 2015

http://sobesednik.ru/politika/20150210-boris-nemcov-boyus-togo-chto-putin-menya-ubet

 

Russian Politician Nemtsov Shot Dead. 15th February 2015

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31669061

 

Which doesn't prove Putin had him killed.

 

Nemtsov was shot on the Kremlin's doorstep in full public view. Putin's many things but he isn't stupid.

[buctootim]

Which doesn't prove Putin had him killed.

 

Nemtsov was shot on the Kremlin's doorstep in full public view. Putin's many things but he isn't stupid.

 

He isnt stupid at all. imo given the location at the Kremlin and timing - the day before a big anti war demonstration in Moscow that Netsov was leading - it was a calculated deliberate point to the west that he doesnt care what we think and can act with impunity.

[buctootim]

Er, you do realise that the Azov Battalion are armed and financed by Ukraine's interior ministry? They are a multinational far-right militia, better trained and better equipped than the Ukrainian defence forces themselves even if they of a vastly inferior number. Even the Western press acknowledge them to be neo-Nazi.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11025137/Ukraine-crisis-the-neo-Nazi-brigade-fighting-pro-Russian-separatists.html

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis

 

 

If anyone hasn't seen it, Ross Kemp covered this conflict pretty well

 

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

 

They are neo nazi. They are controlled by the interior ministry instead of the defence ministry for a reason. If you go online you'll see them accusing the Ukraine government of deliberately trying to get them all killed in combat against the rebels whilst protecting the regular army. I wouldnt be surprised if that was true.

 

My point was that yes Ukraine has neo nazis, but far fewer than Russia and they dont influence the government. The rebels in Donetsk are primarily Russian neo nazis. Its a question of degree.