This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ukrainian Coast Guard Attacked Near Russian Border, Some Killed
A Ukraine military spokesman has confirmed that some sailors were killed and more injured when 2 Ukraine Coast Guard cutters came under attack by artillery from onshore near the village of Bezimenne (close to the Russian Border). This is believed to be the first such incident since the conflict began.
As Bloomberg reports,
Some killed when cutters attacked near village of Bezimenne near border w/ Russia, wounded are being transported to hospitals in Mariupol, Oleksiy Metasov, aide to Ukrainian lawmaker Yehor Firsov, comments by phone from Mariupol.
The naval cutter is reported to have been attacked by artillery from the shore.
Leonid Matyukhin, Ukraine military spokesman, says doesn’t recall similar attack since conflict started.
At around the 1:00 mark, the clip shows numerous aircraft approaching the burning ships...
»
- 23729 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
this is WW3 Bullish !
Buy Bottle Cap & Squirrel on Stick, use leverage !
code CAP - SSTK
This is IT (the Red flag)
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" Admiral David Farragut
This is bullish right?
Should be good for another 30 points up on the S&P.
Ukraine won't have any coast left when all is said and done.
Probably not, especially if Odessa becomes part of NovoRossiya. Between Crimea, Odessa and Donbass, the best, most productive and valuable parts of the former Ukraine will not be available for USSA/IMF asset stripping.
For Russia, this may be the best outcome, since what will be left of the Ukraine will be a landlocked, bankrupt, Somalia style country, a stinking dogpile to be left on the EU's doorstep.
Plus, nice route for the new gas pipeline. Assuming the Euros got Ruble to buy the gas this coming volcanic winter.
Ukraine has a Coast Guard? Who knew...
Whatever their "Coast Guard" has, is essentially confined to the Ukranian coast of the Sea of Azov.
Russia owns all the other coastlines and the Kerch Strait that leads out to the Black Sea.
I've heard the Ukrainian Coast Guard is second only to the Nebraska Coast Guard in combat readiness.
""Ukraine has a Coast Guard?""
... UKr Just Lost Its Coast Guard
Artillery to take our a Coast Gaurd ship? I'm calling bullshit... It never happened...
Air strikes, apparently.
Artillery can take out ships. Have you ever heard of the Guns of Naverone? It wasn't just a movie. It was all historical and shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Coast_Artillery_Corps
Learn then speak..
Theoretically, it could be done with massed fires, but it is an incredible waste that might not yield results.
However, the right way to do it would be to employ guided munitions. Of course, someone would have to be painting the target.
Say hello to my little friend- Krasnopol
fuck em hard fuck em deep!
end to end from the D River to the Sea - east to west - Newco!!!
New country for real people - Fascists need not apply for citizenship!
This match is not for fun.
Germany will not choose sides but once again be the centre
of contention. US being all but completely fucked up and panslavic settlement in due course.
99 air balloons for 99 years though.
I agree this is not fun
Europe is being thrown to the dogs of war
As a bone
Russia wants every part of the Ukraine back except Chernobyl. What a deal.
All this WWIII chatter implies that the West is in any way, shape, or form, prepared to square off with Russia on the battlefield in their fucking back yard!!!!
Putin is boiling this Ukrainian frog in a pot, slowly and meticulously turn up the heat, until the Ukies are dead, but never do anything too big or brash to create a moment of no return for the West!!
Vlad knows both the EU and US have absolutely NO stomach for losses in the Ukraine, they will take every opportunity to back down every time as long at he provides them the space!!
This last week, he turned the heat up, Tuesday they'll be asking for a meeting at the UN to "de-escalate" the situation! Brilliant really, it's called knowing your enemy, some of these worthless, incompetent dipshits at West Point, might want to get out some literature and do the same, instead of watching gun camera footage and porn all day, on the taxpayers dime!
Putin has stomach aplenty for his raped mongol
subjects.
The man said,... "flexibility".
Short drop of 50 to 75 as the rationals divest, then up 200 as government watchers and Fed fans flood the buy side.
So the twats tool up to border and are fired on, now who would have figured that would happen.....obviously the Russians felt greatly imperiled.
and no I am not being sarcastic...
It's only bullish if they killed some folks...
The Rothchild's are funding one/or both sides with the Rockefeller's and Warburg's funding the other, backstopped by the respective 'Taxpayers' to insure the funding stream is never broken...
US Destroyer sails for Rebel Coast... "OPERATION GULF TONKINSKI".
Beat me to it Jim.
I guess the Ukie leaders still stuck in Mariupol won't be leaving via their private yachts anytime soon.
Yes, given history of wars fought on the Black Sea and Azov coasts, it would be very smart to destory any Ukrainian vessels operating near the coast. Blockaded Mariupol will need supply by sea, and as you point out, ships make perfect escape routes for Ukie soldiers, leaders, fascists and government rulers inside Mariupol. Rebels can shoot down low flying aircraft acting as a link to Ukraine proper, so ships are vital. No doubt all the rich oligarchs and family along with their private Nazi militias will seek sea rescue. From a rebel point of view, destroying any Ukie ships at sea is vital to the war.
I thought I saw aircraft, but then thought maybe birdsm because the last part showed them meake a move only a bird could do at that speed, but I am not sure. As a former USN sailor, I know how many times lookouts reported birds to the bridge as Aircraft approaching. It was a joke, we called them "B1RDS"
The Oligarchs and their family "require" the same treatment in the basement that the Romonov's got
the only person(s) allowed to live in the Family must be named Anastasia
A few deft snips with a sharp knife and Kolomoisky can qualify for being renamed "Anastasia" (albeit a *very ugly* Anastasia).
As a former USN sailor, I know how many times lookouts reported birds to the bridge as Aircraft approaching. It was a joke, we called them "B1RDS"
So bloody glad I did not have lookouts of your calibre pm my ship, I would have you/them, put down in the engine space and made sure you never saw daylight.
Did I, or did I not read an article about NATO ships heading to/entering the Black Sea recently?
You did, you did see a Putytat. Bad Putytat!
Seriously though, I'm more worried about a foreign sub from the Eastern Mediterranean shadowing them. Deja Vu of USS Liberty.
"Seriously though, I'm more worried about a foreign sub from the Eastern Mediterranean shadowing them. Deja Vu of USS Liberty."
Submarines are a delusional conspiracy of tin foil hat wearin' nutters! (Am I doing it right?)
Very good Kirk. This is the prime place for a massive war starting false flag by NATO on one of it's own ships. Israel's fleet of modern German Submarines are PERFECT to carry out a False Flag to blame on Russia. An, since Israel has no concious at all, killing AMerican sailors comes natural to them! Watch the Black Sea, could be where WWIII turns us all into ashes.
Whose submarine???
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-02/us-ships-approaching-sevastopol...
That would be a neat (and dangerous) trick - only 60' of water depth in DOWNTOWN Istanbul to hide a submarine about 60' tall without scraping (ala USS Taylor), and without being hit by a ship above, and without anyone seeing the big fish in the river (or its wake)... where probably several waterfront real-estate leases are being financed by Moscow and outfitted with some rather sensitive measuring, recording and transmitting equipment. (If they straddled sea lanes the options are slightly better, but only on paper and before factoring in twice as many ships overhead.)
http://www.oceangrafix.com/chart/zoom?chart=55048
Drone submarine?
Dingdingding! I think we have a winner here...
Always some...they rotate them in/out
nothing better to do...
Mariupol is on the Sea of Azov, not Black Sea
Very shallow sea at that. In WWII, a Soviet attack took place where Red Army soldiers wadded across a part of the sea to attack Germans in the rear.
And that explains why so many drones arrive at the wrong targets, the fuckwit operators skipped geography.......
Nice shooting.
If they were close enough to Russian batteries to be hit they were close enough to hit. Don't stick out your tongue at someone with a long range rifle and not expect to get shot.
Seriously difficult for a shore battery to hit a moving ship unless they had buoys in the water or some markers.
Artillery hitting ships from the coast? difficult at best and only if they do not move...
You could do it, it is essentially a physics problem. But to get the variables to calculate a shooting solution... Range, target vectors, wind speed and direction, etc. Without markers at sea, this suggets a coordinated effort with air and land assets. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I believe that modern fire control radars calculate enemy locations based on incoming ordance. So to engage unprovoked essentially a moving point seems highly unlikely.
If moving Naval ships are able to engage via their heavy guns, why couldn't a stationary artillery battery hit a moving ship offshore?
Seriously, are you trying to tell us that land based artillery batteries cannot hit a ship out at sea?
I'm not saying they can't, I'm saying its exceptionally difficult. Land artillery units don't fire at targets they fire at an area. So to shoot at a moving ship you need to know the range, speed, and direction of the target, as well as the meteorlogical effects in the area. You use these to calculate a shooting solution. And if this solution isn't exact, the first shell splashes harmlessly away. Then you take that miss and adjust your calculations and "walk" the shells onto the target, assuming the target keeps a steady speed and direction. So saying that an artillery team that is not trained on engaging moving ships (which why would you train for this scenario when there are anti-ship missles) hit a moving coast guard ship on the first shot (assuming that any sane captain would drastically change course and speed and call for air support) raises eyebrows in my opinion. If this ship was anchored off the coast with the crew playing grab-ass that is a different story.
The US must send the Armor School rejects (Ft. Benning, GA) to Artillery School (Ft. Sill, OK)...
Most of the Army and Marine tankers I knew were at least nominally capable of hitting a moving tank, from a moving tank, with the wind blowing (at least if they weren't smashed on the tanker's version of Torpedo Juice).
The differnce for nonmilitary types is the type of artillery used. Other posters are correct. Traditional land based towed or self propelled artillery would have a difficult time hitting moving objects or ships. They are area weapons which use explosions and shrapnel to cause casualties. You can get time of flight and use it to time your impact but it will only work if the ship is at a steady speed, you can time it and it will require a direct hit. Landing in water will not do much. Would be good for harassment, though and you could get a very lucky hit. IF they have laser guided munitions or can do airbursts that will have more effect.
Traditional shore batteries are direct site weapons, like the ones you see at Normandy in WWII. They are actually more like a tank. You see the object, it's movement and fire directly at it. I will leave it to any former swabbies to talk about naval fire, but traditional ships could do both direct fire and indirect fire. In any case, formal shore batteries with direct fire weapons of large and small caliber are a serious threat to those who get close enough.
An intrepid crew with a 155 could certainly try direct fire. It wouldn't be any harder than doing the same with a revolutionary era cannon except the modern version fires a much more accurate round than a cannonball. I'd give a good crew 3-5 shots for a hit.
Very true. I forgot 105 and 155mm actually can do direct fire although they are loathe to do so. The problem is that if you can see them, they can see you and then their direct fire weapons may come into play. It eliminates the traditional advantage of artillery to fire without being seen and then quickly relocate before counterbattery fire comes in.
Nice point, though and if you are in artillery, it is a thrill to do...if you survive.
Mind you they were firing on a cutter. What is that armed with anyway?
in ww2, russians often fired artillery pieces -- 122mm and 152mm -- directly. maybe they still do that today.
Yes, those were assault guns. They were more effective if they came on tanks. They were useful in cities and fortified areas. They might have an armored round for bunkers, too. These would actually be rather similar to coastal artillery.
>>>In any case, formal shore batteries with direct fire weapons of large and small caliber are a serious threat to those who get close enough.
My 2 cents: my Dad spent WW2 in coastal and anti-aircraft artillary units. He had lots of snappy-looking slide rules and calculators, but I think it mostly came down to point-and-shoot.
AT weapons as well as tanks fire at targets. Sometimes moving targets. Tanks and APCs are much smaller than a ship. A ship has even less armor.
Furthermore, based on the history of ship to shore combat, the advantage has to go to the shore battery.
All you have to do is watch Predator, triangulate and fire.
(GPS works the same way)
That would actually apply to counterbattery fire. You are right in that that is how it has been done. You don't even need GPS if you are old school.
Ssssh. The the armchair privates work it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Coast_Artillery_Corps
Seriously, coastal artillery has been a force to be reckoned since before our revolutionary war.. Quit discussing mil subjects if your that ignorant.. Cannot hit a moving ship, knobjob how do you think ships hit ships without buoys.....
I think that reply is to me. If so, you are an idiot. What I said is completely accurate. I actually have trained and fired modern artillery. That's right, towed 105's, self propelled 155's and 4.2in mortars and even some 81's. I was trained as a spotter, too. How about you? I also am very familiar with tanks although I have not been in the modern ones. I know very well the differences in a tank mounted mobile 105mm direct fire weapon and the capabilities of a towed piece. I have actually done it. You should try coincident range finders in the desert sometime. Then try a ranging machine gun and then go to the laser range finder. I have used them all. It is quite challenging. And you?
My minor is military history, as well. I toured shore batteries as a miltiary engineering project.
Since you are such a genius, how many invasions have shore batteries stopped since the Civil War? Virtually none If they were an insurmountable threat then Japan would have won and Normandy would have failed. They are dangerous like any other weapon and they cause casualties but they suffer a critical weakness as I said. They are immobile so it is just a matter of time before they are destroyed or incapacitated. That is why they have gone largely by the wayside.
I am not a naval guy but the range on a battleship was about 30miles if memory serves. They had more complex firing systems for over the horizon shooting but the prime purpose was line of sight firing. That is where they were most deadly. By WWII there were very few major ship to ship battles. It was all about planes versus ships and the carriers more or less put battleships into the shore bombardment mode. The large caliber guns on them were capable of both artillery like indirect fire and line of sight direct fire.
You should be a bit more reticent before making bombastic pronouncements.
Russia has worlds best physicists. Physics are normal subject.
I would guess some sort of missile but it could have been artillery. I watched the video but could not see jets. i saw a hit on one of the shipts at about 1:18 in the video.
You can hear the sound of Artillery firing in the background. No missile needed.
If Europeans could destroy moving ships with cannon, how hard would it be to hit a ship today using modern artillery?
Sounded to me like an anti-tank or anti-ship system or something similar. You can hear a report from the launch and hear the rocket report running away (doppler effect). Approximately 20s travel time for rocket at about 300m/s (TOW rocket system reference) puts it a few miles offshore to impact.
Artillery shells are much faster (~700m/s) so the report to impact time would be much shorter than heard/shown in the video.
Also keep in mind she is recording video from an unknown distance to launnch/firing location so you have to account for triangulation of sound and sight differences.
Thank you for the clarification, and a factually post. This is why I read ZH instead of wasting time on BI or other idiot infested sites.
this was one more warning by Putin of their technology prowess
saying: dont go there
No problem for a Laser range finder.!!
There are systems capable of that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VfInaxP0nw
-deleted-
Its exceptionally difficult. Its one of the reasons why torpedoes were invented.
No it's not exceptionally difficult for land based batteries to hit ships, and torpedos were invented for subs.
Check out the gun emplacements for Gibraltar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakneck_Battery
Those are AWESOME. I stand corrected. I guess I forgot all about cannons and such! Hmmmm....the plot thickens. <grabbing popcorn>
Downvoted my other post for obvious stupidity. Sorry getting blazed, and my lack of military knowledge is apparent from time to time.
I did an armourers course on the Rock, or rather in it.
Its hollowed out with tunnels and galleries. Some still intact with 64 pounders
from the Napoleonic wars. They still find black powder magazines ,long forgotten,
from time to time. Most of its history is inside it.Fascinating place.
And yes, a ship is an easy target for a shore battery, has been for centuries.
For a shore battery. Not for a regular army artillery unit.
And it was a cutter not a real warship.
You don't eve need a direct hit to sink it or set it afire.
Before sabot rounds, anti tank or warship rounds cooked off interior ammo,without
penetrating the hulls. Do the rebels have TOW equivalents ?
Lucky shots do happen as well,Remember the Hood.
If the ship is close enough to see, it can probably be hit with direct fire.
Once they got back under way, I'm sure the arty stopped hitting them.
It wasn't a lucky shot that sank the Hood, she sacraficed heavy armour for speed and paid the penalty. A salvo went straight through her deck ind into the Magazine. "BINGO"
It was both. In the first salvos at long range,to hit directly above a magazine.Luck.
Poor design forced because of the Washington naval treaty consraints was the killer.
It was still a lucky shot at extreme range.
Shit happens.
The flip side to your shore battery comment is that shore batteries themselves are easy targets, too. Their only defense is whatever fortification they have. Outside of that they are fixed in place and easily targeted, especially these days. That is why there are really no more shore batteries these days.
What does a Ukrainian cutter carry for armarment? My bet: not much.
...and probably not well armored, either.
The DNR, formerly known as the "rebels", have Javelin's courtesy of zio-Canada. Oh Canada is now Oy Vey Canada.
Canada was trying to get them to the Ukie Candy Man zato forces. The milita captured them from Ukies or the Ukies turned em over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin
Looks like a piece of shit compared to the Kornet, which one man can use and fire. Figures it is Raytheon and Lockheed Martin junk. LM makes that pile of crap the F-35.
A british torpedo dropped from a plane took out Germany's and the world's most imposing battleship, the Bismark.
Make that a whole herd of airplanes.
The Bismark took quite a pounding from aircraft before it went down.
I naval squadron(12) of Sopwith Camels.
Stringbags, a relic of WWI, which allowed to attack.
They flew too slow for the German gun directors to get a firing solution.
are you saying that a 'fairey swordfish' was really a 'sopwith camel'? the swordfish was a biplane, but i never thought of it as one-and-the-same as a sopwith camel.
Soryy mixed them up.Senior moment.
Which is dumb because I have the joystick from one of them in my cupboard,
along with parts from a Hellcat, and a Seafire.
Errm, a torpedo hit jammed the steering.
The ship was sunk by naval gunfire.
Sink the Bismarck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KecIdlEAKhU
Those were designed to engage ships at sea. Shooting a towed howitzer at a moving ship is entirely different.
Radar fire control is helpful, but even then it is a hard task. North Vietnam shot at our ships often, hits were nearly unheard of. They used radar until USN aircraft used anti radiation missles, then they swithced to optical fire control and spotters, both a long shot.
Jack Burton, what if the Russians were sending exact ship co ordinates gathered via their spy satellites, estimates of speed and direction, and then providing firing solutions to NovoRossiya artillery? Would this be more effective?
I am pretty sure the ship was anchored when it was hit.
I am also pretty sure the Uke coast guard won't anchor within sight of militia units again.
Nowadays for any modern army it is about missiles. Might be cruise missiles, laser guided, or self guiding but that is the rule. Anyone remember the Exocent missiles and the British navy in the Falkland Islands? One missile can take out a ship.
I do not know what technology the Russians and/or rebels have deployed but ships have to be defended nearly as much as they are an offense threat against a properly equipped foe.
That's why in all likelyhood is was not artillery. Fast moving target at 10 miles+? Get real. There are no shore batteries in Russian hands AFAIK, so it looks very much like an aerial attack. But since mentioning aerial bombardment implies Russian forces, the party line is artillery. ZH better stick to it.
edit: around the 1 min mark. two low flying fighters come from the right and open up. That's a Russian attack on Ukr. ships. If that aint war, I don't know what is.
"A hole in the head!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVjNxyvfzI
PROPAgANDA
The NY Times will blame Putin again:
The New York Times and Flight MH17
By Bill Van Auken30 August 2014
In an August 29 editorial calling for the US and NATO to adopt a retaliatory policy against Russia over its alleged “large and unacceptable escalation of ... aggression against Ukraine,” the New York Times asserts in passing that after rebels in eastern Ukraine “shot down a Malaysian jetliner with a Russian missile ... Russia’s involvement became more overt.”
What is most striking about this assertion is that it comes after roughly a month in which the Times, like the vast majority of the Western media, has gone virtually silent on the downing of Flight MH17, even as the most important evidence, including the plane’s black boxes, has become available to investigators.
How is it that the Times can assert as an indisputable fact that the anti-Kiev forces in eastern Ukraine and Russia itself are responsible for bringing the airplane down?
There are indisputable facts involved in the MH17 tragedy. The plane, en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on July 17, fell in the war zone of eastern Ukraine, and all 298 passengers and crew members lost their lives.
Beyond these facts, there exist different hypotheses as to the cause of the airliner’s crash. One hypothesis, which was developed within barely hours of the disaster, with no more credible support than highly questionable postings on social media, was that the anti-Kiev rebels in eastern Ukraine had shot the plane down with a Russian-supplied Buk surface-to-air missile, a weapon that the rebels denied having or possessing the skill to use.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that this hypothesis found immediate acceptance from not only the Times, but virtually all the Western media, because it was tailor-made to further a definite foreign policy agenda being pursued by Washington and its allies in opposition to Russia.
There are, however, other hypotheses. For example, Malaysia’s main daily English-language newspaper, the New Straits Times, reported on August 7 that compelling evidence points to the plane being brought down by an air-to-air missile and machine-gun fire from a Ukrainian Sukhoi-25 fighter jet. The report cited US intelligence analysts and investigators on the scene as saying that damage to the plane’s fuselage indicated it had been “crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire” from a Ukrainian fighter.
The source of this report made it extremely noteworthy. The New Straits Times is a newspaper that reflects the views of the ruling party and government of Malaysia, which runs the airlines and which lost 43 of its citizens in the crash, second only to the Netherlands. Yet the report was blacked out by the Times, together with the vast majority of the media in the West.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/08/30/mh17-a30.html
“Every day, the New York Times carries a motto in a box on its front page. "All the News That's Fit to Print," it says. It's been saying it for decades. I imagine most readers have long ceased to notice this bannered and flaunted symbol of its mental furniture. I myself check every day to make sure that the bright, smug, pompous, idiotic claim is still there. Then I check to make sure that it still irritates me. If I can still exclaim, under my breath, why do they insult me and what do they take me for and what the hell is it supposed to mean unless it's as obviously complacent and conceited and censorious as it seems to be, then at least I know I still have a pulse. You may wish to choose a more rigorous mental workout but I credit this daily infusion of annoyance with extending my lifespan” -- Christopher Hitchens
The paper is made for people who live in New York, do I need to say anything else.
Abitdodgie,
Sorry, but your statement is wrong.
The Washington Post and The New York Times set the agenda by what other papers go by.
And, what is gonna be talk on TV media news the next day.
And the paper is called Jew york times.
JewSA.
Could be worse. They could be some zioturd "news" organization that ends every prop-cast with, "fair . . . and balanced". We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast . . . .
It's the seriousness of the charges that matters (not the presence or absence of evidence).
The same NY Times who supported the USSR which was created by NYC bolsheviks of the tribal kind. The USSR and this war is well is a genocide against Christians by the tribe. The NY Times was 100% their Walter Duranty who lied about Stalin starving millions of Ukrainians. The NY Times always spewing the Red Shield and tribe's propaganda.
Russians, Belorussia and Kazakhstan suffered famine also. Was not Ukraine only.
See also Volga famine.
Famines with shortages occured naturally in those times, but Bolshevik/Soviet commissars left nothing.
The Ukies had a broken ship and sank it?
Scuttle is the correct term I believe. Yeah, this is going to get real hot. Just got theat feeling. War is comming, it is inevitable, they are just setting up the pretext, for the History Classes, you see?
So the east of Ukraine is making mincemeat out of the troops on the ground from the west and now sinking there ships just for shits and giggles , fuck you Odummer.
Possible Mini False flag. Sail to Russian border and explode a few small bombs on board and claim casualties flown to Kiev. Might work, if the the CIA approved it before hand and the US and Western Media has been informed to run it front and center.
They are getting pretty desparate. Maybe McCain, Nudelman and the other NeoCons can go over and fight.
I remember when Clinton got out of office, he did the Jewish temple speaking circuit raking in tens of millions. I bet like most of his speeches - they are always about Bill.
He used to tell them that he would jump in a foxhole and fight for Israel. I wish he and hillary would do it especially if they were fighting against Hezbollah.
Do we know what kind of artillery? Mortars to 155s. Anyone see what artillery can do cause I've never seen it but would assume hitting a moving target lobbing shells would be sort of a lucky hit. Those separatists seem to have some warriors amongst them. At least no sunburn as yet.
David Hasselhoff was not in the area at the time said his agent
Obama's catastrophic defeat in Ukraine
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/29/obamas-catastrophic-defeat-in-ukr...
Now we're cooking with gas! Going to be hard to prove/disprove this one way or another. He said she said.
I'm telling ya, this is not going to end well for Russia. There not getting eastern Ukraine. Period. Like it or not!
Down arrow me all you want, that won't change the truth.
Have a good Labor Day weekend.
One of our cluesless leaders speaks.
Its a done deal asshat , and short of nukes theres nothing the US/UK/EU can
do about it.
On to the next battle in the petrodollar war, Syria.
The theory that Assad might invite the Russians into Syria is very interesting.
i'm not sure i follow you. the russians have been in syria since 1954. tartus is russia's only mediterranean port.
The Russians could be asked to help with the ISIS maniacs and then go in and destroy them all.
Western gov/media shills could do what? Decry wiping out ISIS as an atrocity? I think everybody pretty much hates the ISIS turds.
why would you hate them?
they are nationalists with a serious religious bent - who want a "homeland" and will do anything for it ...... dont you get the delicious Irony?
- THAT WAS ISRAEL a long time ago (almost 50 years) -Menachem Begin WAS A TERRORIST WHO WANTED A HOMELAND - HE GOT IT VIA TERRORISM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There's very much Europe+US can do and will do. Scary scenario IMO. Putin thinks the West is weak and he can fuck about anyway he likes. Similar thought pattern to the IS or ISIL nutters. What many in the US don't understand, is that the largest part of Eastern Europe is extremely wary of anything imperialistic and Russian. They have increasing leverage in Europe, EU and NATO and are actively working against Russia. Ask any Pole or Balt what he thinks of Putin. You'd be surprised. Any political goodwill built up over the last decades is blown away. We are at the beginning of the cold war 2.0. That the 1. cold war broke Russia's economic back needs to be mentioned here for the diehard Putin fanbois. Can't see 2.0 going any different. Sure it will hurt Europe. Alot. But that's a necessary price to pay for any militaristic expansionism in the European 21. century.
BTW, your language and personal attack on posters you disagree with, doesn't really contribute towards your argument nor your credibility. I'm surprised how many on here actually fall for his crude and limpid propaganda. I'd have thought he would merely catch some Siberian hillbilly.
CW1 mostly came down to an economic war that the west won due to the petrodollar. The petrodollar is dying and we don't have a backup. Russia has oil and China has gold and numbers. They are allied. Our allies are the broke and defenseless Euros, Japan, and the corrupt as hell Arabs.
So tel me, do you think Germany or France can take on Belorussia, much less Russia?
Guess, what. It ain't lookin' good for you.
>>>Can't see [Cold War] 2.0 going any different. Sure it will hurt Europe. Alot.
That, of course, is why those pulling the strings of the US administration, and those of its NATO flunkies, want conflict and distrust between Europe and Russia - the more the better. This doesn't apply though, if you happen to be an EU or US taxpayer, since you'll be paying the bills.
It's very reasonable for the Balts, Poles and inhabitants of West Ukraine to feel genuine ill-will for Soviet Russia, but shelling Donbass civilians in their homes is both irrational and truly evil as a response to the crimes of Josef Stalin 70 years ago.
I junked you because you need to go back to Grammar School.
It's "they're not", not "there not". [rolls eyes]
Russian troll, you "junked him"? And why did you capitalize "Grammar School"? Did you both go to a school that was named "Grammar School"?
LOL What a little mama ruska fraud you are.
The Russian Money that keeps ZH operating dictates any story now that remotely intersects with Russia, even the distracting ISIS story.
ZH is attempting to play this up. I suspect that Poland, moldova and the Baltics are going to push the envelope and deploy their own forces which will then get NATO on the hook.
It will be interesting to see what Romania and Moldova do. I suspect that action against Russia and Russian separatists are going to reach the "gloves off" phase any time now.
Transnistria will be on the agenda as well.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are'nt a troll.
There is a much bigger picture you will/can not see.
Its right in front of you , so why not try to look at it ?
The Tylers have actually been overly fair in reporting the bogus Ukrainian viewpoint/news.
I could just as equally argue their bias, if any, is the other way.
Winston, It is kind of you to offer that benefit of doubt. I did that for many months, but the proof is there in the posts, there can be no doubt that it is a clear and present troll. After reading many posts, I have yet to see a developed argument, and evidence of knowledge of subject. Simply a posted complaint that WE all do not accept CNN and State Department press releases like the poster does. Do like I do Winston, mark the poster off your "to read" list. As you are on my "to read" list, that one is on my "no longer ot read" list. After all, we all operate on a limited daily time budget, to read a proven troll who has never adopted an intelligent argument for his case is simply not our duty or obligation to read.
Yeah I'm sure Russia's terrified of Romania and Moldova. Truly terrified.
Novictim,
go back to reading the NY Times. Their lies should confort you as the Ukie government and military fall apart.
We sould never forget the New York Times record of nearly unlimited proven lies to gin up an illegal invasion and conquest of Iraq. A war in which the USA killed a minimum of 100,000 + civilians. Yet we get the usual NYT "Evil Putin" bullshit. American created the coup in Kiev, American ordered the coup leaders to invade and destroy East Ukraine. The NYT has shit it's pants that American's Kiev Junta Army has been destroyed in battle. All they can do is go to the fall back position "Evil Putin". Fucking pathetic and transparent shilling for global imperial war making. WHY is Ukriane an American interest? When has it been anything but a dreamed of forward operatiing base for a war on Russia. Long dreamed of in Washington, Like Germay before us and France before them, the dream of taking Moscow is every western military leaders dream. It never seems to end, and Russia knows it. All Obama and his Neocon puppet masters want is to blaze an invasion all the way from Donetsk to Vladivostok. American foreign policy experts have long expressed their belief that Siberia belongs to America by our birth right as being world super power. It is this land that Corporate America goes to be dreaming of. So expect more conflict by an aggressive American foreign and military policy leadership, they want to strip mine all of Russia's resources without paying for the right. War and invasion is what they want, and they are pissed off no end that Russia refuses to surrender to their threats.
totally completely fucking correct !!!!!!!!!!!!
Jack! Please! I love you but, shit... PARAGRAPHS MAN! :
We should never forget the New York Times record of nearly unlimited proven lies to gin up an illegal invasion and conquest of Iraq. A war in which the USA killed a minimum of 100,000 + civilians. Yet we get the usual NYT "Evil Putin" bullshit. American created the coup in Kiev, American ordered the coup leaders to invade and destroy East Ukraine. The NYT has shit it's pants that American's Kiev Junta Army has been destroyed in battle. All they can do is go to the fall back position "Evil Putin". Fucking pathetic and transparent shilling for global imperial war making.
WHY is Ukraine an American interest? (--> SInce we agreed it was with RUssia, Britain, France in 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Jack, it is now a matter of our "oath" to defend them in exchange for their de-nuclearization.)
When has it been anything but a dreamed of forward operating base for a war on Russia. Long dreamed of in Washington, Like Germany before us and France before them, the dream of taking Moscow is every western military leaders dream.(--->Jack, this is a Ukrainian choice. Let them choose.)
It never seems to end, and Russia knows it. All Obama and his Neocon puppet masters want is to blaze an invasion all the way from Donetsk to Vladivostok. American foreign policy experts have long expressed their belief that Siberia belongs to America by our birth right as being world super power. (--> What?)
It is this land that Corporate America goes to be dreaming of. So expect more conflict by an aggressive American foreign and military policy leadership, they want to strip mine all of Russia's resources without paying for the right. War and invasion is what they want, and they are pissed off no end that Russia refuses to surrender to their threats.
---
Hey, Jack. If this current Russia was democratic and the people were fighting against Western corporate power, I'd fight for Russia and it's right to self determination and to Russia's right to control its natural resources.
Hey, US Oil companies are stripping the USA clean of the peoples wealth and calling it their own. I get this. I have for a long time. I hate this. I am fighting for a recapture of the American democratic process from big money. You should fight for the same goals in Russia, Jack. This is a global problem.
But Ukraine is not the whipping boy or cross bearer for US faults. It has a right to self determination and a future set by its own people. So correctly blaming the NYT for terrible reporting ala Judy Liar Miller and for a stupid and wrong headed policy in Iraq does nothing to excuse Russia from the same behavior in Ukraine. And Russia is not strong enough to pull this off and that should really worry you Russians on a personal level.
+1 for posting at 9:11 pm.
-1 To me for a synchronicity post.
I got my first cheque last week. The fuckers are paying me in Roubles!
Expect CHINESE cabbage for the next "paycheck"!
YOU ARE NOT A SMART GUY
there are loads of intelligent people - in a media world controlled by the MSM (read WH) - who seriously resent the complete lack of honesty (read sellout) shown on MSM for reporting, analysis, discussion, and worst of all the propaganda - I am personally outraged about the NYT which i have read since i was 8 years old - they have destroyed the credibility of the primary news source in america
assuming you have some modicum of intellect then you must be a WH troll - only conclusion left
TOP SCORE ALERT!!
FORTY-SIX DOWN VOTES, BITCHEZ!!!
Yaaaaa, BABY!
versus the Zionist money that keeps all MSM on task...along with influencing world actions such as killing, raping, pillaging, etc...all to destablize and control....
That you, Barry? What, you finally got a strategy now?
And Russia will NEVER give up its warm deep waater port. Do you understand?!
The port is cut off by Ukraine to the north and west and by water on the south and east. The only way Russia is curently able to bring supplies into the Sevastopole base is by ferry on the east. Also Ukraine controlled the fresh water lines to the port. Russia does not need all of Ukraine, just the eastern sliver so the port is connected by land to Russia. The people in eastern Ukraine voted to suceed but the vote was not recognised by the west. Funny how the will of the people is celebrated by the west sometimes and is illigit other times. I hate a hypocrite. The southern U.S. states tried the same thing 150 years ago and it did not go so well. Amazing that slavery ended thoughtout the world without a shot but for some reason 3 million americans had to die for it to happen. My friend calls slaves antiquated farm equipment.
Not for much longer :)