Civil war in Ukraine

[bhramos]

Peace! Work! May! Parade in Simferopol

 

[Akim]

Konstantin Dolgov: May Day in Donetsk

Odessa Yesterday
................................................................

 

[Akim]

Tragedy in Odessa: unknown in Russia the reasons for and details
http://echo.msk.ru/blog/open_russia/1758352-echo/
Please use the translator
From myself I will add: it is necessary to punish even some doctors who have betrayed "the Hippocratic oath" and didn't want to help the wounded, when we drove them from the Greek Plaza.

 

[garg_bharat]

Do Ukraine's leaders understand what freedom of the press means?


On tuesday, Ukrainian authorities banned the country’s top television anchor, Savik Shuster, from working in the country. Shuster, who is a Canadian citizen, hosts the country’s leading Russian-language talk show, Shuster LIVE, which is watched by four million people each week. The government’s action prompted corresponding outrage. Later in the week, another Ukrainian agency blocked the ban, saying that Shuster’s case required closer scrutiny. But that’s no guarantee that the final decision will go his way. In any case, the ban has already struck a blow to Ukraine’s image as an aspiring liberal democracy — coming as it does after a series of other moves that call into serious question the authorities’ commitment to freedom of speech. In this latest case, it looks as though Shuster may have provoked Poroshenko’s personal ire as well. Shuster often conducts impromptu polls of the studio audience during his live broadcasts, and last week he asked them what they thought of the president’s recent claim to have “shown determination” in the fight against corruption. Ninety-three percent of the audience disagreed. “We actually have Ukraine in our studio.” The result of the vote, he said, “was the last thing the Ukrainian authorities wanted to hear.”


Despite Kiev’s claims that it’s trying to adopt European-style rule of law, “Ukraine has not become closer to Europe in the way its authorities wield power,” said Masha Lipman, an analyst with George Washington University.
President Poroshenko, is feeling increasingly besieged in his own right. The war in the East continues to simmer. The economy is weak. Popular anger at the failure to deliver on promises of reform is rising. And his own hold on power looks increasingly fragile: The latest polls give him a dismal approval rating of 19 percent.
Given this dire situation, one can easily imagine that the temptation to crack down on his critics is growing. Will Poroshenko be able to resist it?http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/30/...-of-the-press/

Now Poroshenko's backers are starting to realize that he's as incompetent, as corrupt and as authoritarian as Yanukovych.

 

[Akim]

Do Ukraine's leaders understand what freedom of the press means?


On tuesday, Ukrainian authorities banned the country’s top television anchor, Savik Shuster, from working in the country. Shuster, who is a Canadian citizen, hosts the country’s leading Russian-language talk show, Shuster LIVE, which is watched by four million people each week. The government’s action prompted corresponding outrage. Later in the week, another Ukrainian agency blocked the ban, saying that Shuster’s case required closer scrutiny. But that’s no guarantee that the final decision will go his way. In any case, the ban has already struck a blow to Ukraine’s image as an aspiring liberal democracy — coming as it does after a series of other moves that call into serious question the authorities’ commitment to freedom of speech. In this latest case, it looks as though Shuster may have provoked Poroshenko’s personal ire as well. Shuster often conducts impromptu polls of the studio audience during his live broadcasts, and last week he asked them what they thought of the president’s recent claim to have “shown determination” in the fight against corruption. Ninety-three percent of the audience disagreed. “We actually have Ukraine in our studio.” The result of the vote, he said, “was the last thing the Ukrainian authorities wanted to hear.”


Despite Kiev’s claims that it’s trying to adopt European-style rule of law, “Ukraine has not become closer to Europe in the way its authorities wield power,” said Masha Lipman, an analyst with George Washington University.
President Poroshenko, is feeling increasingly besieged in his own right. The war in the East continues to simmer. The economy is weak. Popular anger at the failure to deliver on promises of reform is rising. And his own hold on power looks increasingly fragile: The latest polls give him a dismal approval rating of 19 percent.
Given this dire situation, one can easily imagine that the temptation to crack down on his critics is growing. Will Poroshenko be able to resist it?http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/30/...-of-the-press/

Now Poroshenko's backers are starting to realize that he's as incompetent, as corrupt and as authoritarian as Yanukovych.

Until this moment you didn't know who Savik Shuster?
P.S. There are APPROXIMATELY a dozen different reasons why it wants to close the channel, however, this list does not include the language problem.

 

[Kshatriya87]

Russia Warns Of Retaliation As NATO Plans More Deployments In Eastern Europe

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russ...ns-more-deployments-in-eastern-europe-1402911

MOSCOW/BRUSSELS: Russia will reinforce its western and southern flanks with three new divisions by the year-end, officials said on Wednesday, threatening retaliation to NATO's plans to boost its military presence in eastern members Poland and the Baltic States.

While Moscow accuses the Western alliance of threatening its Russia's security, NATO says intensified military drills and its plans for increased deployments on its eastern flank are purely defensive after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimea in 2014 and backed separatist rebels in Ukraine.

US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said on Monday NATO was weighing up rotating four battalions of troops through eastern member states amid rising tension in the Baltic.

Russia has scrambled jets to intercept US reconnaissance planes in recent weeks and made simulated attack passes near a US warship in the Baltic Sea.

Speaking in Brussels on Tuesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed the alliance would deploy "batallion-sized" multinational units on a rotational basis in the east.

Andrei Kelin, a department head at Russia's Foreign Ministry, said the proposed NATO deployment was a source of concern for Moscow. Russia once held sway in eastern Europe as the Soviet-era overlord.

"This would be a very dangerous build-up of armed forces pretty close to our borders," Kelin told the Interfax news agency. "I am afraid this would require certain retaliatory measures, which the Russian Defence Ministry is already talking about."

Russia announced in January it would create three new military divisions and bring five new strategic nuclear missile regiments into service.

On Wednesday, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said the new divisions would be formed by the end of this year to counter what Moscow saw as NATO's growing strength.

Russian media, citing unnamed military sources, said the new Russian divisions would most likely be motorised rifle ones and number around 10,000 soldiers each.

"The Ministry of Defence has adopted a series of measures to counter the growing capacity of NATO forces in close proximity to the Russian borders," Shoigu said in televised comments.

The new divisions are likely to be deployed in military districts close to Russia's borders with Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states and Finland as well as Georgia and Azerbaijan.

NATO TO KEEP COURSE

"What we do is defensive, it's proportionate ... And therefore we will continue to respond," Stoltenberg said.

"There can be no doubt that what NATO does is a reaction to the Russian behaviour in Ukraine. We didn't have any troops in Baltic countries ... before the illegal annexation of Crimea and Russia's destabilising activities in eastern Ukraine."

He was speaking at news conference with NATO's new Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), General Curtis Scaparrotti, who said he intended to continue NATO's response so far to what the West sees as a more assertive and muscle-flexing Russia.

"My intent is to continue that. I think that is the response," he said, adding NATO and Russia still needed to talk.

"I do believe we should have communication, it's how we ensure that we don't have an accident or miscalculation. But I would reinforce this by saying it's expected that they adhere to international norms and international laws. And until such time, those communications will likely be limited."

Scaparrotti said he was in favour of arms supplies to help Ukraine "successfully defend their territory and their sovereignty".

 

[gadeshi]

Russia Warns Of Retaliation As NATO Plans More Deployments In Eastern Europe

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russ...ns-more-deployments-in-eastern-europe-1402911

MOSCOW/BRUSSELS: Russia will reinforce its western and southern flanks with three new divisions by the year-end, officials said on Wednesday, threatening retaliation to NATO's plans to boost its military presence in eastern members Poland and the Baltic States.

While Moscow accuses the Western alliance of threatening its Russia's security, NATO says intensified military drills and its plans for increased deployments on its eastern flank are purely defensive after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimea in 2014 and backed separatist rebels in Ukraine.

US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said on Monday NATO was weighing up rotating four battalions of troops through eastern member states amid rising tension in the Baltic.

Russia has scrambled jets to intercept US reconnaissance planes in recent weeks and made simulated attack passes near a US warship in the Baltic Sea.

Speaking in Brussels on Tuesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed the alliance would deploy "batallion-sized" multinational units on a rotational basis in the east.

Andrei Kelin, a department head at Russia's Foreign Ministry, said the proposed NATO deployment was a source of concern for Moscow. Russia once held sway in eastern Europe as the Soviet-era overlord.

"This would be a very dangerous build-up of armed forces pretty close to our borders," Kelin told the Interfax news agency. "I am afraid this would require certain retaliatory measures, which the Russian Defence Ministry is already talking about."

Russia announced in January it would create three new military divisions and bring five new strategic nuclear missile regiments into service.

On Wednesday, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said the new divisions would be formed by the end of this year to counter what Moscow saw as NATO's growing strength.

Russian media, citing unnamed military sources, said the new Russian divisions would most likely be motorised rifle ones and number around 10,000 soldiers each.

"The Ministry of Defence has adopted a series of measures to counter the growing capacity of NATO forces in close proximity to the Russian borders," Shoigu said in televised comments.

The new divisions are likely to be deployed in military districts close to Russia's borders with Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states and Finland as well as Georgia and Azerbaijan.

NATO TO KEEP COURSE

"What we do is defensive, it's proportionate ... And therefore we will continue to respond," Stoltenberg said.

"There can be no doubt that what NATO does is a reaction to the Russian behaviour in Ukraine. We didn't have any troops in Baltic countries ... before the illegal annexation of Crimea and Russia's destabilising activities in eastern Ukraine."

He was speaking at news conference with NATO's new Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), General Curtis Scaparrotti, who said he intended to continue NATO's response so far to what the West sees as a more assertive and muscle-flexing Russia.

"My intent is to continue that. I think that is the response," he said, adding NATO and Russia still needed to talk.

"I do believe we should have communication, it's how we ensure that we don't have an accident or miscalculation. But I would reinforce this by saying it's expected that they adhere to international norms and international laws. And until such time, those communications will likely be limited."

Scaparrotti said he was in favour of arms supplies to help Ukraine "successfully defend their territory and their sovereignty".

It will be 4 more OTBM brigades armed with Iskander-M (can carry ballistic and cruise missiles both) in Kaliningrad, Rostov on Don and near Finnish and Sweddish borders for the Phase 1.
Then we'll see.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[Kshatriya87]

It will be 4 more OTBM brigades armed with Iskander-M (can carry ballistic and cruise missiles both) in Kaliningrad, Rostov on Don and near Finnish and Sweddish borders for the Phase 1.
Then we'll see.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

Article also says about 5 new nuclear missile regiments. That will definitely make NATO piss their pants.

 

[gadeshi]

Article also says about 5 new nuclear missile regiments. That will definitely make NATO piss their pants.

And we are not talking about Kalibr-NK/PL carrier ships and subs on Black Sea and Baltics.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[Akim]

Article also says about 5 new nuclear missile regiments. That will definitely make NATO piss their pants.

What's the difference? If you already have nuclear potential of the two sides, allowing destroy the entire planet.
P.S. The nuclear potential of Russia only because in a conventional war the Kremlin will lose.

 

[Kshatriya87]

What's the difference? If you already have nuclear potential of the two sides, allowing destroy the entire planet.
P.S. The nuclear potential of Russia only because in a conventional war the Kremlin will lose.

Everyone knows Russia has nuclear weapons. But openly letting the world know that they will retaliate to NATO incursions and then disclosing a plan for include 5 new nuclear missile regiments is going one step further. It makes them unpredictable and hence will put fear in NATO's minds.

Secondly, I do not believe Russia will ever lose in a conventional war. That's like saying India will lose to Pakistan in a conventional war.

 

[garg_bharat]

Secondly, I do not believe Russia will ever lose in a conventional war. That's like saying India will lose to Pakistan in a conventional war.

Russia can lose in a conventional war but nobody can be sure that a war will stay conventional only.

And Russia can always escalate to nukes early in a war with NATO. It may not wait to be defeated conventionally.

I think current escalations going on involving Russia are more dangerous than cold war as Russia does not have the capacity to sustain this for long. So either it will capitulate or fight to finish.

 

[gadeshi]

What's the difference? If you already have nuclear potential of the two sides, allowing destroy the entire planet.
P.S. The nuclear potential of Russia only because in a conventional war the Kremlin will lose.

As we all have seen here many times, you have spent 4 years in mil college for nothing.

Nuclear detention is not about the fact of having nuclear weapons, but about potentials balance and nuclear war survival probabilities.
Nuclear detention works ONLY while both sides (there are 2 of them for now are true nuclear powers - US and Russia) realize that they will lose 100% of population and technological capabilities in the case of return nuclear strike.
IMPORTANT: detention works ONLY if both sides can destroy the opponent on 100% with the first strike.
If not - those who cannot do this is in a permanent jeopardy.

BTW, that's why idea of nuclear weapons for Ukraine is useless if you will try to deter Russia.

So, while US knows that they cannot survive Russian first strike, they will sit tight and act another ways - using diplomatic attacks, economical pressure, internal destabilizations and anti-Russian "opposition" forces (all those Nemtsov, Navalniy, Kasianov, Albatz and the other white-striped scumm) inside Russia, destabilization and "colorful revolutions" (maidaun in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia), bringing anti-Russian rusophobic and directly nazist regimes (Ukraine, Baltics, Poland, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria) in countries on the Russian borders, influence agents in Russian govt, informational war, etc.

But their analytics (as Russian in their turn) are constantly busy with opponent's potential analysis and nuclear strike games modelling.
If US analytics will discover that US can lose 75% of population (25% will survive) in the cost of 100% deaths on Russian side they will launch a nuclear strike against Russia without hesitation.

So, being ready to quickly wipe out US BMD sites and AEGIS equipped ships are key factors of Russian nuclear chess parity with US and thus Russian survival.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[Akim]

As we all have seen here many times, you have spent 4 years in mil college for nothing.

5 years. I also know that the theory never coincides with the practice

 

[gadeshi]

5 years. I also know that the theory never coincides with the practice

Have you had a practice of service in the RVSN or the other strategic forces to say this?

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[Akim]

Have you had a practice of service in the RVSN or the other strategic forces to say this?

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

No. Only in the Land Forces. But the mess is everywhere similar.

 

[gadeshi]

No. Only in the Land Forces. But the mess is everywhere similar.

Complete mess is only in your head and never changes, but not in Strategic Forces which is in strict order all time even in Pakistan.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[Akim]

Complete mess is only in your head and never changes, but not in Strategic Forces which is in strict order all time even in Pakistan.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

Funny. I'm not going to convince. Remember Chernobyl.

 

[gadeshi]

Funny. I'm not going to convince. Remember Chernobyl.

Chornobyl was different - a civil nuclear power plant, not a weapon of mass destruction.

BTW, the same "experiments" with power output maneuvering are periodically tried by Southern-Ukrainian and Zaporozhskaya AES powerplants, on the same reactor type which is not designed for this.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[Akim]

Chornobyl was different - a civil nuclear power plant, not a weapon of mass destruction.

BTW, the same "experiments" with power output maneuvering are periodically tried by Southern-Ukrainian and Zaporozhskaya AES powerplants, on the same reactor type which is not designed for this.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

Absolutely no difference. Here and there are working people, so negligence occurs. Don't think that the Army, air force and the Navy, someone wants to die, so he can smoke in the warehouse or clean gasoline electric cable. Negligence in any of the armed services, regardless of the power weapons When you have combat duty, more than the weekend and it many years - it's called остапиздело.Mode is turned "АВОСЬ". And to perform their duties are "slipshod".