If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko says agreement on ceasefire in the Donbass region reached (headline updated)   (bbc.com) divider line 91
    More: News, Ukraine, US President Barack Obama, Soviet states, Luhansk, Russian President Vladimir Putin, cease-fire, Tallinn, Government of Ukraine  
•       •       •

2825 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2014 at 4:47 AM (7 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-09-03 04:50:14 AM  
We got this, we got this by the ass! img.fark.net
 
2014-09-03 04:50:26 AM  
Bullshiat
 
2014-09-03 04:58:50 AM  
Buying time to reload, and hoping for the NATO quick response forces to be developed and deployed is my guess.
 
2014-09-03 04:59:09 AM  
Eh, I'm too negative. Here's to hoping those morons can get along over there.
 
2014-09-03 05:01:01 AM  
Also, why a ceasefire with Russia? I thought they were fighting Ukrainian rebels...
 
2014-09-03 05:02:43 AM  

Wrencher: Also, why a ceasefire with Russia? I thought they were fighting Ukrainian rebels...


This.

Interesting considering Putin's been repeatedly denying any involvement whatsoever.
 
2014-09-03 05:03:47 AM  
"Their conversation resulted in agreement on a permanent ceasefire in the Donbass region [the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk]," his office said.

This word...

[inigo.jpg]
 
2014-09-03 05:04:09 AM  

Wrencher: Also, why a ceasefire with Russia? I thought they were fighting Ukrainian rebels...


Glorious medias makes mistakes, comrade, why you no discuss what go right?
 
2014-09-03 05:13:33 AM  

quatchi: "Their conversation resulted in agreement on a permanent ceasefire in the Donbass region [the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk]," his office said.

This word...


A mistranslation.

I believe the actual word he used means "permanent for the next few years until Russia feels like snipping another chunk of land off us or another neighbor ".
 
2014-09-03 05:13:53 AM  

Wrencher: Also, why a ceasefire with Russia? I thought they were fighting Ukrainian rebels...




That's the joke.

The rebels could keep at it. If Ukraine gets no support from the west then Putin gets a one sided reload break while the Ukraine keeps bleeding out money on this conflict.
 
2014-09-03 05:18:37 AM  

Pista: Wrencher: Also, why a ceasefire with Russia? I thought they were fighting Ukrainian rebels...

This.

Interesting considering Putin's been repeatedly denying any involvement whatsoever.


This part here:
The Kremlin said Mr Putin had not agreed to the ceasefire himself as Russia was not party to the conflict.
 
2014-09-03 05:20:51 AM  

Slaxl: Pista: Wrencher: Also, why a ceasefire with Russia? I thought they were fighting Ukrainian rebels...

This.

Interesting considering Putin's been repeatedly denying any involvement whatsoever.

This part here:
The Kremlin said Mr Putin had not agreed to the ceasefire himself as Russia was not party to the conflict.


Just playing it up for Subby.
 
2014-09-03 05:23:03 AM  
I know that not everything is about the United States...but, if I were President Obama, I'd supply the Ukrainians with advanced weaponry, military advisers (to direct the actual fighting) and up-to-the-minute intelligence.

And, then, I'd tell the world that the United States isn't involved in the conflict at all.   After all, that's what Russia is doing.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Let's see how Russia reacts when people give them a taste of their own medicine. It's the golden rule (according to Homer Simpson): treat others the way they messed with you.

/made this same suggestion on another site
//pro-Russians didn't like it so much
 
2014-09-03 05:26:24 AM  

eraser8: I know that not everything is about the United States...but, if I were President Obama, I'd supply the Ukrainians with advanced weaponry, military advisers (to direct the actual fighting) and up-to-the-minute intelligence.

And, then, I'd tell the world that the United States isn't involved in the conflict at all.   After all, that's what Russia is doing.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Let's see how Russia reacts when people give them a taste of their own medicine. It's the golden rule (according to Homer Simpson): treat others the way they messed with you.

/made this same suggestion on another site
//pro-Russians didn't like it so much


I would be surprised if we're not providing intell.
 
2014-09-03 05:27:31 AM  
Putin went out of his way to "remind us" he has nuclear weapons.
So I'm guessing sending troops won't happen. They'll probably continue to drag their feet on arms sales.
 
2014-09-03 05:32:39 AM  
Yahtzee!
 
2014-09-03 05:35:37 AM  
This crap has got to stop. I have shows to watch.
Ukrayina maye talant ...on hiatus..... .NOOOOOOOO
i1.ytimg.com
 www.insanee.com
 
2014-09-03 05:44:26 AM  
Both sides benefit from a ceasefire.  But this isn't over.
 
2014-09-03 05:46:01 AM  
Stop fighting this donbass war.
 
2014-09-03 05:53:50 AM  

walktoanarcade: We got this, we got this by the ass! [img.fark.net image 400x300]


Thanks for the laugh at 5am.
 
2014-09-03 06:17:15 AM  
ic.pics.livejournal.com

Not quite a victory, but it'll do. And both sides can claim it.
 
2014-09-03 06:18:04 AM  
Funny how politicians become much more willing to negotiate when their armed forces have been surrounded by a superior force (allegedly):

http://kot-ivanov.livejournal.com/ 

Short version, it appears the Ukrainians really didn't think the Russian were going to invade, and had no plan of what to do if they did....so the majority of the Ukrainian forces in the east have been cut-off by the Russian forces.
 
2014-09-03 06:21:31 AM  
The only "permanent ceasefire" may be Ukraine surrendering separatists-captured regions to, well, separatists. Meaning pretty much Russia. And then, of course, what's to stop a new bunch of "local" separatists appearing a little bit further inside Ukraine?

Nah. It'll be as permanent a ceasefire as between Palestine and Israel.

As for someone offering to put American advisors and weaponry in the country - and then what? Advanced weaponry is rather useless unless you want to destroy the cities with your own population, even it's a stupid population.

As for advisers, are they going to actually fight? You know, as infantry? As Russians do? With all the dead bodies and stuff? Russians are okay with their soldiers/"volunteers" turning in zink caskets. Are Americans okay?
 
2014-09-03 06:24:56 AM  

walktoanarcade: We got this, we got this by the ass! [img.fark.net image 400x300]


First thing I thought of.

Unless, of course, this is part of a strategy to pause, reassess, and build up some reserves before taking shiat back.  I know there are elements in the US who want to send the Ukrainians some anti-tank weaponry to help them deal with the Russian tanks.  Hopefully, this is just a pause to help make that happen.
 
2014-09-03 06:29:07 AM  
FTFA: Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko says he has agreed with Russian President Putin by phone on a "ceasefire process" for the east.

What that tells me is they've agreed that a ceasefire would be a good idea, but now they have to figure out how it'll be done.

That's the equivalent of saying "Yes, we agree there should be peace in the Middle East. Now let's figure out how to do that."
 
2014-09-03 06:40:07 AM  

Grahor: As for someone offering to put American advisors and weaponry in the country - and then what? Advanced weaponry is rather useless unless you want to destroy the cities with your own population, even it's a stupid population.


This isn't true.  In fact, it's the opposite:  The more sophisticated the weaponry, the less it's likely to destroy cities because it's more likely to hit what you're aiming at, with less collateral damage.  Aside from that, if your territory is being taken over by force of arms, you're losing it anyway.

The real problem the Ukrainians have is Russian armor.  More sophisticated anti-tank missiles will help them take care of that particular problem, with the added bonus of allowing us to get a real assessment of how our stuff works against current Russian tanks.

The only real losers in that deal would be the Russians.
 
2014-09-03 06:42:21 AM  

Danack: Short version, it appears the Ukrainians really didn't think the Russian were going to invade, and had no plan of what to do if they did....so the majority of the Ukrainian forces in the east have been cut-off by the Russian forces.


Not exactly the majority. Couple of hundreds of soldiers, of which somewhat around 50 or 80 ended up dead already; may be more, but the media is reporting any shiat and rumors as facts.

That was, however, a major hit for Ukrainian army's morale.
 
2014-09-03 06:43:17 AM  

PunkTiger: FTFA: Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko says he has agreed with Russian President Putin by phone on a "ceasefire process" for the east.

What that tells me is they've agreed that a ceasefire would be a good idea, but now they have to figure out how it'll be done.

That's the equivalent of saying "Yes, we agree there should be peace in the Middle East. Now let's figure out how to do that."


I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest "Stop shooting at each other" as a starting place.
 
2014-09-03 06:51:01 AM  

dittybopper: This isn't true.  In fact, it's the opposite:  The more sophisticated the weaponry, the less it's likely to destroy cities because it's more likely to hit what you're aiming at, with less collateral damage.


And yet it still create collateral damage, and would play wonderfully in Russian propaganda - "American weaponry kills women and children in Ukraine! What do Americans need in our lands?!" And, of course, every damn explosion will be the fault of Americans, even if Russians would have to bomb the cities themselves to create the narrative...

dittybopper: Aside from that, if your territory is being taken over by force of arms, you're losing it anyway.


It's not the point. Ukraine is supposed to be good guys, they aren't supposed to kill civilians, even if those civilians will end up as "Novorossia" citizens.

dittybopper: The real problem the Ukrainians have is Russian armor.  More sophisticated anti-tank missiles will help them take care of that particular problem, with the added bonus of allowing us to get a real assessment of how our stuff works against current Russian tanks.


Now that's actually a pretty good idea. However, Ukraine has a pretty advanced anti-tank systems of their own, and even export them - like, Corsar anti-tank guided missile system. I have no idea why they don't use it. I have a feeling the situation is not as simple as simply lack of weaponry.

dittybopper: The only real losers in that deal would be the Russians.


Well, we won't know until we try, eh? I mean, all the time, since the very first Maidan, at every step people were telling me, to my gloom and doom, that the only real losers will ever be Russians. And look where we are now.
 
2014-09-03 06:52:56 AM  

docmattic: I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest "Stop shooting at each other" as a starting place.


Just stopping shooting means that Ukraine surrenders heavy industrial regions of Donbass and Luhansk to... whom? A band of bandits? While Russia doesn't get land bridge to Crimea.

Neither side wants to "just stop shooting".
 
2014-09-03 06:57:05 AM  
What is Putin getting out of this?  Is he going to wait until the world goes back to sleep and do it again?
 
2014-09-03 06:57:09 AM  

docmattic: PunkTiger: FTFA: Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko says he has agreed with Russian President Putin by phone on a "ceasefire process" for the east.

What that tells me is they've agreed that a ceasefire would be a good idea, but now they have to figure out how it'll be done.

That's the equivalent of saying "Yes, we agree there should be peace in the Middle East. Now let's figure out how to do that."

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest "Stop shooting at each other" as a starting place.


That isn't as easy as it sounds once people have decided that what they're doing is worth killing/dying for. Some people just don't want to quit. And if you want to, but the other side doesn't, you can't just quit unilaterally.
 
2014-09-03 07:18:12 AM  

Grahor: dittybopper: Aside from that, if your territory is being taken over by force of arms, you're losing it anyway.


It's not the point. Ukraine is supposed to be good guys, they aren't supposed to kill civilians, even if those civilians will end up as "Novorossia" citizens.


[Jaw drops]

Yeah, you're not all that familiar with the concept of "war", are you?

It sucks, and sometimes civilians get killed.  Nobody likes that, and if possible, armies try to avoid that.

But when you're the one being invaded, the whole idea that you can somehow lose the moral high ground because you accidentally kill some civilians in the process of trying to take back your own territory that was seized from you by force of arms is so effin' ludicrous that I can't imagine any rational person possibly thinking this.

The only people I can see making this argument with a straight face are strict pacifists for whom *NO* military action is ever permissible.

Other than that, the only others I can imagine arguing that Ukraine somehow has a moral imperative to avoid collateral damage and civilian deaths at all costs are those siding with the Kremlin.  And they're snickering behind their backs when they say it.
 
2014-09-03 07:20:03 AM  

devildog123: That isn't as easy as it sounds once people have decided that what they're doing is worth killing/dying for. Some people just don't want to quit. And if you want to, but the other side doesn't, you can't just quit unilaterally.


If only there was a patch, or some kind of gum....
 
2014-09-03 07:20:19 AM  
So you *can* achieve a ceasefire without getting both sides to stop shooting at each other? Wow, international diplomacy really is complicated.
 
2014-09-03 07:20:20 AM  
Amazing how well those semi-russian fighters started to do after all those magically uninspected trucks resupplied all their bases.
 
2014-09-03 07:23:22 AM  

walktoanarcade: We got this, we got this by the ass! [img.fark.net image 400x300]


Done in one.
 
2014-09-03 07:30:27 AM  

dittybopper: But when you're the one being invaded, the whole idea that you can somehow lose the moral high ground because you accidentally kill some civilians in the process of trying to take back your own territory that was seized from you by force of arms is so effin' ludicrous that I can't imagine any rational person possibly thinking this.


Well, why don't you try to explain it to Ukrainian media and Ukrainian army? They spend inordinate amount of attention on trying to show, that they do not bomb or attack Ukrainian cities. OBSE observers spend no less amount of attention documenting who and how have caused the collateral damage that have killed this or that civilian. Generally, it's important for Ukrainians. But hey, nobody said they are rational...
 
2014-09-03 07:31:51 AM  
Two ways I can take this:

1) Poroshenko caved and agreed to a ceasefire with Russia and will give autonomy to the Eastern Ukraine.

or

2) Poroshenko decided to announce a ceasefire even though Russia didn't agree to one, and if the fighting continues, then Poroshenko can say: "Look! The Russians are violating their own ceasefire!"
 
2014-09-03 07:37:36 AM  

Grahor: Well, why don't you try to explain it to Ukrainian media and Ukrainian army? They spend inordinate amount of attention on trying to show, that they do not bomb or attack Ukrainian cities. OBSE observers spend no less amount of attention documenting who and how have caused the collateral damage that have killed this or that civilian. Generally, it's important for Ukrainians. But hey, nobody said they are rational...


Generally, I would imagine it's to give Russians less of an open justification to invade to "defend Russian peoples," although that is moot now.
 
2014-09-03 07:39:31 AM  

RexTalionis: Generally, I would imagine it's to give Russians less of an open justification to invade to "defend Russian peoples," although that is moot now.


I think "we are not killing our own people, even as collateral damage" is important for Ukrainians in itself. But what do I know.
 
2014-09-03 07:39:39 AM  

dittybopper: Grahor: dittybopper: Aside from that, if your territory is being taken over by force of arms, you're losing it anyway.


It's not the point. Ukraine is supposed to be good guys, they aren't supposed to kill civilians, even if those civilians will end up as "Novorossia" citizens.

[Jaw drops]

Yeah, you're not all that familiar with the concept of "war", are you?

It sucks, and sometimes civilians get killed.  Nobody likes that, and if possible, armies try to avoid that.

But when you're the one being invaded, the whole idea that you can somehow lose the moral high ground because you accidentally kill some civilians in the process of trying to take back your own territory that was seized from you by force of arms is so effin' ludicrous that I can't imagine any rational person possibly thinking this.

The only people I can see making this argument with a straight face are strict pacifists for whom *NO* military action is ever permissible.

Other than that, the only others I can imagine arguing that Ukraine somehow has a moral imperative to avoid collateral damage and civilian deaths at all costs are those siding with the Kremlin.  And they're snickering behind their backs when they say it.


The Russian rebels are lucky that some Ukrainian version of William Tecumseh Sherman isn't leading the Ukrainian forces, yet.
I have no idea how ugly this will get but I would like to see fracking, pipelines and LNG terminals get some of the investment that goes into ridiculously expensive weapon systems.
 
2014-09-03 07:44:00 AM  

Grahor: RexTalionis: Generally, I would imagine it's to give Russians less of an open justification to invade to "defend Russian peoples," although that is moot now.

I think "we are not killing our own people, even as collateral damage" is important for Ukrainians in itself. But what do I know.


Weren't you the one who was claiming that Russia is merely moving military vehicles around the Russian side of the border for intimidation and would never cross over and invade?
 
2014-09-03 07:50:38 AM  
This just in.... Putin tells Ukrainian President to go fark himself.  No agreement.
 
2014-09-03 07:53:47 AM  

Grahor: dittybopper: But when you're the one being invaded, the whole idea that you can somehow lose the moral high ground because you accidentally kill some civilians in the process of trying to take back your own territory that was seized from you by force of arms is so effin' ludicrous that I can't imagine any rational person possibly thinking this.

Well, why don't you try to explain it to Ukrainian media and Ukrainian army? They spend inordinate amount of attention on trying to show, that they do not bomb or attack Ukrainian cities. OBSE observers spend no less amount of attention documenting who and how have caused the collateral damage that have killed this or that civilian. Generally, it's important for Ukrainians. But hey, nobody said they are rational...


Collateral Damage != Targeting Civilians.

Civilians are going to die in any military action that doesn't take place in a remote, uninhabited area.  Inherent fact of war.  Can and should be minimized to the extent possible but it will *NEVER* be eliminated.

And the Ukrainian military might be more circumspect in attacking targets until they *KNOW* it's worthwhile or unavoidable simply because if they assume they're going to get that territory back at some point, they don't want to have to rebuild it*.

But I've got no problem with them causing some unintentional civilian casualties in an attempt to get their own territory back from people who took it by force.  I'd have a problem with them intentionally targeting civilians**, but I've got zero problem with them hitting legitimate military targets that happens to incidentally cause civilian casualties.  And since we're talking urban warfare here, it's inevitable.

Also, as a final note:  Don't mistake propaganda measures ("See, we're the good guys!") for actual military strategy.


*Though honestly, Russia should pay for it.
**So long as they are really civilians and not Sovi, errmm, Russian backed forces in civilian clothing.
 
2014-09-03 07:55:28 AM  
If history teaches anything, it's that when nations break agreements and commit acts of violence, the response must be severe and unwavering.

In this case, Obama needs to use everything he's got to call Putin's bluff.

Unfortunately, he is unwilling to change course or admit that he was wrong about either Putin or use of force in Iraq, so the policy of bewilderment as events degenerate continues...
 
2014-09-03 07:56:09 AM  

dittybopper: **So long as they are really civilians and not Sovi, errmm, Russian backed forces in civilian clothing.


A few weeks ago, when the rebels were losing badly, there were news reports that they would fight in civilian clothing and when they are cornered, they would throw away their weapons and hide with refugees.
 
2014-09-03 08:04:31 AM  

Grahor: Now that's actually a pretty good idea. However, Ukraine has a pretty advanced anti-tank systems of their own, and even export them - like, Corsar anti-tank guided missile system. I have no idea why they don't use it. I have a feeling the situation is not as simple as simply lack of weaponry.


This link from 2013 suggests ithat the Corsar wouldn't be ready until the beginning of 2014.  Maybe the design schedule slipped with all the turmoil going on.  Or maybe they can't make enough fast enough.  In any event, they didn't have 1000s of the things on the shelves when this war started.

 http://www.strategicdefenceintelligence.com/article/J1MzIgwoQlw/201 3/0 7/29/ukraine_conducts_testing_on_corsar_portable_anti-tank_missil/
 
2014-09-03 08:05:38 AM  

RexTalionis: Weren't you the one who was claiming that Russia is merely moving military vehicles around the Russian side of the border for intimidation and would never cross over and invade?


Yes. I was very much wrong. Do you have a point or is it your way of saying "I've got nothing to say"?
 
2014-09-03 08:07:46 AM  

dj245: This link from 2013 suggests ithat the Corsar wouldn't be ready until the beginning of 2014.  Maybe the design schedule slipped with all the turmoil going on.  Or maybe they can't make enough fast enough.  In any event, they didn't have 1000s of the things on the shelves when this war started.


Yeah, probably. But they do have previous generation anti-tank weaponry. Also, 1000s? That's in the hundred of millions of dollars. I don't think US would gift that much to Ukrainians.
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report