The Situation in the Ukraine. #4

seriously!! Note 224 present, that's not even half of them.  Hasn't it been looking like this for months now? Large parts of the Rada isn't even around and out of those who are around large parts get intimidated and threatened and what not.  And the US/EU thinks that the snap elections and Poroshenko is some kind of sacred democratic milestone. IMO they're approaching it from the wrong angle.  

ASaiga wrote:
ed, period Do you know what does 800 killed mean!? It is an equivalent of an entire division rendered combat ineffective. If the rebels inflicted such high losses, they would be marching on Kiev by now (considering the dismal state of the UKR army)

About 1,200 Ukrainian army soldiers have been killed during a special operation in Slaviansk, and eight
helicopters and 15 armored vehicles were destroyed, Slaviansk people's mayor Vyacheslav Ponomaryov said Thursday.
"According to our information, the Ukrainian army has the following losses and damages: 1,200-1,300 people
were killed, eight helicopters, 15 armored transport vehicles, and three [artillery] weapons destroyed. They are suffering huge losses. I’m speaking only about Slaviansk," Ponomaryov said in an interview with the Latvian radio station Baltkom.

Total losses of the Ukrainian forces, which also include army units and volunteer militia, have not been reported.

People’s Mayor of Sloviansk, Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, told reporters on Thursday that the Ukrainian military had lost 1,200 to 1,300 men killed and another 4,500 wounded near Sloviansk alone.

A Russian General Staff official was quoted on Thursday as estimating that Ukrainian forces deployed against the rebels included about 300 Ukrainian militants who had fought in Syria on the side of the opposition.

About 1,200 Ukrainian army soldiers have been killed during a special operation in Slaviansk

As Sa'iqa wrote:

Bloody liar .. 800 Ukrainian and Right sector thugs have been killed in precise operations of Donetsk militia..

You are deluded, period Do you know what does 800 killed mean!? It is an equivalent of an entire division rendered combat ineffective. If the rebels inflicted such high losses, they would be marching on Kiev by now (considering the dismal state of the UKR army) Only an all-out battle of thousands of men can produce such a high casualty ratio. So far the separatists got a few rag-tag militias with a few thousand combat ready troops and there have not been any large scale battle, only some minor clashes with a few dead.

I would give the figure of 90-120 government killed and 100-150 rebel killed.

Lessons and Consequences of World War I: Back to the Future? (I)
By Andrew KORYBKO (USA)

The centennial anniversary of the First World War is a time for sober reflection and deep thought about the causes and consequences of this human tragedy. It has been quipped that hindsight is 20/20, but being so far removed from the actual event itself nowadays, it appears as though hindsight through today’s polarized polemics is nearsighted. History is being reinterpreted for short-term political points, forgetting that the British intent of the original conflict was for a long-term and farsighted transformation of the European (at the time, recognized as “global”) power arrangement. Of course, not everything turned out as intended, and dark horses emerged to offset these carefully crafted plans and/or reap undeserved dividends. No matter that one hundred years has already passed, the same geostrategic objective is the same – the seafaring powers must utilize all methods (including intrigue and massive bloodletting) to prevent the continental powers from colluding against them. The continuum of history eerily shows that shadows of the past still hang over the head of the future, and the thematic lessons leading up to and following World War I still dangerously ring true today. The series is written in two parts: themes and consequences. Each part begins with a general overview of the discussed topic before comparing its relevancy from then and now. A concluding lesson sums up every part.

Nikolay Starikov’s writings on World War I serve as the basis for the historical claims about British diplomacy during this time. For brevity, not all details pertinent to the highlighted topics can be addressed, but they most certainly are able to be expanded upon.

PART I:THEMES

Geopolitical Framing

It is commonly said that “geography is destiny”, and to a very large extent, geographic location is a strong determinant of action. Alfred Mahan and Halforth Mackinder understood this very well at the turn of last century. Mahan published “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History” in 1890, which argued that sea power is key to controlling the land. Mackinder took this a step further in 1904, writing in “The Geopolitical Pivot of History” that sea power’s obvious geographic limitations necessitate a strong control over the Heartland in order to dominate Eurasia. This was originally understood as Central Asia, but it has shifted over time.

Why It Mattered Then:

The UK and Germany were engaged in a fierce naval armaments race up until the eve of World War I. Although the British Navy was supreme, Germany was clearly a rising threat to this hegemony. Additionally, Germany and Austria-Hungary were the masters of Central Europe and Russia controlled the Heartland (essentially ‘winning’ the Great Game). Russian historian Nikolay Starikov brilliantly argues that the UK, using its centuries-long diplomatic expertise (and cunningness) in great power balancing, instigated Germany and Russia into war after the events of Sarajevo in order to destroy its two greatest foes (in different Eurasian theaters) in one fell swoop.

Why It Matters Today:

Brzezinski, writing in “The Grand Chessboard” in 1997, cautions American decision makers about the possibility (then distant, today more realistic) of a German-Russian alliance that would isolate America from Europe, and thus, collapse America’s Eurasian strategy. Accommodating for this geopolitical reality, it now makes sense why there is so much Western guilt mongering against Germany for supposedly starting World War I – the objective is to keep Germany and Russia divided and prevent their future policy coordination. The spate of Color Revolutions is aimed solely at penetrating the former Soviet Heartland and removing Russia from the Great Power game. On the naval front, the US is trying to bait China into a disastrous collision course with its Southeast Asian neighbors over disputed maritime territories.

Lesson:

The combination of sea and land power, properly coordinated and applied across Eurasia, is the basic formula for global control. A moment’s glance at the map of American overseas naval and military deployments easily proves Mahan and Mackinder’s theories without any words necessary. Because geography cannot be changed, these ideas will continue to guide the US and any other aspiring global hegemon. In today’s world, the US has merged Brzezinski’s Eurasian Balkans concept with Gene Sharp’s mass agitation tactics (abetted by social media networks) to conceive the weapon of Color Revolutions to accomplish just that.

The Hobbesian Alliance System

Countries enter into military alliances with one another for some kind of perceived benefit, which may vary depending on the actor. Even if such alliances do not de-jure mandate mutual military defense, if the known perception is that it does entail such a commitment, then the parties’ reputations and prestige may strongly be at stake if they do not carry through with their expected obligation. The larger alliance systems grow, the more convoluted they become, eventually ensnaring all that are weaved into the web. Large-scale wars can thus start based on miscalculation or peripheral events.

Why It Mattered Then:

The obligational perceptions surrounding alliances played an important part in the long fuse leading up to World War I, as Starikov writes that “up to the beginning of WWI, the Entente alliance was not framed by treaty!” Clearly, there was always a “way out”, but due to duplicitous British diplomacy (also duly elaborated upon by Starikov in his works), the situation was carefully framed for Germany and Russia as though there was no alternative. Once activated, the stringy alliance complex exponentially multiplied until most of the entire continent (and the Middle East via the Ottoman Empire) were engulfed in total war. A relatively trite event in the grand scheme of contemporaneous politics (a political assassination in the continental periphery) led to an all-out conflagration in its core.

Why It Matters Now:

After the Cold War, NATO continued to grow unabated, gobbling up the remnants of the Warsaw Pact and part of the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union. Although mutual military defense is not legally binding in NATO (Article 5 does not explicitly stipulate military assistance, leaving it up to each member state to make that decision on its own), the perception is that it is. This means that the US and its cohorts may get dangerously drawn into a regional conflict in order to save face. Turkey’s provocative actions in Syria or its failed plans for a false-flag attack there should send alarm bells ringing for the rest of the world. The same can be said for Poland and Lithuania, also NATO members, in regards to their plans to create a joint brigade with non-member Ukraine. Clearly, one middle power in a major alliance can draw the rest of its twenty-seven members into a disastrous calamity. Leaving NATO aside, the US has a mutual defense agreement with Japan, whom it has been egging on to provoke China. The security guarantees provided by America to Israel and Saudi Arabia could also easily suck it into a regional war with Iran.

Lesson:

Military alliances are a type of nearly sacrosanct agreement that states enter into with one another, placing their prestige and the lives of their citizens on the line for their partners. They should not be entered into as a form of political statement. The larger the alliance is, the greater the chance for unintended outbreaks of major war and for middle players to manipulate the other members. It is totally unstable when Obama, in referring to the US, proudly tells the graduating class of West Point that, “From Europe to Asia, we are the hub of alliances unrivaled in the history of nations.” Exceptionally dangerous are so-called “defensive” alliances that only have a track record of offensive military action (e.g. every NATO war). Alliances can complicate the political situation just as much as they can clarify it.

(Distant) Manipulative Balancing Powers

The balance of power and divide and rule concepts are as old as the pages of time, yet equally as old is the knowledge that the more distant the practitioner of these strategies, the less likely they are to be directly affected by the negative consequences of their actions. This makes them more calculating and lethal in the damage potential that they can reap in the targeted theaters. The power of the manipulative balancing state must also be taken into account. If a strong state is manipulating weaker ones, then the risk potential of negative consequences decreases; likewise, once strong states begin manipulating their peers, the risk for negative consequences (even if the states are distant from one another) dramatically increases.

Why It Mattered Then:

The UK had historically been the prima donna of balance of power and divide and rule policies in Europe, and it played this role perfectly in the lead-up to World War I. As outlined by Starikov, UK Foreign Secretary Edward Grey diligently played all the continental powers off against one another in order for his country to reap the anticipated benefits of a continental Hobbesian conflict. The consequences of the war did not exactly pan out as anticipated (as is wont to happen with any grand strategic gambit), but nonetheless, it is important to note the impact of the UK’s interference in the Great War’s genesis. Its vision of European balancing and divide and rule directly contributed to the tragedy, whether advertently or inadvertently.

Why It Matters Now:

The US has replaced the UK as the world’s global balancer and practitioner of divide and rule. Its new policy of Lead from Behind is a euphemism for these practices. It appoints regional allies to carry out what are perceived to be mutually advantageous policies (to the objective advantage of the US’ grand strategy, but only to the subjective advantage of the ‘ally’s’) while Washington supervises and manages events. Turkey and Poland are the prime examples of this policy at work, and the CIA and FBI’s influence over the Kievan junta is yet another application of this. More sinisterly, Color Revolutions can also trace their birth to a (distant) manipulative power trying to manage regional events to its own interest. By globally manipulating multitudes of players simultaneously, a critical risk of mismanagement and unintended consequences arises. This is all the more apocalyptic due to advances in military technology (nuclear weapons, drones, cyber warfare, etc.) that can level the playing field between the manipulating and the manipulated great powers.

Lesson:

(Distant) Manipulative balancing powers paradoxically have both foresight and blindness. They have a certain vision of what global or regional order should look like, yet in order to bring this idea to fruition, many complicated moves must be made in advance. The blindness stems from the fact that when risky gambits of huge consequence are made, unintended consequences of varying nature usually follow, and more than likely, these tend to have some type of disastrous result for some or all of the affected parties. The more distant and strong the manipulative power is, the more likely it will have grandiose (and dangerous) visions of what the future should look like and will actually act on those desires. Even if this type of actor is only manipulating a small or middle power, if the eventual target is a power of equal or near strength, then it is the same as trying to manipulate that said power (e.g. US manipulation of Ukraine to offset Russia). This never leads to peaceful and stable results.

To be continued…

http://orientalreview.org/2014/05/30/lessons-and-consequences-of-world-war-i-back-to-the-future-i/

Brzezinski Mapped Out the Battle for Ukraine in 1997 *right around the time the Crimean Russian naval base was created*

It's all about maintaining the US position as the world's sole superpower

Why would the United States run the risk of siding with anti-Semitic, neo-Nazis in Ukraine?

One of the keys may be found by looking back at Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard in which he wrote, “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”

“However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”

The former national security advisor to Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 and top foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, Brzezinski wrote that US policy should be “unapologetic” in perpetuating “America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still.”

Brzezinski delved into the importance of little known Ukraine by explaining in his 1997 book, “Geopolitical pivots are the states whose importance is derived not from their power and motivation but rather from their sensitive location… which in some cases gives them a special role in either defining access to important areas or in denying resources to a significant player.”

“Ukraine, Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran play the role of critically important geopolitical pivots,” he wrote in The Grand Chessboard, a book viewed by many as a blueprint for US world domination.

Brzezinski wrote that Eurasia is “the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played,” and that “it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America.”

Understanding Brzezinski’s long-term view of Ukraine makes it easier to comprehend why the US has given $5 billion to Ukraine since 1991, and why today it is hyper-concerned about having Ukraine remain in its sphere of influence.

It may also help explain why in the past year the US and many of its media outlets have feverishly demonized Vladimir Putin.

By prominently highlighting the mistreatment of activist group Pussy Riot, incessantly condemning Russia’s regressive position on gay rights, and excessively focusing on substandard accommodations at the Sochi Olympic Games, the Obama administration has cleverly distracted the public from delving into US support of the ultra-nationalist, neo-Nazi factions of the Ukrainian opposition, and has made it palatable for Americans to accept the US narrative on Ukraine.

Interestingly enough, it was Brzezinski who first compared Putin to Hitler in a March 3 Washington Post Editorial. Hillary Clinton followed-up the next day with her comments comparing the two, followed by John McCain and Marco Rubio who on March 5 agreed with Clinton’s comments comparing Putin and Hitler. Apparently Brzezinski still continues to influence US political speak.

In his book, Brzezinski contends that “America stands supreme in the four decisive domains of global power: militarily… economically… technologically… and culturally.”

While this may have been accurate in 1997, it can be argued that today, other than militarily, the US no longer reigns supreme in these domains.

So late last year when Ukraine’s now-ousted president Viktor Yanukovych surprisingly canceled plans for Ukrainian integration into the European Union in favor of stronger ties with Russia, the US may have viewed Ukraine as slipping even further out of its reach.

At that point, with the pieces already in place, the US moved to support the ousting of Yanukovych, as evidenced by the leaked phone conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When peaceful protests were not effective in unseating Yanukovych, the violence of the ultra-nationalist Svoboda party and Right Sector was embraced, if not supported by the west.

In today’s Ukraine, the US runs the risk of being affiliated with anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, a prospect it probably feels can be controlled via a friendly western media. But even if the risk is high, the US likely views it as necessary given the geopolitical importance of Ukraine, as Brzezinski mapped out in 1997.

Chris Ernesto is co-founder of St. Pete for Peace, an antiwar organization in St. Petersburg, FL that has been active since 2003. Mr. Ernesto also created and manages OccupyArrests.com and USinAfrica.com.

http://original.antiwar.com/chris_ernesto/2014/03/14/brzezinski-mapped-out-the-battle-for-ukraine-in-1997/#.UyaqCQR6kes.twitter

.  

Antiwar.com



The US doesn’t want peace in Ukraine — it wants control. So now that the situation there has largely blown up in their face, it’s not unreasonable to suspect them of fomenting more unrest in an attempt to change momentum.

Monday’s ruthless attack by the Ukrainian government in Donetsk in which up to 100 people were killed was a clear indication of this. Although the government labeled the offensive as an "anti-terrorist" operation, the reality is that it was either a case of Ukraine killing its own people, or it was a military assault against a sovereign population, depending on one’s interpretation of the Donetsk People’s Republic referendum of May 11 in which the people overwhelmingly voted for independence from Ukraine.

ernesto-ukraine

Either way, given that the past two weeks have been filled with bad news for the US and its puppet government in Kiev, we should be on the lookout for more of these types of violent provocations. That’s what desperate, crumbling powers do when things don’t go their way.

The first bit of recent devastating news for the US were the aforementioned May 11 referendums in which almost 90 percent of voters in Donetsk Region and 96 percent of voters in Lugansk Region endorsed political independence from Kiev.

No matter what happens from this point forward, now that the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions have joined Crimea in voting for self-rule, there are 9.1 million fewer people, and approximately 30,000 fewer square miles the US can have in its "sphere of influence." Knowing that the grand prize of owning control of Ukraine has just been reduced by 20 percent has got to hurt Washington’s empire builders.

And then there was the bombshell announcement on May 21, that after a decade of tough negotiations, Russia and China agreed to a $400 billion deal that will link Russia’s natural gas fields to China’s pipeline system. The deal "establishes possibly the most important gas benchmark in decades," said Francisco Blanch, Bank of America’s global head of commodities research.

Though media in the US was obviously told to downplay the significance of the agreement, even countries like Australia – a willing participant in many recent US imperial ventures – are lamenting the deal. “We can’t afford to underestimate the significance of last week’s development for the Pacific gas market,” specialist gas industry consultant Graham Bethune of EnergyQuest said. “The negative impact for Australia’s [liquefied natural gas] competitiveness and future market share from this new market dynamic is serious.”

Didn’t anyone in Washington think this could happen, given its hostile behavior towards Russia? Did the global bully think it could just continue to punch without being hit back? "The US-British attempt to wound Russia’s economy and punish Putin for disobedience had just blown up in their red faces," wrote Eric Margolis. "Russia has thus given its economy a big boost and made western sanctions look inconsequential. Chinese funds will allow cash-strapped Russia to modernize its oil and gas industry."

The only bit of recent good news for the US in Ukraine was the election of the pro-EU Petro Poroshenko – known as the "Chocolate King" – who was voted in as Ukraine’s new president on Sunday.

But the election results will not change things on the ground. If anything, the legitimate protesters in Ukraine will become even more disillusioned now that another oligarch will be in charge – something that led them to hit the streets in 2004 and again this year. The people of Ukraine are politically astute, but even those who don’t pay attention to politics know exactly who Poroshenko is: He is Ukraine’s seventh richest man who owns one of the country’s largest television stations, and has made his main occupation as a politician since the failed Orange Revolution.

"Oligarchs are part of Ukraine’s problems; on that, pretty much everyone agrees. So why is [the new president, Poroshenko] being presented as Ukraine’s solution?" wrote Sarah A. Topol in Politico.

Immediately following his victory on Sunday, Poroshenko displayed some sensibility in saying that he wants to start talks with Russia once he’s in office.  Russia agreed to the talks, as long as the US and EU are not involved. But Poroshenko must have had his hand slapped because the next day he ruled out discussions with the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in the east, calling them "bandit states," "murderers," and "terrorists."

Poroshenko went on to say that he supports a continuation of the military attacks in the east and south, but believes "it must be shorter and it must be more effective, military units must be better equipped." Analyst Daniel Patrick Welch told RT that "what that means today is [more] shelling against civilians, bombs that fall near occupied apartment blocks, fighter jets, and helicopter launches against an urban population."

So there it is. We can expect more of the same when it comes to the US trying to win hearts and minds in Ukraine. They’ll continue to try and paint the pro-federalist opposition in Ukraine as "pro-Russian" rebels or as "little green men" from Russia. They’ll come up with a follow-up ruse to the "anti-Semitic flyers being distributed by pro-Russian separatists." And they’ll try things like having Victoria Nuland tell everyone that protesters in eastern Ukraine wear "baklavas" on their face.

But when those efforts are met with laughter and are exposed as a hoax, the US will fall back on the one thing it knows it can always count on – unleashing violence in the name of fighting "terrorists." This is especially convenient because it has the Ukrainian government and its militia of neo-Nazis to do the dirty work for them.

In the meantime, everyday people in Ukraine will begin to feel the impact of suffocating IMF loans and austerity measures, and will be burdened by the increased cost of everyday items that Russia previously gave them at a discount, namely natural gas.

It won’t take long for them to be back on the streets, and it won’t take long for others in the region to seek independence or alignment with Russia, as could soon be the case in Transnistria.

The US knows these things are just around the corner, and given its insatiable appetite for global primacy, they are not just going to sit back and watch as they lose their grasp on Ukraine and the rest of Eurasia.

Chris Ernesto is cofounder of St. Pete for Peace, an antiwar organization in St. Petersburg, FL that has been active since 2003. Mr. Ernesto also created and manages OccupyArrests.com and USinAfrica.com.

Vann7 wrote:
The major blow for NATO for the Russia-CHina energy deals ..not only in Gas ($400Billions) but Oil ($270billions)
is that now Russia cannot be isolated its energy business. But also that China will not buy Liquid Gas or Oil from Middle east.
And Japan is now saying me too.. Their parliament is discussing for a pipeline with Russia to buy natural Gas from Russia..
they will save a lot of money because Australia sells Liquid natural Gas for $750 per 1,000 litter ,, and Russia sells Natural Gas of same ammount for ~$385. So the buying Gas from Russia will be a huge boost for Japan Economy.will paid half for what they pay Australia.
Aside that once Japan move to Russia for its energy needs , it will significantly lower the prices of Liquid Natural Gas affecting
Australia economy but also US/Canada economy. Another deal is also in discussion for the western part of China for  another $300 Billions
and then you have India interested too..  in short Russia already have a road map to not only reduce its dependence of Europe for selling
Gas If they need it but totally replace and surpass the European market. From China alone.. between Gas and Oil contracts already signed..
Russia will be receiving after 2018.. no less than $20 billions dollars every year in their budget. So not really bad at all. If an agreement is made with the Altai pipeline for western China.. then about $26 billions per year new income. If you Add Japan pipeline in discussion,, another $4billions ,could mean about $30 billions per year new income for Russia Gazprom. This does not include the south stream pipeline
already agreed but still not 100% official ,that will cover all southern Europe.. that could add another $10 billion per year incoming for Gazprom..  so in just 4 years.. Russia Gazprom could increase its income between $20B to $40 Billions every year. Thats a lot of money,
That Will make Russia very happy ,in selling energy alone.. and help to increase dramatically its Defense Budget and modernization program.

arpakola wrote:Shelling  slavyansk ..?

How difficult is start shelling   Lvov ?
Central. Market

All the bodies of federalists killed in the May 26 hostilities at the Donetsk airport have been identified,
and 33 of them are Russian nationals, the prime minister of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic said Thursday.
“All those dead have been identified. Today we are sending 33 people from the morgue to relatives.
We communicate with all the relatives,” Alexander Borodai told journalists.
Some 100 people were killed in clashes with pro-Kiev troops in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk
on Monday. Over 50 members of local self-defense forces and nearly the same number of civilians are among the dead.

Most of the self-defense force members died when Ukrainian troops opened fire on two Kamaz vehicles,
carrying the injured away from the battle. Some 15 corpses still remain near the airport.
The National Guard has been preventing people from taking them by shooting at all those who try to do so.
More than a dozen of the killed self-defense force members, who are local citizens, remain in the morgue.
Fierce clashes between Kiev regime loyalists and federalists have plagued Ukraine’s east and south in
recent weeks and intensified after the Donetsk and Luhansk regions declared independence from
Ukraine earlier this month.
Ukraine went to the polls on May 25 amid a deep political crisis and large-scale military operation
launched by Kiev’s authorities in mid-April to crack down on federalists. Moscow has described the operation
as a punitive act.

Donetsk authorities asked residents not to approach the area of the airport where  not subside skirmish  between
the forces of the Ukrainian army and militias. Also not recommended to approach the local hypermarket, the site says
the Donetsk city council. Hypermarket is located one kilometer from the international airport, where a bloody battle
broke out between militia Donetsk Ukrainian People's Republic and the army.
Prime Donetsk's Republic Boroday Alexander argues that when you try to remove the dead in the battle for the
Donetsk airport killed six people. "We tried to pick up the body from the airport, but the Ukrainian army fired militias
and" ambulance ", resulting in six deaths. The bodies are still there," - said Boroday " Interfax ". According to him,
as soon as the People's Republic of Donetsk guide will appeal to the international organization "Red Cross" to help
remove the dead from the territory
of Donetsk airport.



a rally in support of the People's Republic in Donetsk on Saturday the republic's leadership called the basic
conditions for negotiations with Kiev authorities. "We will engage in dialogue with Kiev authorities only in the
case of recognition of independence of Donetsk and Lugansk republics and Ukrainian troops withdrawal from
these territories," - said Prime Minister Alexander Boroday. He also appealed to parents of graduates of
schools of Donetsk, so they did not spend proms throughout the night. "We fear for the lives and health
of children, as the situation in Donetsk unstable, ask parents to monitor the safety of children during the Proms" - said Boroday.

The total number killed May 26 authorities proclaimed republic is estimated at 100 people. About 15 dead
still at the airport - do not allow the snipers to pick them up. After the fight, control of the airport was
for Ukrainian army and special forces, and the surrounding shops and employees were left without
protection, transmits radio

arpakola wrote:
Let them feel the pain back home

FP wrote:
So either one has to wait or find another way.

gaurav wrote:This shelling occurs evryday.
IT lasted for around 2 hours.
Most of the shells landed as expected in city centre (Slavyansk).

Right now the news is reporting that Shelling has stopped.
Slavyansk, Donetsk and Kramatorsk (their city centres ) are the likely targets.

I think it will begin in same fashion tomorrow.
All the likely spots coming under artillery.
Lack of Igla-s supplies to donetsk and slavyansk is really painful.
rEBELS need IGLA-S and they need it now.

FP wrote:
So either one has to wait or find another way.

This is what Putin is thinking. He is waiting and waiting.
I will say  he is right in his option.

Russians lost a lot of lives in Chechen war he does not want to repeat that plus sanctions.
He does not have any other options.

But the option of not supplying some hundreds of launchers(Metis-M1 and IGLA-s ) is really beyond my level
of reasoning.   

Kornet supplies may expose russian hand too much.