Ukraine Says Russian Troops Join Separatists in New Assaults

[uhnope]

Source: Bloomberg News

Rebels and Russian troops in Ukraine’s east are carrying out new offensives, the government in Kiev said, a day after it accused Russia of sending about 800 soldiers across its border.

With foreign ministers preparing for peace talks in Berlin on Wednesday, Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council accused Russia of “executing terrorist acts” on its territory following a blast in the eastern city of Kharkiv that wounded 13 people. Government reports that two Russian battalions crossed the border on Monday are “hallucinations” and “absolute nonsense,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said in an e-mailed statement.

“Militants and Russian regular military units are trying to carry out local offensives,” Ukrainian military spokesman Andriy Lysenko said at a briefing in Kiev on Tuesday. “The enemy is carrying out an active regrouping and bolstering its forces near the Donetsk airport and in the Luhansk region.”

The fighting between the government and rebels has intensified since a push to restart peace talks collapsed last week. Scores of Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and wounded in the battle for the Donetsk airport, and both sides accuse each other of reinforcing their positions in breach of a Sept. 5 truce signed in Minsk, Belarus.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-19/ukraine-says-russian-troops-cross-border-near-battle-for-airport.html

---

Putin continues the war of invasion for "New Russia," threatening all of Europe.

For the Putin apologists who will try to pretend Russia isn't still invading and occupying Ukraine, a reminder of the time a Russian soldier in Ukraine, in an unmarked uniform, admitted he was from Russia:

Watch An Unmarked Soldier In Crimea Finally Admit That He Is Russian

This video from UkrStream.tv appears to mark the first time that one of the unidentified soldiers swarming the Ukrainian region has identified himself as Russian.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/miriamelder/watch-an-unmarked-soldier-in-crimea-finally-admit-that-he-is#.rc7LVXqxW

[Bragi]

1. I'm fine with Russia reclaiming territory

Sure wouldn't support war to protect Ukraine. NATO should back off.

[khankiso]

2. how many

Times have we heard this from them and it's most likely a lie again. Russia should send in troops to show them what it looks like when they are really there. Just so they know the difference.

[7962]

3. So you'd be fine with them taking Estonia, Latvia, etc? Since its not Alaska?

Appeasement didnt work with the Germans; it wont work with Putin either.

[JackRiddler]

4. This is hilarious coming from a presumed American.

Who's been invading countries without any provocation lately? Can you name that country?

The Russian people who have always lived in the Ukraine mostly oppose the coup d'etat that overthrew the elected president, and the policies of the Ukrainian nationalist regime now in place.

As someone pointed out up-thread, if the Russian military really did get involved, the war would not have last long.

[ColesCountyDem]

5. You didn't answer the question. n/t

[JackRiddler]

6. Perhaps because it's a stupid question.

Since it's making up a ridiculous scare scenario. No, I would not be fine with all that. Your question is about as meaningful as whether you would be fine with the United States nuking Mexico? (Come on, tell us, we have to give you the purity test!!!)

I am not fine with any countries or rulers that conduct their politics through making enemies of otherized ethnic groups. I have to think the Kiev regime understood the risk they were taking when they chose to ally with Ukrainian Nazis and attack the Russian-speaking population of Ukrainian national citizens. It backfired. Now the same folks are trying to pull the United States and NATO into commitments for a war with Russia on the basis of a mad-dog policy. Demonizing one side or the other doesn't help!

[ColesCountyDem]

7. It wasn't my question. n/t

[JackRiddler]

8. You wanted me to answer it, no?

So I did. Now answer mine: Are you fine with the U.S. nuking Mexico? Come on!!!

[ColesCountyDem]

9. What I really wanted was to see if you would invoke Godwin's Law, and you did.

You lost all credibility at that point.

[JackRiddler]

10. Dear Genius,

It's you who just invoked Godwin's "law," if the word "invoked" actually means anything. Do you own a dictionary?

However, no comparison was made of the Ukrainian Svoboda party and their cadre (among those fighting on the eastern front) to the Nazis. They just happen to be Nazis. See the difference?

[ColesCountyDem]

12. Dear Genius

Not only do I own a dictionary, but I know how to use it, something you obviously do not. It was you who invoked Godwin's Law when you first used the word 'nazi' in your post.

Thank for playing.

[JackRiddler]

13. So you don't know what invoked means.

I don't know why I'm bothering but I guess I'm a kind of Nazi too: the grammar kind. You're trying to say I violated this non-law. The law is then invoked in bringing charges. See?

The word "Nazi" is perfectly acceptable to use in reference to Nazis, many of whom are fighting the good fight against dangerous Russian civilians in the Kiev-organized paramilitaries.

[ColesCountyDem]

14. I know what it means, but you obviously don't.

in·voke
verb \in-ˈvōk\

: to mention (someone or something) in an attempt to make people feel a certain way or have a certain idea in their mind

: to refer to (something) in support of your ideas

: to make use of (a law, a right, etc.)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invoke

You have no evidence whatsoever that anyone in the Ukraine is a member of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP), so you have no factual basis for calling anyone a 'Nazi'. Words have meanings.

Again, thanks for playing.

[JackRiddler]

15. Invincible ignorance is so banal.

What care I?

[ColesCountyDem]

17. Your posts in this thread provide such excellent examples of it.

Thanks for playing.

[uhnope]

11. Neville Chamberlain had similar ideas

[happyslug]

16. I am getting sick of these references to Chamberlain, why do you NOT mention his declaration of war?

Chamberlain and the French Premier had a problem. Hitler had started to rearm in 1934, England started in 1936 but the key to any war with Hitler depended on the French Army (When War was declared, one out of every 48 Citizens of the United Kingdom were called up for duty, one of the EIGHT Frenchmen were called up for duty, i.e for every British Soldier in France in 1940 you had SIX French Soldiers).

France had entered into a non violent Civil War in 1934 and did not end till 1938. During that time period NO expansion of the French Army took place. Thus France was two years behind Britain and four years behind Germany in getting its army up to par. The French determined they could NOT go on the offensive till 1941 and questioned their ability on the defensive till 1941. As to aircraft and tanks, 1941 was the year the French thought they could equal the Germans.

Hitler thus had a window of opportunity between 1938 and 1941. By 1941 Britain would have been producing as much weapons as Germany was doing (and France would have come close to matching German production). Thus both the British and the French knew they could NOT go to war with Germany before 1941 UNLESS they had an alliance with the Soviet Union, and Poland kept veto that proposal.

Thus why Munich occurred, it was NOT to appease Hitler, but to buy time. Time that was desperately needed. If Hitler had gone to war in 1938, he would have attacked France in 1939 and the "Battle of Britain" would have been fought in 1939 between British Biplanes and ME-109s. The Spitfires and Hurricanes of 1940 were just entering production in 1939 and NOT operable till 1940. France by holding out for nine weeks after it was attacked, permitted Britain to barely produce the planes needed to win the Battle of Britain. Had the battle of Britain been fought in 1939, Britain would have lost it.

Thus the Munich agreement was NOT to appease Hitler but to give France and Britain time to build up their armies and maybe convince the Poles to work with Stalin.

Lets remember what happened to Chamberlain. After Munich he REMAIN PRIME MINISTER. On September 1, 1939 it was Chamberland that presented the ultimatum to Hitler to withdraw from Poland or be at war with Britain AND France. Chamberlain remained Prime Minister till France was falling. At that point it was decided Britain needed a unity Government, one made up of the Conservative (lead by Chamberlain), Labour (Lead by Attlee) and the few Liberals still in Parliament. The problem was Attlee refused to work with Chamberlain do to previous acts by Chamberlain and when Attlee agreed to be in the Unity Government, he agreed ONLY if Chamberlain was no longer Prime Minister. Please note the disagreement had NOTHING to do with the war and clearly nothing to do with Munich. Thus it was agreed that Churchill be Prime Minister with Attlee in his cabinet. Chamberlain actually stayed a leader of the then majority party in Parliament. the Conservatives till he died later in 1940. Chamberlain was extremely popular within the Conservative party, more popular then his fellow conservative Churchill.

Please note Churchill first election when he was Prime Minister was in 1945, five years AFTER he became prime minister (and he LOST that election). the British Parliament did not hold an election from November 13, 1935 to July 5, 1945:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1935

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1945

Sorry, Chamberlain's actions where supported by most people. The French Army had be to rebuilt and that required a delay in going to war from 1938 to 1941 (The problem was Hitler decided to fully exploit his window of opportunity by taking all of the Czech Republic in the spring of 1938 and Poland in the fall.