Tango01 | 22 Sep 2014 11:06 p.m. PST |
…The Front Line In The East. "Ukrainian officials say they have started to pull troops from a buffer zone in the east of the country where they have been fighting pro-Russian separatists. Security and Defense Council spokesman Colonel Andriy Lysenko said Monday rebel attacks have diminished, allowing Kyiv to implement an agreement reached last week with the separatists to create the 30-kilometer buffer. On Sunday, Ukraine had said it would not pull its forces until cease-fire violations stopped, and that several violations had occurred…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Sobieski | 23 Sep 2014 5:21 a.m. PST |
It's = it is (for God's sake!) |
skippy0001 | 23 Sep 2014 5:34 a.m. PST |
Grammar Police. Up against the wall, pat him down,Sobieski. You have the right to Palmer Method Penmanship, eloquent conversation, correct spelling and proper etiquette. Should you not have those available a nun or valet will be provided for you by the state to instruct you. Any dangling participle will be held against you in a court of the King's English. Ah-Ha!! A Saturday Night Predicate Nominative! Cuff him, Sobieski!! |
Fatman | 23 Sep 2014 6:17 a.m. PST |
Sobieski How good is your Spanish grammer? ;-P Fatman |
Sobieski | 23 Sep 2014 6:55 a.m. PST |
Non-existent. Which may be why I don't insult the tongue of Cervantes and Lorca by mutilating it. |
mad monkey 1 | 23 Sep 2014 7:32 a.m. PST |
|
GROSSMAN | 23 Sep 2014 8:19 a.m. PST |
Good point Fatman… How many TMPers could type that message out in a second language? |
Zargon | 23 Sep 2014 9:02 a.m. PST |
Can't be bovered. :) On the guns, well you can't shooty Ukrainian chocmilk duds and win if the opposition are using Tactical nucular missiles from you kn ow who 'allegedly" Cheers |
GeoffQRF | 24 Sep 2014 10:05 a.m. PST |
Nato says it has observed a "significant" withdrawal of Russian troops from eastern Ukraine, but adds that some forces still remain there. So presumably Nato has some record of the significant volumes of Russian troops present in Ukraine, for it to able to confirm they have been withdrawn? Meanwhile Russia is continuing a build up in Crimea, with notable air defense assets being positioned, presumably against the chance of Ukrainian forces attempting to take back Crimea. This chap is just scary…
|
Barin1 | 24 Sep 2014 11:39 a.m. PST |
thing is, there're several hundred OSCE observers deployed in the zone of conflict to observe heavy weaponry removal from 15 km zone… they might not see any Russian troops there…so it is safe to say that these forces were just withdrawn ;) |
Deadone | 24 Sep 2014 6:40 p.m. PST |
Meanwhile Russia is continuing a build up in Crimea, with notable air defense assets being positioned, presumably against the chance of Ukrainian forces attempting to take back Crimea. Ukranians would have to be quite stupid to try to take Crimea over. It gives the Russians a blank cheque to take them over. But then there have been vague statements by Ukranians about retaking the peninsula. I assume it's just fodder for local consumption. In any case this 30 km buffer seems to be a win for Putin.
|
GeoffQRF | 25 Sep 2014 3:41 a.m. PST |
But then there have been vague statements by Ukranians about retaking the peninsula. I assume it's just fodder for local consumption. Not really, Ukrainians are quite determined that Crimea is Ukraine, at all levels. Whether they would be bold enough to try and seize it, or merely try to maintain pressure on the international community to keep political pressure on Russia due to the illegal annexation is a different matter. |
Barin1 | 25 Sep 2014 4:04 a.m. PST |
Whatever. I doubt they'll see it returned in nearest future, unless something drastic happens, like, Russia is bankrupt and Ukraine is a new power center of EU. Anybody remembers Nagornyi Karabakh? I think we even have a couple of UN resolutions and it is supposed to be a part of Azerbiajan. Do we have any sanctions against Armenia? Is there a chance that it will be returned? (even that Armenia is way poorer than its oil-rich neighbour). I'd say "no" for both questions. |
GeoffQRF | 25 Sep 2014 7:54 a.m. PST |
Whatever indeed. Crimea is an expensive white elephant for Russia, especially this year as it relied heavily on a tourism industry that has died, and on Ukraine for most of its services and until Russia gets around to building water pipelines or a bridge is going to do little more than cost a lot of pension funds. While Russia maintains that it is keeping Crimea, it will pretty much leave a heavy dampner on any future Russia-Ukraine negotiations about anything (and is bound to play a negative role in any negotiations Russia makes with the USA or EU countries), and again places Ukraine in the position of wanting to align more heavily with the EU and NATO; something Russia states that it doesn't want Ukraine to do, so it seems a very self-defeating objective. Indeed, Poroshenko has just "…unveiled a wide-ranging reform plan to get Ukraine ready to apply for EU membership in 2020." I'd be surprised if we dont' see a significant step towards NATO membership within that timeframe. All for the (alleged) sake of a naval base that can be neutralised by one 'fault' at the Bosphorus… |
Barin1 | 25 Sep 2014 11:17 a.m. PST |
Elephant or not, in the long run it will be profitable, as it was in Soviet times. Not going to happen till the bridge is up, but at least here we know it will be there in a year or two. As soon as Yanukovich was ousted, it was clear that Ukraine is going NATO/EU way, so getting Crimea was more like a salvage operation. And you can understand, that the base would not be there for a number of reasons when Ukraine would be named a candidate to NATO. It would suffer same natural disasters, like timely cutting off of water, electricity and supplies, like it happens in Crimea, and all landscape around Sevastopol will be covered with surveillance equipment as Christmas trees. \as far as I understand, you can't join NATO, if you have live territorial problems, and as Poroshenko will never be allowed to give independence to Donetsk and Lughansk, this conflict will be there for a long time – that's why I've mentioned Karabakh in a previous post. Armenians are holding to it even that there's no industry or agriculture to speak of, and they had to inflate their military budget each year to keep in line with Azerbijan (and they're still spending nuch more). There're certain things that cost more than money, and Russia is ready to pay for Crimea. The question is, if Europe is ready to pay for Ukraine…. |
GeoffQRF | 25 Sep 2014 10:59 p.m. PST |
Not going to happen till the bridge is up, but at least here we know it will be there in a year or two. I don't think they can. Galina says there were plans for a bridge back in Soviet days, but it proved too problematic. Medvedev shot his mouth off about a bridge this year, but again it seems they are struggling either with the logistics or the cost. The last push appeared to be an attempt to build a land link along the Azov coast, but Mariupol residents have made it very clear on their views which has stifled that route. I don't think it is going to be that simple, and likely to be several years before that goal is achieved. We explored NATO membership rules elsewhere. It refers to external conflicts, but Russia clearly and repeatedly states this is an internal issue. Nato membership doesn't refer to internal issues. |
Barin1 | 25 Sep 2014 11:15 p.m. PST |
…but Ukraine states everywhere that it is attacked by Russian troops, which is definitely an international issue. A kind of contradiction, don't you think…. And the bridge construction started in the beginning of September. When they will finish it is another matter, but of course you want your investments back asap. and if Mariupol stays as a part of Ukraine now, I guess it is not going to be an issue with current level of the relations between Ukraine and Russia – I mean both sides are trying to hurt each other, so opinion of other citizens will not count I guess… link |
GeoffQRF | 26 Sep 2014 4:48 a.m. PST |
but Ukraine states everywhere that it is attacked by Russian troops, which is definitely an international issue. A kind of contradiction, don't you think It is, and a bit of a puzzle as they both seem to be going against themelves with it, Russia stating it is domestic (so NATO is a possibility) despite them saying they don't want Ukraine in NATO. Meanwhile Ukraine is saying it is international which might prevent NATO membership… it is a little confusing. The MAP is pretty much individual, so NATO could simply wite around it and permit membership. Each MAP has five chapters: political and economic issues, defense and military issues, resource issues, security issues, and legal issues. The military and defense elements seem to be more geared towards having control of the army and able to contribute to the collective defense (and a commitment to investment as a proportion of GDP) than any actual restriction on conflict. EU membership would be more problematic, as it requires evidence that the borders are secure, which they are clearly not, hence the reason many nations joint NATO prior to the EU as it helps secure the border. I don't think the conflict has any real bearing, if NATO chose to go ahead. It's more to do with the political eill than anything else, and with a declared intention to submit for EU membership in 2020 I can well see NATO membership prior to that to create the security of border that EU would require. …the bridge construction started in the beginning of September. You sure it has started? I can see lots of design proposals and computer projections of how it may look but the 1943 version seems to have collapsed and the 2010 agreement seems to have not gone anywhere. Most of the photos associated with it are either simulations or photos of other similar bridges, or the earlier abandoned projects. …if Mariupol stays as a part of Ukraine now… Was there ever a question that Mariupol intended to be different? The people seem pretty determined who they are
|