How will the Ukraine war end?

How will the Ukraine war end?

  • Rebels win,Eastern Ukraine goes independent

    Votes: 100 48.1%
  • Putin invades Kiev, NATO doesn't move

    Votes: 62 29.8%
  • Putin invades Kiev, NATO fights Russia

    Votes: 12 5.8%
  • Rebels lose, Ukraine stays united

    Votes: 34 16.3%

  • Total voters
    208
As I have noted there are other possibilities
- the brother of gen.Asapov was not interviewed at all. And Reuters just forged the story.
- the brother was asked about mission of gen.Asapov in Syria. And Reuters falsely attributed his words to Ukraine.
- the brother could not understnd properly (via telephone) the question and could be sure that he was asked about Syria, not Ukraine.

Yes, I don't deny that gen.Asapov could or could not visit Ukraine. It is not established. We don't have alternative sources that confirm the story. So it remains merely an allegation.

Balance of probabilities is a form to express private opinions, estimates, suppositions, allegations. Of course you have right for your own opinion and your obedient servant has it as well.

There is an interesting detail. Reuters claims that general's brother was allegedly interviewed in September 2017. The allegations that the article in Reuters contains were presented by Ukrainian MoD also in September 2017. So why it (this information) was not published in September 2017?
Funny how you only complain about Reuters articles when it doesn't show Russia in a good light.

Either Reuters is lying. Unlikely.

The General's brother is lying. Unlikely.

You are a dissembling, obfuscating Russian troll. Guess which my money is on?
 
http://intersectionproject.eu/sites... Success or Failure for Russia&dm_t=0,0,0,0,0
Anyway, back on topic, Chatham House have a paper on the Russian invasion of Crimea. Quite interesting in my view. Some key points include appeasement not working:
ACCOMMODATING RUSSIA IS NOT GOING TO WORK
The “realist“ view of Russia as a “great power” is not only analytically unconvincing. It is also leading to problematic policy recommendations. For “realists,“ accepting a Russian sphere of influence is the way ahead. The West should make clear to Russia that NATO and EU are not going to be enlarged further east. It should accommodate Russia by accepting that the post-Soviet space (minus the Baltic countries) is the sphere of Russian influence, and not challenge Russia there.
For a start its against UN principles of self determination to let russia have its own 'backyard'
Such an approach however is not just inconsistent with the UN system based on state sovereignty. It is also not going to lead to better Western relations with Russia for a number of reasons.
Appeasement hasn't worked in the past ie between 1991 and 2014 the policy was to accomodate Russia, but they
First, it has not worked in the past. Accommodation of Russia has been, de facto, the policy the West has pursued from the breakup of the Soviet Union 1991 until 2014 when the West reacted to Russian aggression against Ukraine with sanctions. Out of all the successor states of the Soviet Union, only Russia got the West’s real attention. Russia’s claim to inherit the UN Security Council Seat from the Soviet Union and its nuclear weapons has been supported by the West. America and Europe have put their hopes on a strong Russia that would transform into a liberal democracy and a market economy over time. The West has not objected to Russia’s use of military force in the post-Soviet space as a tool to keep other countries unstable and dependent on Moscow (especially Moldova and Georgia). American and European leaders have seen Russia as the key partner and interlocutor, accepting Moscow’s view of the “near abroad“ as a sphere of influence, or better, sphere of control. This approach has failed, not because of Western meddling but because of Russia’s inability to produce a stable environment. The way Russia has exerted influence in the post-Soviet space—through intimidation, use of military power, support for corrupt leaders— has provoked resistance. Russian influence has been, in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia, a major obstacle to economic and political modernization. Reformers in these countries turned to the West for help: to counterbalance Russian influence and to support their reform agendas.
Continuing appeasement will only lead to more instability:
In other words, the conflicts between Russia and post-Soviet countries are homegrown. They are not going to disappear if the West decides to abandon the approach of limited engagement it has pursued with reform-minded countries in the post-Soviet space. If the West cuts those relationships in order to accommodate Russia, the result is likely to be more conflict and desperation in those countries, leading either to more war or emigration; certainly not to stability.
Overall quite interesting imho and the military success of the Crimea operation may be outweighed by the results.
 
Funny how you only complain about Reuters articles when it doesn't show Russia in a good light.

Either Reuters is lying. Unlikely.
Really?
Reuters Appologises to Syria for Lies
Provided the agency “Reuters” news agency a formal apology to Syria, after having rigged images transferred from the archive attribute to the events of Syrian Interior. The author was one of the programs in the TV France had been transferred Sunday on Reuters photographs claimed to have addressed the internal events in Syria was forced Reuters to apologize to Syria.
The Reuters display pictures specializes in Lebanese affairs as pictures of events in Syria, but the facts have emerged rapidly, forcing the “Reuters” to apologize to Syria because of this scandal is not the first for the “Reuters” after he had previously published photographs artificial than many other countries as it did in Iran in the period that followed the elections in Iran in 2009, and was last done by working hard to exaggerate the events of Syria through the dissemination of false news and pictures from the archive dating back mainly to countries other than Syria after it claimed to have belonged to the Syrian demonstrations in the city of Dara.
 
As I have noted there are other possibilities
- the brother of gen.Asapov was not interviewed at all. And Reuters just forged the story.
- the brother was asked about mission of gen.Asapov in Syria. And Reuters falsely attributed his words to Ukraine.
- the brother could not understnd properly (via telephone) the question and could be sure that he was asked about Syria, not Ukraine.

Yes, I don't deny that gen.Asapov could or could not visit Ukraine. It is not established. We don't have alternative sources that confirm the story. So it remains merely an allegation.

Balance of probabilities is a form to express private opinions, estimates, suppositions, allegations. Of course you have right for your own opinion and your obedient servant has it as well.

There is an interesting detail. Reuters claims that general's brother was allegedly interviewed in September 2017. The allegations that the article in Reuters contains were presented by Ukrainian MoD also in September 2017. So why it (this information) was not published in September 2017?
You always do this. Dissecting statements or news items as though you're a barrister in court but instead of facts, you use the technique of doubt casting and using improbable arguments.

As with the MH17 when you tried to argue against the BUK being fired by the separatists side and claiming it was possible for it to have been shot down by a Ukrainian plane, and as with the events around the capture of Savchenko and allegations that she was involved in the deaths of journalists, you're doing the same again with this one.

If you have evidence contrary to Reuters article, then show it.
 
So you deny that Reuters used falsehoods just because you don't like the source (frankly speaking randomly picked by me). OK. Let's look at another source
Reuters admits altering Beirut photo
11 years ago a photo submitted that was withdrawn. Is that the best you can do? Adnan Hajj photographs controversy - Wikipedia

Nobody says Reuters are perfect, but in a world of maskirovka and agitprop they’re probably one of the best.

Still you lie, obfuscate and dissemble. Can we have ‘reasonable Sergey’ back? The one who wouldn’t dream of posting blatant agitprop?
Or maybe it is Zionist propaganda?
If you say so. It smacks of your closet racism frankly
 
Last edited:
Sorry Gents I have not been paying attention is this thing still ongoing?
 
Sorry Gents I have not been paying attention is this thing still ongoing?
It’s not like you to be unaware of Russian global politics. Your previously quoted newspaper seems to think so: Fred Weir: Politics over peace? Critics say Ukraine’s president sidelining Minsk accords. - Russia News Now
I suppose it comes down to what do you mean by ‘still going on’? Minsk 2 is not being met by either side and those who want Crimea to be a part of Russia would be more than happy that it goes away, forgotten about. I suppose Putin could comply with Minsk 2 and allow the U.N. to police the border between Ukraine and Russia but it’s not going to happen. So yes, still going on with injuries sustained on both sides.
 
Genuinely been focused elsewhere, Russkies ref Central Asia, China, Syria, Iran, Turkey yes but the buggers do get around and I cannot be looking everywhere, although I am certain they don't own the Donald.

Thanks for the answer.
 
Genuinely been focused elsewhere, Russkies ref Central Asia, China, Syria, Iran, Turkey yes but the buggers do get around and I cannot be looking everywhere, although I am certain they don't own the Donald.

Thanks for the answer.
No problem, I was genuinely surprised you’d not kept up to date with the war in the Donbas. In view of your knowledge on Russia, this paper mentions China not really bothered by Russia as a partner in either trade or militarily. Any thoughts?
http://intersectionproject.eu/sites... Success or Failure for Russia&dm_t=0,0,0,0,0
 
http://intersectionproject.eu/sites/default/files/books/final_a_successful_failure_russia_after_crimea.pdf?utm_source=Chatham House&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=8999691_26.1.18 Annexation of Crimea: Success or Failure for Russia&dm_t=0,0,0,0,0
Anyway, back on topic, Chatham House have a paper on the Russian invasion of Crimea. Quite interesting in my view. Some key points include appeasement not working:

For a start its against UN principles of self determination to let russia have its own 'backyard'

Appeasement hasn't worked in the past ie between 1991 and 2014 the policy was to accomodate Russia, but they

Continuing appeasement will only lead to more instability:


Overall quite interesting imho and the military success of the Crimea operation may be outweighed by the results.
I haven't read it all but the bits I've dipped into are interesting. The 'sphere of influence' notion has always struck me as being a sort of throwback to an imperialistic mindset.
 
http://intersectionproject.eu/sites/default/files/books/final_a_successful_failure_russia_after_crimea.pdf?utm_source=Chatham House&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=8999691_26.1.18 Annexation of Crimea: Success or Failure for Russia&dm_t=0,0,0,0,0
Anyway, back on topic, Chatham House have a paper on the Russian invasion of Crimea. Quite interesting in my view. Some key points include appeasement not working:

For a start its against UN principles of self determination to let russia have its own 'backyard'

Appeasement hasn't worked in the past ie between 1991 and 2014 the policy was to accomodate Russia, but they

Continuing appeasement will only lead to more instability:


Overall quite interesting imho and the military success of the Crimea operation may be outweighed by the results.
I haven't read it all but the bits I've dipped into are interesting. The 'sphere of influence' notion has always struck me as being a sort of throwback to an imperialistic mindset.
Well the gay commissar is a wannabe Czar so that is not exactly surprising.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Nobody says Reuters are perfect...
At last you admit something obvious.
And not one news-source is absolutely perfect. So for this or that reason Reuters could present false information in our case. It can not be excluded.
In our case with gen.Asapov who was killed by terrorist in Syria we see this informational chain
1. Just after his death Ukrainian MoD (its intelligent services) published allegations about his involvement in the war in Donbass. That time Reuters allegedly interviewed brother of the general. Most likely it was done by Marina Tsvetkova. But that time Reuters did not publish the allegations because the main source was apparently biased.
2. Four months later Marita Tsvetkova published an article in Reuters-Russian web-site where she presented her fairy tale about 5 rebels that 'independently' confirmed word-by-word allegation made by Ukrainian MoD.
3. Immediately an article in English appeared in Reuters English web-site and international MSM began to quote it as a primary source while primary source is Ukrainian MoD.
It is typical fake news forgery technology that includes reference to unnamed persons and concealment of real primary source.
 
At last you admit something obvious.
And not one news-source is absolutely perfect. So for this or that reason Reuters could present false information in our case. It can not be excluded.
In our case with gen.Asapov who was killed by terrorist in Syria we see this informational chain
1. Just after his death Ukrainian MoD (its intelligent services) published allegations about his involvement in the war in Donbass. That time Reuters allegedly interviewed brother of the general. Most likely it was done by Marina Tsvetkova. But that time Reuters did not publish the allegations because the main source was apparently biased.
2. Four months later Marita Tsvetkova published an article in Reuters-Russian web-site where she presented her fairy tale about 5 rebels that 'independently' confirmed word-by-word allegation made by Ukrainian MoD.
3. Immediately an article in English appeared in Reuters English web-site and international MSM began to quote it as a primary source while primary source is Ukrainian MoD.
It is typical fake news forgery technology that includes reference to unnamed persons and concealment of real primary source.
That’s an awful lot of trying to explain that a Russian General’s brother is quoted as saying he spent time in Ukraine which you even agreed with could happen.

Your continuing failure to disprove Reuters adds to your squirming and can only add to Russian discomfort over the allegation.

Balance of probabilities. He was there in charge. Beyond reasonable doubt. Not yet.
 
At last you admit something obvious.
And not one news-source is absolutely perfect. So for this or that reason Reuters could present false information in our case. It can not be excluded.


It is typical fake news forgery technology that includes reference to unnamed persons and concealment of real primary source.

Nice try but nobody here is going to buy onto the Kremlins desperate attempts to conflate mistakes with deliberate fake news.
 

Similar threads


Top