The West should propose sending in peacekeepers. If Putin disagrees, he'll be showing his true colors, his disapproval of a peace-keeping process. Allow various militias of various countries to participate. What do you think? I think it could work, if structured properly.
He cannot allow it. Foreign troops on soil in such an important part of the "near abroad" would be viewed at home as a defeat.
Now what the West could do is remove all insignia from uniforms and equipment, and introduce a whole new kind of "little green men" parachuting into Eastern Ukraine. ;D
The West should propose sending in peacekeepers.
Secondly who is this mythical peacekeeper? do you think the French will send in any?
the Germans? who? I think that these Peacekeepers should be primarily European. This
is a European problem and they should try to make at least a token effort in their own
defense efforts.
The West should propose sending in peacekeepers. If Putin disagrees, he'll be showing his true colors, his disapproval of a peace-keeping process. Allow various militias of various countries to participate. What do you think? I think it could work, if structured properly.
Putin would agree to send in his own peace keepers but would do something to prevent
the arrival of foreign non Russian peacekeepers.
Secondly who is this mythical peacekeeper? do you think the French will send in any?
the Germans? who? I think that these Peacekeepers should be primarily European. This
is a European problem and they should try to make at least a token effort in their own
defense efforts.
The French and Germans have sent UN peacekeepers to many regions. There is currently a scandal involving French troops' behavior in Central Africa.
The UN will only send in peacekeepers if both sides agree. The peacekeepers must be impartial.
Brass would know a lot about this, as I believe he served in a peacekeeping capacity in the past.
UN peacekeepers aren't peacemakers. They're an army without ammunition. Won't solve the problems there.
Quote from: BillyBUN peacekeepers aren't peacemakers. They're an army without ammunition. Won't solve the problems there.Agreed. You don't bring a neutered and toothless dog to a fight.
Peacemaking is more along the lines of diplomacy.
As far as being an "army without ammunition". Not quite. Normally, the largest group of any UN Peacekeeping mission are typically Light Infantry with personal weapons and some combat support weapons like mortars, light armored fighting vehicles, Pln machine guns, etc. Lot's of ammunition but they must adhere to the ROE's.
The French and Germans have sent UN peacekeepers to many regions. There is currently a scandal involving French troops' behavior in Central Africa.
The UN will only send in peacekeepers if both sides agree. The peacekeepers must be impartial.
Brass would know a lot about this, as I believe he served in a peacekeeping capacity in the past.
Diplomacy is a method of asking, not making peace and diplomacy doesn't happen when both sides think they can win on the battlefield. Peace usually happens after one guy pounds the other guy into submission. That's what I mean by peacemaking. UN peacekeepers can't do that.
UN peacekeepers got pushed out Somolia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda. Trained soldiers that are very limited in what they can do can't perform well against civilian populations that rise up. When I was in the army, nobody there wanted to be a part of any UN operation. A bunch politicians from various nations sending troops into harms way and telling the troops they are very limited in what they can do. Imagine UN soldiers from German and Polish backgrounds shooting Ukrainian citizens who have ethnic Russian backgrounds hurling rocks and Molotov cocktails at them? Even with Russian approval, I don't think the UN wants to go there.
The UN were not "pushed out" of Somalia, the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda. They completed the mandates. In some cases over multi generational evolving missions
Are/were these missions a failure? Depends on how you look at it.
Try to show some pride in your nation's contributions, Billy. This facility saved a lot of lives, military and civilian. I know. One or two of those saved are friends of mine...
Hundreds of thousands dead in each of those conflicts. Not many would say those missions were a success.
Billy, your inability to use logic as it relates to events is becoming legendary.
WWII was a conflict where over 50 million were killed. The Allies won, but by Billy's
logic they lost because there were too many deaths in the conflict
Let's look at another example. Honest Abe was involved in the US Civil war. Nearly
100% of the deaths were Americans and the death toll was over 620,000. The Union
was saved from being torn apart, the slaves were freed and yet by Billy's legendary
logic it was a failure.
Bill, you're the only one complaining.
many complain about you jumping to conclusions, making stuff up in your
head and lack of reason.
No, many complain about you jumping to conclusions, making stuff up in your
head and lack of reason. They might use different words than I do, but they
agree frequently that you lack of reason.
If you said there are many problems with various peacekeeping missions and
listed them, I wouldn't have taken up an argument with you. We all know there
are various problems but that's not what you did.
You defined the problem and oversimplified it to the point of absurdity and then
posted.
Previously you took a member to task about her opinion on Holodomor (spelling?)
Then asked her to justify silly stuff that was totally unrelated like Pol Pot etc. If
you argued the point I would have never taken you to task.
You have things bouncing around in your head, but the stuff that you actually
put down in your post is incomplete and often disjointed sometimes to the point
that nobody can follow.
Often when I make a post, I read it and edit it a half dozen times so that
it make sense. Maybe you should proofread your posts better and understand
that everything you didn't say in your post is unknown by all except for yourself.
BillyB - I agree with a lot of what you write but, occasionally, you come out with stuff which I just find totally bewildering (e.g. some of your stuff on Miquel's gun thread). As 2tallbill wrote, maybe you SOMETIMES need to check your editing.
2tallbill - apart from getting bored with your relentless attacks on Hillary Clinton and President Obama, which I wish could be deleted
Your trip reports are terrifically descriptive, and I'm very glad that you seem to have ended up with such a wonderful family.
Minsk has an interest in enforcing peace.
Yes, send in the peacekeepers....
(http://www.allmystery.de/i/ty7Sn4i_Mh9UcV_Javelin-anti-tank-missile.JPG)
(http://bangshift.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/warthog2.jpeg)
Yes, send in the peacekeepers....
(http://www.allmystery.de/i/ty7Sn4i_Mh9UcV_Javelin-anti-tank-missile.JPG)
(http://bangshift.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/warthog2.jpeg)
lets be clear here, The UN is a joke. UN peacekeepers couldn't win a fight against a bunch of primary school kids with rocks. I only need to point out the former Yugoslavia, Somalia and most of Africa as examples of its ineptness. the only thing a UN peacekeeper seems capable of accomplishing is raping a 9 year old. I have no regrets about how many "peacekeepers" we shot in underage brothel raids in the former Yugoslavia during the 90s and early 2000s who came back as KIA to their respective countries, and hidden for years by the likes of slick Willy and the British baffoon. Fuck the UN. Its worthless and no one respects it. A UN peacekeeping mission is nothing more than carte blanche to rape and pilfer from the weak but cannot stand up to any aggressor. Lets be real here. Please, any of you, cite an example of where the UN actually accomplished anything real and substantial!
lets be clear here, The UN is a joke. UN peacekeepers couldn't win a fight against a bunch of primary school kids with rocks. I only need to point out the former Yugoslavia, Somalia and most of Africa as examples of its ineptness
I have no regrets about how many "peacekeepers" we shot in underage brothel raids in the former Yugoslavia during the 90s and early 2000s who came back as KIA to their respective countries, and hidden for years by the likes of slick Willy and the British baffoon.
Fuck the UN. Its worthless and no one respects it. A UN peacekeeping mission is nothing more than carte blanche to rape and pilfer from the weak but cannot stand up to any aggressor. Lets be real here. Please, any of you, cite an example of where the UN actually accomplished anything real and substantial!
UN can do what it takes,
Do you think a military response is necessary at this point? That's a redundant question of course ma'am.
Violence and killing is the only answer huh? This is the solution I guess, I'm not a politician but somebody needs to step up and make somebody listen already. It's easy but you know that's not the way it's gonna go down. Too bad.
I do not think the war can be won by Guns.. on either side...
the U.S. was instrumental in pressuring Ukraine to give up its nuclear arsenal. So, there is a moral obligation to Ukraine now, I believe.
Difficult situation and one that does not appear to be solved peacefully by those currently in power. Like PBR says it is not my country and the reality is that it is probably not our war. Maybe some accomplished Ukrainian hackers could "steal" some of our military tech that helps turn the tide?
Well said. I would only dispute the last words. Kiev has no power to bomb Donbass to the stone age. Just because Russia will not allow, and Putin has clearly warned about. However Kiev may try to bring Donbass to the stone age through economic blockade, at least some Ukrainian patriots made public such sentiments toward the rebel republics. Needless to say the blockade will be the politically acceptable way to separate Donbass from Ukraine, first step for legalization of results of the civil war.
Well, it's unpopular to say this on this forum, but part of this is because those who now hold power grabbed that power because their ill gotten fortunes were being squeezed by the Yanukovych regime. Yes, Yanukovych was corrupt, however, his regime made a lot of the crooks who are currently in power uncomfortable. The fact is, despite so called lustration, every criminal who was under investigation previously is now scot-free. Tymoshenko. Yushchenko. Yushchenko's wife (who raised millions for a children's hospital that was never built). Who are they investigating? Not members of their own parties, but rather, those of the Party of Regions.
A relative (through marriage) who had fled to Kazakhstan, after stealing millions, is now back in Kyiv, and has no fear of arrest. So what does this tell you?
Although Russia fomented much of this discord for their own political and, presumably, geostrategic purposes, a lot of this war is about seizing wealth, or preserving what has been seized. And most of those players aren't dying and don't care how long the war goes on, or the results of diplomacy.
In 2011, my better half told me that he hoped "it will not turn to bloodshed", but he fully expected events in Ukraine would lead to internal strife, possibly civil war. He said this was because factions were fighting for control of various parts of Ukraine, just as the Hetman had done in the past. It's not going to change unless Kyiv agrees that the current criminals running Donbas have full rein there. Or they bomb the area to the stone age.
Evidence of the lack of intellect among the balance of those in Donbas. Hardcore proletarians, more than 2 decades after the collapse of the USSR.
So do you think such people can coexist?
You can turn it around, but the majority of those running the DNR/LNR and their followers are typical gopniks. Zakharchenko is no exception. Khodakovsky is.
Well said. I would only dispute the last words. Kiev has no power to bomb Donbass to the stone age. Just because Russia will not allow, and Putin has clearly warned about.
...Needless to say the blockade will be the politically acceptable way to separate Donbass from Ukraine, first step for legalization of results of the civil war.
Belvis, what has this got to do with Putin? Even though we all know it is a lie, he has said many times that Russia is not involved in Ukraine. And what do you mean - "Russia will not allow." Ukraine is not part of Russia, and Russia cannot dictate what another country may or may not do on its own territory.
Perhaps you would like to rethink that part of your statement. Are only the USA, or western nations allowed to dictate what goes on in other countries, that aren't their territory?
France and Germany might send 30 each provided the US, Canada and England
had 20,000 there.
Perhaps you would like to rethink that part of your statement. Are only the USA, or western nations allowed to dictate what goes on in other countries, that aren't their territory?
Fathertime!
And what do you mean - "Russia will not allow." Ukraine is not part of Russia, and Russia cannot dictate what another country may or may not do on its own territory.As you have observed, Russia can dictate. World is being ruled by precedent law. If one country can send military in another country and destroy this country, then this case can be appiled for other countries too.
FT,
I am not aware of ANY NATO member having sent / encouraged serving members of the military to fight in Ukraine....
I trust you are now pausing to think ....of a rational, valid riposte..
Their are several hundred US Military trainers in Ukraine.
As you have observed, Russia can dictate. World is being ruled by precedent law. If one country can send military in another country and destroy this country, then this case can be appiled for other countries too.
Certain morals are, and always have been, universal.
Their are several hundred US Military trainers in Ukraine.
Nevertheless, there is a significant difference. The US did not illegally seize Iraqi territory and claim it as their own.Boethius, you're bringing argument that US did not illegally seize Iraqi territory as kind of justification for death of tens of thousands Iraqis. And I see here a significant difference, completely destroyed country with hundreds thousands dead people and millions Crimeans who applaud the reunification of their land with Russia.
Russia is an outlier, a rogue state, run by men who are killers, with no moral principles.
I saw 12,000 Russian soldiers were killed in Ukraine so far. :'(
The Russian soldiers, as evidenced by over 2,000 Russian contract soldiers killed so far, are not away from the front. They are in the midst of the front, and fighting.
The 3,200 some Russian soldiers now receiving payments for disabilities sustained while fighting were in combat, obviously.
Boethius, you're bringing argument that US did not illegally seize Iraqi territory as kind of justification for death of tens of thousands Iraqis.
And I see here a significant difference, completely destroyed country with hundreds thousands dead people and millions Crimeans who applaud the reunification of their land with Russia.
It seems you as a good lawer put the law above the human lives, and here we disagree.
Russia is a rogue state in eyes of Anglo-Saxon world, that's true. However it's not the issue of moral principles but pure political competition for power in the world. Russia is not a docile bunny, so she will a rogue state :)
The idea that Ukraine is important to the U.S., resulting in the US funding a so called "anti Russian coup" is ludicrous. Ukraine is irrelevant to the US, and the Anglo-Saxon world.Who said Ukraine is important to the U.S.? Russia is.
Russia is not going to be a power in the world for a long time based on its population and its low standard of living/economic capital.How long time? At least for the last 300 years Russia was the power and influence the world in spite of population and low standard of living. The situation can turn but I would not count on guessing.
Who said Ukraine is important to the U.S.? Russia is.
Ukraine is an instrument.
How long time? At least for the last 300 years Russia was the power and influence the world in spite of population and low standard of living. The situation can turn but I would not count on guessing.
At the time of Iraq, I was among the foolish US sheep that believed our lying representatives. I have come around to a similar viewpoint as yours now, years later.
No, I do not justify those deaths, and I have always maintained the invasion of Iraq was contrary to international law and criminal.
The idea that Ukraine is important to the U.S., resulting in the US funding a so called "anti Russian coup" is ludicrous. Ukraine is irrelevant to the US, and the Anglo-Saxon world.
4. US companies had the inside track on fracking contracts in two locations in Ukraine. To destabilize the government during this time is contrary to good business.
No, I do not justify those deaths, and I have always maintained the invasion of Iraq was contrary to international law and criminal.
Morality is what a country or countries makes it out to be.
And, they are in the East, far away from the fighting.
Their are several hundred US Military trainers in Ukraine.
Belvis pretty much said what I would have said.
Fathertime!
Probably you're using the same kind of Internet articles with anonimous authors who have access to secret information. Well, may be not secret, but certainly with no links to official sources
Belvis, you really should get out and read more. I've posted the sources here previously, recently as a matter of fact.
So, are you saying that no Russian solders have been killed in Ukraine?
Could you just quote the post/s you 'agree' with ...
First, nobody except General Staff knows how many Russian soldiers in service were killed in Ukraine. I imagine how this statistics is reflected in official papers, you'll see no mention of Ukraine, and will not be able to separate killed in Dagestan from killed in Ukraine.
Pardon me Belvis, but you are full of it. Now are you saying that perhaps as many as 2000 Russian soldiers were killed in Dagestan, in 2014?!
RBC is no more liberal than a package of used condoms. They are controlled, as per Russian law, by Russian management.OK, I got your point that only body controlled by west guys can be liberal. That's the reason your political friends in Russia are and will be losers at elections. Though I don't share your extremist position.
The Warthog at around a mile away made sure we just arrived to the party with the 30 mike mike. I've seen those things fly with one wing.
The Warthogs are so good at what they do that they are planning a comparison test between them and modern 5th gen F-35 fighters before they retire them.
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/08/air-force-will-test-f-35-against-10-not-until-2018/119867/ (http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/08/air-force-will-test-f-35-against-10-not-until-2018/119867/)
I could, but I'm not going to. If there is something in particular you would like to discuss, in a direct way, I'm game.
Fathertime!
He has always indicated that would be okay, as long as those include Russian troops.How can invaders be members of the "peacekeepers"?
OK,
I'm interested in how you - if agreeing with Beavis - can support the notion that serving Russian personnel weren't killed in Ukraine, when their relatives know it...
We'll deal with the points one by one, if that's OK with you..
How can invaders be members of the "peacekeepers"?
Putin may accept peacekeeping force in Ukraine:
I would assume that it is correct that Russian personnel have been killed in Ukraine....I don't recall ever thinking differently, so I'm not sure why you would make that assumption. That said, whatever you want to discuss, I'm game.
Fathertime!
As you clearly wrote you pretty much agreed with what Beavis has said - then why are you now suggesting otherwise ... hence the question.
Beavis is clearly back -peddling re direct Kremlin involvement - so I guess you must be, too :deadhorse:
I think you like to have an argument - then when you encounter someone who clearly knows more - you try to sit on the fence...
[/size]As you have observed, Russia can dictate. World is being ruled by precedent law. If one country can send military in another country and destroy this country, then this case can be appiled for other countries too. May you meant we should establish the new world order where there is no exceptions and powers with exceptional rights?