Topic: Donetsk, Kharkov, Lugansk - way to Russia. - page 23. (Read 734725 times)

Attacking in Transnistria would result in the recurrence of war in the Don bass. Not to mention that attacking the Russian troops there could mean retaliation from Russia. But even if Russia don't retaliate, funding and manning a two front war would bring Ukraine to it's knees pretty soon. They can't be that stupid.

Their permission is worthless. According to peace agreements, they have no right to dictate anything. Of course they can try to declare such flight as an act of aggression but this would be ridiculous because surprise attack is act of aggression itself. Nobody would ask aggressor for permission, it's just like asking Hitler's permission for Berlin bombings in 1945.

Of course they will scream all over the prostitute media but that won't change real situation. They can try use these SAM systems in Odessa but it's unlikely to happen due to coward nature of junta. They're only capable to fight with unarmed civillians.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that both the Kiev junta and Moldova has refused to permit flights carrying Russian peacekeepers to use their respective airspaces.


Do you mean the Southern half of the Odessa oblast? That would be a good idea, as the region is multi-ethnic, and mostly opposed to the Kiev junta.

Not a problem at all. Deployment of additional troops may be performed using air forces, because distance is very small. It explains why Saakashvili lapdogs are deploying some of their ancient SAM systems in the Odessa region.

P.S. Another option is a declaration of Bessarabia People's Republic, which would provide land access to transnistrian border.

The same happened with South Ossetia, right? Georgia made a surprise attack, which killed a large number of the Russian peacekeepers. Russia responded by launching a war against Georgia. The same kind of provocations will be repeated in this case. But the difference this time is that Russia doesn't share a border with either Transnistria or Moldova.

Transnistria shapes up as next Ukraine-Russia flashpoint

Neil Buckley   
 | Jun 03 12:55 |

Keep an eye on Transnistria, the pro-Russian breakaway state in Moldova. On Monday, Dmitri Trenin, one of Russia’s best-known foreign policy analysts and a man with good Kremlin antennae, tweeted: “Growing concern in Moscow that Ukraine and Moldova will seek to squeeze Transnistria hard, provoking conflict with Russia.” On Tuesday, a columnist in the pro-Kremlin Izvestia newspaper warned that Russia “seriously faces the prospect of a repeat of the [2008] situation” – when it went to war with Georgia – “this time around Transnistria”.

What sparked the tensions was a May 21 vote in Ukraine’s parliament to suspend military co-operation with Russia. That included a 1995 agreement giving Russia military transit rights across Ukraine to reach Transnistria, which borders Ukraine’s Odessa region.

Russian peacekeepers have been deployed in the unrecognised statelet since its brief war for independence from ex-Soviet Moldova in 1992, and Russia has a base there with about 1,350 soldiers and heavy weapons. Losing access via Ukraine means Russia must resupply its base by air through Chisinau, the Moldovan capital, and across Moldovan territory.

But Moscow complains Moldova has recently detained and deported several Russian soldiers. Mr Trenin alleged to the FT, moreover, that Ukraine had deployed S-300 air defence systems near the border.

Cue claims by Russian and Transnistrian officials that Ukraine and Moldova are imposing an economic blockade; civic leaders in Transnistria last week appealed to Russian president Vladimir Putin to protect them “in case of emergency”. On Monday, Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s hard-line deputy premier, assured Transnistria’s leadership that “Russia will always be there” to ensure regional security.

A senior Ukrainian foreign ministry official insists there is no Transnistria blockade, only a “political decision to suspend military-technical-co-operation with Russia because of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. This is a matter of principle for us.”

It is for Moscow, he adds, to ensure in talks with Chisinau that its soldiers have access. He calls any suggestion that Ukraine might try to shoot down Russian planes resupplying its Transnistria base “absurd”.

There have been false alarms around Transnistria before since the Ukraine crisis broke out. Its leaders appealed to Moscow to join the Russian Federation days after Russia annexed Crimea, but nothing came of it. About one-third of the region’s 500,000 inhabitants are Russians and almost another third are Ukrainians. Some 97 per cent voted in a 2006 referendum to join Russia, which Moscow has never recognised.

But Russian and Transnistrian officials are making more of the issue this time. Transnistria’s foreign minister Nina Shtanski alleged on Monday that Ukraine had placed troops along the border – which Kiev denies. And Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko’s unorthodox appointment at the weekend of ex-Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili – a bête noire for Moscow – as governor of the Odessa region has added an element of psycho-drama.

At least two Russian newspapers speculated on Tuesday that Mr Saakashvili’s task was to maintain the “blockade” of neighbouring Transnistria, and even act as “provocateur” to start a new war. The Izvestia columnist suggested that “the fate of all the issues that exist between Russia and the west is being decided today in the Kiev-Donetsk-Odessa triangle”.

“This is not only the state TV narrative. Serious people are concerned about the implications of Ukraine’s moves,” Mr Trenin says. “Misha is best remembered here for launching an attack on South Ossetia.”

In fact, Mr Saakashvili allowed himself to be lured into a trap after weeks of provocations in South Ossetia by launching an ill-advised assault on the Georgian breakaway region, which provided the pretext for Russia’s 2008 invasion. Russian media’s evocation of his role then may be just another way of Moscow registering chagrin over his Odessa appointment.

But Ukraine’s ending of Russian military access to Transnistria – however understandable – does pose a logistical problem for Moscow. And it is a reminder, in the new climate of east-west antagonism, of just how many potential flashpoints lurk in the zone between the two.

http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2015/06/transnistria-shapes-up-as-next-ukraine-russia-flashpoint/

Well, Russia has a 1500-man contingent there as part of the peace accord of 1992 between Moldova and Transnistria (which Ukraine has now violated by this blockade). An attack on that force would undoubtedly be interpreted by Moscow as an attack on Russia itself.

The Transnistrian situation is complex. Transnistria does not share a land border with Russia. It is sorrounded by Moldova on the West and Ukraine on the East. So there is no option to bring the Russian troops to the republic. In case of an invasion by Moldova (obviously with NATO support) the Transnistrians will not be able to hold on for long.

Foreign Policy Diary 'The New War of Transnistria'

The Ukrainian crisis is spreading to Transnistria and Moldova thereby contributing to aggravating the US-NATO confrontation with Russia. 

The Kiev regime is blocking the transit of Russian peacekeepers in Transnistria.

It is also related to political developments in Odessa.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqk3NlmvXCw&feature=youtu.be

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=democratic_peoples_republic_of_Donetsk

That would be funny.

And what conclusion should we draw out of this? Right, Constantinople should be seceded to Russia (since Russia is dynastically a successor to the Byzantine Empire) as well as a part of Anatolia (which had been a part of Russia before 1918)...

Historical justice should be unreservedly restored

When communist nazi eurousakraine is going to invade russia? how putin is going to stop this? 

Chief of NATO, Stoltenberg, warns about future renewal of heavy battles in Ukraine:
http://www.vz.ru/news/2015/6/25/752680.html
Sound like what NATO wants, so I almost read it like "NATO decided to promote renewal of heavy battles..."

And Ukraine announces a si(x)th wave of mobilisation, expected to be as successful and welcomed by the grateful cannon fodder, as the previous 5.

Meanwhile, Yats said that Ukraine cannot serve its foreign debt of $5.4 billion:
http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2070101

And default is expected on the 24th of July:
http://1prime.ru/News/20150625/813923908.html

Russia will sell gas to Ukraine, using the price as used for Poland.
http://expert.ru/2015/06/25/gaz-dlya-ukrainyi-podorozhaet/

Earlier Poroshenko said that the price that Russia will be selling gas to Ukraine for must be $245 
http://www.vestifinance.ru/articles/54281

Well, neither Bulgaria nor Greece has Istanbul, booming (and still fairly cheap) metropolis connecting Europe and Asia  spend time there, so I understand, that it is rather desirable and geographically close destination to eastern Europeans. I doubt, Russians and Ukrainians are interested in rural eastern Anatolia.

Spotted at the pirate cove

The Forgotten Soldier - Guy Sajer

This book recounts the horror of World War II on the eastern front, as seen through the eyes of a teenaged German soldier. At first an exciting adventure, young Guy Sajer’s war becomes, as the German invasion falters in the icy vastness of the Ukraine, a simple, desperate struggle for survival against cold, hunger, and above all the terrifying Soviet artillery. As a member of the elite Gross Deutschland Division, he fought in all the great battles from Kursk to Kharkov. His German footsoldier’s perspective makes The Forgotten Soldier a unique war memoir, the book that the Christian Science Monitor said "may well be the book about World War II which has been so long awaited."

Kiev Junta Implosion: Ukraine Deputy Defence Minister and Other High-Profile Defections to Lugansk and Donetsk
https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/kiev-junta-implosion-ukraine-deputy-defence-minister-and-other-high-profile-insiders-defect-to-lugansk-and-donetsk/

This has become a regular occurrence. Former USSR tourists mysteriously dying in Turkey. I still don't understand why these people prefer Turkey, when they can travel to Greece or Bulgaria at the same cost.


All of that progress will be lost, if the civil war continues for another year or so. The Ukrainian economy has hit the rock bottom. And the three cities of Donetsk, Lugansk and Kharkov are the most affected ones.

http://www.todayszaman.com/national_ukrainian-couple-in-turkey-found-dead-after-6-year-old-spends-3-days-with-bodies_391063.html

In the post-war period many of the destroyed homes and factories were rebuilt in Kharkov. From the constructivism the city was planned to be rebuilt in the style of Stalinist Classicism. Gas lines were installed for heating in government and later private homes. An airport was built in 1954. Following the war Kharkov was the third largest scientific-industrial centre in the former USSR (after Moscow and Leningrad).

NATO-Russia Collision Ahead?

by Patrick J. Buchanan, June 23, 2015

"U.S. Poised to Put Heavy Weaponry in East Europe: A Message to Russia," ran the headline in The New York Times.

"In a significant move to deter possible Russian aggression in Europe, the Pentagon is poised to store battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other heavy weapons for as many as 5,000 American troops in several Baltic and Eastern European countries," said the Times. The sources cited were "American and allied officials."

The Pentagon’s message received a reply June 16. Russian Gen. Yuri Yakubov called the U.S. move "the most aggressive step by the Pentagon and NATO since the Cold War." When Moscow detects U.S. heavy weapons moving into the Baltic, said Yakubov, Russia will "bolster its forces and resources on the western strategic theater of operations."

Specifically, Moscow will outfit its missile brigade in Kaliningrad, bordering Lithuania and Poland, "with new Iskander tactical missile systems." The Iskander can fire nuclear warheads.

The Pentagon and Congress apparently think Vladimir Putin is a bluffer and, faced by U.S. toughness, will back down.

For the House has passed and Sen. John McCain is moving a bill to provide Ukraine with anti-armor weapons, mortars, grenade launchers and ammunition. The administration could not spend more than half of the $300 million budgeted, unless 20 percent is earmarked for offensive weapons.

Congress is voting to give Kiev a green light and the weaponry to attempt a recapture of Donetsk and Luhansk from pro-Russian rebels, who have split off from Ukraine, and Crimea, annexed by Moscow.

If the Pentagon is indeed moving U.S. troops and heavy weapons into Poland and the Baltic States, and is about to provide arms to Kiev to attack the rebels in East Ukraine, we are headed for a U.S.-Russian confrontation unlike any seen since the Cold War.

And reconsider the outcome of those confrontations.

Lest we forget, while it was Khrushchev who backed down in the Cuban missile crisis, President Eisenhower did nothing to halt the crushing of the Hungarian rebels, Kennedy accepted the Berlin Wall, and Lyndon Johnson refused to lift a finger to save the Czechs when their "Prague Spring" was snuffed out by Warsaw Pact tank armies.

Even Reagan’s response to the crushing of Solidarity was with words not military action.

None of these presidents was an appeaser, but all respected the geostrategic reality that any military challenge to Moscow on the other side of NATO’s Red Line in Germany carried the risk of a calamitous war for causes not justifying such a risk.

Yet we are today risking a collision with Russia in the Baltic States and Ukraine, where no vital U.S. interest has ever existed and where our adversary enjoys military superiority.

As Les Gelb writes in The National Interest, "the West’s limp hand" in the Baltic and "Russia’s military superiority over NATO on its Western borders," is "painfully evident to all."

"If NATO ups the military ante, Moscow can readily trump it. Moscow has significant advantages in conventional forces – backed by potent tactical nuclear weapons and a stated willingness to use them to sustain advantages or avoid defeat. The last thing NATO wants is to look weak or lose a confrontation."

And NATO losing any such confrontation is the likely outcome of the collision provoked by the Pentagon and John McCain.

For if Kiev moves with U.S. arms against the rebels in the east, and Moscow sends planes, tanks and artillery to annihilate them, Kiev will be routed. And what we do then?

Send carriers into the Black Sea to attack the Russian fleet at Sevastopol, and battle Russian missiles and air attacks?

Before we schedule a NATO confrontation with Russia, we had best look behind us to see who is following America’s lead.

According to a new survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, fewer than half of the respondents in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain thought NATO should fight if its Baltic allies were attacked by Russia. Germans, by a 58-38 margin, did not think military force should be used by NATO to defend Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, though that is what Article 5 of the NATO charter requires of Germany.

Americans, by 56-37, favor using force to defend the Baltic States. On military aid to Ukraine, America is divided, 46 percent in favor, 43 percent opposed. However, only 1 in 5 Germans and Italians favor arming Ukraine, and in not a single major NATO nation does the arming of Ukraine enjoy clear majority support.

In Washington, Congressional hawks are primed to show Putin who is truly tough. But in shipping weapons to Ukraine and sending U.S. troops and armor into the Baltic States, they have behind them a divided nation and a NATO alliance that wants no part of this confrontation.

Unlike the Cuban missile crisis, it is Russia that has regional military superiority here, and a leader seemingly prepared to ride the escalator up right alongside us.

Are we sure it will be the Russians who blink this time?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2015/06/22/nato-russia-collision-ahead/