Topic: No news on CNN about air bombing on Lugansk. (Read 5235 times)

The CNN actually showed a few videos in its channel, and at least some of their journalists seems to be unbiased. The BBC on the other hand is quickly becoming a trash piece. I have forgot the last time when I read an unbiased article there, on their website.

Here's one showing the bombing from a distance: http://rutube.ru/video/c712f39a7a45d40d9c073f1c9b99e5fe/?ref=search

Collateral damage: http://rutube.ru/video/eb9249dca09dab748e453999d9477d13/?ref=search

Another one showing the missile launch: http://rutube.ru/video/34f6fc8219609fda3b11e26b827d5fb3/?ref=search

Youtube erase video about Airstrike on Lugansk.

http://rutube.ru/video/317dd8d8fe5a531bd9ea5a5eadd38f18/
http://rutube.ru/video/e5f1312144cc31b2d2f962a40daf9aa6/
http://rutube.ru/video/07aa949c3976033a3ac2a9aeb7038e87/
http://rutube.ru/video/8d51fc9917cc53c804c5bc449850bce3/
http://rutube.ru/video/d583748b59a31f18fbabaa5708e69a0f/
http://rutube.ru/video/83c0fd7b20d189ef3c6e0af3d2285c41

If Putin sits idle, he will not get the buffer state he wants. The Kiev junta will invade Novorossia, and half the population might end up in Russia as refugees. The Novorossian army lacks aircraft and tanks. They won't be able to hold on for much longer.

Adding to what Bryant said:
The option of federalisation is not off the table yet, as well as the option of stopping the fighting. In yesterday's press conference in France (http://rt.com/news/163676-putin-ukraine-french-us/) Putin gave an interesting answer:


I don't think Putin wants to integrate Novorossia into Russia, as it would just mean moving the East/West border. He'd be more interested in having a friendly, or at least, neutral buffer state with no NATO bases on its soil. Think Belarus.

As for the why Western Ukraine fights for the Eastern territories, add to the Bryant's list deposits of shale gas, for development of which Shell already has a contract with Ukraine:

I don't know what the outcome would be. It all depends on what instructions Poroshenko gets after the 7th of June. One thing is clear, Russia has so far refused to take the bait and send in its troops, so I don't see that happening unless some extraordinary atrocities start being committed. And even then, Russia would try first to push through a UN resolution to send in a peacekeeping contingent to stay on the right side of the international law (or what ever is left of it by now).

Interesting, thanks.

Putin is indifferent to the warfare being waged in the Donbass region, and the Ukrainian military is slowly progressing by taking over the smaller villages and towns. The battle may be over in a month or so.

Care to guess the outcome? What's really going to come out of this?

Got it. Thanks! This place is superior to Wikipedia any day. 

1. Without the South-East, Ukraine will be a landlocked country, without any sea coast.
2. Without the South-East, the Russian-Ukrainian border will be much reduced, and the NATO won't be able to place their missiles on the Russian border.
3. Without the tax money from the East, Ukraine will go bankrupt.

I can get that, but why does the EU/US care about trying to force them to stay together in a relationship they don't seem interested in? Ukrainian coal is mostly consumed domestically (having a coal deposit is more-or-less worthless at current market prices, and they don't extract a particularly significant amount, anyway), and it looks like they're trying to legislate domestic consumption of as much coal as possible so they don't rely on foreign energy as much (and maybe just to subsidize the mining sector). It doesn't look seem like there could be any significant interest in their resources, and there's clearly no humanitarian goal for the EU/US, so what are they looking for in opposing Russia (and/or Ukranian federalists/separatists/rebels/whatever) on this?

Deep hate to Russians.

Eastern Ukraine contains almost all the heavy industries, factories, and coal mines of Ukraine. It is the East which is subsidizing the agriculture and other activities of the West. Also, a lot of Western Ukrainians work in the metal factories of the East.

Thanks, Nemo.

What are the strategic reasons for the US/EU not wanting Russia to take back areas not fully assimilating to what the Ukraine government seems to be considering its culture while the current Ukrainian government seems Hell-bent on maintaining unity with people they appear hostile toward and who reciprocate those feelings? That question is, of course, assuming that reconciliation and moving toward federalism is no longer a viable option (though an alternate could just be allowing East Ukraine to form an independent nation). Is the US/EU willing to maintain civil conflict and political instability in Ukraine just to maintain a buffer between Russia and "the West," or are there other reasons the US/EU is intervening?

I'm also curious what Lenin's intent was in pushing "New Russia" into Ukraine.

reserved

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwWsLrn7njU

Nothing wrong with being an American person - it's American politicians and media that most Russians have gripes with.

To add to what Bryant said, I think a short historic trip 100 years back is in order. As with most conflicts around the worlds, this one didn't just spring out of thin air, it has historic roots and had been building up.

I first want you to bear with me and take a look at the following page, which is in Russian. Look at the maps, which show the division in use of Russian language in the East vs. Ukrainian in the West, and the political preferences from the previous elections - Yanukovich had the votes of the East, Yushenko - of the West:

http://yablor.ru/blogs/dve-ukraini/3638493

Now, let's go 100 years back to a time shortly before the Revolution on 1917 and take a look at the same region, which was part of the Russian Empire. By that time, the county of Novorossia, was divided into three smaller counties, but their demographic composition didn't change. They were populated by Russians and Russian-speaking people, like Cossacks.

Again, here are two Russian Wikipedia sites, that I want you to take a look at for the sake of the maps:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CD%EE%E2%EE%F0%EE%F1%F1%E8%E9%F1%EA%E0%FF_%E3%F3%E1%E5%F0%ED%E8%FF
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%95%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F

After the Revolution, Lenin had a "brilliant" idea of transferring what was Novorossia to that what was to become Ukraine. After a short ("only" 6 years) civil war and some atrocities committed by Petljura bands (who is now a national hero of Western Ukraine), everything quited down and people were mostly going about their business, continuing to speak their language, and generally not feeling very much Ukrainian. But there was no pressure.

A shake-up came during WWII, when another the-now Western-Ukrainian national Hero, Bandera, rose to power, forming troops for German's SS and exterminating all who didn't agree with him, which included Russians, Jews, Poles, much like Petljura did before him.

After WWII the remnants of Bandera bands were ravaging in Ukraine well into 1950s, but then, all became well again, and people went about their business.

After the fall of USSR, someone in the young Ukriane had a "brilliant" idea that Ukraine needs a stronger feel of national unity and identity, and that it also needs to distance itself from the Soviet past. This resulted in strong prosecution of the people of South-East on the language front, and the revival of something anti-Soviet as the new national hero - Bandera. This didn't sit well with people of the East, but was pushed on them anyway, so the pressure was building up. The central and Western regions on the other hand got really taken by the idea. For the American: think Southern states and Northern states during your Civil war.

Remember that less than 100 years passed since the regions were separated from Russia, and there hasn't even been a full generation shift. People still identify themselves strongly with Russia, but during the Soviet times, people just didn't feel that they suddenly ended up in foreign parts.

In the present, you remember that Yanukovich had the support of the South-Eastern regions. During that time the regions had managed to regain some of their rights, like the right to speak the language of the majority. When he was removed by force and replaced by the coup government, the first thing that government did, was to revoke the Constitution, replacing it with a previous version, effectively prohibiting use of Russian language in the regions where you can live for weeks without hearing a word of Ukrainian. For an American: Think that the next president is a Latin American, and as Us already has a large Spanish-speaking part, he imposes a decree that Americans are only allowed to speak Spanish.

This was not seen as a good omen, so, as Briant noted, the protests started, using the same strategy as the Maidan protests in Kiev that lead to the coup government's ascent to power. However, this time, the protesters were labelled as "terrorists" and "separatists", while the same type of protesters in Kiev were "freedom and democracy fighters". The initial protests were not separatist, however. The demands were: federalisation of Ukraine and greater self-governance to the regions. For the Americans: you already have that in the form of the states. This was ridiculed by the coup government, the US and Europe as an impossible form of state (which is a hypocrisy, since many European countries, as well as US are federations).

They were trying to push the genie back into the bottle. But the harder you push, the harder they fight back.

The pro-federalization protesters in the East adopted the same methodology, which was used by the pro-European protesters during the Kiev protests. They occupied the administration buildings and demanded a referendum on autonomy.


In the Donbass region, somewhere around 70% of the population is ethnic Ukrainian, while some 25% is Russian. There is a significant Greek minority, mostly concentrated around Mariupol. Other minorities are too small to speak of. There is a lot of inter-ethnic marriage, so talking about the ethnic composition is not that useful. 

But the ethnic Ukrainians of the East are very different from the ethnic Ukrainians of the West. Everything is different. From language to religion. So it is not surprising that their political preferences are quite opposite to each other.

Thank you. What did these possibly-anti-Ukrainian-gov't discontented and alienated malefactors (... for lack of a better generalization) do to the Ukrainian government to evoke this response?

-And which ethnicities are we talking about? Talk to me like I'm an American, please.

Western media outlets have no reporters in the Donbass. RT is having 2-3 reporters in the major cities (Donetsk, Lugansk.etc), but none in the front-line areas (Krasnyi Liman, Slavyansk, Kramatorsk.etc). The death toll was given by reporters of Lifenews, who were present in the front-line areas.


At least initially, the main rebel demand was more autonomy and federalization. They were not aiming to secede from Ukraine.


Most of the residential areas were targeted during the artillery shelling. Bombing by fighter jets was used only once (in Lugansk). The Ukrainian army justifies this, saying that the rebel fighters have retreated to the residential areas.


US is accusing Russia of arming the separatists. Russia is accusing the US-backed president of ethnic cleansing.