Ukranian Crisis

[wittmanace]

The evidence to which you refer is, AFAIK, the testimony of a doctor called Olga Bohomolets, who put it forward as a possibility (& not 'the Maidan snipers', but some of them) in a conversation with the foreign minister of Estonia, which he then reported to Catherine Ashton, in a phone call which was bugged by someone, who released the recording.

Dr Bohomolets has since stated publicly that she does not have firm evidence, & that she did not mean to suggest that all or most of the shootings were done by hirelings of the opposition. That hasn't stopped a lot of claims that it's 'a known fact'.

Not for the point of arguing, but just as an interesting point, par of the reason it is mentioned in the UK is because it was in Newsnight footage shown before yanukovich fled. In then extended footage they released (bbc) the bbc correspondent says he saw the shooters were dressed as maidanists (and they saw where they shot from etc). People in the comments sections in some online newspapers pointed to another YouTube clip that had been uploaded before it. In the footage people dressed as maidanists were the snipers and seemed to be the hotel shooters shooting down that the bbc filmed from the receiving end (they were filming with protestors, interviewing them etc).

 

[TankFlyBossWalk]

This entire issue has been quite eye-opening for me in the sense that the Western mainstream media has been almost entirely one-sided wrt to its coverage. Barely a murmur has been made about Russia actually having a case for its intervention, correct or otherwise. Instead it's been an almost unremitting warble of hysteria, especially in the UK/US. In fact, were it not for Feanor's superb efforts to keep us all informed, I'd still be almost entirely clueless.

Further, all this talk about punishing Russia else it'll think the West 'weak' is deeply unsettling. If only because to do so would be to force Russia and China together. In all of this, I think Merkel's position has been the wisest: condemn in a specifically vague way (if that makes sense), stay engaged with Russia and look for ways to de-escalate.

 

[wittmanace]

This entire issue has been quite eye-opening for me in the sense that the Western mainstream media has been almost entirely one-sided wrt to its coverage. Barely a murmur has been made about Russia actually having a case for its intervention, correct or otherwise. Instead it's been an almost unremitting warble of hysteria, especially in the UK/US. In fact, were it not for Feanor's superb efforts to keep us all informed, I'd still be almost entirely clueless.

Further, all this talk about punishing Russia else it'll think the West 'weak' is deeply unsettling. If only because to do so would be to force Russia and China together. In all of this, I think Merkel's position has been the wisest: condemn in a specifically vague way (if that makes sense), stay engaged with Russia and look for ways to de-escalate.

Yeas. Things have been portrayed with the basis that " Saint 'Murica needs to kick ass in a good way, as the children won't behave otherwise, and Herr Putin will slaughter them because he likes child murder in his black communist heart", or in the UK, that 'civilised Britain is shocked and appalled that Putin did this, as part of his plan to create a soviet reich at the expense of the holy disciples that had a peaceful sit-in, which had toppled the Gestapo state of the Russia controlled dictator Yanukovitch. Thank god (a peaceful Englishman) for for the saints like Tymoshenko, and that Britain is the worlds moral judge and world power' or in Russia that "Martyr Putin, in a Gandhi meets Mandela meets Moses move, saved Russians from mass murder and genocide on a vast scale, by the remnants of the third reich in Kiev'

When the media reports are predicated on one of these assumption or world views, there is no hope of objective reporting or a focus on the facts at all. The media here in the UK have at no point disseminated information, but have had visuals and graphics of anything racy, loud, aggressive and inflammatory in a heartbeat. I bet the Cartoon Network accidentally had more facts about it in its shows than sky put in its in-depth reports.

The only two highlights of this sad situation for me have been watching Kerry act shocked and outraged that sovereignty could be violated in the 21st century (he must have laughed till he cried when he read his prepared text), and the restraint of troops on both sides in the Crimea. Their conduct there was an impressive act of tight rope walking. Both sides there were better men than those who issue their orders I feel. The Ukrainians for being peaceful etc even with no orders, help or anything and after a coup. The Russians for restraint in what must have been a very tough and tense situation for them too.

If it were the case that Kiev issued the orders for the men from Baalbek to march unarmed at the Russian control point in front of cameras, I would hope that it could be made known. Those who issued those orders from far don't deserve anonymity. I would also question what they hoped to happen. If it were the local troops doing it on their own, credit to them frankly.

 

[My2Cents]

On February 21st an agreement was signed between Yanukovich and the opposition. This agreement was strongly back by the West, who also seem to have convinced Russia who in turn got Yanukovich on board. This agreement included withdrawing a lot of the anti-riot police from Kiev. The opposition then ignored the agreement and proceeded to violently storm the government quarter seizing power. The West then pretended like there was no agreement, and essentially accepted the new government as legitimate.

Seems to be the normal pattern the current administration in the USA. Make poor diplomatic decision, then deny that the decision was ever made, but if it was made they hadn’t said that, and even if they said that that they were being misinterpreted.:coffee

 

[wittmanace]

Seems to be the normal pattern the current administration in the USA. Make poor diplomatic decision, then deny that the decision was ever made, but if it was made they hadn’t said that, and even if they said that that they were being misinterpreted.:coffee

As an outside observer, It seems to me that the biggest foreign policy problem for the current administration is that it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The sheep's clothing is ammo for the republican and upsets conservatives as they see him as a sheep. The wolf underneath makes him and the administration a target for the left for obvious reasons, and the fact that he is a wolf in sheep's makes him a target for groups that supported him into the White House and were vocal about it too (including non government groups etc...eg amnesty international re closing gitmo etc). It created a situation where he doesn't please any group. He is more wolfish to show conservatives he isn't a sheep (eg unprecedented Israel support, expanded drone strike use, etc). The right isn't buying and the left sees what's going on.

 

[Volkodav]

As an outside observer, It seems to me that the biggest foreign policy problem for the current administration is that it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The sheep's clothing is ammo for the republican and upsets conservatives as they see him as a sheep. The wolf underneath makes him and the administration a target for the left for obvious reasons, and the fact that he is a wolf in sheep's makes him a target for groups that supported him into the White House and were vocal about it too (including non government groups etc...eg amnesty international re closing gitmo etc). It created a situation where he doesn't please any group. He is more wolfish to show conservatives he isn't a sheep (eg unprecedented Israel support, expanded drone strike use, etc). The right isn't buying and the left sees what's going on.

What worse a Wolf or a Hawk? IMO the Hawk because they pick the fights and leave it to others to finish them as best they can with the resources they have been left after years of corporate money siphoning, leaving the treasury and defence department skint.

 

[wittmanace]

What worse a Wolf or a Hawk? IMO the Hawk because they pick the fights and leave it to others to finish them as best they can with the resources they have been left after years of corporate money siphoning, leaving the treasury and defence department skint.

I think the hardest is the wolf in sheep's clothing. Attacked on all sides regardless. Isn't hawkish enough for the right and is too hawkish for the left, especially given it presenting itself as a dove politically. The way it relates to defence matters, particularly in this case, is that the sheep clothing means that appeasing the right means being more hawkish than a hawk. The left won't be appeased. It's a no win. The way it relates to this is that acting moderately won't help Obama at home, and heavier action won't be enough or will be too late for the right.

Europe also don't want to follow the US in terms of strength of sanction. As has been stated in the press, it is easier for America to have sanctions as they don't have the volume of trade with Russia. Europe does, so the European cost is much higher, hence the more softly softly approach. And let's be real, it won't be a shooting war involving NATO or the US, or any Western European country.

Russia also has hands to play in this. I'd be careful about pushing too hard against Russia, as it could have consequences elsewhere. See Iran, Syria, South America, use of future UN vetoes, Chinese assistance re technology and arms, etc etc.

Crimea is Russian now, so sanctions won't change that. I think that it is the west that has miscalculated here, along with Kiev. Whatever one thinks of Russian actions in the past month or so, they seem to have made an accurate assessment re cost benefit to them, as they see it.

 

[Feanor]

If it were the case that Kiev issued the orders for the men from Baalbek to march unarmed at the Russian control point in front of cameras, I would hope that it could be made known. Those who issued those orders from far don't deserve anonymity. I would also question what they hoped to happen. If it were the local troops doing it on their own, credit to them frankly.

There were no orders issued. One of the reasons so many units surrendered is because they felt that Kiev had abandoned them. The only orders they had received was to keep calm and resist provocation.

Eventually the received orders giving them permission to open fire in defense of their units but it was too little too late. No units made use of those orders. The closes to doing so were the Marines in Feodosiya and the Bel'bek airbase, both of which ended up stormed by Russian special forces. However in each case the units put up resistance not because Kiev finally gave permission, but because the unit command was unwilling to surrender to Russia. Essentially the Kiev government was too busy with internal politics to be bothered with dealing with the situation in Crimea. And I think Russia knew this.

 

[nkvd]

Is is not possible that Russia intercepted and or interfered with the orders as it probably had access to the Ukrainian communications system?

 

[Feanor]

Is is not possible that Russia intercepted and or interfered with the orders as it probably had access to the Ukrainian communications system?

Good question. I know that the guy in charge of the Ukrainian Navy rapidly went over to the Russia side. So I suspect it was a case of nobody being too eager to do anything. Maybe Russia interfered with comms, but ordinary phone lines were up and the Ukrainian MoD had phoned some of the units with no problems.

Russia will be returning the Ukrainian submarine to Ukraine, because it's too old to be used. The crew will get positions on the new 636 Kilos that will be arriving soon.

http://newsru.com/world/29mar2014/zaporozhie.html

There's some material on Ukrainian troops who switched to the Russian side. They've gotten Russian uniforms, and mostly seem to be very impressed with the better food. There seems to be a sort of euphoria among many of them about being part of Russia military. There is now even a nickname for them "blazhennie" which means "euphoriac". Work is proceeding on trying to get the rusty and broken equipment into a semi-movable state, so it can be loaded onto transporters and sent north. However T-64Bs that were sent north earlier have not crossed the border into Ukraine. They've been offloaded near the border, and are standing by. There may be administrative issue with getting them across the border. Or they may not be getting returned after all.

http://sokol-ff.livejournal.com/757684.html
http://u-96.livejournal.com/3292486.html

In the video the commentator says that the mechanics are forced to "reanimate" the tanks, to get them loaded on the train. Batteries are switched from tank to tank, to get each one running in turn. Some of them have to be towed because they are beyond repair. The tanks did not get to the raid road station on their own, they were carried on automobile transporters. Note the former Ukrainian army personnel still in their uniforms. Some are wearing Russian "tsifra" jackets over the Ukrainian cammies.

http://u-96.livejournal.com/3293435.html

In these videos you can get a good condition of the equipment Russia is returning to Ukraine. The major in the second video notes that the Ukrainian authorities are not cooperating, or sending the necessary amount of train platform cars to take this scrapmetal back.

http://u-96.livejournal.com/3291191.html
http://u-96.livejournal.com/3292017.html

 

[swerve]

Not for the point of arguing, but just as an interesting point, par of the reason it is mentioned in the UK is because it was in Newsnight footage shown before yanukovich fled. In then extended footage they released (bbc) the bbc correspondent says he saw the shooters were dressed as maidanists (and they saw where they shot from etc). People in the comments sections in some online newspapers pointed to another YouTube clip that had been uploaded before it. In the footage people dressed as maidanists were the snipers and seemed to be the hotel shooters shooting down that the bbc filmed from the receiving end (they were filming with protestors, interviewing them etc).

By saying 'the shooters' or 'the snipers', you are saying that ALL the shooters/snipers were 'dressed as maidanists'. Do you really mean that? And what does 'dressed as maidanists' mean? In the footage I've seen, they wore very varied clothing.

I don't recall that footage, & in any case, it proves nothing. One of the things I do recall was that there were reports of men dressed in plain clothes (i.e. not uniforms) attacking protestors, with support from police. I also recall seeing uniformed police shooting.

 

[wittmanace]

By saying 'the shooters' or 'the snipers', you are saying that ALL the shooters/snipers were 'dressed as maidanists'. Do you really mean that? And what does 'dressed as maidanists' mean? In the footage I've seen, they wore very varied clothing.

I don't recall that footage, & in any case, it proves nothing. One of the things I do recall was that there were reports of men dressed in plain clothes (i.e. not uniforms) attacking protestors, with support from police. I also recall seeing uniformed police shooting.

yes I do mean that. What I should have clarified was that I am referring to the initial shooting. When the shooting started in the square. As for the "dressed as maidanists", there was an attempt at uniforming at the time. They wore a certain type of headdress (an olive drab helmet) and a specific colour olive drab coat/clothing. The helmet was an older style Ukrainian helmet I believe. I'm not sure how to post a video from YouTube from my device, but it's the "newsnight" footage dated the day the shooting started. As for all of them, I refer to the ones identified as the snipers over the square, from the hotel, not everyone that fired a shot throughout the episode. They started the firing from what I gather, Berkut fired a while after that.

I referred to it as the maidanists uniform, as some of the press in the UK had referred to it as "a uniform of sorts". I didn't realise it wasn't a widespread identifier.

I said snipers, as they fired from a hotel window onto the square with single fire or semi auto weapons, seemingly choosing targets (based in what I saw), as opposed to Ak auto fire into a crowd or the like.

 

[LogisticsGuy]

Re; Ukrainian troops switching to the Russian side.

Feanor, you seem to have one of the best handles of anyone out there on what is happening on the ground. I was wondering if you have a good take on the potential percentage of Ukrainian troops that would switch sides during a potential civil war in the eastern Ukraine, IE, East of the Dnieper River.

Do you think you would be able to keep a running percentage of troops or units that are either: 1. likely to defect to a pro-Russian separatist movement, 2. likely to remain loyal to whatever government reigns in Kiev, or, 3. Unknown.

 

[swerve]

yes I do mean that. What I should have clarified was that I am referring to the initial shooting. When the shooting started in the square. As for the "dressed as maidanists", there was an attempt at uniforming at the time. They wore a certain type of headdress (an olive drab helmet) and a specific colour olive drab coat/clothing. The helmet was an older style Ukrainian helmet I believe. I'm not sure how to post a video from YouTube from my device, but it's the "newsnight" footage dated the day the shooting started. As for all of them, I refer to the ones identified as the snipers over the square, from the hotel, not everyone that fired a shot throughout the episode. They started the firing from what I gather, Berkut fired a while after that.

I referred to it as the maidanists uniform, as some of the press in the UK had referred to it as "a uniform of sorts". I didn't realise it wasn't a widespread identifier.

I said snipers, as they fired from a hotel window onto the square with single fire or semi auto weapons, seemingly choosing targets (based in what I saw), as opposed to Ak auto fire into a crowd or the like.

So what you are saying is that they deliberately chose to dress in a way that made them identifiable as protestors, while shooting at protestors.

Have you thought this through? Have you thought who might want to behave like that?

BTW, in the footage I saw, there was nothing even remotely resembling a uniform. There was a hotch-potch of civilian clothing, assorted camouflage, & some in black. As for headwear - I saw a handful of military-looking helmets, motorbike crash helmets, construction hard hats, other protective headgear, & no protective headgear at all.

 

[Feanor]

Re; Ukrainian troops switching to the Russian side.

Feanor, you seem to have one of the best handles of anyone out there on what is happening on the ground. I was wondering if you have a good take on the potential percentage of Ukrainian troops that would switch sides during a potential civil war in the eastern Ukraine, IE, East of the Dnieper River.

Do you think you would be able to keep a running percentage of troops or units that are either: 1. likely to defect to a pro-Russian separatist movement, 2. likely to remain loyal to whatever government reigns in Kiev, or, 3. Unknown.

A lot will depend on unit command more so then on the personnel, though the personnel will also play a role. The Feodosiya Marine Btln put up quite a lot of resistance. But after it was stormed, it turned out that most of the btln not only wasn't interested in serving Ukraine, but wanted to join the Russian military. I think the Kiev government itself doesn't know which units it can trust. The first units they tried to move towards Crimea were air-mobile units that basically refused to move, when confronted with pro-Russian protesters blockading the units. So I don't really know. I suspect it will heavily depend on the situation. If Russia manages to paralyze the communications and isolate the units, the units will be willing to declare their neutrality, especially when faced with heavily armed Russian units. And after declaring neutrality, it will be easy for major Russian units to continue moving, while minimal numbers will be left behind to "blockade" the units. Actually the recently resigned MinDef recommended that military units NOT be used to fight against Russia, because the personnel is highly unrealiable and will likely not be willing to fight.

There's a nice set of the T-64B photos, that are to be shipped north.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2014/03/blog-post_4702.html

Also it appears another Ukrainian T-64B caught fire, as the Ukrainian military tries to mobilize itself. And it looks like some of the T-64Bs set up in static positions across from Bryansk by the Ukrainians were towed there, because they could not move under their own power. Locals report that out of the 5 tanks, 3 were towed into position. One of those 5 caught fire.

Troop concentration is also noted on the Russian side of the border.

http://www.bragazeta.ru/news/2014/03/26/tank/

It would be nice to see a net casualty and vehicle losses list from this Ukrainian mobilization. I know at least two soldiers died, and iirc 6 were injured in the explosion of a Msta-S SP arty, and the fire in the tank garages. The numbers are probably higher now. The number of destroyed Ukrainian vehicles must be in the double digits by now.

 

[wittmanace]

So what you are saying is that they deliberately chose to dress in a way that made them identifiable as protestors, while shooting at protestors.

Have you thought this through? Have you thought who might want to behave like that?

BTW, in the footage I saw, there was nothing even remotely resembling a uniform. There was a hotch-potch of civilian clothing, assorted camouflage, & some in black. As for headwear - I saw a handful of military-looking helmets, motorbike crash helmets, construction hard hats, other protective headgear, & no protective headgear at all.

I believe we are talking about different things, I'm afraid. I am saying I think that is where the claims or perception of protestors starting the shooting came from, in addition to the point you made about the tapped call. I don't know if it is correct, and I don't make any such claims. I am simply pointing out where I think the claims and perception also came from, rather than asserting that they are or are not correct.

I am saying that the clips and their broadcast are part of the claimed evidence and a basis for the perception. I am not verifying or disputing the accuracy of the footage or claims. Frankly I don't think we will ever know definitively who started shooting in any organised fashion or who planned it, or if it was planned in an organisational way.

 

[wittmanace]

I believe we are talking about different things, I'm afraid. I am saying I think that is where the claims or perception of protestors starting the shooting came from, in addition to the point you made about the tapped call. I don't know if it is correct, and I don't make any such claims. I am simply pointing out where I think the claims and perception also came from, rather than asserting that they are or are not correct.

I am saying that the clips and their broadcast are part of the claimed evidence and a basis for the perception. I am not verifying or disputing the accuracy of the footage or claims. Frankly I don't think we will ever know definitively who started shooting in any organised fashion or who planned it, or if it was planned in an organisational way.

Here is the short version of the footage, the unedited version is also online

BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Sniper fires from Ukraine media hotel

 

[My2Cents]

As an outside observer, It seems to me that the biggest foreign policy problem for the current administration is that it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The sheep's clothing is ammo for the republican and upsets conservatives as they see him as a sheep. The wolf underneath makes him and the administration a target for the left for obvious reasons, and the fact that he is a wolf in sheep's makes him a target for groups that supported him into the White House and were vocal about it too (including non government groups etc...eg amnesty international re closing gitmo etc). It created a situation where he doesn't please any group. He is more wolfish to show conservatives he isn't a sheep (eg unprecedented Israel support, expanded drone strike use, etc). The right isn't buying and the left sees what's going on.

Actually the consensus among analysts from both sides is that the Administration is only interested in domestic policy and views international policy as an unwanted distraction. Despite the fact that Foreign Policy is specifically reserved for the President in the Constitution, the State Department is often unable to get policy direction and left to its own devices according to numerous sources, including Hillary Clinton.

The military seldom gets direct access to provides briefings except on subjects of interest, like drone strikes where the President has inserted himself into the decision making to an unprecedented degree because it makes him look good in the Press. But during the Benghazi disaster the President and his staff didn’t even know that military units were available for rapid deployment in just such a situation, and didn’t call the military in until a day later to ask for their input.

The PR image is why you think he looks like a wolf. But the real reason is that despite 6 years in office he doesn’t understand Foreign Policy, and doesn’t seem to want to, that is the only way to explain his constant mistakes and refusal to lead in the international arena. Think about it, France lead in Libya, Russia and Saudi Arabia in Syria, Japan looks like it will lead against China, and it may be Germany leading in the Crimea. The US has outsourced its diplomatic policy making, such as it is.

 

[Feanor]

Updates, pro-Russian protests continue. In Donetsk they blocked the railroad to prevent earlier arrested activists from being moved to Kiev. The railroad was unblocked after negotiations with the police. No arrests appeared to have been made. Total numbers or protesters appear to have been around 1000.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com ::  Äîíåöêå ó÷àñòíèêè ïðîðîññèéñêîãî ìèòèíãà áëîêèðîâàëè æåëåçíîäîðîæíûå ïóòè
poltora_bobra

Several thousand protesters also gathered in Kharkov demanding autonomy from the "banderovtsi" in the west.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Â Õàðüêîâå ïðîðîññèéñêèé ìèòèíã ïîòðåáîâàë ðåôåðåíäóìà îá àâòîíîìèè îò "íåäîáèòûõ áàíäåðîâöåâ"

Meanwhile NATO states that eastward expansion is a sign of their success, and implied it will continue. Probably not a great message to send right now.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ãåíñåê ÍÀÒÎ îáåùàåò äàëüíåéøåå ðàñøèðåíèå íà âîñòîê è óñèëåíèå ïàðòíåðñòâà ñ Óêðàèíîé

Right Sector looted Yanukovich's garage to get an armored car for their leader, Yarosh.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: "Ïðàâûé ñåêòîð" ðàçãðàáèë ãàðàæ ßíóêîâè÷à, ßðîøà âîçÿò íà áðîíèðîâàííîì àâòî

Russian T-72B3 tanks have been arriving near Kilmov, where large scale exercises are set to commence. You can also, in the third video, see some BMP-2s, the loudspeaker BRDM-2, and some support vehicles.

u_96:

In Crimea, the Tatar Medzhlis has declared that they will push for a Tatar autonomous region inside Crimea "under the new reality". (i.e. as part of Russia) This is a de-facto acceptance of current state of affairs. Honestly I hope they will get some kind of formalized self-governance. Other minorities in Russia (quite a few of them) have autonomous regions so there is no issue of precedent. If anything it would be quite routine. Though I'm not sure how Russian and Ukrainian Crimeans would see an autonomous Tatar region.

http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1514978.html

 

[alexkvaskov]

It would be nice to see a net casualty and vehicle losses list from this Ukrainian mobilization. I know at least two soldiers died, and iirc 6 were injured in the explosion of a Msta-S SP arty, and the fire in the tank garages. The numbers are probably higher now. The number of destroyed Ukrainian vehicles must be in the double digits by now.

I'm amazed at the horrid condition of the Ukrainian armed forces, it's worse than 1990s Russia. Do the units literally never leave the barracks, the gear never maintained, with no spare parts? As well, a running joke about Ukrainian units on the move has been the availability of fuel..

I'm curious about the Crimean units, are they going to equipped with Russian gear from storage? I assume Russian units will provide security for the Crimea while they re-equip and retrain the Crimeans to Russian army standards.