War in Ukraine

I'm not sure of the circumstances myself, but even if they weren't party to it, they shoot themselves in the foot PR-wise by subverting Malasyia's efforts. The investigation ain't exactly over yet, after all.

Ceasefire truces in general have always been damningly impossible to implement, let alone enforce, due to the hard fact that they require observance and recognition by everyone involved in order to come into effect; it doesn't help that everyone not only means the governments and superiors that supposedly control each faction, but also the little grunts with their boots on the ground. Thus, even if the former agrees to settle in the with the truce deal, things are almost always instantly screwed up by the latter due to lack of discipline, responsibility for their actions, and stress along with flawed and rushed decision making on the ground guaranteed with fighting a civil war.

Is that supposed to excuse them?

Not at all, I just wanted to point out that the nature of ceasefire truces, once broken, make it extremely easy for everybody to start pointing fingers at each other over who broke it in the first place; just look at what's going on in Gaza for example - Hamas says "You broke the deal when you . . ." and Israel goes "Actually you did by . . ."

Reposted from the Military Thread here:

Regarding the discussion on Ukraine, I just remembered now that ''Modern War'' magazine had released an in-depth analysis of the militaries of Eastern Europe last spring before the current geopolitical crises even began. Part of the article dealt a fine chunk regarding the now pre-civil war Ukrainian military, sadly which has been cut off due to the online article being only a sample.

Included in the article was a useful order of battle for the entire Ukranian Ground Forces◊, luckily preserved in the sample article, which I'll post here. Please note that this was published only months before the current civil war, and that the reliability of the chart as of now can be guaranteed to be disputed. I'll also provide the standard NATO map symbols that the chart uses to make it readable.

With even more regards to the Ukrainian military, I was just reminded by an image from said analysis article◊ of how years ago I came upon a rather extensive network of - err, strange - online galleries of its female personnel such as this, this, and this. A bit of Fridge Horror comes about thinking where all those smiling young women in such photos are now, such as about how many of them chose to defect and others to stay loyal to Kiev.

From the ever-reliable Radio Free Europe:

Malaysia Says Ukraine Separatists To Allow Int'l Police At Crash Site

Dutch, Australian Inspectors Abandon Plans To Visit Crash Site Amid Fighting

Fighting Intensifies Around MH17 Crash Site

To be completely fair, the ceasefire was agreed upon, butwnever implemented. Neither Kyiv nor the rebels did stop military maneuvers at any time. If anything, both sides intensified fighting in the last few days.

Shinra, I think we can blame both sides on this part, considering the two posts above, wouldn't you say?

I can. Though I'd wonder if people would bring this up if it had been the rebels who'd done the same. Usually I'm the one pointing this out....

Ukrainian government forces have captured part of the crash site. Coupled with apparent proof that it really was a missile, the separatists certainly have plenty of motivation to start destroying evidence again.

By the way, the Malaysian government is making noises about trying to go to the ICC over the shootdown. But does anyone actually recognise the Donbass People's Republic or the other milita groups as anything other than non-state actors?

I am not even sure if an accidental shootdown of a civilian plane would qualify as a war crime.

I suspect you'd have to show malicious intent (i.e, they knew it was a civilian plane and popped it anyway) or such an absurd degree of negligence to the point that it amounts to the same thing (i.e, they were being so indiscriminate that civilian casualties became inevitable and yet kept doing it anyway).

But no, the shootdown of MH17 is not a war crime, anymore than the deaths of Donbass citizens to Ukrainian government shelling are war crimes. It's a tragic, avoidable, mistake for which unengaged parties paid the ultimate price - but that's what happens in war, despite whatever steps are taken to avoid it. I'm going to be disgustingly vain and quote myself:

—

Where Ukraine's Separatists Get Their Weapons. A Reuters special report.

edited 29th Jul '14 6:04:35 AM by Achaemenid

The black boxes are in the process of beind deciphered, and here we are getting results already:

Why are we getting black box info from the Ukrainians? Isn't the box being read elsewhere (my brain say the UK)?

yeah the Telegraph says "British air accident specialists have been tasked with downloading the data from two black boxes recovered from the Malaysia Airlines crash site and handing that information over to an investigation led by the Dutch Safety Board.". So I don't think we can trust what the Ukrainian government is saying, to me the only legit source for such information is either the British Specialists or the Dutch Safety Board.[1]

edited 29th Jul '14 1:18:02 PM by Silasw

The Ukrainian secessionists are not very good at PR.

It also seems pretty much established that they're receiving training in Russia, namely at a camp in Rostov-on-Don. During the interview, the rebel commander also admits executing Ukrainian volunteers out of hand. They also keep a rabbit called Yatsenyuk, who they plan to kill and eat soon.

The Guardian reporter reckons they are getting pretty worried about the Ukrainian advances, though doubtless they can scurry back to Russia and make a nuisance of themselves from there if things get too tough.

edited 29th Jul '14 1:37:17 PM by Achaemenid

Considering the source, I'm not sure if that can be taken as kosher on its face.

I also remind you all that training in Russia is not the same as training by Russia.

Besides the Bezler dude, are there any other Hot-Blooded/Hair-Trigger Temper rebel officers/captains/commanders?

Really? We're going to put doubts on The Guardian now? Their accounts aren't much different from VICE News' Simon Ostrovsky's account when he was kidnapped by these yahoos.

Western media in general have been blatant in painting this war as good versus bad black versus white.

Those "yahoos" also exist on the Kiev side of things, but you'll hardly hear a peep about that.

My newspaper (the Neue Zürcher Zeitung) did start off with an op-ed complaining about Western media being wayy too biased a few days ago.

Anyhow, is there a firsthand source for the black box decipherment anywhere?

You keep saying that. If you tell yourself it enough times, maybe it'll become 100% true, no alternatives possible?

Yes, we're in Grey-and-Gray Morality, but, that's no reason to try being über-centrist, false-equivalency about this, either.

edited 29th Jul '14 2:35:37 PM by Euodiachloris

X6 What's your problem with the Guardian?

Edit: ed

X3 Care to link to where the Guardian specifically have provided factually inaccurate information? I have to say you're automatic assumption hat anything western media says is propaganda is getting tiring.

edited 29th Jul '14 2:40:29 PM by Silasw

I'm not though. I'm just trying to give SOME centricity, given that this thread goes way overboard in portraying Kiev as Good and Righteous and the Russians as scum. You all don't give the easterners the same benefit of the doubt at all.

I have no problem with realistic portrayal of the rebels. I just ask you guys apply the same level of focus on Kiev. And you don't.

EDIT-

Nothing particular to the Guardian itself. Just that its western media and given their performance in this conflict in general, I'd require other sources as well.

How is it tiring if its true? You guys don't even bother to use RT because its a government mouthpiece of Moscow. Have I ever said "listen to them?". No, because they're biased as well.

edited 29th Jul '14 2:41:38 PM by FFShinra

So you're dismissing a media organisation based purely upon where it's based and the race of its staff? Even when it's an organisation that has a long history of fighting the right-wing "good V evil" idea in western media, and in fact gets often called out on being to anti-western?

Also I call bull on "this thread goes way overboard in portraying Kiev as Good and Righteous and the Russians as scum.".

Nobody has been saying that for a long time, just a few posts back I called bull on the idea that we could trust the Ukrainian government about what the Black Boxes say, you keep acting like we're screaming "Kiev is Good and Righteous and the Russians as scum." when we're doing no such thing.

Edit to your edit:

We don't use RT because it has a history of spewing bullshit, the exact same reason that we don't use Fox News, the Daily Mail or The Sun, it's nothing to do with it being eastern and everything to do with it being full of crap.

edited 29th Jul '14 2:45:45 PM by Silasw

edited 29th Jul '14 2:50:51 PM by Achaemenid

That was my point. RT is full of crap because its a Russian mouthpiece. I was saying I agree with you all on that. I'm just saying there is a lack of the same scrutiny on western media (and its not just the usual suspects like Fox and the Sun. CNN et al has been just as bad at not giving all the information.)

If I was too hasty with condemning The Guardian, I apologize, but I've long since pronounced all major media, east or west, as unreliable in this regard.