"For three weeks, the Ukrainian army lost half of artillery and air force is no more" - source in the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine
Today, August 21, the media published an article about the catastrophic loss of the Ukrainian army in the battle for the last three weeks.Check the accuracy of the knowledge source is not possible, but the facts articulated by him for the most part confirmed by including the Ukrainian side.For example, information about the huge losses of helicopters and airplanes MAT today has been reduced in the analytical material on Ukrainian TSN .
"Changing tactics," stated Poroshenko during the meeting with the security forces on 18 August due to a loss in the "ATO" most of the shock of arms, according to a source in the Defense Ministry of Ukraine.
According to him, "the advance of our troops at the Donetsk and Lugansk actually stopped. Calculation of the success of massive use of long-range artillery in order to clear the bridgehead to capture our troops suburbs of Donetsk and Luhansk - we can say has failed. "
"Separatists during the last three weeks has been punched out more than half of the available conventional and rocket artillery our group. More specifically - since the beginning of operations lost more than 200 guns and rocket systems "Grad" and "Hurricane". But the worst thing is that about a third of them fell into the hands of the separatists. During the retreat of our military they pull out all that is able to shoot on the territories under their control, and then used against our troops. I'm not talking about the armored vehicles: tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, which in recent help from the staff of ATO, we have already lost more than 500 units. To make up for these losses, we have now removed from the conservation storage in warehouses technique the third and fourth categories. This means that it was stored for 30-40 years. Her condition, to say the least, unsatisfactory: scopes stolen, the engine starts, at best, one of the three or four wire half-rotten ... Our companies do help as they can, but they are not omnipotent, spare parts must be ordered in Russia. "
At the same time, according to a source in Kiev, the most catastrophic situation - with aircraft APU.
"She was with us and it was a bit of ability to fly. And now, after losing in the ATO almost everything that flies - 32 airplanes and helicopters, we can say that the Ukrainian Air Force is no more. No funds for its restoration, or professionals who would have done, and now have no place to take parts for obvious reasons. Therefore, without the normal fire support troops stood. And not just ordinary, but the officers refused to lead their units on the firing points. If people had raised slogans in attack, but now will only threats. That's all the "change of tactics."
(caveat mine - 1% or less war hawks, /Republican/Democrat and hardline Zionist war mongers produce the wars the 99% of us have to live with. The Jewish family next door and their children playing kick ball on the grass are not hard-line war mongers.)
“If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don’t care for human beings.” –Nelson Mandela, Iraq Speech 2003
“Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, woman, or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed, or disappeared’, at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame.” –Amnesty International, 1996
“Hypocrisy, double standards, and “but nots” are the price of universalist pretensions. Democracy is promoted, but not if it brings Islamic fundamentalists to power; on proliferation is preached for Iran and Iraq but not for Israel….Double standards in practice are the unavoidable price of universal standards of principle” –Professor Samuel Huntington, “Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of the World Order”, (p. 184)
The American-Israeli Ukrainian Crisis
Does anyone in the U.S. government or media realize how extremely hypocritical for the U.S. to demand Russia respect the sovereignty, integrity, human rights, and “self determination” of the Ukrainian people?
Long before it even became a nation Americans, and later America, have never given a damn about any nation’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence, or people’s right to “self determination”. If a nation has some economic or strategic benefit to the U.S. you’ll become a victim of the freedom spreading U.S. military.
Do you ever notice that whenever the U.S. faintly pushes for peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians that a Jewish manufactured crisis occurs somewhere in the world to distract the U.S. and the world from dealing with Israel’s brutal military occupation of Palestinian territories and its killing siege of Gaza for 7 years? I don’t know about you but there’s something Jewishly rotten in the Ukraine Crisis... More here: http://piotrbein.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/the-american-israeli-ukrainian-crisis/
As The Nation has warned repeatedly, the unthinkable may now be rapidly unfolding in Ukraine: not just the new Cold War already under way but an actual war between US-led NATO and Russia. The epicenter is Ukraine’s eastern territory, known as the Donbass, a large industrial region heavily populated by Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens and closely tied to its giant neighbor by decades of economic, political, cultural and family relations.
The shoot-down of Malaysian jetliner MH17 on July 17 should have compelled the US-backed government in Kiev to declare a prolonged cease-fire in its land and air attacks on nearby cities in order to honor the 298 victims, give international investigators safe access to the crash site, and begin peace talks. Instead, Kiev, with Washington’s backing, immediately intensified its attacks on those residential areas, vowing to “liberate” them from pro-Russian “terrorists,” as it brands resisters in eastern Ukraine, killing more innocent people. In response, Moscow is reportedly preparing to send heavy weapons to the “self-defenders” of the Donbass.
Now, according to a story in TheNew York Times ofJuly 27, the White House may give Kiev sensitive intelligence information enabling it to pinpoint and destroy such Russian equipment, thereby, the Times article also suggests, risking “escalation with Russia.” To promote this major escalation, the Obama administration is alleging, without firm evidence, that Russia is already “firing artillery from its territory into Ukraine.” Virtually unreported, however, is repeated Ukrainian shelling of Russia’s own territory, which killed a resident on July 13. (...)
Actually this was the first thing that I thought of when I first heard of this tragedy. It saddens me deeply the soured relations with Russia. I have always thought Russia was a key Ally and am very troubled by the path our relationship is headed......
“It does change the situation. You’ve got a Russian government that has made a conscious decision to use its military force inside another sovereign nation to achieve its objectives. It’s the first time since 1939 or so that that’s been the case,” Dempsey said. “They clearly are on a path to assert themselves differently not just in Eastern Europe, but Europe in the main, and towards the United States.”
I heard this yesterday. Our newest contingents are over 20 years old.
Safer to let Putin have his way then try and play 20 years of catch up in one week.
“It does change the situation. You’ve got a Russian government that has made a conscious decision to use its military force inside another sovereign nation to achieve its objectives. It’s the first time since 1939 or so that that’s been the case,” Dempsey said. “They clearly are on a path to assert themselves differently not just in Eastern Europe, but Europe in the main, and towards the United States.”
I just learned that a way to get to read a full WSJ article is to take the article title and search it in google, and go to it from google. The whole article is then available to read. Linking it from the article only gets you to the page that asks you to subscribe to read the whole article. I will remember that down the road as I use the WSJ sometimes for a source as well.
. The article supports an assertion I made earlier in this thread ...
kurtster wrote:
That's local Malaysian time. It was in afternoon broad daylight in Ukraine and it was about 10 or 11 am here in EDT.
I'm making some assumptions and saying so. We no doubt have at least one bird parked over Ukraine and no doubt have pictures from the satellite in real time. The pictures are good enough to read headlines on newspapers laying on the ground. We have been monitoring Russian troop movements for months. For me to assume anything less of the US is to be stupid and foolish.
I watched this unfold live for the hours before and leading to and watching Obama's initial statement live as it happened and to more for several hours afterwards. I had seen video of the plane impacting well before Obama's speech.
If our government is incapable of figuring out simple things like this in short order, then great googidty moogidty we are in one heap of trouble. I will assume that our government has the capability and did know exactly what happened within a couple of hours. We are watching this area 24/7. I simply cannot believe that our government is incompetent at everything it does. And if it turns out to be incompetence that kept our President from being properly informed, once again, then WTF ? ...
From the article ...
The officials said that the U.S. detected a surface-to-air missile launch at the time that the airliner was hit, in roughly the same separatist-controlled area in Eastern Ukraine; that there has been a growing flow of weapons from Russia to separatists over the last month; that Russians have provided training for separatist fighters in southwest Russia on antiaircraft weapons and other arms; and that separatists have downed more than a dozen aircraft during the conflict.
U.S. officials who weren't part of the Tuesday briefing said American radar and space-based assets tracked the missile soon after its launch from rebel-held territory until its detonation near the Malaysian airliner.
From that data establishing the missile's track, intelligence analysts extrapolated the location of the SA-11 back to the area near the city of Snizhne, officials said. U.S. officials call this type of information measurement and signature intelligence, or MASINT.
I am relieved to find what I assumed to be was reasonable. I will also continue to assume that this info was passed on directly to our President in real time as well. It would be reasonable to assume that is the case considering that the area is under constant surveillance for the obvious reasons. It just further reinforces the case to make that Obama knew what had happened before he made his initial remarks on the shootdown. Again if he didn't, then WTF ?
This only goes to further add to the case against trust in Obama and now raises a concern about confidence in Obama's competence to be President. We have heard over and over again from Obama's defenders that he is the victim of gross government incompetence. I would say now that his own incompetence is more at fault if we are to accept his constant use of incompetence as an excuse for things going too wrong too much of the time. Or Obama is just so disconnected to be bothered to take his duties as CIC seriously, which would be illustrated by his use of the word may in his initial statement.
Steeler, you said you were not done with this yet. What say you now ?
The Obama Administration’s narrative of Russian guilt in the Malaysia Airlines MH17 downing is unraveling like a cheap sweater tonight, under the increasing realization that dubious social media-sourced evidence is essentially all there is, and the admission by US intelligence officials that there is no real evidence pointing to Russia at all.
What is now being euphemistically called “major evidentiary and legal obstacles,” but would more correctly be called “completely full of holes,” it is quickly becoming a case study in why random videos you found on YouTube are not a great way to build a case in a major international incident.
Take the photograph released over the weekend on social media, showing the putative 9k37 Buk that shot down the plane just hanging out in the middle of a quiet square in a rebel town. It would be pretty damning, if true, but it also would raise a lot of questions, chiefly why the rebels left the vehicle in such a conspicuous place during an alleged coverup.
The photo, like YouTube videos claiming to be the rebels confessing to the shoot-down but built on content created a day before the plane crashed in the first place, was quickly labeled “unable to be verified,” and with deeper digging seem probable forgeries.
People who have been on social media for more than a few minutes know how much nonsense is presented as absolute truth there, and the Obama Administration’s decision to base its entire case on stuff they read there, going to the extent of arguing with a dubious press, has clearly not served them well.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 24, 2014 - 9:40am
kurtster wrote:
My entire point has been based upon Obama's initial remarks made on the same day the plane went down and nothing else. You're trying to take it beyond that. You focus on Obama's followup remarks the next day. The two are separate events. On Obama's followup remarks on the next day, I gave him an unqualified thumbs up. First day, thumbs down. That's it.
The comparison to Obama's initial remarks on the same day of the crash is compared to Reagan's initial public comment, albeit it 4 days later. Both are initial comments, regardless of how soon after the events they were made. You seem unwilling to call Obama's statement on the same day as the crash his initial statement.
There really isn't any reason to drag this out any further as we disagree over which was the initial statement of Obama.
Done with this.
I am not done with it. There is no disagreement over which was the initial statement of Obama. You just made that up.
The issue is you stated the apt comparison was the initial statement of Obama on Day One versus the initial statement of Reagan on Day Five (although at the time of your intital statement to that effect, you apparently did not know that Reagan did not speak at all for 4 days or you were trying to finesse your comments). You said Reagan showed true leadership by immediately reacting to the incident —even though he did not make any statement until 4 days later. As I said in an earlier post: Was it not important enough to comment until 4 days later?
I would agree that this has been drawn out, but it is because of your insistence that Obama's initial statement — yes, the intitial statement on Day One — was of great importance, exposed his lack of leadership, and contributed to stock market crashes and all kinds of other global problems. All of which is hogwash in my opinion. It is imprudent to let these kinds of wholly unsupported allegations and spurious claims go unchallenged.
Reagan wrote this in his diary that evening: "We were due to return to Wash. on Labor Day but realized we couldn’t wait so we left on Fri. It was heartbreaking. I had really looked forward to those last three days. When we got in Fri, I went directly to a NSC (National Security Council) meeting re the Soviet affair."
Yeah,you offered that explanation after both ScottN and I had pointed out that Reagan's speech, to which you had linked in a preceding post — the one to which I referred in the post you now claim misrepresents what you said — had occurred 4 days later. Here is what I wrote in response to that post of yours::
My entire point has been based upon Obama's initial remarks made on the same day the plane went down and nothing else. You're trying to take it beyond that. You focus on Obama's followup remarks the next day. The two are separate events. On Obama's followup remarks on the next day, I gave him an unqualified thumbs up. First day, thumbs down. That's it.
The comparison to Obama's initial remarks on the same day of the crash is compared to Reagan's initial public comment, albeit it 4 days later. Both are initial comments, regardless of how soon after the events they were made. You seem unwilling to call Obama's statement on the same day as the crash his initial statement.
There really isn't any reason to drag this out any further as we disagree over which was the initial statement of Obama.
Yeah,you offered that explanation after both ScottN and I had pointed out that Reagan's speech, to which you had linked in a preceding post — the one to which I referred in the post you now claim misrepresents what you said — had occurred 4 days later. Here is what I wrote in response to that post of yours::
This is the standard I use for judging Obama ... I also know that nearly everyone who has participated in this thread the past couple of days holds Reagan in very low regard. Reagan immediately cancelled his vacation to return to Washington to deal with this head on. If you actually watch it, pay attention to the 9:50 mark and while watching, remember how primitive our technology was 21 years ago, yet so much was known immediately regarding the incident and was shared as soon as it became available. This is a clear and stark contrast to Obama ... This is real leadership.
Quickly,from the world of logic and reason: The Korean airliner was shot down on September 1, 1983. Reagan's addresss to the nation, the video of which you have supplied here, was made September 5, 1983. The facts that emerged were that the Soviets shot down the Korean airliner because it had entered Soviet air space. In fact, in the video, Reagan plays parts of the intercepted communications that served as evidence that the Soviets had intentionally fired the missile without knowing — or perhaps even knowing — that it was a commercial airliner. Compare and contrast. As you yourself have said in this thread today, at this point, this appears to be an accident that occurred in a war zone. The best information right now is that this probably was a missile fired by Russian-backed rebels in Ukraine who thought they were firing on a Ukraine military plane, not a commercial airliner. As information is gathered,perhaps the facts will show something different.
I just did. In your post in which you linked to the Reagan speech you stated that Reagan immediately cancelled his vacation to take on the issue head- on. You then state the video of his statement shows what could become immediately known even back then when technology was not as advanced as today. Not once did you state that the speech came 4 days after the plane went down. I was the one who pointed that out as did Scottn, I believe. i guess Reagan did not think it important enough to comment on before the 4th day?
Your frothing about Obama's initial statement as if it caused stock markets to crash and other plagues Is not only unsupported by facts, it is irrational. You keep alternating between saying it is unimportant and of supreme importance. make up your mind.
i give you more credit than what your arguments on this issue normally would be due. I attribute it to your inability to concede a point or admit you had it wrong. Find a mirror and practice saying: "I was wrong about that."
Yes I did. I immediately acknowledged it and linked to a time line. You are deliberately misrepresenting my remarks.
You just double down whenever someone calls you on *anything.* Let me try to type slower: He used the word, "reports." This is a word we might use when we're not willing/able to say the content of the reports is or is not verified.
We have reports of a train derailment ....
Whatever the reasoning behind using the word "reports," this train derailment may or may not be factual, you can't just go on talking about it as if it happened. To then say this train derailment is really messing up traffic, that would be premature. It might be false. To say it may be messing up traffic, well that's precise language.
When he used the word "reports," he was then compelled to use similar phrasing when referring to the content of the "reports."
