Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Mites reagoitte nyt, kun venäläiset itsekin sanovat sen suoraan?

Kenenkään ei enää tarvitse yrittää väittää, että Venäjä ei olisi korviaan myöten sekaantunut Itä-Ukrainan sotaan:

First, between August and December of 2014 in Donbass an army had been formed to replace the disparate groups of militia. The army well trained and equipped was clearly excessive for the defense of those stubs of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions now controlled by the armed forces of Novorossia. We could, of course, believe that the militiamen found tanks, guns, self-propelled heavy artillery units, multiple rocket launchers, and other nice things in the Donetsk steppe. They had not noticed these things there from April to August and then all of a sudden – rich harvest: everyone who ever gathered mushrooms knows that such a thing can happen. One could also believe that thousands of instructors (from sergeants to complete regiment headquarters) necessary to create an effective military structure just simply came from different countries following their hearts (which does not happen in this world). It is even possible to believe the weapons were found and that the instructors came not only in the required numbers but also with required specializations. However, spare parts, ammunition and GSM in quantities sufficient for the intense fighting still had to be supplied by someone.
The minimal approximate size of the armed forces of Novorossia is 35 thousands (about three divisions at the time of the Great Patriotic war). To conduct regular military operations (and to support the civil population, at least, at the level of subsistence) the supplies should reach hundreds of tons a day. For comparison: 6th Army of Paulus at Stalingrad at the beginning of the encirclement, according to the calculation of the German command, required 600 tons a day of supplies only to maintain it battle ready. Paulus thought that the minimal requirement was 800 tons. At the moment of encirclement, Paulus commanded up to 240 thousands soldiers (possibly, 30 thousands of Romanians were not counted by the German command).
That is, whatever the patriots-alarmists say, in Novorossia an army has been created in a shortest time clearly excessive for the defense of the controlled territories. Such army could not have been organized without Russia’s help. Russia is obviously not inclined to spend money and resource (that are not unlimited) without good and sufficient reason. If an army capable of attacking is being formed, it means it will attack.

Hölynpöly Minskin sopimuksista voidaan myös vähitellen unohtaa, Venäjä ei aio eikä ole koskaan aikonut noudattaa niitä:

The last question of possible interest to us: what will happen to Ukraine as a result of the war? Nothing. There will not be any Ukraine. The very fact that with Moscow’s help adequate governments structures in DPR and LPR still have not been created indicates that these republics are not needed. Novorossia remains a geographic and historic term but is not becoming a political reality. The army was needed – it had been organized, whereas the government structures are not needed – and they have not emerged. This means that Novorossia is not planned. The patriots-alarmists then draw the conclusion that Novorossia is being betrayed to Kiev. But if, as we have shown above, Kiev itself is betrayed, and self-liquidation of the regime is simply a question of time and not of principle, and we are talking about a short period of time here, then who would Novorossia be betrayed to?
It will be betrayed to nobody, and nobody will be creating it. What does Russian need a new Ukraine in the guise of Novorossia for? Russia also does not need any “buffer state” between the EAEU and EU. It would only get in a way. Anyway, Russia has a border with NATO countries (Norway, Estonia, Latvia). Russia needs the entire Ukraine or almost entire Ukraine. It is now obvious not only to Moscow but also to Brussels that this territory is incapable of independent development and is only a source of problems. That is why Novorossia as a federal region (as well as Malorossia) is possible whereas as an independent state (independent states) it is not. The world does not have any more money for independence, be it Ukrainian, be it Novorossian – it is as simple as that.
It is time for the Empire to return to its natural borders (at the very least, in the south-west).

Sitten voidaan hetkinen miettiä, mikä verran Putinin sanaan voi luottaa, ja miten pitää reagoida siihen, että Venäjä ei enää tarvitse puskurivaltioita.

Friday, May 08, 2015

Kappas, Venäjän selitykset muuttuvat tosi nopeasti

Muistattehan, että kapinallisilla ei ensin pitänyt olla BUKeja lainkaan. Taisi sittenkin olla:

Previously, the main “Buk impact” scenario was a launch from a rebel-held Snezhnoe, and damage was explained like so, seemingly corroborated by a large hole in the left side of the pilot’s cabin:
 – However, there were serious problems with that version.
First off, no one in Snezhnoe seen or heard the launch. Many locals readily admit seeing a rebel Buk, which is visible from maybe a hundred yards in tight city streets, but not a single person has heard or seen the launch, which should be visible and audible for many miles around:


The rest basically describes why they think it’s BukM1, which sensible people didn’t doubt much (yes, it is technically possible a government fighter like Mig-29 shot down MH17 with a long-range air-to-air missile, but it’s a rather far-fetched scenario).


Ehkä kapinalliset sittenkin tekivät sen, mutta se oli kuitenkin Kiovan ja länsimaiden syytä:

In that case, we can remember that many locals claim they saw a government ground attack plane at the time of MH17 shootdown; while it’s unlikely a SU25 plane could shoot down MH17, someone trying to target it could target MH17 instead. Even if the targeting was correct, if government Buks were training and painting MH17, the missile would very likely pick the larger target.
– So, who’s to blame for the deaths? In all scenarios except False Flag, it’s the war itself, really. It’s not so crucial who was targeting what and who ended up pressing the button; more important is why was a civilian airliner sent though an area of heavy air-to-ground combat in the first place, one that clearly had multiple heavy anti-aircraft systems in the hands of inexperienced UAF conscripts and rebels (both sides announced they’re deploying Buk air defense systems to the area shortly before the tragedy).
And, once we start digging deeper and deeper into the issue, we’ll inevitably come back to the root causes of the war:
– Certain parties misguided belief that an elected government can be overthrown without consequence, and a hostile takeover of the sort that resulted in civil war in Georgia, Moldova, Kosovo, Cyprus, Texas, etc. would somehow be met without protest by the “pro-Russian” half of Ukraine.
– Their opponents misguided belief that the West would not support a government waging an depopulation campaign (yes, forcing a million people to flee the cities to Russia by deliberately shelling power and water stations is depopulation), that Russia will officially intervene on their behalf, or that fighting spirit and some smuggled weapons can beat a real army funded by IMF loans (well, that last one worked – for now – but the rebels have a far harder time replacing their losses).But I digress, “who’s to blame for the war” is a topic for a separate discussion. Thank you for your time

Thursday, May 07, 2015

Uskokaa nyt, Ukraina sen teki!

Jo joulun aikaan Venäjä oli selvittänyt malesialaiskoneen alasampumisen ihan syyllisen nimeä myöten:

Valheenpaljastuskokeen läpäisseen todistajalausunnon mukaan Ukrainan ilmavoimien kapteeni Vladislav Voloshin nousi tukikohdastaan Su-25 hävittäjällä lennon MH17 tuhoutumispäivänä. Hävittäjä palasi ilman ohjuksiaan ja sisällissodasta palkittua lentäjää on pidettävä epäiltynä MH17-koneen alasampumisesta.
Toimittaja: Janus Putkonen

Todisteet vain lisääntyvät: Ukrainaa pidettävä syyllisenä lennon MH17 alasampumiseen
Viimepäivinä todisteet siitä, että Ukrainan ilmavoimat suorittivat malesialaisen matkustajakoneen alasampumisen Itä-Ukrainassa, ovat lisääntyneet tuntuvasti. Samaan aikaan ns. 'BUK-teorialta' on murtunut pohja todisteiden totaaliseen puutteeseen.
Lennon MH17 kohtalon selvittely on pysynyt kaukana lännen valtamediasta, vaikka toisaalla päivittäin ja kiihtyneeseen tahtiin on kerrottu uusia huomattavia tietoja koskien malesialaiskoneen tuhoamiseen liittyviä tapahtumia Donetskissa heinäkuun 17. päivänä.
Tälle lännen vaikenemiselle onkin ilmeinen selitys, koska uudet tutkinnalliset tiedot tragediasta kertovat, että lännen ja Ukrainan Venäjää syyllistäneiltä väitöksiltä BUK-ohjuksen osumasta aluejoukkojen suorittamana on kadonnut pohja samalla kun Ukrainan ilmavoimien syyllisyys on jatkuvasti vain todennäköisempi. Näin on tapahtunut myös kuluneiden päivien aikana. 

Silminnäkijöitäkin löytyi, ja ihan vastikään löytyi jopa kuva koneen pudottaneesta 30mm tykinluodista.
Sitten todistusaineisto keikahtikin ihan nurin, mutta onneksi lopullinen johtopäätös ei muuttunut yhtään:

Iltasanomat väittää 6.5. uuden raportin paljastavan 'venäläisohjuksen' pudottaneen lennon MH17 Donetskissa. IS:n mukaan Venäjän armeijan asiantuntijat eivät olisi ottaneet kantaa siihen kuka matkustajakoneen olisi ampunut alas, mutta muut uutislähteet kertovat tutkimuksesta aivan toisin.
Toimittaja: Janus Putkonen

Tutkijat: Ukrainan BUK-ohjus tuhosi matkustajakoneen MH17 - Iltasanomat valehtelee venäläisraportista
Uuden julkisuuteen tuodun tutkimusraportin mukaan Venäjän sotilastekniikan insinöörit ovat tulleet siihen tulokseen, että heinäkuun  17. päivä 2014 Donetskin yläpuolella lentänyt Malesian Airlines lento MH17 ammuttiin alas Kiovan joukkojen BUK-ohjuksella, joka oli keskitettynä Donetskin alueelle. Asian uutisoi mm. ReutersSputnik ja Radio Free Europe.
Iltasanomissa esitetään kuitenkin valheellisella tavalla, että Novaja Gazetan julkaisemassa paljastusraportissa olisi laukaisun vastuukysymys jätetty käsittelemättä, saati että se olisi heitetty jopa suoraan Venäjää, Donetskin aluejoukkoja - 'venäläisohjusta' kohtaan, kuten Iltalehti antaa asiasisältöjä vääristellen ja vaieten suomalaislukijoiden asian ymmärtää.