'@Mxyzptlk'
So a riot happened in Odessa between protestors and a dubious in origin group of tough middle/young aged men who I guess claimed to be counter-protestors.
They fought each-other, the middle aged toughs were in a building throwing stuff at the others who were throwing stuff back.
Accidentally a fire broke out, and surprisingly when you're barricaded in a building where a fire starts? Usually that's a recipe for disaster. So yes a bunch of people died in a fire in Odessa, by no intent of anyone on either side. But of course Russian media couldn't help but spin that one into deliberate murder.
"do some chaos in Crimea that's all. "
Literally nothing was going on in Crimea at all. Russia troops rolled in (and out of the base as well). Pretended to not be Russian. And held a vote in extremely suspect conditions with virtually no third party observers to determine fairness and freeness. Which in of itself was quite funny given the circumstances were brought about by the presence of invading soldiers. Exaggerating threats that either barely exist or don't exist at all is a classic plate of bullshit to serve to justify these sorts of things. I'm just wondering why you're so eager to eat from the plate, I mean aside from just-world theory and all.
"No shots were fired, no bombs were falling no nothing."
Well of course. It was Russian military in a far corner of Ukraine near the Russian border, and it was immediately obvious to everyone involved that this was what they were. Maybe you don't fully grasp this but your country is really huge and has a really huge army, and Ukraine has neither of these things true of it. So I wonder....do you imagine that the Ukrainian army, which was also operating with the central government currently in chaos and reorganization, was actually able to do anything to force the Russian troops to leave? No. It was dangerous, and would have resulted in them being flattened. Ukraine was intimidated and unable to respond to the annexation militarily. That doesn't remotely make it not an invasion, military occupation, or military annexation.
If the US moved a ton of troops into New Brunswick Canada and forced a rigged vote on joining the US, do you really think Canada would respond with military force? Or back down and rely on international condemnation and diplomatic actions to back them up?
" Just a police force, to protect people on referendum."
An army force to oversee and enforce the referendum taking place. On the back of a false trumped up sense of danger that your leadership knows very well did not exist. Congratulations on your very own "WMDs" that will never be found.
" And this example you calling "endless"?"
In that there are tons and tons of bits of evidence in either case of Russian troops invading the Ukraine. Bloodlessly in Crimea, and bloodily in Donbass. Yes. I never claimed the Crimea situation turned violent, but the threat of violence was the whole point.
"Wow. If Russia truly were invaded Ukraine - it will be hard to conseal."
Yes, which is exactly why there is tons of bits of evidence lol. Including (my favorite) young Russian soldiers instagraming from inside the Ukraine. I feel bad for these poor kids in your army being made to do this shit by your leadership, these are like literal teenagers doing dumb teen shit like taking selfies and not paying attention to OpSec. And then when they get killed your government hushes up the death and gets secretive and hostile to their families about what happened. I mean shit, this isn't just Ukrainians being screwed by your government, naturally its plenty of Russians as well.
" Jet planes, tanks, soldiers everywhere."
No planes. But tanks, trucks, troops yes. They are mostly as I understand it bolstering the local militias who are attempting to control Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, those militias themselves containing plenty of Russians, just not the regular military. Merchants, war tourists, nutty nationalist miltia types. And yes some native Ukrainians are involved in that as well.
They are the ones on the front lines against the Ukrainian government forces, the Russian troops are their back up. Firing mortars at the Ukrainians from far away and sometimes from over the border. And rarely engaging head to head anyway. The militia forces have sucked mostly at fighting. A pattern formed before things got quiet where the militias were being defeated and pushed back by the Ukrainian troops, but then suddenly heavy mortar and other sorts of fire would smash the Ukrainian line and start stabilizing the front again for the militias. Naturally that heavy fire was the Russian army.
Completely hiding it isn't even the point though. Just being able to pretend it isn't what it is, is enough. Because Moscow knows no one is going to enforce the Ukrainians much beyond supplies at best. Russia knows no one will actually attack. And they can then lie about it to their own people (like you) and other folks around the world sympathetic, who will believe them regardless. They don't particularly care if Kiev, or Washington, or Brussels full well knows its them.
Also perhaps your under the impression that the Russian troops have a full on goal of conquest like with Crimea? But I don't think that's the case, at least not anymore. Putin has likely recognized that what happened in Crimea was a once in a lifetime chance that won't happened again. And also seen that the local pro-Russian militias even with Russian militia backing, and even with Russian army backing, can't actually move much farther than where they've been.
So then he's probably happy to just keep Ukraine broken and destabilized so that they are unable to recover, unable to join the EU or any real integration with the EU, and because of territorial conflict that they can't join NATO either.
"You should have saw this in Iraq or Libya do you?"
Your grammar is confusing here. Do you mean it should look like those wars?
Well Iraq was an outright invasion (also on false pretenses, much like what Russia is doing in Ukraine!), there was no attempt to hide it because it was never meant to be hidden. Of course the Russian troops in Ukraine aren't invading in such a fashion.
Libya was actually similar, in that US forces were not really fighting the war so much as providing air and naval support fire to the rebels who were doing most of the fighting. But it wasn't an invasion, so much as military support for one side in a war. The better comparison is what Russia is doing in Syria right now, that is what the US did in Libya. I wouldn't say Russia is invading Syria either.
The main difference between those two (US in Libya, Russia in Syria) from Russia in Ukraine? Is that there is a actually existent conflict independent from our countries in both Libya and Syria that we chose to get involved with. Libya had protests that were violently attacked by full scale military grade forces, this turned the protests into a rebellion. Which made it a war. The US chose to support those rebel forces.
In Syria the war had been going on for years by the point that Russia decided to intervene and give virtually the same exact sort of help to the Assad regime as the US did to Libyan rebels. Air force and missiles and so on.
Neither case being all that secretive if at all.
Ukraine however is based off (similar to Iraq in this regard) a largely manufactured crisis, with your government pouring funds and supplies into an insurgency in the Donbass that has declared at least two or so independent states, and then your government is backing even that with its literal military, but creating deniability about it. All on the absurd knowingly crap nonsense notion that Ukraine was ready to break into bloody pogroms of Russian speakers.
0
'@Mxyzptlk'
So a riot happened in Odessa between protestors and a dubious in origin group of tough middle/young aged men who I guess claimed to be counter-protestors.
They fought each-other, the middle aged toughs were in a building throwing stuff at the others who were throwing stuff back.
Accidentally a fire broke out, and surprisingly when you're barricaded in a building where a fire starts? Usually that's a recipe for disaster. So yes a bunch of people died in a fire in Odessa, by no intent of anyone on either side. But of course Russian media couldn't help but spin that one into deliberate murder.
"do some chaos in Crimea that's all. "
Literally nothing was going on in Crimea at all. Russia troops rolled in (and out of the base as well). Pretended to not be Russian. And held a vote in extremely suspect conditions with virtually no third party observers to determine fairness and freeness. Which in of itself was quite funny given the circumstances were brought about by the presence of invading soldiers. Exaggerating threats that either barely exist or don't exist at all is a classic plate of bullshit to serve to justify these sorts of things. I'm just wondering why you're so eager to eat from the plate, I mean aside from just-world theory and all.
"No shots were fired, no bombs were falling no nothing."
Well of course. It was Russian military in a far corner of Ukraine near the Russian border, and it was immediately obvious to everyone involved that this was what they were. Maybe you don't fully grasp this but your country is really huge and has a really huge army, and Ukraine has neither of these things true of it. So I wonder....do you imagine that the Ukrainian army, which was also operating with the central government currently in chaos and reorganization, was actually able to do anything to force the Russian troops to leave? No. It was dangerous, and would have resulted in them being flattened. Ukraine was intimidated and unable to respond to the annexation militarily. That doesn't remotely make it not an invasion, military occupation, or military annexation.
If the US moved a ton of troops into New Brunswick Canada and forced a rigged vote on joining the US, do you really think Canada would respond with military force? Or back down and rely on international condemnation and diplomatic actions to back them up?
" Just a police force, to protect people on referendum."
An army force to oversee and enforce the referendum taking place. On the back of a false trumped up sense of danger that your leadership knows very well did not exist. Congratulations on your very own "WMDs" that will never be found.
" And this example you calling "endless"?"
In that there are tons and tons of bits of evidence in either case of Russian troops invading the Ukraine. Bloodlessly in Crimea, and bloodily in Donbass. Yes. I never claimed the Crimea situation turned violent, but the threat of violence was the whole point.
"Wow. If Russia truly were invaded Ukraine - it will be hard to conseal."
Yes, which is exactly why there is tons of bits of evidence lol. Including (my favorite) young Russian soldiers instagraming from inside the Ukraine. I feel bad for these poor kids in your army being made to do this shit by your leadership, these are like literal teenagers doing dumb teen shit like taking selfies and not paying attention to OpSec. And then when they get killed your government hushes up the death and gets secretive and hostile to their families about what happened. I mean shit, this isn't just Ukrainians being screwed by your government, naturally its plenty of Russians as well.
" Jet planes, tanks, soldiers everywhere."
No planes. But tanks, trucks, troops yes. They are mostly as I understand it bolstering the local militias who are attempting to control Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, those militias themselves containing plenty of Russians, just not the regular military. Merchants, war tourists, nutty nationalist miltia types. And yes some native Ukrainians are involved in that as well.
They are the ones on the front lines against the Ukrainian government forces, the Russian troops are their back up. Firing mortars at the Ukrainians from far away and sometimes from over the border. And rarely engaging head to head anyway. The militia forces have sucked mostly at fighting. A pattern formed before things got quiet where the militias were being defeated and pushed back by the Ukrainian troops, but then suddenly heavy mortar and other sorts of fire would smash the Ukrainian line and start stabilizing the front again for the militias. Naturally that heavy fire was the Russian army.
Completely hiding it isn't even the point though. Just being able to pretend it isn't what it is, is enough. Because Moscow knows no one is going to enforce the Ukrainians much beyond supplies at best. Russia knows no one will actually attack. And they can then lie about it to their own people (like you) and other folks around the world sympathetic, who will believe them regardless. They don't particularly care if Kiev, or Washington, or Brussels full well knows its them.
Also perhaps your under the impression that the Russian troops have a full on goal of conquest like with Crimea? But I don't think that's the case, at least not anymore. Putin has likely recognized that what happened in Crimea was a once in a lifetime chance that won't happened again. And also seen that the local pro-Russian militias even with Russian militia backing, and even with Russian army backing, can't actually move much farther than where they've been.
So then he's probably happy to just keep Ukraine broken and destabilized so that they are unable to recover, unable to join the EU or any real integration with the EU, and because of territorial conflict that they can't join NATO either.
"You should have saw this in Iraq or Libya do you?"
Your grammar is confusing here. Do you mean it should look like those wars?
Well Iraq was an outright invasion (also on false pretenses, much like what Russia is doing in Ukraine!), there was no attempt to hide it because it was never meant to be hidden. Of course the Russian troops in Ukraine aren't invading in such a fashion.
Libya was actually similar, in that US forces were not really fighting the war so much as providing air and naval support fire to the rebels who were doing most of the fighting. But it wasn't an invasion, so much as military support for one side in a war. The better comparison is what Russia is doing in Syria right now, that is what the US did in Libya. I wouldn't say Russia is invading Syria either.
The main difference between those two (US in Libya, Russia in Syria) from Russia in Ukraine? Is that there is a actually existent conflict independent from our countries in both Libya and Syria that we chose to get involved with. Libya had protests that were violently attacked by full scale military grade forces, this turned the protests into a rebellion. Which made it a war. The US chose to support those rebel forces.
In Syria the war had been going on for years by the point that Russia decided to intervene and give virtually the same exact sort of help to the Assad regime as the US did to Libyan rebels. Air force and missiles and so on.
Neither case being all that secretive if at all.
Ukraine however is based off (similar to Iraq in this regard) a largely manufactured crisis, with your government pouring funds and supplies into an insurgency in the Donbass that has declared at least two or so independent states, and then your government is backing even that with its literal military, but creating deniability about it. All on the absurd knowingly crap nonsense notion that Ukraine was ready to break into bloody pogroms of Russian speakers.