Ukraine troops fight to avoid being surrounded by rebels

[webfact]

Ukraine troops fight to avoid being surrounded by rebels
By PETER LEONARD

DEBALTSEVE, Ukraine (AP) — As Ukrainian troops fought Monday to defend a strategic railway hub, Russian-backed separatists pledged to boost the size of their force and Washington pondered whether to expand its assistance to Ukraine to include lethal aid.

President Barack Obama has so far opposed sending lethal assistance, but an upsurge in fighting in eastern Ukraine has spurred the White House to take a fresh look at supplying Ukraine with such aid, a senior administration official said.

Since the unrest in eastern Ukraine surged anew in early January, the separatists have made notable strides in clawing territory away from the government in Kiev. Their main offensive is now directed at Debaltseve — a government-held railway junction once populated by 25,000 people that lies between the rebel-held cities of Luhansk and Donetsk.

Almost 2,000 residents have fled in the last few days alone.

Rebel forces have mounted multiple assaults on government positions in Debaltseve but all were repelled, a spokesman for Ukrainian military operations in the east, Andriy Lysenko, said Monday.

"The units that have arrived in support of our troops in Debaltseve are counterattacking and denying the enemy the opportunity to complete the encirclement," he said.

Separatist fighters burst through Ukrainian lines last week in the village of Vuhlehirsk on the road west of Debaltseve, getting access to a ridge overlooking the highway running north from the town.

On Monday, Associated Press reporters saw Ukrainian tanks shooting from open fields at the tree line on that ridge. Minutes later, the tanks rolled back onto the highway, leaving a heavy trail of mud in their wake, and taking up new field positions a few hundred meters (yards) away.

In a coordinated defensive maneuver, Ukrainian forces fired barrages from Grad multiple-rocket launchers toward the same area.

Despite the government's insistence that it intends to retain control of Debaltseve, rows of trenches near a bridge 15 kilometers (9 miles) to the north suggested a backup plan in case the town falls.

Elsewhere, the rebel stronghold of Donetsk came under heavy, sustained shelling once again. City authorities said Monday 15 civilians had been killed over the weekend in the fighting, while Ukraine authorities said five soldiers had been killed and 29 wounded overall in the east in the past day alone.

Meanwhile, the leader of the separatists in Donetsk, Alexander Zakharchenko, said new mobilization plans aim to swell the ranks of rebels to 100,000 fighters.

It's not clear how many fighters the rebels have now or how many able-bodied men are still available in rebel areas. Zakharchenko didn't say where he aimed to find apparently tens of thousands of troops.

Russia has acknowledged that some of its citizens are fighting among the rebels as volunteers, but rejects the Ukrainian and Western charge that it's backing the insurgency with troops and weapons. Western experts say, however, that the sheer amount of heavy weapons under rebel control shows extensive help from Moscow.

"While we still have time before the spring, new detachments will be able to receive military training," Zakharchenko said. "We expect mobilization to yield at least five additional brigades — five motorized brigades, one artillery brigade and a tank brigade."

Zakharchenko blamed Ukraine for the collapse of the latest round of peace talks in the Belarusian capital Minsk over the weekend and argued that the rebel offensive was the only way to protect residential areas from Ukrainian shelling.

"Force is the only way to protect our cities, villages and streets from the shelling," Zakharchenko said.

The U.S. official said Obama is reconsidering sending lethal assistance to Ukraine, but continues to have concerns about the effectiveness of that step and the risks of a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia.

The official, who insisted on anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said Obama is specifically concerned about the besieged Ukrainian military's capacity for using high-powered, American-supplied weaponry. The president has also argued that no amount of arming the Ukrainians would put them on par with Russia's military prowess.

The U.S. so far has limited its supplies to the Ukrainian military to non-lethal aid, such as gas masks and radar technology to detect incoming fire.

Speaking in Moscow, Konstantin Kosachev, the head of foreign affairs committee in the Russian parliament's upper house, warned Washington that supplies of lethal weapons to Ukraine would lead to "further escalation of the conflict," the Interfax news agency reported.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who was on a trip to Beijing for a meeting with his Chinese and Indian counterparts, accused the United States of encouraging Kiev to crush the rebellion by force.

In Budapest, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said her country will not provide weapons to Ukraine and supports negotiations and a diplomatic solution to the conflict.

"It is my firm belief that this conflict cannot be solved militarily," Merkel said Monday.

She said she prefers economic sanctions by the European Union and negotiations to "solve or at least mitigate the conflict."

The conflict in eastern Ukraine that erupted after Russia's annexation of Crimea in March has claimed more than 5,100 lives and forced 900,000 to flee since April.
___

Balint Szlanko in Donetsk, Ukraine, Yuras Karmanau in Kiev, Ukraine, Julie Pace in Washington, Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow and Pablo Gorondi in Budapest, Hungary, contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-02-03

[siampolee]

DEBALTSEVE, Ukraine (AP) — As Ukrainian troops fought Monday to defend a strategic railway hub, Russian-backed separatists pledged to boost the size of their force and Washington pondered whether to expand its assistance to Ukraine to include lethal aid.

Washington pondered whether to expand its assistance to Ukraine to include lethal aid.

Vietnam. Cambodia, Laos this aint!!

Yet another fine dangerous example of the U.S. interfering in a another sovereign states affairs.

Now the game becomes far more dangerous by the proposed U.S.actions of bringing the offensive onto the Russian field, beware the start of W.W.3 the final war for this world and its peoples.

Coming our way soon courtesy of the U.S. ''Armageddon.''

Edited February 3, 2015 by siampolee

[NeverSure]

Ukraine is a sovereign nation and friendly to the West. The West including the EU already has trade sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine.

At what point does it become Russia which is the troublemaker? Do the US and all of Europe stand by and watch Putin overrun another nation?

Who is starting WWIII? Who is the troublemaker here?

BTW Armageddon is in Israel. That's the one you might want to watch out for - people who attack Israel in the Valley of Megiddo (Armageddon.) Your Armageddon isn't going to happen in Russia or the Ukraine.

[PepperMe]

If the US arm the Ukraine, then Russia will openly supply the rebels, and they will crush Kiev and take the country.

The US will never get any backing from a single EU country.

Even the UK will say no.

The EU can not control a member state's military, each country has a choice, and I know for a fact that none will want to go to war with Russia, not the Germans, the UK France or anyone. A vote in the House of Commons will be a resounding and massive NO.

Even with NATO, each member country is only obliged to send about 5% of its resources, but even then if most of the NATO countries are against a war, they can keep NATO out of it..... That will happen, because Ukraine is not in a pact with NATO.

The US are on their own, and that is why they will not dare arm Ukraine. They will never defeat a Russia that will have strong allies.

All their bases will be ineffective, no country will allow the US to fly or launch missiles from their sovereign nation because it will not want its citizens to be put in the firing line. Trust me.... The US may have lots of bases there, but they still need permission to use them on a war footing.

Edited February 3, 2015 by PepperMe

[Barin]

The Ukrainian Government has confirmed officially that there are no Russian troops helping the rebels to fight the Ukrainian Army: http://www.infowars.com/ukrainian-government-no-russian-troops-are-fighting-against-us/

However the United States are spreading disinformation:

...

But now, Russia is reported to have moved two battalions of regular troops across the border, with three more battalions of motorized infantry and an artillery division on the way.

That’s translates into potentially a thousand soldiers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2015/01/22/russia-and-ukraine-are-at-war/

[Baerboxer]

DEBALTSEVE, Ukraine (AP) — As Ukrainian troops fought Monday to defend a strategic railway hub, Russian-backed separatists pledged to boost the size of their force and Washington pondered whether to expand its assistance to Ukraine to include lethal aid.

Washington pondered whether to expand its assistance to Ukraine to include lethal aid.

Vietnam. Cambodia, Laos this aint!!

Yet another fine dangerous example of the U.S. interfering in a another sovereign states affairs.

Now the game becomes far more dangerous by the proposed U.S.actions of bringing the offensive onto the Russian field, beware the start of W.W.3 the final war for this world and its peoples.

Coming our way soon courtesy of the U.S. ''Armageddon.''

The Ukrainian military are having a hard time fighting "rebels". Now where do you think these "rebels" suddenly get vast amounts of weapons, including ground to air missiles and artillery, assault rifles and training in using these weapons and military tactics?

Clue - it's not the US, EU or NATO.

[Baerboxer]

The Ukrainian Government has confirmed officially that there are no Russian troops helping the rebels to fight the Ukrainian Army: http://www.infowars.com/ukrainian-government-no-russian-troops-are-fighting-against-us/

However the United States are spreading disinformation:

...

But now, Russia is reported to have moved two battalions of regular troops across the border, with three more battalions of motorized infantry and an artillery division on the way.

That’s translates into potentially a thousand soldiers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2015/01/22/russia-and-ukraine-are-at-war/

Course not. Just supplying weapons and "advisors" - just like Vietnam, Angola etc. They can't use the East Germans or Cubans anymore. May be some of the ethnic groups that make up the Russian federation? Then of course they are not Russian troops, but Chechen militia or some such.

All countries are at it these days, and have been for centuries. But which would you sooner have helping you - the US who will promote business, capitalism, education, free elections of some sort, sure for a price; or Russia who will police you?

[NeverSure]

The Ukrainian Government has confirmed officially that there are no Russian troops helping the rebels to fight the Ukrainian Army: http://www.infowars.com/ukrainian-government-no-russian-troops-are-fighting-against-us/

However the United States are spreading disinformation:

...

But now, Russia is reported to have moved two battalions of regular troops across the border, with three more battalions of motorized infantry and an artillery division on the way.

That’s translates into potentially a thousand soldiers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2015/01/22/russia-and-ukraine-are-at-war/

Oh yes. Please quote infowars as more reliable than Forbes, and then act as if either one of them speaks for the US. (That's really dumb.)

The US has "Keyhole-class" (KH) reconnaissance satellites that have a resolution of less than 6 inches. And you think it doesn't know what's happening?

[siampolee]

Baerboxer. post # 6.

The Ukrainian military are having a hard time fighting "rebels". Now where do you think these "rebels" suddenly get vast amounts of weapons, including ground to air missiles and artillery, assault rifles and training in using these weapons and military tactics?

Clue - it's not the US, EU or NATO.

Indeed a valid point, however it is Russia's back yard not the U.S.A's back yard hence to become involved in the matter other than possibly in a diplomatic nature via the U.N or some other political manipulated then politically motivated bottomless money pit should be the way to go.

Didn't notice too much in the way of help being offered by the west or the U.S.A when China took over Tibet, China's back yard so no-one wanted to play there did they?

Surely the lessons of Vietnam among other theatres of conflict in other places have been learnt, or is the U.S.A. being the class dunce yet again?

[MrWorldwide]

I'm a political ignoramus but wasnt NATO formed specifically to counter Russian aggression in Europe ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the 11 September 2001 attacks,^[6] after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF

Many of the member states seem to do a lot of talking but arent quite so keen when it comes to committing men and materiel to a conflict. In the case of Afghanistan, history would seem to have proven some of those members to be right, but Ukraine is a lot closer to home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

At the end of last year, Putin was making noises about NATO being Russia's biggest threat in terms of 'foreign aggression' - the kind of doublespeak that would have made Orwell roll in his grave. NATO isnt funding an armed insurgency in Ukraine, Mr Putin. If the US, as a key NATO member, wants to consider the option of supply so-called 'lethal aid' to the Ukrainian government, how are they doing anything different to what they did when the Russians were fighting the mujahiddeen in Afghanistan, albeit less covertly ?

I get the 'doomsday scenario' aspect, and I get that few European countries are keen to see a larger conflict in Ukraine, but why bother even having NATO if it cant effectively counter the Russians ?

[siampolee]

Neversure post # 8

Oh yes. Please quote infowars as more reliable than Forbes, and then act as if either one of them speaks for the US. (That's really dumb.)

The US has "Keyhole-class" (KH) reconnaissance satellites that have a resolution of less than 6 inches. And you think it doesn't know what's happening?

The US has "Keyhole-class" (KH) reconnaissance satellites that have a resolution of less than 6 inches. And you think it doesn't know what's happening?

So pray tell us why the Taliban and the ISIS group have not been defeated with all that modern technology to hand there should be no problems in subduing terrorism in any of its assorted shapes and political and religious allegiances.

[konying]

Ukraine is a sovereign nation and friendly to the West. The West including the EU already has trade sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine.

At what point does it become Russia which is the troublemaker? Do the US and all of Europe stand by and watch Putin overrun another nation?

Who is starting WWIII? Who is the troublemaker here?

BTW Armageddon is in Israel. That's the one you might want to watch out for - people who attack Israel in the Valley of Megiddo (Armageddon.) Your Armageddon isn't going to happen in Russia or the Ukraine.

Syria is a sovereign state yet it did not stop US supplying weapons and supporting anti government rebels because US does not like the government .

Half of which now turned into ISIS and attacking other sovereign states.

Where was US before? Ukraine means nothing to US or EU, ukraine is nothing but a pawn to suppress Russia.

[asiamaster]

The Ukrainian military are having a hard time fighting "rebels". Now where do you think these "rebels" suddenly get vast amounts of weapons, including ground to air missiles and artillery, assault rifles and training in using these weapons and military tactics?

Clue - it's not the US, EU or NATO.

Answer: UKRAINE

Where do you think the Ukrainian army had most of their military stockpile before the conflict? Near the Polish border??? And who controls the area where most of the weapons were stored? And when the separatists reconquered Donetsk airport do you think they sent all the weapons back to Kiev? When they manage to surround the 8000 Ukrainian troops, they will probably allow them to go home - but do you think they will be allowed to take their guns and ammunition with them???

Edited February 3, 2015 by asiamaster

[StasD]

It seemes to me Obama wants to fight with Russia till the last Ukranian. I cannot even imagine the Putin's answer but he will not let fight only in Europe. Who knows maybe for the US is the time to to have a war at its own territory? I would not exclude this situation.

[chuckd]

As an American, I fully endorse all those who say the US should stay out of the Ukraine situation.

Having said that, when Russia then decides to invade Poland, don't pick up the hotline for the White House.

We've been down that road two times before.

[MrWorldwide]

Neversure post # 8

Oh yes. Please quote infowars as more reliable than Forbes, and then act as if either one of them speaks for the US. (That's really dumb.)

The US has "Keyhole-class" (KH) reconnaissance satellites that have a resolution of less than 6 inches. And you think it doesn't know what's happening?

The US has "Keyhole-class" (KH) reconnaissance satellites that have a resolution of less than 6 inches. And you think it doesn't know what's happening?

So pray tell us why the Taliban and the ISIS group have not been defeated with all that modern technology to hand there should be no problems in subduing terrorism in any of its assorted shapes and political and religious allegiances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Pakistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia

The US will never 'defeat' an ideology, short of genocide on a massive scale and the threat of a nuclear war. Personally, I blame the House of Saud for 9/11 and a great deal of the madness which has followed, but I guess to some that sounds like I'm defending Bin Laden and ISIL : nothing could be further from the truth.

[MrWorldwide]

It seemes to me Obama wants to fight with Russia till the last Ukranian. I cannot even imagine the Putin's answer but he will not let fight only in Europe. Who knows maybe for the US is the time to to have a war at its own territory? I would not exclude this situation.

Right - reds under the bed, eh wot ? Things have progressed a little since the 50s, Chairman Wow.

Still, it WOULD give neversure and his gun-totin' buddies some justification for the hundred or so assault rifles and 10,000 rounds of ammunition they each have in their basements should the British decide to re-invade the US of A.

[siampolee]

MrWorldwide post # 17.

The US will never 'defeat' an ideology, short of genocide on a massive scale and the threat of a nuclear war. Personally, I blame the House of Saud for 9/11 and a great deal of the madness which has followed, but I guess to some that sounds like I'm defending Bin Laden and ISIL : nothing could be further from the truth.

And who was in bed with Bin Laden in his early days as a ''freedom fighter'' who was and still is in bed and in certain old ruling and wanna be ruling family again are also indebted financially to the House of Saud ?

As an aside what country allowed by turning a blind eye its ''plastic Paddys'' to collect funds to assist the I.R.A. in its terrorist activities?

In truth one of the worlds leading terrorist organisations is the U.S.A..

Sad to say'' the greater majority of Americans are not deserving of the rule that is over them.''

it would seem as if the ghost of Joe McCarthy and his currently earthly followers are still stalking the earth,( or the U.S. anyway) in their frantic Salem Witch Hunt style for Reds Under The Bed

Edited February 3, 2015 by siampolee

[PepperMe]

Regarding US technology, it was all available in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they made those wars look very difficult where it was supposed to make it look easy. There were lots of casualties on the side of the allies and that was a huge coalition of many many countries against the likes of Iraq whose military had zero air capability and whose army did not challenge the invasion.

How well do you think the US is going to do against a country like Russia who will have serious control of the airspace and a massive army that WILL challenge an aggressive force..... I have a feeling the US will be defeated heavily.

It is not a good idea to pursue this.

[NeverSure]

It seemes to me Obama wants to fight with Russia till the last Ukranian. I cannot even imagine the Putin's answer but he will not let fight only in Europe. Who knows maybe for the US is the time to to have a war at its own territory? I would not exclude this situation.

Right - reds under the bed, eh wot ? Things have progressed a little since the 50s, Chairman Wow.

Still, it WOULD give neversure and his gun-totin' buddies some justification for the hundred or so assault rifles and 10,000 rounds of ammunition they each have in their basements should the British decide to re-invade the US of A.

Well now, that's a bit of an exaggeration but, as I've said many times, I know of no time in history when a guerilla army was defeated on its own soil. It can blend into the population, it isn't in uniform, it will be fed... IMHO this is what happened to the US in Vietnam, etc. It's far different from fighting a WWII in Europe or Asia with identifiable combatants and equipment.

NOW fast forward to the idea of having a war on US soil where 100 million Americans have 300 million guns and gobs of ammunition. It would be a slaughter. Seriously a slaughter by the American people.

[siampolee]

Neversure post # 21

Well now, that's a bit of an exaggeration but, as I've said many times, I know of no time in history when a guerrilla army was defeated on its own soil. It can blend into the population, it isn't in uniform, it will be fed... IMHO this is what happened to the US in Vietnam, etc. It's far different from fighting a WWII in Europe or Asia with identifiable combatants and equipment.

NOW fast forward to the idea of having a war on US soil where 100 million Americans have 300 million guns and gobs of ammunition. It would be a slaughter. Seriously a slaughter by the American people.

Perhaps with the way things are shaping up in the U.S.A.. the comment or should I say part comment should read thus.,

NOW fast forward to the idea of having a war on US soil where 100 million Americans have 300 million guns and gobs of ammunition. It would be a slaughter. Seriously a slaughter of the American people by the American people.

​Wonder what nations would come to interfere offer assistance in that instance?

[PepperMe]

Right - reds under the bed, eh wot ? Things have progressed a little since the 50s, Chairman Wow.

Still, it WOULD give neversure and his gun-totin' buddies some justification for the hundred or so assault rifles and 10,000 rounds of ammunition they each have in their basements should the British decide to re-invade the US of A.

Well now, that's a bit of an exaggeration but, as I've said many times, I know of no time in history when a guerilla army was defeated on its own soil. It can blend into the population, it isn't in uniform, it will be fed... IMHO this is what happened to the US in Vietnam, etc. It's far different from fighting a WWII in Europe or Asia with identifiable combatants and equipment.

NOW fast forward to the idea of having a war on US soil where 100 million Americans have 300 million guns and gobs of ammunition. It would be a slaughter. Seriously a slaughter by the American people.

Lol.... They are hardly going to invade in fleets of rubber dinghies with machine guns..... They are going to launch missiles from subs.

Just like the one the Chinese launched off the coast of LA a few years back.

Meanwhile the US citizens will be out in the streets protesting the government.

Now you may say that "it will be different if the US itself were attacked, the people will rise up and defend its soil".... But when 9/11 happened, yes the people got together, they got together to hand out sandwiches and bottles of water to fire crews and rescue contractors and shout down the Muslims, but did they all join the army en masse?.... No.... The army had to go out in "press gangs" and talk young black kids to join up, offering them a career and loads a money.

Edited February 3, 2015 by PepperMe

[chuckd]

If the US military were to be "let loose" so to speak, ISIS could be taken down in short order.

However, there would be collateral damage, civilians would be killed and all of you Europeans would be up in arms over the carnage.

Hark back to 2003 and ask yourselves how long it took for the US military to destroy the 4th largest army in the world (at that time). The US entered Iraq on 20 March 2003 and entered Baghdad on 10 April 2003.

ISIS is a rag-tag group of murderers sowing their horrors and can only be dealt with by superior firepower.

If the US military has the same rules of engagement they have suffered under in Afghanistan, they will have problems subduing an enemy that dissolves into the civilian population and becomes bullet proof.

Putin wants no part of the US military. He will push the envelope as far as our Nobel Peace Prize winning President lets it go. When he is faced with stern opposition, he will retire to the Kremlin.

Thus he is doing everything he can for the next 23 months. After that we may have a Commander in Chief with a backbone.

[mopar71]

If the US arm the Ukraine, then Russia will openly supply the rebels, and they will crush Kiev and take the country.

The US will never get any backing from a single EU country.

Even the UK will say no.

The EU can not control a member state's military, each country has a choice, and I know for a fact that none will want to go to war with Russia, not the Germans, the UK France or anyone. A vote in the House of Commons will be a resounding and massive NO.

Even with NATO, each member country is only obliged to send about 5% of its resources, but even then if most of the NATO countries are against a war, they can keep NATO out of it..... That will happen, because Ukraine is not in a pact with NATO.

The US are on their own, and that is why they will not dare arm Ukraine. They will never defeat a Russia that will have strong allies.

All their bases will be ineffective, no country will allow the US to fly or launch missiles from their sovereign nation because it will not want its citizens to be put in the firing line. Trust me.... The US may have lots of bases there, but they still need permission to use them on a war footing.

Most NATO nations in the former Warsaw Pact would have no problem supporting the USA in arming Ukraine. Those countries know better than anyone what happens when you don't stand up to the Russian bear. Poland and the Baltics are welcoming new NATO bases and American military on their territory because of the threat from Russia.

You're right about Western Europe though,the further west you go from Russia's western border, the least likely they would want to get involved militarily.

[mopar71]

DEBALTSEVE, Ukraine (AP) — As Ukrainian troops fought Monday to defend a strategic railway hub, Russian-backed separatists pledged to boost the size of their force and Washington pondered whether to expand its assistance to Ukraine to include lethal aid.

Washington pondered whether to expand its assistance to Ukraine to include lethal aid.

Vietnam. Cambodia, Laos this aint!!

Yet another fine dangerous example of the U.S. interfering in a another sovereign states affairs.

Now the game becomes far more dangerous by the proposed U.S.actions of bringing the offensive onto the Russian field, beware the start of W.W.3 the final war for this world and its peoples.

Coming our way soon courtesy of the U.S. ''Armageddon.''

The Ukrainian military are having a hard time fighting "rebels". Now where do you think these "rebels" suddenly get vast amounts of weapons, including ground to air missiles and artillery, assault rifles and training in using these weapons and military tactics?

Clue - it's not the US, EU or NATO.

Thank you for putting "rebels" in quotation marks/inverted commas. These people are NOT rebels. They are not residents of Ukraine fighting the government. Former DPR big shot Igor Strelkov in an interview with a Russian newspaper a few months ago even admitted that they couldn't find enough locals willing to fight so they had to bring in mercs from Russia.

In Ukraine they like to call these "rebels" terrorists. When you consider the bombings of gov't buildings and organizations supporting Maidan taking place across Ukraine in places like Kharkiv, Odesa, Kiev and other cities, then the term terrorist fits.

It's hard to know what to call them but the most accurate term might be "Russian invaders".

[mopar71]

It seemes to me Obama wants to fight with Russia till the last Ukranian. I cannot even imagine the Putin's answer but he will not let fight only in Europe. Who knows maybe for the US is the time to to have a war at its own territory? I would not exclude this situation.

Right - reds under the bed, eh wot ? Things have progressed a little since the 50s, Chairman Wow.

Hmmm...

January 27, 2015

New York (CNN)A Russian Spy ring operating in New York City to collect economic intelligence and recruit other potential spies was broken up by the FBI, who arrested one of the men today.

In unsealed court documents the FBI says Evgeny Buryakov was in New York City employed by a Russian bank, but was actually working for the Russian intelligence services.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/26/politics/russian-spy-in-new-york-city/

Edited February 3, 2015 by mopar71

[PepperMe]

The USA will not go to war with Russia..... It is as simple as that.

Russia would obliterate Ukraine.

Russia is not Iraq.... Iraq did not have air superiority, they did not send a single plane up..... The Iraq army did not engage.... The US may have strolled into Baghdad unchallenged, but that was when their problems started, tell me..... How long did they have to stay and fight before they could leave?....

Russia will have control of their airspace and they will challenge any invasion. They will also resort to guerrilla warfare if they need to.

The US do not have a chance in Russia, it will not have enough allies and Russia will have plenty.

For the record..... Iraq was not invaded by the US it was invaded by one of the worlds largest ever coalition forces that was just led by the US. But it is not unusual for US citizens to crow on about just being the Americans who did it all.

Edited February 3, 2015 by PepperMe

[StasD]

Those countries know better than anyone what happens when you don't stand up to the Russian bear.

These countries are controlled by the US completely. The evidence is the spy record of former polish foriegn minister Sikorsky, where he said: We are sucking at US and that is why we have problem with Germany.

BTW Germany treated Poland much worse than Russia in past. Poland kiiled about 200 000 Russian in 192X. they were captive soldiers. Poles just did not get them any food. Historically it is not easy to show who suffered more

[NeverSure]

Neversure post # 8

Oh yes. Please quote infowars as more reliable than Forbes, and then act as if either one of them speaks for the US. (That's really dumb.)

The US has "Keyhole-class" (KH) reconnaissance satellites that have a resolution of less than 6 inches. And you think it doesn't know what's happening?

The US has "Keyhole-class" (KH) reconnaissance satellites that have a resolution of less than 6 inches. And you think it doesn't know what's happening?

So pray tell us why the Taliban and the ISIS group have not been defeated with all that modern technology to hand there should be no problems in subduing terrorism in any of its assorted shapes and political and religious allegiances.

Not a good equivalent. The US certainly has the ability to follow the supply chain of weapons. It's a given what Russia is doing and the EU and the US have trade sanctions against Russia for it so you're a little late to the party.

[mopar71]

Hark back to 2003 and ask yourselves how long it took for the US military to destroy the 4th largest army in the world (at that time). The US entered Iraq on 20 March 2003 and entered Baghdad on 10 April 2003.

Actually, I believe it was the 4th largest standing army in the world before the first Gulf War in 1991. What was it...40 days of bombing and a 100-hour ground war? All that to defeat a massive army with pretty much the same weapons as Russia is pouring into Ukraine now?

The Russian military today is the same as the Iraqi one 24 years ago with a few differences - nuclear missiles, nuclear subs, a few hundred top notch special forces soldiers and the best disinformation/propaganda unit the world has ever seen.