Military Review

Ukraine: fighting without rules


At the beginning of the year, it seemed that the participants in the conflict in Ukraine and around it were able to approach the agreements on the settlement of armed confrontation. Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of Kazakhstan, played a role in this. He played the role of mediator in negotiations between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Western counterparts. The relationship between the latter was very unimportant since the meeting in Brisbane, Australia, where Putin was given the most cold reception.

At the end of 2014 of the year, during the visit of President Hollande to Kazakhstan, he unexpectedly decided to call in Moscow, where he met with Putin at Vnukovo Airport. Before this, negotiations were held by telephone of the Kazakh and Russian president, which made this meeting possible.

In the development of the negotiation process, the idea arose of holding a meeting on January 15 in Astana, where final agreements should have been reached. But in the end the meeting did not take place. And in mid-January, a new aggravation of the situation in Ukraine began.

The question arises: what happened in the period between the end of last year and January 15, why didn't it work out? Most likely, we can assume that the problem was not in Ukraine itself. The main issue was related to Western sanctions in connection with the annexation of the Crimea and military actions in the South-East of Ukraine. It is quite possible that the Russian president expected that the sanctions would be lifted due to reaching agreements on Ukraine. That is, Moscow wanted to exchange its consent to the settlement of the conflict in the Donbass for the lifting of sanctions, which turned out to be very sensitive for the Russian economy.

However, the West clearly refused to consider the issue in this context. German Chancellor Angela Merkel in January said that the sanctions appeared in connection with the annexation of the Crimea. That is, the West has unequivocally stated that it is ready to consider only the issue of settling the conflict in the Donbas, and not the whole range of relations with Russia.

Accordingly, it turned out that Moscow cannot count on legitimizing the annexation of the Crimea and on lifting the sanctions, at least for the most part. If we recall that the restrictions on trade with the USSR, introduced during the Cold War years under the Jackson-Vannik amendment, were lifted only in 2000-s, for Moscow this meant that she would have to live with sanctions for a very long time. Thus, the reason for adopting the Jackson-Vannick amendment was restrictions on the departure of Soviet Jews from the USSR. However, the amendment continued to operate even when all who wanted, and not only Jews, left Russia.

For Moscow, it was a very bad situation. Despite all the demonstrated confidence in their abilities, sanctions have a heavy impact on the Russian economy. The biggest problem is the actual closure of foreign capital markets. It is theoretically possible, of course, to use this situation in order to get away from dependence on Western capital, to start allocating domestic financing to banks and the economy. Many Russian non-liberal economists, who say that the state should allocate money, as it happens in the same West, call for this. But the liberals are against this decision, because the allocation of money at rates lower than inflation will lead to pressure on the national currency. In addition, the increase in de facto financing means an additional issue, the money supply will grow, and inflation will eventually increase. Basically, this was happening in stories Russia in the 1990-x under the government of Viktor Chernomyrdin.

It is possible to argue long who is right and who is not in this situation, but it is obvious that a change in the course of economic policy from neoliberal to governmental will be a real revolution for Russia. This will require the introduction of partial state regulation of the economy, a directive solution to the problems of import substitution, in the most general sense it will be necessary to move on to the policy of autarky. That is, in the most general sense - the policy of self-reliance. Ideally, such a policy should lead to complete self-sufficiency with all the necessary products. To some extent this was almost achieved in the USSR, but such a policy leads to isolation and requires a different model of economic management.

Accordingly, Moscow faced a difficult dilemma. She could either do nothing and hope to reach an agreement with the West after reaching an agreement on Ukraine or try to do something to change the situation. As a result, Moscow clearly preferred the second option, and from mid-January the offensive of the Donetsk insurgents began.

Among the possible motives for such a decision, it was probably first of all to sharply raise the degree of confrontation in the South-East of Ukraine, in order to try to reach an agreement with the West. That is, it’s still possible to exchange the removal of tensions for agreement, if not to legitimize the annexation of Crimea, then at least lift the sanctions.

In addition, in Russia, obviously, they were afraid that Ukraine, which on the eve of the proposed date of the 15 agreement of January was increasing the number of its army, in particular, Kiev, was declared a new mobilization, will try to solve the issue of the rebellious territories with one blow. This development scenario created obvious problems for Russia. It is clear that Moscow could not constantly keep its troops in the Donbass, and the local militia probably would not have stood the well-prepared strike from different directions.

Another circumstance was connected with the fact that a large-scale defeat of the Ukrainian army, like the one that occurred in August-September, was inflicted. Such a defeat could weaken the position of President Poroshenko and create a negative impression in Ukrainian society. In addition, in the case of the defeat of the Ukrainian army from the Donetsk rebels, naturally, with Russian help, the operational scope for action in any direction was opened. This could create a threat to many cities in eastern Ukraine, including in the Crimean sector. It’s not a fact that this threat would have been realized, but it would be a sufficient basis for further peace negotiations from a position of strength.

Although the Russian propaganda emphasized that Ukrainians were responsible for exacerbating the situation on 15 in January, and Donetsk separatists were only defending themselves, it is clear that the latter acted as the attacking side. In the air of the Russian channel RBC with its more skeptical attitude to what is happening, the presenter asked his interlocutor from among the supporters of the official line of Moscow: how is it that if the aggressor is the Ukrainian side, why then are the rebels? Actually, it was a rhetorical question.

First of all, the rebels occupied the Donetsk airport, which the Ukrainian military had been holding since spring 2014 of the year. It was the ongoing fighting around the airport that was one of the reasons for the actual failure of the agreements reached in Minsk in September 2014. Then the main blow was dealt to the so-called Debaltsevsky bridgehead.

This city, occupied by the Ukrainian army during the August 2014 offensive, was on the highway between Donetsk and Lugansk and theoretically allowed to threaten another important city for the rebels - Gorlovka. But he was very vulnerable to defense, because he was surrounded on all sides by the territory of the unrecognized Donetsk Republic. It was connected to Ukraine by a narrow corridor along the road to Artyomovsk.

Naturally, for the Donetsk rebels, Debaltseve was a strategically important object. Moreover, it was easy to attack and at the same time very difficult to defend. Although the Ukrainian army since the last truce certainly prepared for the defense of Debaltseve.

And this is where the fun begins. The troops of the Donetsk insurgents stormed Debaltseve from about January 20's up to the conclusion of the new Minsk 12 agreements in February of February 2015. They tried to cut him off from the rest of the Ukrainian troops. For this, large forces were used, a large number of armored vehicles, artillery and multiple launch rocket systems were concentrated. The question remains all the time whether Russian troops were there or not, but in any case Russia provided the rebels with ammunition. There is no doubt that for three weeks of active offensive ammunition there should have been a lot.

Although the Donetsk rebels may not have counted on such a long offensive. The calculation was clearly made on a kind of blitzkrieg. This was due to the vulnerability of the position of the Ukrainian army on the bridgehead in Debaltseve and the military superiority of the rebel army, which was demonstrated during the August counteroffensive. Another question: due to what was achieved this superiority? Evil tongues still claim that through the use of regular units of the Russian army. But be that as it may, all the circumstances that ensured the victory in August 2014 of the year, by January 2015, didn’t go anywhere.

But the blitzkrieg nonetheless failed. The rebel forces and their allies had to break into the defense of the Ukrainian army. Moreover, the loss of advancing in technology was very large. On the network, you could watch videos and photos with many black tanks advancing separatists. Some paintings resembled photos from tank battlefields.

But the most interesting thing about this war was that the most fierce battles were precisely for Debaltseve and the road connecting it with the rest of Ukraine. In other sectors, the sides fired at each other, but did not undertake offensive operations. The only exception was the area of ​​Mariupol.

Here the rebels launched an offensive, which was announced loudly by the so-called DNR Prime Minister Zakharchenko. But almost immediately, on January 24, there was an incident involving the shelling of Mariupol with Grad missiles, as a result of which many civilians were killed. After that, this question was submitted to a meeting of the UN Security Council, where Russia blocked a veto on a decision condemning this incident.

The argument of Moscow was that if you condemn the shelling of Mariupol, then why no one raises the question of condemning the shelling of Donetsk. It seemed quite logical, especially since during the current war in southeastern Ukraine both sides are not shy about using heavy weapon for shelling settlements. But for Moscow, this shelling, like the earlier incident with the shelling of the village of Volnovakha, still had negative consequences. Because, although Russia unequivocally wins the information war at home, in the West it is undoubtedly losing this war.

But in general, outside the Debaltseve active offensive military operations were not conducted by either Donetsk rebels or the Ukrainian military. Although for the latter it would be more natural. Because in the absence of a solid front line, the Ukrainians could, using strikes from different directions and subsequent actions by maneuverable groups, pose a threat to the forces of the DPR and LPR. This could markedly ease the position of the defenders in Debaltseve, because the rebels do not have so many troops to keep the whole line of confrontation with the Ukrainian army.

But that did not happen. Only 9 – 10 of February, on the eve of the negotiations in Minsk, reported that the Ukrainian military had launched an offensive near Mariupol. This is another oddity of this war. Maybe the Ukrainian military was not ready for the offensive, although it is strange why? For four months it was possible to prepare for different options. It is possible that Kiev did not want the escalation of the conflict.

If we agree with the fact that the Russian military fought in the Donbass, then this is quite logical. In the Rostov region in the exercises recently there were many Russian units. If the Ukrainians went on the offensive, then theoretically any blow could have been repelled, and moreover, Russian troops could begin active operations on other fronts. In this regard, it is quite logical that the attack of the Ukrainians near Mariupol occurred at the moment when it became clear that there would be negotiations in Minsk. Thus, Kiev tried to save its face.

But then, naturally, another question arises. If Moscow really went to use its troops in South-Eastern Ukraine, then why not use all the available forces and not attack the Ukrainians on all fronts and not achieve a quick victory? Then one could dictate the terms of the world. Actually, what's the difference? Do you have two thousand soldiers or twenty thousand in your Donbas? All the same, you deny everything, and the enemy has no direct evidence. Most likely, this once again proves that Russia was not going to fight with Ukraine. She wanted to designate a threat and force negotiations on her terms not even on the Ukrainian authorities, but rather on the West.

In the end of January, Moscow still had certain reasons that its tactics in the Donbass would lead to some results. There was still the possibility of the defeat of the Ukrainian army under Debaltseve, which should have put Kiev in an extremely difficult position.

In addition, at the end of January, the opportunity arose to split Europe’s common position towards Russia. On January 25, in the elections in Greece, the radical left coalition of SYRIZA won, which also supported the lifting of sanctions against Russia. On January 29, a meeting of foreign ministers took place in Brussels, at which the question of extending sanctions against Russia from March to September was decided. Given the fact that decisions in the EU are taken by consensus, Greece could impose a veto, and then the sanctions would not be extended.

In Russia, certain hopes were clearly pinned on Greece. On the eve of the vote in Moscow, they said they were ready to allocate money to solve its financial problems. However, the Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias voted for the sanctions. Moreover, he stated that “we will no longer be the“ bad guys. ”

Obviously, with all the harsh rhetoric of the Greek ultra-leftists, they take into account the capabilities of the parties. The maximum that Russia can help them in the current situation is three to five billion dollars. While the Greeks are at stake is 340 billion euros in loans. And there are still current needs. It is clear that Moscow cannot help Athens. In addition, the Greek government will be trading with a troika of creditors for further relations. If the new government of the left-wing Tsipras still decides to refuse to pay debts and leave the eurozone, it will be a tremendous test for him. In any case, he will then need to interact with Europe.

Whatever the plans of Moscow, the massive offensive of the pro-Russian militia was the most serious challenge in the complex system of its relations with the West. Because in the West they could not draw any other conclusions, except those that Russia is trying to put it in a difficult position. This caused an automatic reaction in Western capitals. In addition to the extension of sanctions against Russia, discussions began on the possibility of introducing new sanctions, including disconnection from the SWIFT bank payment system. The latter circumstance caused serious concern in Moscow. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said that disconnecting from SWIFT would be tantamount to a declaration of war.

But more importantly, in the United States at the beginning of February they began to seriously discuss the issue of supplying Ukraine with weapons for 3 billion dollars. This circumstance transfers the conflict to a fundamentally different level. Especially if the Americans put on modern anti-tank missiles, such as the Javelin system. This missile system is easy to use, works on the principle of "fired and forgotten", has a tandem part, which is effective against all types of Russian tanks. A feature of this system is the fact that a double-charge rocket hits the upper part of the tank. The first charge is designed to enhance dynamic protection, the second pierces the armor. The fact is that on the T-72 and all the old types of protection tanks on top there are none at all.

Thus, the supply of modern anti-tank missiles to Ukraine will deprive the Donetsk insurgents of the opportunity to use tanks. In addition, during the discussion of the issue of supplies to the United States, they talked about counterbattery radars, which can also be bundled with rockets. Consequently, in this case, the rebels will lose their advantage in artillery and rocket launchers.

In fact, if the United States supplies anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, then direct analogies with the Afghan war of the 1980s can be made. Then the supply of "Stingers" reduced the possibility of using the Soviet aviation. As a result, this brought closer the decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

Naturally, in Russia, this information was taken extremely negatively and most certainly with a high degree of concern. If the West really starts delivering modern weapons to Kiev, then this will be a completely different reality. Although simultaneously with the discussion of the issue of weapons in the United States, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that there would be no weapons to be supplied and it was necessary to look for a diplomatic way out of the situation. Approximately the same was said by Secretary of State John Kerry, who was on a visit to Kiev. He noted that the conflict has no military solution.

There is a classic game of good and bad cop. Merkel, of course, a good cop, and the US congressmen played the role of a bad cop. That is, Russia sent an unambiguous signal, to which, I must say, it immediately responded. On February 5, Merkel and French President Francois Hollande arrived in Kiev, and on February 6 they went to Moscow with peaceful proposals. The point is to once again fix the actual line of demarcation between the Ukrainian troops and the rebels of Donbass. This is the carrot they offer the Russian side. As a result, Moscow retains its face, but at the same time stops the advance of the pro-Russian rebels. All questions about future status are postponed. The parties agree that the Donbass is the territory of Ukraine.

For the Russian president, this was a good way out of this situation. He was offered a compromise and he agreed. Because Moscow is not ready to go for a tough version of confrontation with the West, despite all the tough rhetoric. If the Americans would supply the Ukrainians with weapons, then the war in this country would be long and would force Russia to deplete its resources, as happened in Afghanistan.

February 11 negotiations begin in Minsk, which lasted 16 hours. They resulted in an agreement between Hollande, Merkel, Putin and Poroshenko. True, this decision was not signed by them; the leaders of the unrecognized republics, Zakharchenko, Plotnitsky, as well as the OSCE representative and former President Kuchma, did so. Actually, the leaders of the states gave only oral guarantees, but they are expensive because reputation is at stake.

The situation is very piquant. Because the whole course of the current conflict between Russia and the West is based on mutual distrust and violation of agreements. What is worth only Moscow’s refusal to comply with the Budapest 1994 agreements of the year, which guaranteed the security and inviolability of the borders of Ukraine, as, indeed, Kazakhstan. But Russia also believes that it was deceived when they did not observe the agreements reached through the mediation of Russia and Europe between the former Ukrainian President Yanukovych and the Maidan opposing him.

But if so, then there is nothing formal to sign something there. The agreement itself in Minsk is the most uncertain and not specified. Many conditions may or may not be met. In particular, Kiev should restore pensions and benefits, but it does not say when. In Kiev, they have already announced that they will do it after the elections in the unrecognized republics.

At the same time, the elections themselves must pass under Ukrainian legislation, which means that Zakharchenko and Plotnitsky are already illegitimate. However, they should now be amnestied, like other militants, but in Kiev they said that they would not amnesty everyone. In turn, Ukraine should make changes to the Constitution in order to provide conditions for decentralization, but it is not clear whether this document will pass through the Verkhovna Rada and in what form.

The parties must withdraw heavy weapons from the confrontation line. And the Ukrainians from the current line, and the separatists from the one that was fixed on 19 September 2014 of the year. That is, the Donetsk rebels will have to divert heavy artillery further than the Ukrainian military. It also remains unclear who will control the border of Ukraine and Russia. That is, will this border remain passable for troops and weapons, or will there be no more such opportunity?

In general, a lot of questions. But the main question remained behind the scenes. Does the next agreement in Minsk mean that the issue of sanctions has been resolved? This is the key point in this situation. Theoretically, only the freezing of the conflict in Ukraine does not suit Moscow, it needs to get the lifting of sanctions and a general way out of the current crisis. The Russian authorities are obviously striving for this. But it seems that in this matter to achieve the result they failed. But on the other hand, Moscow had the opportunity to emerge from the crisis without losing face. For this, she needed the ultimate success of the operation under Debaltseve. Then it was possible to say that Russia won by putting a winning point. It is possible that this was the price of the issue. No wonder Putin said in Minsk that the Ukrainian troops in Debaltseve should capitulate.

Now it will be possible for the West and Russia to start looking for a path to settlement. But they still do not believe each other. They are constrained only by their unwillingness to cross the line. Therefore, maybe they will force their proteges in Kiev and the unrecognized republics to fulfill the agreements.
41 comment

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. An60
    An60 4 May 2015 05: 10
    Reprint from the Western press.
    1. Igor39
      Igor39 4 May 2015 05: 19
      An article in the magazine "Center Asia" is published in Astana, such a normal magazine ....
      1. vlad-58
        vlad-58 4 May 2015 17: 58
        Center of Asia magazine is funded ... by a public organization ?!
        ... or where?
        Well this is an NGO - the most ordinary "Echo of Moscow" in Astana ...
    2. sgazeev
      sgazeev 4 May 2015 05: 43
      Quote: An60
      Reprint from the Western press.

      Fuck, chewing gum. fool
      1. science fiction writer
        science fiction writer 4 May 2015 07: 07
        Quote: sgazeev
        Quote: An60
        Reprint from the Western press.

        Fuck, chewing gum.

        yeah, one blah blah blah blah with a touch of idiocy.
      2. Kasym
        Kasym 4 May 2015 07: 27
        Conclusions are not right. The logical chain is sometimes not correctly built.
        Greece. Ukraine is not here - gas is the main thing here and arrangements for further transit. She is a member of the EU - let them pull it out themselves. And trade with Greece is not industrial Germany and France.
        On the supply of weapons to NATO - the answer will be similar. NATO will lose the whole image of their high-tech weapons. And they think that the Kremlin will not respond to foreign preparations. mercenaries? The author naively believes.
        Good, bad cop. Yes Angela is rushing about, her authority is at stake - if it starts now, then she is just 0 and there is no need to talk about the greatness and significance of the EU, since even the pre-default Kiev scored. And to fight - to mean exactly "hit" - she definitely does not want to, all the more to pay for this.
        "Freezing the conflict does not play into the hands of only Moscow" - quite the opposite - time is playing on Moscow. What are we going to do in winter? And how will we give loans in December? Economically (energetically) the Kremlin Poroshenko and Yaytsenyuk are firmly held for one place - default and energy. So whoever is sitting (even if Obama is in Kiev) will have to decide all this with Moscow, and the attendants are 0. So who is the time playing?
        The key issue of sanctions is nonsense. The question of the Iron Curtain for the United States is key, to prevent Eurasia from joining and sitting at this table-market by themselves. Therefore, it is important for the Russian Federation to leave influence over the whole Ukraine, including in terms of the EAEU market. And let the sanctions shove ..., they themselves will come running - voters do not want to sit in cold houses, and business does not want to lose dividends and pay for Kiev’s wishes. And therefore, whoever forces them to sit like that will quickly fly out of their upholstered, high chairs. Moreover, the Russian Federation does not turn eastward declaratively (from Turkey to the PRC). Sanctions forced to engage in import substitution, which is good for the economy in the future. Therefore, sanctions are not a key issue, but to make people stop killing people in Ukraine (and they will come soon after themselves - there is already no coal).
        Talking about some kind of guarantee documents about the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine from other nuclear countries, when they themselves kindle a civil war and organize a military coup, is just silly. Based on the CIS docs, we can actually send troops there. As it was in Ossetia and Abkhazia - there is experience and there have been cases. The author would have thought better - why not introduce !?
        You can still find a bunch of nonsense from this author. Sometimes he writes practical things, but this topic is definitely not his thing. He is quite a well-known analyst in the Republic of Kazakhstan, but with similar articles shows that with the logic of the wrong recourse (sometimes you think that the order). hi
        1. Kasym
          Kasym 4 May 2015 08: 09
          Such facts would prompt the author (regarding foreign instructors and weapons):
          1) recently mobilized in Novorossia. So where are those now interested in learning about this mobilized, motivated recruiting? ... Somewhere in the vast Russian expanses ...
          2) The Ukrainian Armed Forces have already supplied several sets of artillery radars. And where are they now? By analogy. Where will these Jewels end up when they fall into the unmotivated wars of the APU? Blood will spoil, of course, but why can't the Russian Federation supply weapons? Pandora's Box will open. And how many of those tanks and air defense systems are in service and in warehouses of the Russian Federation, and how many in Europe? And besides UVZ and Omsk, how many tank repair factories are there in the Russian Federation and who will quickly put the entire old reserve on its feet? And Gradov, etc. who has more ammunition? Was it not reported about fires in the growing. arms. warehouses - yes they are bursting with this old stuff - and where will it be? Yes, against this avalanche of "junk" their single high-precision and high-tech weapons are just toys. And they won't give much - pay, once you have tasted it - "our business cannot be for nothing."
          That is why both Obama and Merkel include the rear - defeat is inevitable. The United States does not have time, therefore, throwing back and forth - they express actions that have not been calculated at least for a step, and then they look like deb. That psaki and comrades from the State Department are a good example. hi
          1. Kasym
            Kasym 4 May 2015 09: 16
            In my opinion, even to me an amateur can see:
            Facts that can be connected in a logical chain:
            1) A bunch of local volunteers who have already lost a lot and want revenge + Russian volunteers basically.
            2) Endless, continuous military exercises covering the whole of Russia. From mouth to counties. Landfills operate in continuous combat mode.
            3) And since the fall of the Civil War, the militias simply carry out pros from PMCs trained by NATO Ukrainian PSs and volunteer units such as Azov, paratroopers and special forces of the Armed Forces.
            Isn't it strange: miners, hard workers and villagers beat NATO pros with their wards? How? Especially the battles at the level of the DRG, companies, battalions, or the maximum of brigades - that is what NATO troops are trained for. These are not divisions, armies with armada of tanks, how the USSR fought and what it was preparing for.
            belay - These are the faces of the NATO generals later. They understand everything perfectly. In the Russian Federation (most likely in those exercises), recruits are trained so that their pros just relax. Ilovaysk, Debaltseve, Airport all showed. And even these instructors (it’s fun how a NATO man teaches ho.hla from AK and RPG to naughty - hilarious) will not help, and Western weapons will only harm. hi
            1. Tigin
              Tigin 4 May 2015 11: 27
              Great, Kasym.
              1. captain
                captain 4 May 2015 12: 49
                I would like to add to Kasym's comment. The author of the article devoted so much to the magnificent Javelin ATGM that I immediately remembered why the Ukrainian army did not use combat aircraft. It turns out that the outdated Strela MANPADS (which is in service with the rebels) knocked out all enemy aircraft. The author apparently did not even bother to find out why the Americans are withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, having a decisive technical superiority. In such wars as in the countries I have indicated, modern weapons do not play a decisive role. I fought in Afghanistan myself and have little idea about it. In such wars, the winner is the one who can inflict more moral damage, that is, who is not the first to get tired of the war. Poroshenko has a number of points that could lead to his defeat; 1) Ukraine owes a lot of money to various international financial institutions and it will have to be given in any case. The United States is unlikely to force everyone to forgive everything to Ukraine, but there is no money and, in principle, nowhere to take. 2) 40 million people need to be provided with work, and this is becoming more and more difficult every day, Ukraine imposed sanctions against the main trading partner, Russia, and naturally cut off sales markets for itself, not far off the shutdown of many industrial enterprises. 3) By signing an association with The EU, Ukraine gave rise to restitution, this will be a strong blow to the ideology of the Euromaidanists. Many residents of Western Ukraine will immediately feel all the delights of life in Europe, especially as homeless. 4) The EU has not made a visa-free regime with Ukraine, so the dream of lace panties begins to deflate, there (in Europe) extra labor migrants are not expected. And if Russia introduces a mirror image of Ukraine's actions in terms of entry, then Poroshenko may not reach Israel. Of course this will not lead to Russophilia among the Banderaites, but it will definitely lead to anti-Semitism. By next spring, it may very well be that the Victory Banner will be carried at the parade in Kiev again on May 9.
                1. vlad-58
                  vlad-58 4 May 2015 18: 00
                  ... the efficiency of the "sorrel" is less than 60% ... and learn to shoot from it year it is necessary!
                  ... technology - "fire and forget"! ... i.di.o.t.y ...
        2. Silhouette
          Silhouette 4 May 2015 11: 26
          how did it happen that if the aggressor is on the Ukrainian side, then why are the rebels coming? Actually, it was a rhetorical question.

          A rhetorical question is a question of a question without meaning, to which the answer is obvious to everyone. Here, the author clearly demonstrates his commitment, poorly hidden by dementia. If someone hits me on the street - I will beat his face so that it doesn’t seem enough. And I will beat until I understand that the danger has been overcome for me. And what - I'm an aggressor and a bully ?! This is a self-preservation instinct.
      3. user
        user 4 May 2015 11: 10
        Yes VP must box Merkel cognac for sanctions, because numerous attempts at gradual import substitution have failed. The oligarchs are a loss of income to everyone else why do it if you can buy, again, the price of oil was different. A year and a half ago, Glazyev wrote about import substitution as a pipe dream and explained why, because the West would not allow it. losing a lot of money.
        Today everyone has forgotten about this and raised the cry “everything” is gone, and by the way, this is probably the last chance for the Russian Federation, without a big war, to jump out of the Western technological trap and not fall into the Chinese one.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. siberalt
      siberalt 4 May 2015 11: 11
      Blah blah article. Unrelated reasoning on a free topic.
    5. Ze Kot
      Ze Kot 4 May 2015 13: 58
      Quote: An60
      Reprint from the Western press.

      100 %. Continuous "rebels" and "rebels".
  2. Igor39
    Igor39 4 May 2015 05: 15
    Donetsk rebels, Russian propaganda, the author is an obvious Russophobe. Thousands of regiments of the Russian Armed Forces, some kind of guesses are stupid. Facts are: Ukrovska, getting into another boiler and suffering huge losses, asked the intermediaries to stop the database, presenting it as a planned departure, but even according to the data ukronatsikov, losses during the withdrawal of at least 1500 killed.
  3. Jack-b
    Jack-b 4 May 2015 05: 16
    Initially incorrect premise: "Russia has two options: either bow to the West, or isolate itself." Rave. I read a little more and scored. The author is an "unwise person" or a mismanager.
    1. udincev
      udincev 4 May 2015 09: 34
      Initially Incorrect Package

      The article is all of such premises and distortions
      Very tendentious!
  4. s.melioxin
    s.melioxin 4 May 2015 05: 18
    ... to say that Russia won by putting a victory point. Perhaps this was the price of the matter. It was not for nothing that Putin said in Minsk that Ukrainian troops should capitulate in Debaltseve.
    In vain the "guys" then did not agree to this, in vain! How many "assholes" would be at home. Where the hell, why the hell and what the hell? An ordinary Ukrainian didn't have to do this. However, fate!
  5. lwxx
    lwxx 4 May 2015 05: 32
    The article is clearly designed for the west- The rebel forces and their allies had to break into the defense of the Ukrainian army. Moreover, the loss of advancing in technology seemed very large. On the network, you could watch videos and photos with many wrecked tanks of the advancing separatists. Some paintings resembled photos from the fields of tank battles. As usual, upside down, and without any evidence, so shaw.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Normal ok
      Normal ok 4 May 2015 09: 43
      Find the article on VO: "How they took Debaltsevo".
      1. lwxx
        lwxx 4 May 2015 11: 21
        You read carefully, especially about the "Buryat Tankers", and about the amount of equipment. hi
    3. vlad-58
      vlad-58 4 May 2015 18: 03
      as such, tank battles in Ukraine for the entire period of the civil war were not a single one! tanks were used by both opposing sides as self-propelled guns!
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. chelovektapok
    chelovektapok 4 May 2015 06: 31
    An article of that ... "With a smell, sir." Minus! The first sign of lies and orders is a lot of ornate letters, other patterns that hardly hide hatred and an attempt to pass black as white. And there are such signs!
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette 4 May 2015 11: 48
      The article is not just sweethearted, but is made on propaganda techniques based on NLP readers' neurolinguistic programming.

      The entire course of the current conflict between Russia and the West is based on mutual distrust and violation of agreements. What is only the refusal of Moscow to comply with the Budapest Accords of 1994, which guaranteed the security and inviolability of the borders of Ukraine, as well as Kazakhstan

      After reading this porridge from a lie in the neophyte’s brain, the following should remain:
      1. Moscow violated the Budapest Accords of 1994, which guarantee the independence and territorial integrity of not only Ukraine, but also Kazakhstan. Therefore, the next victim of insidiousness and aggression of Moscow will be Kazakhstan.
      Anti-Russian and liberal propaganda claims that in 1994 Ukraine abandoned the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and in return, Washington, London and Moscow guaranteed the independence and integrity of Ukraine. These guarantees are allegedly fixed by the Budapest Memorandum.

      This is not true. It does not and cannot be any special international guarantees for Ukraine. The fact is that this “Memorandum” is not an international treaty, because it does not have and never had legally binding force: the parliaments of the guarantor countries (including Russia) not ratified. A memorandum is not a treaty. These are rather certain statements and wishes, point of view. It cannot be broken. You can only agree or not.
      So the author is not just lying, but deliberately misleading.

      The question remains open all the time whether the Russian troops were there or not.

      Another trick. The question remains open when it is based on a fact. But there are no facts. affirmation, not a question.
  9. forester
    forester 4 May 2015 06: 48
    It seems that after all, Minsk-2 gave Russia and Novorossia more, to know, what kind of card was in the ward. It seems serious, because as if from Hollande and Merkel it was as if gradually the air came out. One Poroshenko puffs up and pushes, and these feel that they will set them up, so they began to glance at our former suburbs.
  10. Celmz
    Celmz 4 May 2015 06: 51
    A lot of letters, mostly "rebels ... rebels ... annexation ..." - all that Sultan Akimbekov worked for
  11. satris
    satris 4 May 2015 07: 23
    The author clearly does not take into account the interests of the United States, which brewed all this mess. However, the facts speak differently: while Europe also suffered from sanctions, the USA increased trade with Russia by 23%. Business Above All! For what, in fact, everything was up to: to tear Europe from Russia
  12. Zomanus
    Zomanus 4 May 2015 07: 51
    The article is not written for us. And the arrangements there are such that until the last moment we will not understand them. Yes, probably, and then they are incomprehensible ...
  13. Rusin Dima
    Rusin Dima 4 May 2015 08: 38
    The style of writing the article shows that the author knows exactly as much as ordinary Canadian about what is happening in North Korea
  14. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 4 May 2015 09: 01
    The author is a minus. It's a shame there is only one. Dill for the war of money (and even more weapons) will no longer be given. They don't even give them "for life". Work, they say. This is just mockery. They did not then seize power in order to work. The sanctions of Russia - I will not say that it is honey, but also clearly "shook up" our society. Not nice, but helpful. Under this brand, the cleaning of the Augean stables began.
  15. vladimir_krm
    vladimir_krm 4 May 2015 09: 15
    "the so-called DNR" ...
  16. udincev
    udincev 4 May 2015 09: 16
    Quote: Zomanu
    German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in January that sanctions appeared in connection with the annexation of Crimea.

    Stop Carrying!
    Sanctions appeared not for a reason, but for a reason.
    Malaysian Boyin is also a sanction. And who and how brought down is hushed up and hides.
  17. andrejwz
    andrejwz 4 May 2015 09: 41
    The article is a big and thick minus. Read up to:
    Most likely, it can be assumed that the problem was not in Ukraine itself. The main issue was related to Western sanctions in connection with the annexation of Crimea and military operations in the South-East of Ukraine.
    Annexation speak? The author’s further intellectual attempts are not worth the time spent reading.
  18. Million
    Million 4 May 2015 10: 59
    Ukraine is a country without rules.
  19. Tribuns
    Tribuns 4 May 2015 14: 00
    Everything is presented falsely, - in the style of "Svidomo", in an insular way: "There, a rogue sits on a rogue and drives a rogue! ...
    And Donbass, with its Russian-speaking population, Russia will not leave without indirect or direct support!
  20. kompotnenado
    kompotnenado 4 May 2015 14: 50
    To be honest, I immediately thought that the article was written by a Ukrainian. The logic is also out of order. "If Ukraine is the aggressor, then why are the rebels advancing?" This is not a rhetorical question, but evidence of a dull mind. If the Red Army attacked in 1943-44, then who is our aggressor?
  21. kiev1
    kiev1 4 May 2015 15: 09
    It’s possible to deny a long time and just lie corny, but without the help of Russia (food, ammunition, military advisers, manpower), the DNI and LC would not last even two weeks. So the world is impossible, while Russia supplies people, armor and ammunition to the bandits.
    1. 3315061
      3315061 4 May 2015 15: 27
      The armor and ammunition of New Russia are supplied not by Russia, but by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, about which Zakharchenko himself spoke more than once. If people in the Donbass feel like Russian, this is not a reason to call them bandits.
      1. kiev1
        kiev1 4 May 2015 15: 45
        It is naive to think so, round-the-clock shelling requires huge reserves. We all want peace, but I repeat:
        Putin and the government generally could at one time buy with giblets (roughly said, but such a time) Ukraine would already have entered the Customs Union a long time ago, but the wrong path was chosen. And the bandit Yanyka at home hovat- generally spit all Ukrainians.
    2. kompotnenado
      kompotnenado 4 May 2015 15: 34
      Has anyone, at least once, denied this? There are no Russian troops in the Donbass. And there is definitely help. And the world will be very soon and not by Kiev decrees.
      1. Semurg
        Semurg 4 May 2015 17: 51
        Quote: kompotnenado
        Has anyone, at least once, denied this? There are no Russian troops in the Donbass. And there is definitely help. And the world will be very soon and not by Kiev decrees.

        you forgot something. Earlier it was claimed that weapons and ammunition are trophies, and only humanitarian aid is help. I remember Romanov hanging big cons when he tried to write why to hush up the obvious facts and unanimously denied such help. as they now deny the presence of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine in unison. by the way in the Crimea, it was also at first complete denial, and then enthusiastic how we nicely raped them with the help of special forces and the airborne forces. On the topic of the article, the author says that sanctions are for a long time, and it will not be clear yet the deepening of the Ukrainian crisis and tougher sanctions, or there will be a freeze of the conflict with the current level of sanctions and the maintenance of the east of Ukraine at the expense of the Russian Federation. In both cases, the situation is not the best, but I think it is beneficial for the Russian authorities to maintain a conflict in the east of Ukraine, hoping that this will cause a complete collapse of Ukraine, after which the issue of Crimea will be resolved automatically because there will not be a state that requires the return of the seized part of its territory.
  22. Indifferent
    Indifferent 4 May 2015 15: 33
    The author is not in the subject at all. He doesn’t know what he is writing, writes about anything. Apparently looked at the ceiling for a long time! Nothing more to say! Comment all the more!
    But I wrote so many "beeches" !!!!
  23. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 4 May 2015 16: 44
    Uncontrolled stream of consciousness!
  24. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 4 May 2015 17: 50
    some kind of muddy nonsense .......... minus.
  25. Siberian
    Siberian 4 May 2015 18: 47
    That is what has already been chewed here. There were few reviews, the article quickly went down in history. And I don’t see the need to look for her.
  26. zulusuluz
    zulusuluz 4 May 2015 20: 03
    It remains for the author to answer the question why the Minsk agreements of the first round were not implemented and who benefits from not fulfilling the agreements of the second round.
  27. tezey
    tezey 4 May 2015 20: 52
    Articles of this kind with a claim to certain analytics in the Ukrainian media are full. The meaning of all the author’s calculations fits into the last sentence. Now it will be possible for the West and Russia to start looking for a way to a settlement. For all reasoning, the author somehow forgot that the Kiev authorities should lead the way to a settlement with their fellow citizens from the Donbass, who somehow don’t like that they are being killed in their own homes. The author has forgotten the essential point that for Poroshenko with the company the opinion of Merkel and Hollande is not significant. There is a direct owner who dictates what to do as his, let’s say, slaves. It’s difficult to call this audience vassals. It’s a worthless, unnecessary article aimed at poorly informed people .
  28. Cossack Ermak
    Cossack Ermak 5 May 2015 03: 02
    This article was not posted by the author. The author posted this article in a magazine produced in Kazakhstan and funded by the United States.

    She was just posted on the VO for review. And the person who posted does not always agree with the author of the article. You need to understand the Military Review system.