Ukraine: As it happens.

obplayer

Egginacup wrote: »

Are you going to continue to insult the intelligence of anyone who might have an IQ above room temperature with this crap?

Read the caption:

"A destroyed T-72 tank that presumably came from Russia...."

That is almost as sad an attempt as the twitter accounts.

There are 10 pictures, check the second link. All taken by Reuter's staff. Ask your mate Vlad the Mad to assassinate all the Reuter's staff why don't you?

robindch

Egginacup wrote: »

Where is there a SINGLE picture or photograph of a burning or bombed out Russian tank?

The UK Embassy in Kiev kindly produced a graphic last year for the many people having ongoing trouble seeing Russian tanks in East Ukraine.

The guardian report on the graphic is [url=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/25807/342847.png[/url] on boards.

You might also remember Yatsenyuk offering Putin and others his glasses, as Putin was apparently unaware at the time that his military was fighting in East Ukraine.

Gyalist

Littlekittylou wrote: »

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-22/nato-says-russia-s-cheating-in-ukraine

Russia still has Ukraine in the grips of a crisis. The Minsk peace agreement has not been fully implemented. Putin has decimated the Ukrainian economy. Moscow still has troops in Ukraine's territory.

Rubbish. The EU acting at the behest of the US has done so. Ukraine's main export market was Russia, their exports don't meet EU standards. By signing the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement they lost their export market at a stroke.

Don't try to rewrite history.

robindch

Gyalist wrote: »

The EU acting at the behest of the US has done so [...] Don't try to rewrite history.

Irony fail.

obplayer

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Quite pathetic and amateurish propaganda if you ask me.
That tank is definitely not recently burnt and charred, in fact looking at how covered in rust it is I would say that wreck is years old, where and when the picture was taken I've no idea.

Ask Reuter's, they've accredited it to their staff.

Elmer Blooker

obplayer wrote: »

Ask Reuter's, they've accredited it to their staff.

It looks more like one of the many wrecks along the Iran-Iraq border from the 1980-88 war.

robindch

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

It looks more like one of the many wrecks along the Iran-Iraq border from the 1980-88 war.

I am a huge fan of facts and evidence. NOW, if you don't mind, can you furnish any evidence, photos, satellite images, kids with iPhones, ANYTHING to lend credence to your knowledge that these are the hulks of destroyed Russian tanks along the Iran-Iraq border from the 1980-88 war?

obplayer

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

It looks more like one of the many wrecks along the Iran-Iraq border from the 1980-88 war.

I say again, check with Reuter's. Oh, except they are part of this huge global conspiracy against this sweet friendly ex-KGB ruler who just happens to keep getting embroiled in conflicts which are nothing to do with him. Sorry, I forgot.

Egginacup

obplayer wrote: »

There are 10 pictures, check the second link. All taken by Reuter's staff. Ask your mate Vlad the Mad to assassinate all the Reuter's staff why don't you?

Indeed,

10 pictures. And under each picture all I can read in most of them is the word "presumably". I started laughing after the first 4 maybe 5 photos but this went on to the last.

And you have two tanks there "presumably" from Russia, and "presumably" destroyed by "presumable" Ukrainian defences. Not a scorch mark on the earth. Not a corpse. Nice healthy tree there next to these rusting wrecks from a 2014 photograph.

Where are the burning columns of Russian tanks? WHERE?

Surely you must have evidence of the trucks and APCs and tanks that you all claim have been incinerated? WHERE is this evidence?
There must be lines of torched tanks and trucks and corpses. Where are they?
Not some rusting chunk sitting there in the weeds photographed a year ago.

Egginacup

robindch wrote: »

The UK Embassy in Kiev kindly produced a graphic last year for the many people having ongoing trouble seeing Russian tanks in East Ukraine.

The guardian report on the graphic is here on boards.

You might also remember Yatsenyuk offering Putin and others his glasses, as Putin was apparently unaware at the time that his military was fighting in East Ukraine.

So now the Russian "invasion" of Eastern Ukraine has morphed into Russian "involvement" and the evidence of that "involvement" is not pictures of Russian columns, not satellite imagery of Russian convoys, bases, field hospitals, arms and fuel depots, supply chains, communications stations, landing strips, etc. No. This "involvement" is a picture of a rusty tank.

I don't know of an invasion in history that was as difficult to prove as this Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine.

There's some yammering about the T-72BM tank only being used by the Russian military. This is a really pathetic straw that the "invasion" lobby are grasping at. Ukraine inherited 30% of the Soviet Army's equipment when the USSR collapsed in 1991. This included large numbers of T-72s. They mothballed or sold a lot of them and constantly upgraded and modified them.
The lame argument trying to focus on some rivet or hatch handle on a Ukraine tank and trying to fob that off as the irrefutable proof that Russia has invaded is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

"Look! A Russian tank! There's your ironclad proof!"
(a tank that's used by the Ukrainian military)

It reminds me of that scene in "The Usual Suspects" where the cops are interrogating the guys. They say to Todd Hockney "We can put you in Queens on the night of the robbery!", to which he replies "Really? I live in Queens. Did you figure that one out all by yourself, Einstein? You got a team of monkeys working round the clock on this one?"

:pac:

robindch

Egginacup wrote: »

I don't know of an invasion in history that was as difficult to prove as this Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine.

Well, if you're going to reject all evidence which demonstrates that the invasion has happened, then -- fairly obviously, I'd have thought -- you're going to find it hard to accept that the invasion happened.

Evidence that I'm aware of includes dead Russian soldiers in Ukraine, comments by senior Russian politicians including VVP that there are Russian soldiers and hardware in Ukraine, innumerable sky and ground images and videos documenting Russian soldiers and hardware in Ukraine, satellite images documenting Russian formations moving in and around the border area then appearing on the ground in East Ukraine, innumerable ground images and videos documenting Russian solders and hardware in Russia heading towards the border, personal reports by Russian soldiers of their time fighting in Ukraine, reports of hundreds of Russian soldiers returning home in body bags, reports of burials all over Russia of dead Russian soldiers, multiple reports of military-class injuries to Russian soldiers in south-west Russia, Russian blockage of OSCE monitoring mission to most of the eastern border of Ukraine, multiple media reports on Russian telly of Russian soldiers and hardware in East Ukraine, and so on and on and on.

As above, you can certainly deny all these reports if you want to but you're going to look pretty silly if -- for example -- your best response to a Reuters-supplied set of photos documenting a burned-out (thermite?) Russian tank in East Ukraine is to claim that Reuters are a pack of liars.

Egginacup

robindch wrote: »

Well, if you're going to reject all evidence which demonstrates that the invasion has happened, then -- fairly obviously, I'd have thought -- you're going to find it hard to accept that the invasion happened.

Evidence that I'm aware of includes dead Russian soldiers in Ukraine, comments by senior Russian politicians including VVP that there are Russian soldiers and hardware in Ukraine, innumerable sky and ground images and videos documenting Russian soldiers and hardware in Ukraine, satellite images documenting Russian formations moving in and around the border area then appearing on the ground in East Ukraine, innumerable ground images and videos documenting Russian solders and hardware in Russia heading towards the border, personal reports by Russian soldiers of their time fighting in Ukraine, reports of hundreds of Russian soldiers returning home in body bags, reports of burials all over Russia of dead Russian soldiers, multiple reports of military-class injuries to Russian soldiers in south-west Russia, Russian blockage of OSCE monitoring mission to most of the eastern border of Ukraine, multiple media reports on Russian telly of Russian soldiers and hardware in East Ukraine, and so on and on and on.

As above, you can certainly deny all these reports if you want to but you're going to look pretty silly if -- for example -- your best response to a Reuters-supplied set of photos documenting a burned-out (thermite?) Russian tank in East Ukraine is to claim that Reuters are a pack of liars.

You know, we had all of the above and more with regard to Iraq and WMD in 2002. We had reports of 500,000 litres of nerve gas, aluminium tubes, reports of agents of the state buying yellowcake in Niger, satellite photos of weather balloons, I mean chemical warfare labs, etc., etc.

I didn't believe any of that crap back then either. You most likely did however.

BoJack Horseman

Egginacup wrote: »

You know, we had all of the above and more with regard to Iraq and WMD in 2002. We had reports of 500,000 litres of nerve gas, aluminium tubes, reports of agents of the state buying yellowcake in Niger, satellite photos of weather balloons, I mean chemical warfare labs, etc., etc.

I didn't believe any of that crap back then either. You most likely did however.

Eggy is getting tetchy!

The pressure is on, defending the indefensible.
It can't be easy.

Egginacup

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Eggy is getting tetchy!

The pressure is on, defending the indefensible.
It can't be easy.

Not in the slightest, BJ. Asking for proof where none exists is very easy. Getting said proof is the difficult part.

BoJack Horseman

Egginacup wrote: »

Asking for proof where none exists is very easy.

Indeed!

Getting said proof is the difficult part.

Aside from all the proof.

But we all know you don't believe yourself.

Genuine fanaticism is rare these days.

Egginacup

robindch wrote: »

Well, if you're going to reject all evidence which demonstrates that the invasion has happened, then -- fairly obviously, I'd have thought -- you're going to find it hard to accept that the invasion happened.

Evidence that I'm aware of includes dead Russian soldiers in Ukraine, comments by senior Russian politicians including VVP that there are Russian soldiers and hardware in Ukraine, innumerable sky and ground images and videos documenting Russian soldiers and hardware in Ukraine, satellite images documenting Russian formations moving in and around the border area then appearing on the ground in East Ukraine, innumerable ground images and videos documenting Russian solders and hardware in Russia heading towards the border, personal reports by Russian soldiers of their time fighting in Ukraine, reports of hundreds of Russian soldiers returning home in body bags, reports of burials all over Russia of dead Russian soldiers, multiple reports of military-class injuries to Russian soldiers in south-west Russia, Russian blockage of OSCE monitoring mission to most of the eastern border of Ukraine, multiple media reports on Russian telly of Russian soldiers and hardware in East Ukraine, and so on and on and on.

As above, you can certainly deny all these reports if you want to but you're going to look pretty silly if -- for example -- your best response to a Reuters-supplied set of photos documenting a burned-out (thermite?) Russian tank in East Ukraine is to claim that Reuters are a pack of liars.

All I'm getting from you are "reports" of this and "innumerable images of that". Innumerable, eh? I could count on one hand the innumerable images I've seen and none of these images show or prove much of anything.

Petro Poroshenko stated that there were 9000 + Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine with tanks, trucks, artillery, armoured vehicles, etc. and this has been echoed by Samantha Power. The only problem with this 9000 strong corps along with all the supposed accompanying equipment is that not a soul has seen it. It ought to be easy for a satellite to track such an incursion. After all the satellite imagery of the Boko Haram massacre in Baga was easily captured. What is the problem with the Russian invasion?

blatantrereg

Egginacup wrote: »

All I'm getting from you are "reports" of this and "innumerable images of that". Innumerable, eh? I could count on one hand the innumerable images I've seen and none of these images show or prove much of anything.

Petro Poroshenko stated that there were 9000 + Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine with tanks, trucks, artillery, armoured vehicles, etc. and this has been echoed by Samantha Power. The only problem with this 9000 strong corps along with all the supposed accompanying equipment is that not a soul has seen it. It ought to be easy for a satellite to track such an incursion. After all the satellite imagery of the Boko Haram massacre in Baga was easily captured. What is the problem with the Russian invasion?

Why on earth would it be in anyone's interest to make pretend that Russia are attacking European countries?

Do you think that anyone in the west has anything to benefit from opening hostilities with Russia?

Egginacup

blatantrereg wrote: »

Why on earth would it be in anyone's interest to make pretend that Russia are attacking European countries?

Do you think that anyone in the west has anything to benefit from opening hostilities with Russia?

If you're genuinely interested in an answer to that question then PM me.

darkpagandeath

Egginacup wrote: »

All I'm getting from you are "reports" of this and "innumerable images of that". Innumerable, eh? I could count on one hand the innumerable images I've seen and none of these images show or prove much of anything.

Petro Poroshenko stated that there were 9000 + Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine with tanks, trucks, artillery, armoured vehicles, etc. and this has been echoed by Samantha Power. The only problem with this 9000 strong corps along with all the supposed accompanying equipment is that not a soul has seen it. It ought to be easy for a satellite to track such an incursion. After all the satellite imagery of the Boko Haram massacre in Baga was easily captured. What is the problem with the Russian invasion?

Jesus, unmarked tanks troops. Just because they are not marked does not mean there destroyed Ukrainian tanks and troops. You know the 2 armies are very very similar technologically wise. With no marking you would find it very very hard to tell the difference between them. You would almost think someone knows this and knows not to send in different variations that the Ukrainians don't have.

Matt_Trakker

Egginacup wrote: »

The only problem with this 9000 strong corps along with all the supposed accompanying equipment is that not a soul has seen it.

LOL

A whole feckin ton of Ukrainians wouldn't be agreein with ya there bud.

Poroshenko said that over 3 months ago, so since the 'ceasefire' they've moved back beyond the border:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30913027

Yanks a few weeks later released satellite images showing they were very much dug in in DEbaltseve
http://uatoday.tv/news/us-releases-satellite-images-of-russian-military-forces-near-debaltseve-409327.html


here's more from a few days ago, showing Russian forces hanging around the Russia-Ukraine border:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/satellite-images-prove-russia-troop-withdrawal-lie-u-s-n105276

robindch

Egginacup wrote: »

You know, we had all of the above and more with regard to Iraq and WMD in 2002.

No, "we" didn't. As you know quite well.

Egginacup wrote: »

I didn't believe any of that crap back then either. You most likely did however.

You don't really need to resort to personal insults to deflect from avoiding replying to any of the points made.

For the record, I didn't accept that the negligible amount of evidence which was produced was either accurate or justified the policy, hence my presence at most of the anti-war marches here in Dublin at the time. Can't help but wonder if you'll reply by claiming that the photos I took during those protests were actually taken at the Iran-Iraq border :rolleyes:

robindch

Egginacup wrote: »

I could count on one hand the innumerable images I've seen and none of these images show or prove much of anything.

If you're going to close your eyes, then you're not going to remain in the dark, aren't you?

Here are a few of the images you've missed:

https://www.google.ie/search?q=russian+troops+in+Ukraine&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1095&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=0yUQVcivIqaQ7Aak-YDYDQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

There are many more. And not a single one from the Iran-Iraq border in the first page or two of results!

robindch

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Eggy is getting tetchy! The pressure is on, defending the indefensible. It can't be easy.

Easy? I'd say it's not even rewarding any more either for members of the Kremlin's troll army, at least, what with the collapse in the ruble's value and all.

Egginacup

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

LOL

A whole feckin ton of Ukrainians wouldn't be agreein with ya there bud.

Poroshenko said that over 3 months ago, so since the 'ceasefire' they've moved back beyond the border:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30913027

Yanks a few weeks later released satellite images showing they were very much dug in in DEbaltseve
http://uatoday.tv/news/us-releases-satellite-images-of-russian-military-forces-near-debaltseve-409327.html


here's more from a few days ago, showing Russian forces hanging around the Russia-Ukraine border:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/satellite-images-prove-russia-troop-withdrawal-lie-u-s-n105276

Are you joking? Are you pulling my leg?

First off, I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of Poroshenko's mouth.

The second link was again the usual bullshit images from private company Digital Globe. Why can't Western intelligence services release REAL footage with their infinitely more sophisticated technology than Digital Globe's "Toys R Us" SatCams?

The third link you posted there was of 3 pictures of Russian equipment INSIDE Russia.


Look, if you don't (and you DON'T) have evidence of a Russian invasion then please don't post stuff like this and try to sell it as a Russian invasion.

If you want to go round and round in circles shifting off topic and then coming back and posting this crap as if it's suddenly new again and ever so revealing then go right ahead. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

Egginacup

robindch wrote: »

No, "we" didn't. As you know quite well.You don't really need to resort to personal insults to deflect from avoiding replying to any of the points made.

For the record, I didn't accept that the negligible amount of evidence which was produced was either accurate or justified the policy, hence my presence at most of the anti-war marches here in Dublin at the time. Can't help but wonder if you'll reply by claiming that the photos I took during those protests were actually taken at the Iran-Iraq border :rolleyes:

But it's ok for you to make a flippant, smirky suggestion 2 or 3 posts later that I am a member of the Kremlin's "troll army".

darkpagandeath

Egginacup wrote: »

Are you joking? Are you pulling my leg?

First off, I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of Poroshenko's mouth.

The second link was again the usual bullshit images from private company Digital Globe. Why can't Western intelligence services release REAL footage with their infinitely more sophisticated technology than Digital Globe's "Toys R Us" SatCams?

The third link you posted there was of 3 pictures of Russian equipment INSIDE Russia.


Look, if you don't (and you DON'T) have evidence of a Russian invasion then please don't post stuff like this and try to sell it as a Russian invasion.

If you want to go round and round in circles shifting off topic and then coming back and posting this crap as if it's suddenly new again and ever so revealing then go right ahead. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_112193.htm

:rolleyes:

Egginacup

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Jesus, unmarked tanks troops. Just because they are not marked does not mean there destroyed Ukrainian tanks and troops. You know the 2 armies are very very similar technologically wise. With no marking you would find it very very hard to tell the difference between them. You would almost think someone knows this and knows not to send in different variations that the Ukrainians don't have.

So let me get this straight. Russia, with an army and air force capable of annihilating most European countries in a week has invaded Ukraine and the Ukrainian army has held them for a year just west of the border. Is that what you're saying?
Or the Russians have invaded with no purpose other than to plant a load of troops in the East and do nothing else. Is that it?

Sounds the stuff of fantasy.

darkpagandeath

Egginacup wrote: »

So let me get this straight. Russia, with an army and air force capable of annihilating most European countries in a week has invaded Ukraine and the Ukrainian army has held them for a year just west of the border. Is that what you're saying?
Or the Russians have invaded with no purpose other than to plant a load of troops in the East and do nothing else. Is that it?

Sounds the stuff of fantasy.

When did Russia retain it's pre collapse military capacity ? There is no way in hell Russia could win a conventional war with NATO. Your statement is the fantasy one. If it was even remotely true Russian tanks would be moving through Poland and alike as we speak.

Egginacup

darkpagandeath wrote: »

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_112193.htm

:rolleyes:

I ask for images captured by Western Intelligence instead of the crap from Digital Globe, Inc. and what do you post? More crap from Digital Globe, Inc.

And I love the disclaimers in the photos:

"1. Six probable 2519 self-propelled guns
2. Probable support vehicles"

If you are going to keep this game up as proof of a Russian invasion then please stop wasting my time.

Gatling

Egginacup wrote: »

So let me get this straight. Russia, with an army and air force capable of annihilating most European countries in a week has invaded Ukraine and the Ukrainian army has held them for a year just west of the border. Is that what you're saying?
Or the Russians have invaded with no purpose other than to plant a load of troops in the East and do nothing else. Is that it?

Sounds the stuff of fantasy.

You seriously over rate the russian army .

It's got numbers that's it for the most part ,it's so called moderniseation programme will take 30 + years to complete .

As for denying russian tanks saying there rusting and there are weeds is that some kind of forensic proof is Rediculous .
The Ukrainians don't have the latest issue russian tanks .

When tanks are hit by anti tank missiles the inside will burn but that's about it and then left exposed for months they eventually rust but hey nobody's perfect