That's a logical fallacy. The absence of "A" doesn't automatically prove "B". If we can define "Russian aggression" as deliberate aggressive action undertaken on the part of the Russian government, the existence of such alleged aggression is hardly "proven" by the non-identification of a weapons source.

In the complete absence of any compelling, unequivocal evidence from your side that Russia is supplying weapons (is it really that hard to find? for all of you?), I suggest the following reasonable alternatives:

• The weapons could have been in Ukraine from the beginning, never needing to be "imported," and were taken over by the "rebels." Early news reports indicated that at least some weapons were acquired by the "rebels" as many of the first troops sent by Kiev were confronted by peaceful civilians and abandoned both their mission and their weapons.
  
  
• The weapons could also have been acquired through surreptitious means not known to or approved by higher Russian authorities. It's no secret that official corruption is widespread in Ukraine, and there's no proof that none exists in Russia, so it's plausible that sympathetic Russians could have "organized" some weapons for their Russia-friendly neighbors without certain Russian authorities knowing or with their looking the other way.

In either case, Russia's official position has not been one of aggression, and one can't be blamed for thinking that if there are so many people who "know" about "Russian aggression" there should be a substantial body of tangible evidence, not just an endless repetition of unsubstantiated accusations and disparaging comments.

Putin's invitation for Ukrainian and OSCE border monitors could indicate anything from a confidence that Russia's border isn't leaking weapons to a solicitation for help in plugging any leaks. In any case, it's an offer to get closer to the truth, and to date it has been conspicuously ignored by Poroschenko.

__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

I'm not sure we really know who committed some of those atrocities, but I say absolutely the pro-Russian "rebels" should have used civilized political ways — but so should have the perpetrators of the (undemocratic) coup. As I see it, we have two illegitimate authorities facing off. They can save their country by peacefully arriving at a non-violent solution to their differences, or Kiev will devastate the eastern region of its own country as its "solution" to the "problem" of political dissent, which won't likely be the end of the matter.

Maybe not the only two possible outcomes, but the two most likely from where I sit.

__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

Umm, what exactly do you think you've proven? Is Russia Today guilty of something that the "Western" media are not guilty of? Is there some scandal I've not heard of?

RT happens to report on a lot of matters that are conspicuously absent from most of the "Western" press. Their pro-Russian leanings are a given. So (inexplicably?) are the pro-American leanings of "Western" media.

One must adjust one's filters accordingly. That is all.

About "That's a logical fallacy. The absence of "A" doesn't automatically prove "B". " In this case B is proven.

To quote Sherlock Holmes "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

About "I'm not sure we really know who committed some of those atrocities" Aha, the Tooth fairy again?

About "As I see it, we have two illegitimate authorities facing off. " Maybe you missed it but the current Ukrainian president was democratically voted in by a national election.

I very much doubt Russia can afford to spend so much?

For example this week "Russia’s central bank chief Elvira Nabiullina said capital flight was playing havoc with exchange rate policy.
“Rouble stability is impossible unless we slow capital outflows,” she said. The currency fell for the third session last Tuesday, dropping 0.8pc to 34.32 against the dollar"

Rouble fell by around 5% versus US$ in the last year. Official Russian estimates of capital outflow is US$ 100 Billion this year so the real number could be much more.

...and that's kind of the problem right now in Eastern Ukraine, isn't it? There are gangs of mask-wearing men wielding Kalshnikovs roaming the streets and nobody really knows who is doing what. Which is why the Ukrainian authorities need to get in there and restore order, so that an honest political dialog can begin with a democratically elected local government, not a bunch of thugs in masks who have taken their authority by gun-point.


So why didn't they? There was absolutely no need to use guns and violence to make their voice heard. In fact, that seems to have only made things much worse, hasn't it?

So you are supporting the platform of "two wrongs make a right"?


Poroshenko is a democratically elected President. The whole world, including Russia's President Vladimir Putin, recognizes that, I'm not sure why you don't

The Ukranian minister Arsen Awakow has announced that pro Russian militants are leaving Slowjansk; if true, a positive step to see the militants leaving.

It was reported some months ago that their leader, Igor Strelkow, said that they could not continue without strong support from Moscow.

Yep, that's the case. Slovyansk (and neighboring towns) will soon be under control of Ukraine once again. In bad news - Girkin and his "rebels" have arrived in Donetsk this morning and have joined the thugs there. The intention is very likely that now when they realized they are not able to expand beyond Slovyansk (or even hold it w/o stronger support from Russia), they will make Donetsk/Luhansk a new "Slovyansk". This is very bad news as these are much bigger cities which will be ruined by this.

Also, it is quite possible that at some point Russia will openly invade that region with its "peacekeeping" forces (i.e., its regular army) and will help them to hold control of these cities. That could well be the current plan - all they need is to prepare a large enough provocation to justify the invasion.

The good thing is that for the time being the war is now less likely to spread into other neigboring regions in Easter Ukraine, as the main center of activity will be in Donetsk/Luhansk.

I'm quite interested in how much Putin & Co. steal from Russia at the moment (via their oil export companies etc.), as this could be somewhat related to this question..

If Yanokivich & Co. were estimated to steal 100+ billion from the much smaller and much less resourceful Ukraine during their years in power, it could be some breathtaking figures for Putin & Russia. What I mean, is that if they decide to cut their "share" and steal less (e.g., if they feel they are at risk losing it all otherwise), Russia will have money for all these military spendings.

About "Also, it is quite possible that at some point Russia will openly invade that region with its "peacekeeping" forces"

Certainly a possible scenario but what has Putin to gain?

In Crimea he got a very important harbour, better Black Sea access and huge oil reserves.

In Donetsk/Luhansk he just gets problems?
Quote
“I have no doubt that Ukraine without its southeast would be much stronger, more stable, and more prosperous than Ukraine with its southeast”, wrote Alexander Motyl in the Kyiv Post (“Should there be one Ukraine”, Op-ed February 16, 2014). And: “The southeast rust-belt economy needs to be either shut down or to be refitted at the cost of trillions of dollars of non-existent investment”.

Good question. I think that with "peacekeeping" forces his goal will be exactly the same as before when he stirred up the whole thing in the region - to break it off the Ukraine and to form the "republic(s)" there. These depressive republics will not be annexed by Russia like Crimea, and so will not become Russia's problem/burden. They will be however fully controlled by Russia politically/economically, and will be used to put further pressure on the remaining Ukraine and Europe. So Putin would be getting the best of both worlds - he'd get the control over that region, without being directly responsible for solving its problems. It is exactly what was done with Abhasia and Transnistria - just on a bigger scale.

His tactics so far have been quite the same - every time Ukraine steps up its military operation and the separatists begin to lose - Putin brings more troops to the border, begins military "exercises" and threatens with the invasion. If/when it becomes very clear to him that his rebels are going to lose or to run away, he is likely to try the "peacekeeping" invasion as the last resort.

It is quite clear by now that his "blitzkrieg" plan of quickly breaking off the Eastern Ukraine hasn't worked out the same way as with Crimea, so he may try to keep what he can (Donetsk/Luhansk), with the intention to strengthen the rebels and continue later. He indeed doesn't need the poor Donetsk/Luhansk region per se - only as the base for further agression.

It is also worth keeping in mind that this year's war "season" is near its midmark - it will be much harder for the rebels to fight in winter when there are no green stuff where they can hide and ambush. I'm sure Putin is well aware of the current timeframes and that he needs to achieve whatever success he can by mid-autumn the latest.

Interesting.

I am starting to think this whole eastern Ukraine business was simply a diversion to keep people looking away from Crimea while Putin consolidated his hold there.

Now Putin can now let the eastern Ukraine situation quietly fade away or keep it simmering if he sees benefits

It is true to a large degree. The thing is that Eastern Ukraine is still the Ukraine. So it is the same as when someone has two kids - one is great and healthy, and the other is sick. If he puts the sick kid into the orphanage, this would solve lots of problems, right..? But what kind of person would do this? Same with the Ukraine..

Very true - it is one of the benefits he is getting for sure. With Eastern Ukraine crisis ongoing, nobody is focusing much on the Crimea any more. Meantime, he is quietly building a very powerful military presense their and is cleaning the region of unwanted organizations, businesses, people. In future it will be one large military base, with some resorts..

They are also using it cleverly by saying - "Look, we actually saved the Crimea by invading it! There is no war there now, but look what is happening in Eastertn Ukraine which we didn't invade!"

Maybe but one child has already gone to the big Russian orphanage

Haha, true The difference though is that Russia picked a healthy child..

Since you like logical puzzles so much:

Fact A: Russia Today reports news/facts/version of events that no other news agency reports.

Fact B: Russia Today was organized by Putin to "to improve the image of Russia abroad".

Question: what is the logical relation between A and B?

My answer - it start with "f" (but it is not what you thought! ): Russia Today fabricates many news. Just like Life News and other Russian channels.

Your answer: _______________________

P.S. I'm not saying that Western media are not guilty of lies, presenting only the "selected" facts etc. - they are. The difference is in the scale - I'd estimate the number of lies/fabrications and their gravity to differ by the factor of 1-to-5 to 1-to-10 between Western and Russian media.

So indeed one must adjust one's filters accordingly - but take proportions into account.

Bigger picture: things are rarely fully black or fully white in real life, so it is possible to find either color on each side. To make the correct decision one usually just needs to figure out which side is whiter.

I don't think Putin will send any kind of troops into East Ukraine at this point. It would damage Russia's relations with the EU/US way to far and damage Russia's already sinking economy further. It's can't be worth it from Russia's POV. It would be stepping in quicksand.

Putin has been very keen recently on Ukraine holding peace talks with the rebels, and that's because a stop in fighting is the only way the rebels can hold what they have got now without any real (ie: overt) military support from Russia. As we see now, the Ukraine military is finally getting some teeth and have forced the rebels out of their strong-hold of Slovyansk today.

It seems the rebels were somehow "encouraged" by Putin to seize control of the region by force? And are now feel abandoned by him because he has not sent enough weapons and/or soldiers?

Texaner, please explain? I thought Putin had nothing to do with this armed uprising in East Ukraine?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...8ac_story.html