Slashdot Mirror
Satellite Images Show Russians Shelling Ukraine
U.S. officials today made public satellite imagery which they say proves that Russian forces have been shelling eastern Ukraine in a campaign to assist rebel groups fighting Ukraine’s government.
The U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which released the civilian-taken satellite images Sunday, said they show visual evidence that Russia has been firing shells across the border at Ukrainian military forces. Officials also said the images show that Russia-backed separatists have used heavy artillery, provided by Russia, in attacks on Ukrainian forces from inside Ukraine.
One image dated July 25/26 shows what DNI claims is “ground scarring” on the Russian side of the border from artillery aimed at Ukrainian military units in Ukraine, as well as the resultant ground craters on the Ukrainian side of the border:
Eurasia has always been at war with Eastasia.
The side that apparently blew a 300-civilian passenger jet out of the sky because they're too dumb to know what a Boeing looks like is getting direct military support from a major regional power which just happens to have nuclear weapons.
And I thought my hometown of Detroit was fucked.
Why can't they be like the UK and Scotland where they all sit down and discuss it over a nice cup of tea? Then if they want their independence they can have it. No big fuss.
I bet you could not tell the difference between a civilian plane and a military plane flying at 30,000 feet over a war zone either.
I bet he can't tell them apart either, but I also bet he wouldn't fire a missile at it. *Firing a missile anyway* is the important thing here, not a failure to identify the aircraft.
Wreck their economy. It worked once and the way Russia acts it would work again, no doubt. Russia has only a GDP a little better than Italy and less than Germany, France or the UK. They are utterly weak and exactly because they know it they have to act like a bully. Russia is a dwarf trying to convince itself it is a giant by making others think it is.
The reason we're still "blathering about non-existant [sic] WMDS" is because "WMD" is a shorthand for "nukes". The yellowcake uranium evidence, the aluminum tubes that "were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium", the quote "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".
All of the WMD arguments for war were in the context of nukes, not chemical weapons.
So yes, you're technically correct - which is the best kind of correct - but you're also missing the point. None of the WMDs that we were warned about were found.
Not to mention if chemical weapons were a casus belli, just about every country in the world would be a legitimate target.
Last post!
"The last time the Russians got this aggressive was their invasion of Afghanistan under Jimmy Carter"
I think you're forgetting that they invaded Georgia when George W. Bush was president.
I think that counts as pretty aggressive.
Mid-east fighting, 2000 years and going strong. Yes, clearly not having peace there is Obama's fault...
I just don't get this bravado from some Americans that think we should be directly involved in every conflict around the globe. Ironically, all these global conflicts are a huge drain on the national treasury. Can't cut the budgets and join a few wars at the same time.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
* Gaza can send thousands of rockets targeting Israeli citizens and they won't even say a word.
Affects Americans right now? -- no. Is there a clear course of action in this conflict that will be best for America in the future? -- no.
* Iran can make nuclear weapons and they won't even say a word.
Affects Americans right now? -- no. Is there a clear course of action in this conflict that will be best for America in the future? -- no.
* Russia can take over Crimea and they get bashed harshly with... a speech.
Affects Americans right now? -- no. Is there a clear course of action in this conflict that will be best for America in the future? -- no.
*ISIS can take over Iraq and kill thousands and they won't say a word.
Affects Americans right now? -- no. Is there a clear course of action in this conflict that will be best for America in the future? -- no.
Now here's a bullet point that you didn't mention:
* Ubiquitous healthcare for Americans
Affects Americans right now? -- YES! Was it a clear course of action that will be best for America in the future? -- YES!
As an Eastern European, all I could tell you is: you're so very wrong.
NOBODY in Eastern Europe is believing the Russians. We all know better, after being under their boot for 45 years or so.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Putin is an idiot. He started playing games with Ukraine and never saw the long game.
Doubtful this evidence is fabricated. The US isn't going to fabricate evidence that can be corroborated by others independently. Its not like any of those images are too small for Google Earth. The EU, China, Japanese, and all even some commercial interests have satellites that can see the same thing. Now the US has told them where to look, others can see for themselves. Nobody (except maybe Pravda) has called BS on this.
But the Russians may be right about a US lead smear campaign..... This is all about sanctions by the EU, which is really all about who sells the EU Natural Gas. The US has some serious gas reserves that is itching to sell for good money. Hard to do if EU is purchasing from Gazprom.
But this is all on Putin. If he didn't provide the smear material, the US couldn't use it.
"Gaza can send thousands of rockets targeting Iraeli citizens and they won't even say a word." -- I'm pretty sure the US is saying a word, and it is desire for a cease fire. Also, Hamas is dumb, but death count in the recent spate of attacks? Israelis: 1 died to a rocket, Palestinians: 1000 died in shelling. Looks like Israel is doing comparatively alright here. Why do you need the US doing more here? What is it you want them to do?
"Iran can make nuclear weapons and they won't even say a word." -- Clearly you are unaware of the current state of diplomacy on this issue. Last November an interim agreement was made, observers are checking to verify Iranian compliance in agreement for a lessening of economic sanctions. We'll see if a continuing agreement can be reached by next November. What would you have done differently? The fact that you claim that the US has not said a word makes me inclined to think you are not aware of reality enough to make a sensible suggestion, but you could surprise me.
"Russia can take over Crimea and they get bashed harshly with... a speech." -- The US can invade Iraq and Afghanistan and run military operations in Pakistan and get bashed mildly with... a speech. Iraq was a disaster perpetrated upon a bed of lies and incompetency. Would you consider it money well spent? Seriously? What is your proposed action on Russia and Crimea? You have complained about actions taken, without expressing what it is you actually want... and that's just not helpful at all. It sounds like you want more dick waving and war and are under the impression that it will help, but I could just be stereotyping you...
"ISIS can take over Iraq and kill thousands and they won't say a word." -- What do you want? Unending US military presence in Iraq? Who do you even want to be in charge of Iraq and why? What implications would your desires have?
Basically, it sounds like you want the US to prop up Israel, stop Iran by any means necessary, remove Russia from Crimea, and crush ISIS and prop up Iraq indefinitely. You want to do all of this heavy work and military mobilization (hint: that costs a ton of money [oh, and lives, especially if you count foreigners and care about that kinda thing]), yet simultaneously you complain about the government not cutting a dime of spending.
Your brain is broken.
Don't forget all the ones with an Su25 being involved in shooting it down (haha).
I love how all these conspiracy nuts paint the US govt as some scheming Machiavellian mastermind, when the reality is that they keep getting caught unprepared with their pants down whenever some unanticipated international development happens.
Ahhh but the nutjobs will claim "that it is all part of the deception!"
Iran can make nuclear weapons and they won't even say a word.
Iran dilutes nuclear material
July 21, 2014
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/iran-dilutes-nuclear-material/story-fn3dxix6-1226995916083
IRAN has turned all of its enriched uranium closest to the level needed to make nuclear arms into more harmless forms, the United Nations' nuclear agency says.
THE move was expected. Tehran had committed to convert or dilute its 20-per cent enriched stockpile under an agreement with six powers last November that froze its atomic programs pending negotiations on a comprehensive deal. Those talks were extended on Saturday to November 24.
Still, the development was noteworthy in reflecting Iran's desire not to derail the diplomatic process with the six countries - the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.
If you really cared about Iran and not about piling up perceived failure at Obama's feet, you sure as shit would have seen this headline from last week.
It wasn't a secret. The AP, AFP, Reuters, and pretty much everyone was talking about it.
/Naturally Fox News did their best to report only on the extension of talks.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Funny that they illustrate this report with the actual shelling of the city of Gorlovka by the Ukrainian army. Yeah, actual civilians being bombed by their US sponsored government to the complete indifference of the western media. I guess those reporters can't be bothered to point that out.
Yeah, the Ukrainian military should instead write a kind letter asking the separatists to go back to Russia.
Wow, so you think it's alright to bomb civilians once they're been labeled 'separatists'. One can justify pretty much any atrocities with your thinking.
It's always amusing how the Putin apologists bend over to misinterpret sentences.
The civilians are not separatists, the separatists are Russians who illegally entered Ukraine, with weapons, and took control of several cities. The local component to this 'separatist movement' is largely comprised of local criminals looking to cash in.
The intention is quite obviously not to bomb civilians, but the armed Russians who are occupying the city. The Russians set up bases in residential areas and on top of apartment buildings precisely because they know the Ukrainians are reluctant to fire at their own citizens.
The civilian deaths that result from Ukrainian attempts to attack the separatists is tragic, but arguably less tragic than leaving the civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk to live under a fascist autocracy run by Russian cossasks and local criminals.
You might wonder that I used the word 'fascist' since the Russians are so fond of using it to describe the Ukrainians. I use it because in this case it is accurate, I can't think of a country today that could be better described as fascist than Putin's Russia. That you would defend such an enterprise then seek to blame the victims for the resulting human toll is disgusting beyond words.
I stole this Sig
Speaking as a Ukrainian, you're completely mistaken. Russia has been agressive towards Ukraine for centuries. Besides many millitary invasions, an occupation that lasted generations, there was also the genocide planned in Moscow that in the 1930's killed 11 million Ukrainians. Russia has historically been hungriest for Ukrainian blood above all else, and it doesn't look like things will change any time soon.
You're jumping from Russia trying to annex Ukraine to Russia trying to invade Alaska. They're more likely to send the tanks rolling into Germany first, and they'll probably annex China long before then.
Russia vs Ukraine is like most of the wars the US has gotten into over the last 20 years - find some little country and push it around since it can't really do anything to hurt you back. Russia doesn't have the navy to threaten the US in a serious way in a conventional war, and the reverse is definitely not the case. There is little reason for Russia to get into a shooting war with the US, and certainly no reason for the US to get into a shooting war with Russia either.
I think the Europeans are making the bigger mistake here, but this is one big case of short-term thinking. Nobody wants to suffer the short-term loss to deal with Russia, and everybody is likely to take advantage of their neighbors if they try to do something about it. If the US cuts off all loans to Russia, the London banks will just step in to make a fortune in their place, etc.
And I cannot wait to learn who really shot down MH 17.
I usually don't take sides, but it must be the side who doesn't let anybody else approach and destroys the evidence?
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS