Now NATO is explicitly getting called to set up bases to defend countries against a russian invasion.

Which in the past 5 years has been considered obsolete.

Not anymore.

Ukraine was really the last significant bordering state of Russia (other than Georgia which is never joining NATO) that NATO could take in.

So you actually admit that NATO has essentially surrounded Russia and then you say that it was the reaction to the threat of NATO moving into Ukraine that caused Russia to cause NATO to go into Ukraine???

Think about what you just said?

Do you really think that not leaving a buffer is good for either country? I don't know how old you are, but one of the reasons the world did not get annihilated in a Nuclear meltdown during the cold war was because there was time to react and assess. Why in the world is it even in our interests to place everything with a hair trigger and to reduce diplomacy to minimum levels? It is arrogant stupidity, the disease RWs have.

This is not all that different from the way Reagan thought. Reagan essentially constantly made the Russians afraid that we may press the nuclear button. We talked loud and aggressive. Reagan took incredible unwise chances and was actually shocked to realize that the world almost blew up due to a signal cross. Reagan softened his rhetoric after that come to Jesus moment (that playing god might actually backfire).

Showdown at noon may look good in the movies, but the "good guy" does not always live.

Ok:
The only NATO-members bordering Russia are Estonia and Latvia.
Finland is not member, but cooperates with NATO.
Georgia wanted to become member, but NATO said No, as not to piss off Russia.
Back under President Yulia Timoshenko, she tried to make Ukraine join NATO as fast as possible.

But that doesn't mean that NATO suddenly amasses troops at the russian border.

Russia is free to make its own offers to other countries, to build up its own alliances. What REALLY pisses off Putin is that he still regards the neighbouring countries like vassals to Russia's empire, like the US did with South America during the Cold War. There is a famous quote that goes approximately like this: "With Ukraine, Russia is an empire, without Ukraine, Russia is a country."

NATO is no military threat to Russia, because NATO's members don't have the stomach to fight an enemy of equal power. NATO however is an ideological threat to Russia, because it reduces Russia from being the bestest nation in the world, the bulwark of Christianity and morality, an empire surrounded by admiring friends, to just one more country.

What does Russia have to be proud of? Does it have great artists, great technology, great social freedoms? All Russia has is its past and its military. And NATO is a threat to those delusions of grandeur.

Belarus and Finland are not.

Every so often I just want to go BERZERK!!!

I'm American, I don't know what those are. Is that when you get the crap beat out of you by a cop and the dashcam video mysteriously disappears?

Now no one wants NATO to go anywhere. That's the difference.

Lets see, no NATO to the North, East or South....so no, definitely not "surrounded".

Not the people now suffering the consequences of NATO's actions in Libya, certainly. But I guess that's old news, even to you with your daily reports on the "Libyan revolution." How come you're not doing that for Hifter and the Brotherhood types? Did this history end in 2011?

Exactly no one "in the past 5 years" has credibly advanced the absurd thesis that NATO is obsolete. (Has there been talk of disbanding it? Like from whom? Go back to 199x or even 195x, you'll always find "talk of disbanding it.&quot

It's also incredible how reliably you'll decide that any NATO or US-UK violence is R2P, at least as long as the party labels on the chief execs ordering the strikes are acceptable. But Russian support for the Ukrainian Russians who are under attack from Kiev can only be a long-planned imperialist intervention.

Poroshenko had his chance not to escalate the civil war that Yatsenyuk initiated. He blew it, and now the propaganda about Kiev's victories has been exposed. They're losing, which isn't a very surprising performance in the majority Russian regions for a Ukrainian ethno-nationalist neoliberal regime that's in power because of a coup d'etat and that includes Bandera fascists in its cabinet. And you really think the Russians in Ukraine aren't going to turn to Russia for help, and Russians won't respond whether or not it's official Moscow policy?

Kiev's insane endgame has been to try to bring NATO in, and fuck the risk of World War III. He doesn't seem to think it's obsolete either. But maybe it will prove to be. By the way, has Obama deployed drones and special forces to kill all the MH17 shooters yet, like you predicted?

Me: Exactly no one "in the past 5 years" has credibly advanced the absurd thesis that NATO is obsolete. (Has there been talk of disbanding it? Like from whom? Go back to 199x or even 195x, you'll always find "talk of disbanding it.&quot

You: But there was some blah-blah in TIME that mentioned unspecified "critics" and called it "a drab relic."

Me: (Feeling stupid because this is the level of response that I'm supposed to dignify.)

You: "If Ukraine was really losing the war against the rebels the rebels wouldn't need Russia's help."

Try that logic with blanks:

"If ___1___ was really losing the war against the ___2___, the latter wouldn't need ___3's___ help."

This meaningless generality might be applied to many different conflicts involving great-power interventions or arms or volunteers crossing borders. See how many you can list.

NATO was increasingly denigrated after Libya, because it was really France and other countries being involved. The US was involved, in military operations, for some 20 something days. People criticized the US's involvement in NATO affairs after that point, because it was as if, under Obama, NATO was taking a backseat role.

But that's going to change, as you'll see soon, with regards to Ukraine, because there will be involvement with NATO countries in Ukraine. If Russia thinks it can take eastern Ukraine without a fight, it will be sorely proven wrong. EU is tired, absolutely tired of Russian hegemony. The US hasn't been meddling that much in the EU (why would it need to). Russia's meddling is causing EU countries to be concerned, so under the guise of NATO they will become involved in Ukraine.

We can only hope it doesn't lead to WWIII. It probably won't. But a lot of Russian servicemen are going to die for a lost cause. And we won't acknowledge NATO/CIA involvement for years, if decades. But it's about to happen. Whole convoy's of Russian fighters, obliterated. Russia won't say crap about it because it doesn't want to admit its invasion. The US will keep it secret, because it's higher ops. The west cannot and will not allow fascist Russia to win this one. Anti-gay, anti-protest, anti-speech, rigged governments cannot stand. And they will not stand. Russia is screwed.

Here is what I said:

Exactly no one "in the past 5 years" has credibly advanced...

The laughable throw-away sentences from the laughable TIME mag do not qualify as a credible advancement of the inherently absurd thesis.

I realize that adverbs and conditions may be difficult to grasp, but nevertheless ask that you correct your misrepresentation of my words.

You just move the goalposts. Nice try but no cigar.

There are dozens of other reports about the Chicago Summit and its questioning NATOs role but you know what? Your abusive and dismissive attitude toward me? I won't even bother to post the goddamn Google search query.

You are simply wrong and Russia's imperialist efforts as of late have invigorated NATO and made it relevant again. I laugh at Russia for its failure to do squat to stop NATO. All Russia had to do was wait, but no, in its impertinence it decided to invade, occupy, and annex another country.

And that made NATO relevant again.

Have fun with your toxic attitude, I ain't falling for it. Not with DUers leaving this site over similar abuse.

Especially since it so reliably works to support whatever atrocity the CIA-State Department is committing on behalf of "humanity."

By comparison, your little hissyfit is a trifle.

Where's your daily update on the Libyan revolution, by the way? Don't the shifting fronts between Hifter and the Brotherhood and all the other liberation warlords count anymore? It was so beautiful, how the NATO bombers for whom you cheerleaded saved the people there and gave them democracy and a liberal state.

Oh, sorry, the totally irrelevant NATO. It's not that they looked for an opening to expand their operations to the east and got it by backing a coup in Ukraine, oh no, it was that mean old Putin coming up with a suicidal Hitler plan right in the middle of all his deals with the EU and BRICs. Because he really wanted to acquire some run-down Ukrainian rust belt as lebensraum, at the cost of the entire global game he's been playing for 15 years.

In fact, Libya was what led to the Chicago summit questioning the need for NATO. I remember what happened and Putin just made NATO relevant again with his imperialism. Thanks Putin.

to some minor quibble of labeling or semantics, insisting that your misquote was correct 10 messages on, and ignore everything big-picture when it doesn't suit you. (And how can it?)

So what about that wonderful NATO intervention in 2011? Where are your daily updates of the Libyan revolution today?

DUers are leaving this site because of attitudes like yours. Fortunately I have a thick skin and I have dealt with public libel and slander for years. The lawsuits would flow if I didn't. I mean, unlike most cowards following Putin's fascist incursions into Ukraine (my favorite who is creaming themselves over the death of civilians), I post under my name.

I lost friends in the Libyan conflict, people I knew, talked to, and of course, every now and again a toxic attitude is expressed about my "daily updates" and support for real people, people who died, were murdered, all because not a damn person cared here about it. I also got legitimate death threats and lost many months of sleep.

I would do daily updates about Ukraine, and Putin's imperialism, but, again, not worth it. I posted a few posts about Kiev's uprising, but then, it was outnumbered by 20 to 1 by fascist supporting lies about Nazi's and crap. I mean, on May Day real Nazi's marched in Moscow but were banned in Kiev and the Orwellian doublespeak rears its ugly head.

I made no misquote. NATO was being questioned at the Chicago Summit. It really was nearing an existential crisis. Putin's actions have proven to at least the NATO states that there still is a need for NATO and that Russia's imperialist nature is still alive and well. When Russia chopped up the Baltic states due to its agreement with Hitler everyone sat back and let it happened. NATO exists solely to keep that from happening again.

DUers are leaving in droves because of me! What have I done?!

In fact, I apparently am co-responsible for murdered people in Libya, or at any rate they were murdered "all because not a damn person cared here about it."

Pretty radical stuff!

The blah-blah about disbanding NATO has been a near-constant of its history. The NATO powers have never been serious about any of that. It's a show to make them look thoughtful and make it appear that outcomes are not predetermined by their hardwired geopolitical logic. They demonstrated that very clearly after 1989, when it was truly high time to disband NATO. Instead they expanded it and, for the first time, found ways to employ it as a vehicle for out-of-area wars completely unrelated to the supposed defensive mission of the alliance. The decision by the old, old imperialist powers, US-UK especially, to forego the historic opportunity for global peace and to instead pursue new threats and warlike actions put a lie to the globalizing rhetoric and produced a reaction in a Russia that initially was thrilled to be a junior partner to the West - before shock therapy and Iraq and all the rest.

Anyway, when NATO or CIA-State put out a press release, they've at least got one person who will read it at face value in you. I enjoy your opinions, as a barometer, and sometimes I genuinely respect your work, when you gather and present a great deal of detail.

Given how Russia is behaving.

Phew! Mission accomplished!

Or I guess the hilarity comes from people being completely unconscious about it even after it's happened.

Kind of like how the Republicans don't see that ISIS is the direct, predictable result of the US-UK war of aggression in Iraq.

Moscow's committed some big atrocities - Chechnya comes to mind. The biggest international crimes by far have belonged to US-UK, however. After the war of aggression in 2003, nothing in the behavior of the lesser great powers should come as a surprise. The tone was set by the indispensable nation, the lone superpower, the one that had the opportunity to lead the world to peace and chose to gear up for new wars, and to pretend it gets to dictate policy to everyone else no matter how incredibly hypocritical. Everything "humanitarian" always happens to advance some U.S. geopolitical or corporate interest.

This propaganda war must be very confusing for folks who are not researching past the mainstream media....

and roll in in division strength.

Every day, the Hitler-like Russia launches a completely unprovoked invasion for the purpose of eventually occupying everything up to Gibraltar, as per a master plan. It's vital that NATO take Kiev as a member right away and deploy forces (openly) against the subhuman terrorists!!!

Or at any rate, that's the daily line from Yatsenyuk and the chocolate king.

doesn't sound real funny to me?

Having said that... with the propaganda war going on we don't even know for sure that this is a direct confrontation. The rebels had major victories that were not covered in our media and easily could have gained significant tanks and other artillery from those.

But I do tend to believe this feels like it could be an escalation.

Apropos, since the Russians have a history of creating crashed airliners.

Did your "idiot squad leader" have you engage in a 2-3 hour fire fight using live ammo before "surrendering"?

Did they accidentally go into a city with armored vehicles, fighting the national guard there, before claiming to have seized it and set up checkpoints?

No?

The commanders knew what they were doing. It was the soldiers who were told to shoot to kill and did so who are the idiots. Or just scared and/or feeling betrayed. Makes you wonder why Putin was getting good control over a lot of media and blogger sources in the last few months. Oh. Wait. No, it really doesn't make me wonder ... at least not at Putin.

Last edited Thu Aug 28, 2014, 09:47 AM - Edit history (1)

n/t

What a soldier can carry is restricted by something called "The laws of physics", basically you can carry up to 50 pounds into combat, anything more your combat effectiveness drops drastically. Given your clothes weigh about 10 pounds and your boots about 8 pounds your rife 10 pounds, your entrenching tool about 2 pounds, you up to 30 pounds before you know it. Your helmet weigh about two pounds, and your canteen another three pounds (if you include the water in the Canteen). First aid kit weigh around one pound thus you have about 14 pounds left over for ammunition.

Basic Combat load of ammunition is around 600 rounds (Most troops carry LESS, but that is 20 30 round magazines). That comes to only 15 minutes of shooting in semiautomatic mode (40 rounds minutes for 15 minutes). No commander ever wants to run out of ammunition so in most combat situation you plan for a firefight of about 20 minutes (This is compatible with modern air support, since Vietnam US and other armies have worked in combat environments where Air Support can arrived within 20 minutes).

Thus modern combat is generally under 20 minutes, you either get artillery support, Air support, fresh troops OR you run out of ammunition within that time frame. Thus there is "NO COMBAT for 2-3 hours" and thus where did you get that report?

Most of UA forces are pinned down without outside support. Lengthy firefights, of sporadic light arms contact, are common. Think guys moving from street to street with machine guns.

Your presumption is that UA forces would lay down heavy fire for 20 minutes and call in airstrikes. I think that view is ignorant of UA's ability. Most planes are downed or in disrepair, they don't have the kind of control over the air as the US does in Afghanistan or had in Iraq.

There is no airstrike or artillery support to be expected. So you fight on, with small arms, sporadic fighting, for hours on end. And yes, in those hours, maybe only a clip or two are exchanged, because it's in and out, off and on. You don't have to expect an entire contingent of ammo to be expelled in that time.

I can't find the specific report mentioned but it reflects the livejournal reports I've seen in the past on the Ukraine side. Lots of fighters with small arms for the most part busting their asses to crack the invading forces. In a twist of perhaps a bit of irony, Ukraine's forces are employing guerrilla tactics more so than the "rebels" / Russian invaders. This will be the rebels' downfall in the end. One sniper in particular has credited himself with hundreds of kills. If true, that'd really hurt the invaders' efforts.

In simple terms, there is no way a squad size unit could stay in a firefight for 2-3 hours. They will run out of ammunition in about 20 minutes. I mention the other 20 minutes more to show that 20 minutes is about how far ANYONE can do combat today. Thus a fire fight for 2-3 hours just do NOT happen without replacement of troops and constant replenishment of ammunition. You do NOT have the men involved (12 men) to sustain a 2-3 hour fire fight. They will run out of ammunition within 20 minutes of combat.

Given only 12 soldiers were involved that supports a movement of a squad of infantry that got lost. The rest of the Infantry company stayed on the Russian side of the Border. That squad would have artillery, mortar, machine gun support and air support, all within 20 minutes of opening fire in support UNLESS it was denied because the company as a whole had strict orders NOT to cross the border. Thus without that support that squad of 12 men could NOT survive any fire fight over 20 minutes. Thus the 12 men squad would would run out of ammunition within about 20 minutes, thus that 12 men squad could NOT fight for 2-3 hours, not that the Ukrainian Army could not.

If this was a move by Russia, that squad would have been supported by RUSSIAN Support units and would have been able to return to Russia for other squads of that Company would have been sent to relieve that squad as it ran out of ammunition.

Just a comment that the 20 minute restriction is a restriction is the ability of the 12 man RUSSIAN SQUAD not the Ukrainian Army.

And like the soldiers' accounts, they thought they were heading one way while their commanders were taking them someplace else.

Opinion polls reflect this in weird sort of way, but only in a weird way. Russians are against military involvement, sending troops, weapons, etc. But support Putin whole heartedly. The gap is in knowledge: They believe there are no Russian troops or weapons in Ukraine, so supporting "Putin's policy" to a Russian means supporting words and "humanitarian convoys" that only hold food, water, civilian clothing and bedding.

The Russian military uses Apple Maps.

ba dum tss

been happening for quite sometime. The next thing to look for is a new front coming from occupied Crimea. It is interesting the for months the Russians have been holding "exercises" near the Ukrainian border and now an invasion happens where no pro-Russian troops have been coming from the Russian border. I figure the Russians will attack from both sides opening a land bridge and also claiming off shore oil rights and then offer Ukraine some kind of cease fire and peace talks.

RT sure got all quiet all of the sudden as well as some of the resident Putin lovers.

It lives.......

The "occupiers" in this case would be 90-97 percent of the region's residents going back long before 2014? Or were you thinking "occupants"? Then yeah, they occupy it.

the ones that ethnically cleansed that area of Ukraine

Even if your history were uncontestable, 95% or more of the ethnic Russians in Crimea were born after any ethnic cleansing. Should they be deported for the historic sins of the long-dead? This kind of thinking keeps refreshing a lot of pointless ethnic bloodshed, in the Balkans, in the Middle East, hell in Thailand. (By the way, do you live on land that was ethnically cleansed of its Indian peoples?)

Fact is, people living today need to get over their imagined affiliations with imagined forerunners, and learn to live with each other. Today.

I have to disagree with the BBC on this

It should be the "Russian invasion opens a new front"

This is Reuters as of five minutes ago:

Ukraine's president said on Thursday that Russian troops had entered his country in support of pro-Moscow rebels who captured a key coastal town, sharply escalating a separatist war and prompting anger and alarm among Kiev's Western allies.

U.S. and British officials took strong issue with Russia's denials it had sent combat forces into Ukraine and threatened to impose stiffer economic sanctions on Moscow. But U.S. President Barack Obama stopped short of calling Russia's actions an invasion.

Earlier, Poroshenko said he had canceled a visit to Turkey because of the "rapidly deteriorating situation" in the eastern Donetsk region, "as Russian troops have actually been brought into Ukraine".

London's ambassador to the United Nations, Mark Lyall Grant, told a Security Council meeting: "Units of the armed forces of the Russian federation are now directly engaged in fighting inside Ukraine against the armed forces of Ukraine."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/28/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSKBN0GS10C20140828

That a particular magic word was or was not used in a politician's comment does not alter the fact that Russian troops are engaged in combat in Ukraine with elements of Ukraine's armed forces.

Those who are sick and tired of the bloviating propaganda of the US Government (overall, I might add, not just regarding Ukraine) will avail themselves of the credible information that's out there. It's not difficult to find, for the cognitively astute.

Those whose interests lie in supporting the Empire in all things, will, likewise, continue the task they're assigned.

Carry on.

It is simply a fact that Russia is now sending formed units of Russian soldiery, with their equipment, into Ukraine. You are free to whinge that this is not 'an invasion' because Russia could surely move several divisions under air cover into Ukraine, rather than something which seems in total about the equivalent of a brigade at present. But that does not mean it is not an act of the Russian government, not a deployment of Russian soldiers and equipment under Russian orders into combat with Ukraine's armed forces. The paper-work does not impress me, and it does not alter the essence of the matter. Russia is waging a war against Ukraine, a low intensity war, but a war all the same, and its purpose in waging this is the seizure of territory from a neighboring state --- in short, an act of imperialist aggression. It is intended to pay, with full control of oil and gas in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov which otherwise would benefit Ukraine, and it is viewed as the first essential step to reconstituting the old Russian land empire, or at least as much of this as can practicably be snarfled up in the present day.

Russia has as much right to try this as anyone else has to employ violence for their own aggrandizement, certainly. The problem I have, and a number of other people have as well, is with people who pretend that Russia is not engaged in imperialist aggression, who couch defense of Russia's aggression in Ukraine in terms of resistance to aggression against Russia, and who give every evidence of believing the shabbiest and most threadbare of lies Russia tells about its actions and purposes, all the while insisting everyone who disagrees is duped by propaganda. I could have some respect for someone who made a case on straight realpolitik grounds, and stated straight out their preferred outcome was that Russia achieve its goals, take as much of Ukraine as it thought best for its interests, and reconstituted its old empire. I could respect someone who viewed the thing as a clash between two imperialisms over who would have the sole exploitation of Ukraine, and preferred it to be Russia who became sole exploiter of Ukraine. But I cannot have the slightest respect for the sort of cant which makes up the overwhelming bulk of the commentary made in support of Russian imperialism here.

Only America seeks empire, no one else ever has.

All of their causes are just and ours are ignoble. I reject that because it's not logical nor is it proven in history.

Thanks for the reality check. It will be dismissed, though, as it's not doctrinaire.

Exclusive: Ukraine rebel commander acknowledges fighters had BUK missile (Reuters)
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=853729

Maybe it's just too early in the am.

nobody is talking about flight crashs anymore.

I was pointing out that Reuters has a history of "translation errors". Like the "invasion", they reported in July that a militia commander confirmed the DPR had Buks. Which, of course, never happened but the news had spread fast before Reuters explained it had been a "mistranslation".

The tale as told by Kiev is already well represented here. In an effort to achieve a little balance, let me offer what one of those other people has to say:

Only Russian volunteers fighting with anti-Kiev forces - Donetsk Republic leader

About 3-4,000 Russian citizens joined anti-government fighters during Kiev crackdown in Ukraine’s east, says the leader of Donetsk independent republic, noting that self-defense fighters have never concealed this.

"They [Russian volunteers] are among us, people of Donbass [Region, eastern Ukraine] because we are blood brothers,” said the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Aleksandr Zakharchenko, in an interview to Russian media.

. . .

Zakharchenko said that Kiev authorities and Western countries are repeatedly talking about a Russian ‘military invasion’ to justify the mass defeats of the Ukrainian army in the country’s east.



http://rt.com/news/183308-russian-volunteers-ukraine-fighting/

others here are not aware of the facts.
If the progressive alternative websphere is any indication there are quite a few liberals who have researched and realize that there is more to what is happening than the narrative.

Seriously, I will start my morning with a much better attitude now.

I wonder if you'll admit you were wrong, or just find another reason why it's the West's fault.

Started bombing and shelling and killing civilian non-combatants in eastern Ukraine?

Kiev had options. A government with fascists in the cabinet chose to start a civil war against the Russian population. Now everyone's shocked, shocked that the Ukrainian Russians turned to Russia for support.

Whatever the Kiev line of the day is, it's reported as news.

Just a note: I have lived in Europe and been in Ukraine and in Russia. I have friends there and have always wished Ukraine to modernize and move toward Europe. So I am no blind Russia fan. I just know the people there and the countries and understand what really happened. I have been aware of our meddling since the "Orange Revolution", when I noticed that (former) President Yushenko was married to an American who worked in hard right "think tanks" , (you know, the kind we all hate here?). I have paid attention ever since..

Early 2000s I was approached by a Republican in Ukraine (Yes, the actual Republican Institute has been involved there for years) about work prospects with them (my acquaintance there did not know my politics were liberal). I was ignorant of what was going on there. But not after that.....

regarding the events in Ukraine has no relation to what's really going on there.

I believe you understand what happened, as do I, because I've been following it since the beginning, this past spring.

Your statement sums it up pretty well: "Russia is no ideal country, but this is all of our own making. We have embraced a foreign and economic policy of "end justifies the means" and have crossed many bounderies, created wars on lies, allied with really bad guys, taken down even democratic governments at a whim of our interest".

"...allied with really bad guys" - Would that be the neo-Nazi junta in Kiev whose hero was a Nazi collaborator during WWII? The US is even willing to support a bunch of Nazis if serves the "National interest". how pathetic.

As I thought, it's all the West's fault. Forget that Putin has been actively bullying former Soviet states for years now. It's somehow all our fault. Gotcha.

there are Russian citizen volunteers that organize.

Every male in Russia has served in the military. A 2 year (I believe( stint is required. So they have a lot of people who have had formal training. I suspect it is the volunteers that Kiev keeps saying are official Russian military.

As was noted in an article I posted on GD recently:

Over the last two days, the self-defense forces say they have captured a lot of military hardware. This has reportedly helped them get 2 tank battalions, 3 multiple launcher rocket system batteries, 2 self-propelled howitzer batteries, 3 cannon battalions of various calibers and 8 mortar batteries. All the new subunits have joined the newly formed fighting force, the rebels said.

Three infantry brigades will be organized from the existing detachments of self-defense militia, the document reads. A new volunteer regiment has also been formed consisting of miners from the Donbass region and soldiers and officers from the Ukrainian army, who have opted to side with the People’s Republic of Donetsk.

The point is that it's a model that the Ukrainian army doesn't have. Just the Russian army. Your posts continue to be jokes.

(sigh)

But there's always room for redemption. So while you're here, a couple of questions:

1. Would you admit there is in fact documentable evidence of pro-Russian demonstrators shooting at pro-Ukrainian demonstrators during the May 2nd riots in Odessa?
2. Would you admit you have no evidence that the Ukrainian military is summarily executing captured pro-Russian separatists?

You never answered those questions posed to you before. I'm giving you that chance again.