I have seen only shortened version and responded to the last part of this post http://www.gog.com/forum/general/ukrainian_civil_war_in_progress/post1111
After reading this document I see that there is no info about "armed groups" at all - nor their agenda, nor intentions, nothing. Armed revolt on Maydan is legitimate thing, armed revolt against Maydan - nameless"armed people".

Their site claims that their amount is close to 25k+ people now, with current development of social networks one would have thought that hiding disappearance of such amount of Russian people would be impossible.

Which part of "a wide array of serious human rights abuses committed primarily by the armed groups who have seized control over a large part of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in eastern Ukraine since mid-April." didn't you understood? It's rather clear who is mentioned here.
The agenda, intentions or mission their on isn't clear for the russian troops on Ukrainian soil right now, either. Doesn't make them disappear, not accountable or takeing them out of the equation.

Eh, the western sources aren't unbiased at all. They almost entirely use information provided by the Ukrainian side, and don't examine its authenticity. Take the BBC for example. Every story on Ukraine has a map at bottom showing the situation. It's provided by the Ukrainian Military. Thing is, the rebels put out their own maps as well (don't bother reading the blog those maps are attached to, the maps are all that is important. And no, that isn't my blog, I don't have one), but I've never once seen them covered. When the media outright refuses to consider information from one side it is, by very definition, biased.

Thing is though, the rebel maps actually tie in far better with what can be observed. When those 400 odd Ukrainians crossed into Russia and surrendered the Ukrainian map actually had more (!) territory being recaptured by Ukraine in the area (ignore the article, map is at bottom) which seems to be... extremely unlikely given that even the Ukrainians said that a large number of troops had been surrounded, run out of ammo and surrendered. The Ukrainians have had Lugansk marked as surrounded for weeks, yet the 'aid convoy' was able to get through without running into them. The rebel map has rebel forces heading for the Sea of Azov at the right time for when they actually turned up there. The government map on the BBC still has Ilovaesk as not surrounded- the commander of the troops there says they are (at bottom of article), and have been for days.

And that is why there's been so much 'what the fuck has happened?' reaction to recent events. The Ukrainians were talking only about how they'd had a string of unqualified victories, the western media was repeating that even when it was clear it was inaccurate to do so. So when the rebels have very clear victories there's some sort of logical disjunction. Most people simply won't consider that they've been given bad information by the media, they'll blame pretty much anything else.

Very good stuff here. One had to be looney to believe maps from UkrMD for quite some time. Russian maps definitely of better quality, not perfect for sure (you cant expect if from public war conflict maps), but not pure absurd mockery as of UkrMD. There is also decent maps from Ukr side present too tho.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. You have no proof. And at least that English lady was being a nuisance to staff and other people before that.

Second. Nobody claimed there were millions of Russians in Ukraine fighting. I don't recall even anyone saying that majority of fighters are from Russia. Just that they are Russian speaking.
What Russia is accused of is equipment and other resources being provided to separatists and constantly increasing number of Russian soldiers being part of the conflict. And recently actual invasion.

In nay nobody claimed it was Russian who were fighting Ukraine army unless it was shorthand for Ukrainians who ar of e Russian ethnicity.

I don't really know how wrong are maps provided by military but technically "other side" are terrorists, so being biased doesn't seem so wrong. After all, you wouldn't request al-qaeda opinion on stuff and maps from them ? So called rebels in Luhansk are in no way better - friends families have first-hand experience with them so i know what i'm talking about.
Yay:) Denying facts is the way to go, go on:)

Ok, correlations happens. But second time I posted this link, it was a counterproof to "Western journalist don't lose jobs". And this IS a proof that western journalists lose jobs.
Kiev doesn't bomb Donbass http://www.gog.com/forum/general/ukrainian_civil_war_in_progress/post1111
Kiev does bomb Donbass http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/UkraineReport28August2014.pdf

So, how many terror actions were did by militants? Or you think that riot is a terrorism?
But there you say that protecting against corrupted government isn't a bad thing... http://www.gog.com/forum/general/ukrainian_civil_war_in_progress/post1138

I think its now slowly obvious that he so called appeasement process the West is trying to use does not work as it did not work with Hitler in 1930s so the only thing the West can do is move the troops to Europe on the borders to Russia to press on Putin since he does not understand anything else but force.

Haha. Why so butthurt? You've been raped in Russia or something?

quote from your source:
"Intense and sustained fighting, as a result of the continuing violence by the armed groups
and the ongoing security operation being undertaken by the Ukrainian Government, took a heavy
toll on the human rights and humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine during the past month, with
at least 36 people being killed on average every day."

and one more:

"Armed groups have continued to prevent residents from leaving, including through
harassment at checkpoints where residents report being robbed, and firing at vehicles conveying
fleeing civilians."

Again - your source is clearly blaming armed forces (terrorists). Also, they specifically name UA military forces as "Ukrainian military" so by "armed groups" they don't mean ukrainian military forces. In short - your doc proves you're wrong.

You're either not too smart or really full of shit so it's going to get boring arguing with you.

You're getting quite annoying. Terrorism is, for example, killing people for no good reason like here: http://uainfo.org/blognews/364379-terroristy-obstrelyali-gorlovku-i-ubili-mirnyh-zhiteley-foto-18.html

That was confirmed by locals that actually live there (shooting was done from points that are not controlled by UA army) so don't even bother finding counterarguments on this, i wouldn't care and you may save yourself some trouble:)
Yo dawg, Y so stupid ?:)

Well it seems the first response to Russian threat is now starting to show.

The international military fast response unit for East Europe is now being created under Great Britains leadership and will consist of 10.000 troops from Great Britain, all the Baltic states, Norway, Netherlands, Daenemark and even Canada. Later it will probably be expanded.

The official announcement about it will be made on the Nato summit next week on 4ht or 5th september.

Well, it seems as if this mess is snowballing.

The following are just my opinions, and I'm sure they will upset people on both sides, but it is not like I can personally do anything about them anyway.

My earlier attempts at distancing myself from taking sides, while upholding the principle of sovereignty, have led me to the conclusion that I can no longer refrain from doing so. The evidence indicates to me, very clearly, that the aggrieved party is that of the Ukraine, and the aggressor is that of the Russian Federation. How? Through the operation and supply of their clients within the borders of the Ukraine now, the destabilization and introduction of clients into the Crimean peninsula earlier, and the flagrant disregard for international law and censure over her annexation of the same. Even the death of innocents, from many nations, did nothing to deter her.

Is this something new? No, look at Georgia, another casualty in allowing the playground bully to run amok.

The world cannot stand by and allow such a flagrant violation of international law to take place. The bully whines and states he's quite a bad ass, he is, but so are many others. While the others sit back, and do next to nothing, they hope that the bully thinks, and adjusts his behavior so that a confrontation might be avoided. The bully continues on, as this has worked for him many times before, even at home where he has run roughshod over previously free institutions, like the media, without much opposition. Many good people there who suffer from the bully, too.

People will do as they do, are free to do so, but consequences always exist.

What to do? I don't know, but all kinds of things come to mind.

- More sanctions, yes.
- Co-ordinate with Europe over undersea NG delivery system, as we can't have the people hostage to gas supplies; costs must be underwritten by governments to make sure population not burdened. Yes.
- Strengthen NATO, yes. Re-institute missile defense of NATO perimeter (they already violated intermediate missile treaty anyway.) Yes.
- Fast track non NATO members that share a border with an unruly neighbor, yes.
- Require sovereignty be restored to the Ukraine, yes.
- Go to war over principle, if necessary, yes.

Solutions: Just get along, do business in a mutually respective manner, and develop the infrastructure of your own nation (goes for everyone.)

I have many Russian friends, and worry for them over this new expansionist doctrine too. My disagreement is with the actions of the leadership there, just as I often have them with the leadership here; I hope they understand this.

I'm not in uniform now, but would put one back on if needed, just as I offered to on behalf of the Russian people when that atrocity in Beslan occurred.

My best to all, let's fix this.

What do you all think of this article:

http://theweek.com/article/index/267245/why-the-west-should-let-russia-have-eastern-ukraine

Provides an insightful view of the matter and seems sensible to me. Thoughts?

It's not that simple - most of east of ukraine is russian-speaking, but significant part of them is not-so-much pro-russian - e.g. that's exact reason why pro-russian riots in Odessa and Kharkiv had failed miserably. Also, Crimean referendum was faked (no one in right mind would think that it could be done without faking with armed forced behind your back) so no one really knows the real level of support there, although it has to be pretty high as otherwise Crimea would be back in UA by now.
And the last point - who says that giving Eastern Ukraine would solve things ? Would anything really stop Putin from invading Baltic countries or Poland after taking half of Ukraine so easily ? Not to mention that splitting any country there would probably violate quite a lot of agreements (in regards to Ukraine Budapest agreement comes to mind)

There are also many other points in article that doesn't really makes sense but i guess it's not that bad a writer but i wouldn't seriously discuss it - author clearly has very little understanding on how that can work out:)