Looks like some people here have too many accounts or so.

Well, yeah, obviously. No one can be that full of shit and stupid at same time (at least i hope so, otherwise my hope in humanity will die a bit).

That number's just made up for propaganda purposes. They haven't actually proved anything, it's just a circle jerk from interested parties. And even if true, it's still only 5% of the total troops on the rebel side by most measures. Who, Yanukovich? Here's the OSCE report on the 2010 election. From the summary: "The process was transparent and offered voters a genuine choice between candidates representing diverse political views. However, unsubstantiated allegations of large-scale electoral fraud negatively affected the election atmosphere and voter confidence in the process." as a tldr.

Or in other words, he was elected fairly. Hard to know that of course, since for some odd reason every media outlet forgot about that OSCE report. Yeah, you'll find them in Greece, Hungary, France, Ukraine. Even Germany has a neo fascist Euro MP now. They're basically everywhere. Including Russia, but then there's far worse than Putin waiting in Russian wings. For all the dreams of another genial but naive and utterly incompetent drunkard like Yeltsin coming to power from the heads of Europe and the US the two alternatives to Putin are still Zhirinovsky and Zhuganov.

Rebels confirmed that there are Russian soldiers fighting with them. So disputing the fact that Russia is invading Ukraine is moronic. No army aliows their soldiers to join other conflict without permission. Otherwise they are traitors and the army would hunt them down.


@crosmando. You really gave no idea what you are talking about. You sound like you had read few slogans and build around them your world view. Anyone with even basic knowledge of history and how world operates can point holes in pretty much every sentence you write.

Expand your horizons and go read a history book. Living a life of such ignorance is just a waste

Thats correct, why? Europe have pretty much far-righs now, up to blatant nazis, some of their parties are represented in parliaments, and sincerely support ant-fascist Russia from there. Funny stuff, is what Ukrainian ones actually pretty "lame in naziness" compared to their Western colleagues, probably resulting in not so good terms in their attitudes with Russia.

" since for some odd reason every media outlet forgot about that OSCE report" - most probably because nobody give a shit about OSCE reports at all. Their reports could be of some sense if they was of any importance, say, resulting in unapproval of election results or so.

What the Nazis wanted was, to force their (sick) ideals on as many people in the world as possible, if not by diplomacy, then by pure force, starting in Germany itself, where they did it by force too, many people forget, that it was done with guns from the very beginning by invading their own country first and controlling everyone that wasn't part of the resistance anyway with an iron fist, just like Russia.
What the current right wing partys in European countries mostly want, is cutting their countries off from globalization and protecting their culture (although mostly up to a silly point).

So yeah, Russia still goes the nazi way full gear, as they did most of the time.

This whole European right wing = nazis is simply wrong.
The left wing is much closer to those atm but it's not the same either.

Typical brainwashed representative of a NATO country - only he is right, everyone else is ignorant.
Of course there will be men from Russia to defend civilians. What did you expect? Hundreds and thousands of civilians are dieing due to nazi's artillery bombing cities.
110 000 refugees went to Russia from Ukraine. Just think about it (oh i know, i know, - it's a lie, right?)
http://rt.com/news/168844-un-refugees-ukraine-russia/

By the way,
USA Private Military Companies where sent to Ukraine since the beginning of this conflict (Academie/Blackwater and others).

PS: MH17 crash site is under heavy artillery fire now. Ukrainians try hard to destroy all evidences of theirs crime. USA has satellite surveillance information but they are not willing to present it to world society. USA/Ukrainian plan was to drop MH17 on Russian territory, but they failed (nontheless, they used this tragedy to set up economical sanctions against Russia; after anti-russian sanctions where set up, all western countries forgot about MH17. - Only Russia insists on investigation).
All this situation used in the same manner as 9/11 twin towers. I see same pattern here.

Keypoint you missed: the EU didn't demanded from any of them to join. It was the decision of each and every country to do so. Now go and talk with some older Hungarians about the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.

The Ukraine didn't wanted to join NATO. End of story. Only after the recent events, it went as far that part of it want it now - which is a giant lead balloon for Putins strategy.
Please read what the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement is about, namely economic, judicial and financial reforms. Take note that it was Mr. Yanukovych himself who wanted it, before making a 180 turn which led to the protests on Maidan.

Thinking in terms of raw power and interest = might makes right. Which is exactly, what Europe doesn't want anymore. Now go and talk with some older Finnish about the Winter War which was started by Russia 3 months after the World War 2 began. Just shy away from any claims about "fighting Nazis" or you might get beat up.^^

You talked with those Hungarians I mentioned already?

Take some history lessons, you need it. Russia had no problems taking half of Poland from those very same Nazis for the price of not getting involved. If Hitler was smart enough to not go against Russia, then we all would probably live in a different world right now. Thankfully he wasn't.
Western Europe didn't fought? As an example, Belgium with it's 16 battle tanks between its two cavalry divisions held out 18 days against overwhelming odds. So with all due respect, STFU as you have no idea about sacrifices made.

Ukrainian troll who run that fake account ^^^ please, stop it, there is enough authentic loonies present here already .
PS. Damn, Siannah was too fast, but you got what i mean anyway, man.

Well, I think that depends; I figured DarzaR was referring to the likes of the Greek Golden Dawn and Hungarian Jobbik, which it isn't so far-fetched to refer to as neo-Nazi. In general I agree though, European far right parties being labelled as Nazis is often just intellectual laziness (and/or Godwin's law in effect).

Hah.
And we are supposed to the lying ones?
You just went from there are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine to of course they are. They have the right.
And what happened to Putin's "it's Ukraine internal problem" you just basically called your leader a liar.

Aaaaannnddddd is that the current mh17 theory? Cause last time it was Ukrainians trying to shoot down the plane cause they thought it was Putin's.

Thank you very much for agreeing that Russia invaded Ukraine

Thing with nazis/ fascists/ nationalists is that there's no objective place to draw the line between each group. Most of the active 'right wing nationalist' political groups I'd view as not actually neo nazi, they're either neo fascist or big N Nationalist. People who are more aligned with them will view more favourably, people less aligned with them will view them as worse.

Sure they do- if they want to. They just turn a blind eye. Plenty of US volunteers in the RAF (and RCAF) in WW2, prior to Dec 1941, as an example. After Dec 1941 they went back to the USAAF. Plenty of 'on leave' US servicemen went as deniable instructors and the like to all sorts of places during the cold war, sometimes they'd be transferred to private companies or the CIA, but to all practical purposes it's the same process as here.

The Russians could shut the border and block any volunteers and supplies if they wanted to- and within reason given the length of the border. It isn't in their best interests to, that's realpolitik. Same as it isn't in the EU's best interests to force Poroshenko to negotiate despite the offer being on the table, or to enforce the deal the Maidan had with Yanukovich that they guaranteed. But in any case, Russia doesn't need to send in regulars, when they can send in irregulars.

And the big problem is that every single piece of actual evidence presented is equivocal, at best. Ukraine captures paratroops, part of an invasion force? Well, they surrendered without a fight, and had no support at all, which seems unlikely in an invasion force. Ah, but what about that Russian only tank, that was never exported? Well, actually it was exported- under a different model number- one of those lovely technical facts that gives a completely distorted view if you don't do any digging. And it was manufactured prior to the break up of the USSR, so Ukraine almost certainly had some as part of its inherited forces in 1991. Ah, but what about those satellite photos? Well, they are from a commercial source, and aren't even the best quality that source can supply- Digital Globe does much of Google Earth's imagery for example, which is both higher res and in colour. It's like proving something happened today using a blurry black and white photo taken on a ten year old cellphone when you know the person supplying the photo has a 24MP SLR camera with a zoom lens available. And everything else is just 'trust us, it's happening' from Ukraine, NATO, the EU, US etc- just as with Iraq's WMDs.

They should be able to prove these things conclusively given the resources the US has in terms of spy satellites and the like. So, why don't they?

Mhh, I don't know why Nato doesn't or does what it is doing.

News are not pretty ,)

We'll see if the next sanctions are cutting Russia off from Swift. That would be the nuclear weapon of economic sanctions. It would also severely impact stores like Steam and GOG, amongst many other things.

To whom? To you? What you will do then, with that proof?

Looks like you have a pretty blurry idea of proving something. There is proving in scientific terms, and in law terms, which one you'd prefer here? In both cases you cannot reach a sure-thing level, just with scientific we're tend to rely more on experiment, than on opinion, and we're still incomparably more good in disproving than in prooving, due to nature of experiment.

So suppose UN, US, NATO, etc will show some pics, videos, documents etc, whatever they would call the proofs, and decided to act based on that "proof". Your actions? "I dont believe their evidence, so its just lame excuse from them", or maybe something else? If not - basically you're asking for proofs for yourself, despite you cannot provide any important actions after receiving them. Also suppose a case what the given proof actually is false, but you also think what its correct, with UN, US, NATO, etc share your vision too. Any difference then?
Thus leading to other case. Aforementioned UN, US, NATO, etc will show some pics, videos, documents etc, whatever they would call the proofs, and decided not to act based on that "proof". Your actions? Setting aside the easy case when you also dont see that "proofs" as proofs, and concentrating on other one, in which you decided to see the proofs as actual evidence. So, your actions, you see stuff as proof, but no action happend in result still?
So there is 8 cases:
Actual correctness of proofs (while we cannot easily trace it in real life, but its possible here for our goal): 1 (true) or 0 (not)
Actions was perfomed by " actual users of proof" or not (in our case = their version about true of false of proof in data): 1 or 0
Your version about true or false or proof of data: 1 or 0
So the need is look at your actions in 8 possible cases to find what bit is most significant, and what bit is least.

We can see what proof without action simply destroy the proof, making it useless statement in incoherent conversation. For example, if some side in court proved guilt of other side - but it resulted in no action by court - the proof is become meaningless due to incoherence of court, so there is no need in such proof from start, its equal to simple opinion or nothing. Or you can claim what you still doesnt have any proof what Earth isnt covered by some crystal half-sphere 9 km height. Ok, nobody care, and nobody would prove it to you, just you should be prevented from any charge in aerospace industry, pretty simple. You could decided to do your own homework on a subject any time, or be good in your "no proof" faith without real harm to nobody beside you.

So anytime you rise the proof theme without any real possible actions in result - you discredit not only yourself, but also whole idea of mechanism of proving. But lets move to the possible actions. Proofs are of different levels of labor needed. Say, its quite easy to prove what 2x2=4 in decimal system. So, in case such proof would be needed - its not a real problem to even do a favor, and simply show it, assuming as action something so equally easy as futher coherence from interlocutor (so he wouldnt ask to prove what 2x3=6, then what 2x4=8 etc). But proves could also be pretty hard. Say one ask for proves about Fermat theorem, well, was indeed proved. Its possible, but not easy, so you will need something valuable your work of re-proving some already proved fact, for example if a side, what asking for a proof, can provide 100 bil $ in return - it could be of interest for some people to try, but if the only action in result being a "ok, now im agree what it was proved, wasnt really cared about anyway" - it would be definitely less wasteful on human resources to just let him keep his ignorance on a subject, as its not worthy a labour needed.

So we see what not any action resulted from aquiring proof is worthy still. So, what worthy you will offer for hard proofs (well, they arent even close to Fermat, but still), and to whom?

Let take a peek on another case, where proofs could be used. They are used in case of non-known, new, highly falsificable data. Say i would write here, what Martians descended in saucers here already and firing their blasters. There is perfectly correct case to ask for a proof, as provided data is very falsificable, with very high probability to be actually erroneous. So you cant use it to base you'r actions on it without verification (or you're silly). As supplier of true, but falsificable by nature, data, i would surely need to provide one, as you cannot rule out some unintentional mistake by me (even setting aside intentional ones), and cant know it on your own, because you ignorant on a subject (no negative connotation, you simply have no data about, and cant operate it, without your own fault). Thats how its go in science. You're not award a Noble prize on physics to a guy, who say what he had built antigravity engine. But you do after (if) he verify it with proofs, thats fair. Now to a quite often case of true ignorancy meeting a low falsificable data,
suppose: There is a discussion about binary calculations, you and other guy, short conversation, near start of it you're saying something like:
-".... so, as 1+1=10, then we can see.."
-"hmm, as far i know 1+1=2, at least i never heard about any proof what support your words, surely you're free to prove it in case you think you're able, but i think its unlikely, and you just bad at math" is coming in responce.
Now, while its definitely possible, and quite easy to provide a requested proof, problem is... no matter will you do it or not - further conversation have no sence in initial meaning. Other contributor is ignorant on a subject he participate, and erroneously overestimate falsifiability of your statement, as the data he need as proof was available to him prior the start of conversation, and he was supposed to know it already, otherwise there was no point for him to jump it. Unlike a Martian saucer example - now ignorance is only on his own fault. So, even if you will provide needed proof - you will have to drop a conversation anyway, as soon there later would be need in next one, then in next one, about many other subjects he supposed to know prior conversation. In other words you have nothing to talk about with him, as the only new data he can deliver to you is what else he dont know.
So, sadly, when contributors suddenly start to require a proofs for some basic facts - they usually had to learn it somewhere else first, as otherwise it would be extremally easy to derail a conversation with endless groundless demands for proofs at any step, with nothing to return for them. Its useless in case you actually trying to get whats going on.

So, returning to a start, if you ask for a proof - you need to clearly realize what you will do with them. And what all others can or canot do with proofs, even if they arent proofs for you, and how it will affect your actions. Proofs have a price, they arent just gentlemen talk.