What are you talking about? I didn't make any comment about the radar. I know little about radar. Any conclusion that I make about culpability is based on the track record of the separatists firing at planes in the same area, the phone recordings, the videos and the general probability. You repeatedly misstate my posts to try and make your own points.
And re the Cold War - again, I've responded to your horseshit with a long post on another thread wherein I told you why I felt the USSR was superficially attractive to some Russians, why it wasn't a nice place and why I felt Putin is trying to recreate some of the same regime conditions. Go back and re read that post and stop trying to re argue the issue afresh.
I'm going to reply to all your posts in one, at least the parts worth responding to, so anyone who wants context may need to hunt and peck to find all the things I'm replying too.
I didn't say you made the claim about radar. A "source" was quoted as saying that.
I'm pointing out how unreliable sources are. Don't be so defensive. I'm not attacking you. Calm down. In fact, read it again, I said "he", not "you". "He" wants something, like hits on "his" blog. "He's" making it all up.
"he", not "you". Given your apparently problems with reading comprehension, are you sure you want to keep throwing accusations around?
As for "reliable" western media, do you really trust the CNN "experts"? Have they ever had experts on in a field you're well versed in? Have you noticed how much bullshit they told? I absolutely don't trust CNN. Or Fox. Or NBC/ABC/CBS. In fact, one of the few media sources I have any faith in at all is BBC. And the BBC, generally speaking, hasn't made any conclusive implications of a directed Russian invasion in Ukraine. Not generally. Some op-ed pieces have, but they are obviously opinion pieces, they don't try to hide behind them as "factual reporting". They use terms like, "unconfirmed reports". That's what an unbiased media does. Meanwhile, CNN headlines: "What can Obama do about Russian invasion of Ukraine?" You don't see a big difference between the two? The BBC has a good grasp of giving facts and evidence, presenting what's known and not known, and not drawing conclusions. There was a really good article, for example, on Russian tanks in Ukraine. While the bulk of US media was saying "Here's how we know Russia is in Ukraine", BBC had big bold letters saying Russia denies involvement, and then shows the images of tanks flying Russian flags moving through border towns. It points out that this is compelling evidence that Russia may be involved in Ukraine, but also points out that pro-Russian separatists wouldn't necessarily be against flying Russian flags as well.
The terms like "evidence" and "may" are what's missing from western media's reporting, as well as the bulk of the posts here that speak as though these are known facts.
These aren't known facts. It's LIKELY that Russia has supplied equipment and other support to separatist forces, but there's no actual proof of it. Knowledge of that is not a fait accompli no matter how much you rail against it and stamp your feet and claim otherwise. And just to reiterate what I've been saying,
I don't deny that Russia might be behind it all. In fact, I'm certain they are personally. I've never said otherwise. I've just said it's hilarious to me the way anything put out by Russian media is "propaganda" while the western media and misc blogs are being quoted as if they were gospel.
The fact that you think the propaganda machine only works one way is what I am commenting on, I'm not saying that Russia is obviously uninvolved and anyone that thinks they are is an idiot.
With regards to Channel One and your facebook pals, I don't know how many you know, but it's not exactly considered a "reliable source" in Russia. It's viewed in the same way Fox News is in the US. Lots and lots of viewers, and the bulk of them watch to laugh at them. Yes, some believe it, but again, some people in the US believe all kinds of nonsense too. Tell me, why am I "anti-US" for thinking this, while you can know one (or maybe a small handful of people that likely all know each other and therefore share similar tenets and beliefs) crazy Russian that believes all kinds of nonsense and just decide that this small sample is representative of the bulk of Russians? Besides, there has yet to be any evidence that Channel One is responsible for fabricating the story. Someone came forward with a story to tell, they conducted an interview and aired it. For all we know, Channel One's only mistake is not fact-checking. Is the West exempt form doing this? 60 Minutes would argue they aren't, not after they aired their story provided by "eyewitness testimony" from Dylan Davies about events in Libya. You ASSUME they fabricated the story, but
how do we know it wasn't a story made up by the person being interviewed that was seeking their 15 minutes of fame? We don't. Now I wouldn't put it past Channel One, they're not exactly known for reliability, but that's the whole point... They have a reputation, even in Russia. And despite what you're kook facebook friends have to say, these aren't commonly believed stories in Russia.
And "someone" (I honestly don't remember who, so I don't know why you put it in "") did respond to a Russian claiming that Canada should join the war against Ukraine by saying Canadians would rather kill Russians. I interpreted that as military action. I may have been mistaken about what was meant, but I don't think it's a stretch to interpret it that way. As you said, it's available for anyone to read and I didn't see anyone else telling me I was crazy for making that assumption. As for Canada helping Ukraine, I've been pretty up front about Canada's military capabilities. I was berated for "being off topic" though. But since you bring it up, I'll respond again. I'm sure I'll be told I'm off topic again, but whatever... If it's brought it up by you and no one has a problem with that, then it's fair game for me to respond as far as I'm concerned. During Gulf I, Canada showed up with no bombs or missiles and asked the US to supply them, and aircraft that were so outdated they couldn't handle the "advanced" munitions that were being deployed, so we were relegated to flying defensive air patrols. Notice I said "we". I was there. I was assigned to fly circles over an American carrier group with 1970's missiles and kinetic bullets supplied by the Americans because they were the only munitions they had that our weapon system could interface with. We did try some of the fancier stuff, like AMRAAMs and HARMs, but our computer couldn't talk to them. So it was sidewinders and bullets, which made us capable of only short-range, air-to-air engagements. That meant we couldn't fly advanced combat air patrol, we couldn't fly ground support, we couldn't fly interdiction, we couldn't fly ground strike, we could fly air-superiority... Our "multi-role" fighter/interceptor/bomber was basically AWACS with a few missiles only useful as a last line of defence in rear areas.
In Afghanistan, our brand new artillery (the M777 to be specific, so you can look it up) was only deployed in 1 mission because we couldn't afford ammunition for it. Canada has roughly 68,000 personnel, primary and reserve, which includes an extremely bloated officer and logistics corps.
We can field at most 3,000 fighting men at any given time. Ukraine has an active military of 90,000 and a reserve force of 1,000,000. They are absolutely underequipped and underfunded, spending about 1/20th of what Canada spends. But tell me, how useful will we be to Ukraine if we can't afford to put bullets in our guns? Yes, Ukraine suffers that same problem, but
the question isn't "How effective is the Ukrainian military?" but "How much support can the Canadian military provide?" The answer is: none. Not in an offensive capability. And not enough to mount any meaningful peacekeeping force. I suppose we could do defensive operations, but given our track record,
we'd be asking Ukraine, with their budget a fraction of our own, to divert supplies from their own people to ours. Does that sound helpful to you? Also bear in mind that Ukrainian bullets wouldn't even work for us even if they did agree to let us "help" and give us supplies. They use weapons that fire 5.45x39mm and 7.62x39mm rounds, while we require the 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm NATO rounds. Even their bullets would be useless to us.
You also need to consider Canadian rules of engagement. Historically, ours have been ridiculously strict. During the Bosnian civil war, there were jokes that Canadian soldiers could attack an openly hostile threat only after all the Canadians were killed. Of course, the rules weren't THAT strict, but they were strict enough that the joke was made. Even if Afghanistan, there were constant complaints about our ROE's. Some countries have even complained that they don't want to fight with Canadians because we're so restrictive on ROE that we'll actually hinder their efforts. Given that Ukraine is fighting a civilian force in civilian areas, what exactly do you think we'd do anyway?
Are we going to suddenly relax our rules and start bombing civilians like Ukraine is? No, we won't. So we'd end up just getting in the way.
In any case,
Ukraine has what matters: boots on the ground. It may lag behind in technology and be short on equipment, but so do the separatists they're fighting. A rifle and some bullets remain the best way to deal with small insurrections like these. You can't go bombing your own cities. Oh wait, no sorry, that's exactly what Ukraine is doing. Seriously, no one has a problem with this? You're going to trust reports from a government that's bombing it's own citizens and infrastructure? But in any case, I'm talking about their equipment, and
they have, in spades, guns and bullets, and an arsenal that's identical, only larger, than the people they're fighting... like the Buk which the west media is saying "came" from Russia, and yet,
even the western media has been found to report that the bulk of the rebel forces have come from Ukraine's own arsenal.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/20/world/europe/ukraine-rebels-weapons/
"He was proud to show off his unit's most prized possession -- a truck-mounted anti-aircraft unit that was Russian-made.
He told us the weapon had been seized from a Ukrainian base."
"A few miles away, in the town of Kramatorsk, rebel fighters displayed two combat engineering tanks they said they had seized them from a local factory.
Eastern Ukraine has long been a center of weapons production."
(It's interesting, however, that NOW the western media is able to use terms like "they said". Now suddenly they're willing to hedge their bets. I'm surprised they didn't put it in quotes. "Which 'he told us' had been 'seized' from a 'Ukrainian' base. Wink wink." )
There's also this:
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/06/sending-weapons-ukraine-wont-help/85666/
"the
ninth largest arms exporter in the world between 2008 and 2012"
"Other Ukrainian defense industry products include tanks, surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles and naval weapons. "
"This defense-industrial legacy is one of Ukraine’s biggest challenges today.
It is concentrated in the country’s east and south, and is heavily dependent on the Russian market." (Gee, why would people in those areas that work in these factories be pro-Russian? Hmmmm....)
"Ukraine was the largest small arms exporter to the United States in 2012"
"Ukrainian arms reportedly also have found their way to both sides of the Syrian conflict." (NOTE: Reliable reporting, uses terms like "reportedly")
"
Ukraine needs help, but the kind of help it needs cannot be reduced to shipments of military hardware."
"In the absence of real security reforms, no amount of U.S. or other well-meaning nation’s weaponry will make Ukraine safe from Russia or from itself."
Or there's globalsecurity's take on Ukraine:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/industry.htm
"
The military-industrial complex of Ukraine is the most advanced and developed branch of the state's sector of economy."
"The air and space complex consists of 18 design bureaus and 64 enterprises."
"In order to design and build ships and armaments for the Ukrainian Navy, 15 research and development institutes, 40 design bureaus and 67 plants have been brought together."
"Rocketry and missilery equipment, rockets, missiles, projectiles, and other munitions are designed and made at 6 design bureaus and 28 plants."
"The armor equipment is designed and manufactured at 3 design bureaus and 27 plants."
(Quick math: 67 design bureaus, 186 plants)
"Ukraine's vast agricultural resources, port and shipbuilding facilities, machinery sector, transportation network, and skilled workforce
created a favorable investment picture." (The US would never do something sketchy just to gain investment opportunities, would they? Can you think of any time they've done that in the past?)
"
Ukraine is a considerable producer of military equipment, including tanks, military transport aircrafts, SAM complexes and optical equipment."
"The country's vast agricultural potential, its highly educated population, its transportation networks and the technological infrastructure it inherited from the Soviet Union provide Ukraine with excellent preconditions for strong economic growth." (Woah, hold in, it inherited educaiton, infrastructure and technology, and therefore a wealth of jobs and economic advantages from the USSR? But the USSR was horrible and bankrupt!!! That's why they lost the Cold War..... Or maybe it's not as you think).
[continued below]
