the home of online investigations

Ukrainian Tanks in Avdiivka Residential Area

February 3, 2017

By Bellingcat Investigation Team

Translations: Русский

On February 1, Tom Burridge of the BBC shared a video on Twitter showing Ukrainian troops and tanks in what appeared to be a residential area in Avdiivka.

This video led to a significant reaction in Russian and pro-separatist news outlets, requiring answers to a few key questions:

  • What are the official responses to these accusations?
  • Where were these tanks and soldiers?
  • When were these tanks deployed in the area?
  • Were civilians still residing in the apartments near the tanks and soldiers?

Official responses

Initially, a representative from the Ukrainian military refuted reports of tanks near residential areas, saying that it was a “fake.” However, soon after, Ukrainian officials stated that the tanks observed in the residential of Avdiivka were not used, and only there as “reserves.”

Despite claims from Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Mariya Zakharova, the OSCE did note the presence of Ukrainian tanks in a residential sector of Avdiivka. In their daily report for February 1, the OSCE SMM to Ukraine noted that they observed “four tanks (T-64) parked behind a building in Avdiivka.” Though she claims that the job of the OSCE is to “not notice tanks,” a look at the daily OSCE SMM to Ukraine reports shows countless observations of Ukrainian military equipment, including those in violation of the Minsk agreements.

Where?

Tom Burridge was not the only journalists at the location, as it was a popular spot for local and foreign journalists covering the recent escalation.

Clearly, these tanks and soldiers were stationed in this residential block. Finding the location, on the southern edge of Avdiivka, is not difficult, as these apartments were subject of a highly publicized story from July 2015. This residential area took a direct hit from separatist artillery in July 2015.

We can conclude that the tanks were located near a group of residential buildings on the southern edge of Avdiivka, facing the Donetsk Airport. This area is just east of an area called the 9th Block (“kvartal”), and is positioned in a precarious spot due to its proximity to separatist-controlled territory.


When?

The videos and photographs of the tanks in Avdiivka’s southern residential area were taken on February 1 and 2, 2017. Satellite imagery from the previous two weeks show that there were no tanks near the apartment buildings, but two armored vehicles were present in the eastern part of the images. These same vehicles could be seen in a drone photographs on January 29 and February 2, as discussed below.

The self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and its commanders provided two images from UAVs that they claim were shot on January 29, 2017 and February 2, 2017. The first image appeared on Strelkov-info.ru, originally from the DNR “Center of Drone Aviation.”  The image shows multiple armored vehicles, but no tanks. The location is the same residential block east of the 9th Block, facing south.

On February 2nd, Vostok Battalion commander Aleksandr Khodakovsky shared a drone image of the three tanks parked in the residential area.

The three tanks were recently deployed to the residential block, which has served as a type of headquarters for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Additional armored vehicles were deployed at least two weeks ago. A trench is visible in the southeast corner of the imagery, showing that it has long been a military position. This trench is observable in satellite imagery going back to 2015, and is not a new development.

There were no artillery systems observed in the area, and no reliable reports of outgoing fire or staged attacks from the Ukrainian Armed Forces from this area.

Who?

Aside from journalists and Ukrainian soldiers, there were also civilians in this residential block. For example, a Reuters photograph from February 1 shows a woman trudging through the nearby residential block with a bag, just meters away from two Ukrainian tanks.

It is unclear how many people still live in these apartment buildings, but they are not completely deserted. The area has been militarized by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, seen in both the presence of armored vehicles & tanks, and the trenches on the southeast corner of the residential block. These actions have made the residential area — and the lives and properties of civilians — more likely to be attacked from separatist artillery fire, especially worrisome with recent unguided Grad missile attacks staged from Donetsk. However, there have been no recent reliable reports indicating that Ukraine has used this area for any outgoing attacks on separatist positions. Nearby apartment buildings, including one at Molodezhnaya 13 just down the road from parked tanks, have been hit by separatist artillery fire this week. There were also reports that the apartment building at Molodezhnaya 19, the neighboring buildilng to the one with Ukrainian tanks parked in the courtyard, sustained a direct hit by separatist artillery fire. Even if the residential buildings surrounding the Ukrainian tanks are not hit by artillery fire, the nearby buildings that may have more civilians still living in them can be struck from inaccurate artillery fire.

Apartment building at Molodezhnaya 13, near the 9th Block where Ukrainian tanks are parked, that was hit by separatist shelling. Source

Bellingcat Investigation Team

The Bellingcat Investigation Team is an award winning group of volunteers and full time investigators who make up the core of the Bellingcat's investigative efforts.

Join the Bellingcat Mailing List:

Enter your email address to receive a weekly digest of Bellingcat posts, links to open source research articles, and more.

Support Bellingcat

You can support the work of Bellingcat by donating through the below link:

161 Comments

  1. Andrea

    Let’s apply the same standards:
    Ia Aleppo a populated civilian area (like any other city)?
    – YES
    Thus it should be an illegitimate target UNLESS some military target appears. (just like in any other city)
    Can you fire on that target endangering the civilians?
    – IT DEPENDS. You can, but only under precise circumstances and with proportionate weapons. The target neutralization must provide such a significant tactical advantage to justify endangering the possible collateral damage, both to lives and to property. Then you must use the proper weapon… ideal are guided munitions but they are expensive (RuAF seems not to use them in syria even if have them in stockpiles)… Anyway you must chose a weapon that respects the principle of PROPORTIONALITY… and for sure cluster bombs are way out of consideration for obvious reasons (but someone uses them… but RuAF denies).
    It is all about breaching/following two different principles of IHL: DISTINCTION and PROPORTIONALITY
    Can you fire on a healthcare strcture?
    – Obviously NO. Even if they are treating only the worst enemies. Cause as long as it is an healthcare facility it is protected by IHL.
    Can you aim to the building next to the hospital and then say the bomb missed the target?
    – Theorically yes. Even tough you have to consider how valuable an hospital is compared to the military target next to it and use the most accurate guns in your arsenal to avoid collateral damage. To avoid this possibility in first place there should not be military targets next to civilian ones, particularly next to high valuable civilian structures.

    PS: even a parked tank is a military target… otherwise i can use it and then park it next to a school.. so you can’t shoot back! The most extreme example that was made by my instructor while i was studying IHL was that if i put some military targets in a nuclear power plant (that obviously should never be a target) then my enemy is allowed to destroy the facility to get those targets! (if those targets are valuable enough to justify the mess…)

    Reply
  2. stranger

    Well, I don’t think IHL is applicable here… Let’s get away from formalities and think logically. Did you ever think why people make wars? I think that is because one group of people cannot make the other group of people to do what they want, usually according to the publically accepted law. In this case they try to use a brutal force to exterminate everybody who opposes to them. The brute force ALWAYS faces a brute response, and they fight until the strongest side wins or until the last terrorist is neutralized. Any war is the violation of laws themselves, the animal passion for dominance, dropping us thousands years back in history, when all questions were decided by the brute force and there was no any law nor justice at all.
    On the other hand, how does the justice work? The judges decide who is right according to publically accepted and by so legitimate laws. The important part of justice is the law enforcement, which makes the violated side to pay for the violation, whether the price is money or their lives. The justice w/o the law enforcement is a circus, it just doesn’t work. But the war is when violated side doesn’t accept the law enforcement and resist. Any war is a violation of laws, destruction and murders.
    From this prospective IHL prescribes how the ‘law enforcement’ should behave if they make a war to enforce their laws, or frequently just their commercial or political interests. But any war is the breaking of laws, and not necessarily to enforce the law. Anyway people die, infrastructure is destroyed, the war is going, the unrelated people suffer several generations.
    In Ukraine they have already signed the peace agreement, what more is needed, that is the law now, just implement! The peace is much better than the war, even by the rules of WAR, even according to IHL, which nobody follows anyway.
    P.S. Sorry to philosophical digression which may seem naïve.

    Reply
  3. stranger

    MadDog, let’s be clear, you’ve just lost this battle, so far, you can relax until the next time.

    Russia during Yeltsin was completely open outside and trusted US advisors more than herself, naively thinking everybody wants to help the “newborn democracy”. The foreign ambassador of Russia, Kozarev, always said Yes, in the contrast to soviet “muster No”, and asked Americans, “please tell us what should be Russia’s foreign policy”. During first Putins years he did his best to be an ally with US. Russia provided own military airfield for US helping them to get to Afghanistan, etc. Gradually the relationships were getting worse, including among others the moving NAT0 to the east and anti-missiles all over Russia’s borders. The first visible sight of disagreement appeared at Putin’s Munich speech in 2008, where he claimed that the world used to be bi-polar and now the one-polar world brings instability and danger. The West didn’t like his speech very much, but didn’t show, just remembered that for the future.

    The acute phase started with the election of Putin once more after the first 2 terms and one year of loyal and weak Medvedev. US represented by the Secretary of State, Clinton, became furious. Immediately the street protests raised in Moscow. Some people believe Clinton stayed behind that protests. I don’t know but don’t exclude. The protests quickly calmed down.

    The next step of exacerbation started with the attempts of Clinton and her machine she was in the head of, to tear away all former soviet republics from Russia. Asian ones, Kazakhstan, Belarus and especially Ukraine where they had the max success and max disappointment. Clinton called that “preventing sovietization”, but in fact they tried to export their abstract “democracy” (so many times perverted from the original meanining) understood as globalization and moving under the economical dominance of US, even at the expense of Russia and Ukrainians, as well as to avoid any reintegration and strengthening at the post soviet space. Fragmented and fighting each other’s in the same way as forcefully divided Middle East, the post soviet states would not be able to come up together as any consistent and strong rival. They were very afraid of any signs of USSR to recover, even at the new principles of trading.

    The resistance in Ukraine was suppressed by the coup, forcefully turned Ukraine into an anti Russian state by playing with nationalists. Which of course was finalized by the emotional and insufficiently considered Russia’s response. Since then the confrontation with Russia emerged public, all western press day and night poured tons of lie, dirt and shit in the ears of own western listeners in order to advocate the harshest actions against Russia. NAT0 moved their ships to the Black Sea and land forces by the Russian borders to “frighten” (LOL) Russia. Putin was demonized, associated with KGB which was painted as Stalins NKVD and the depest of the h3ll. Thouthands trolls promoted this propaganda on the net. Bogged tried to convince us here that KGB invented Islamic terrorism! Thouthands of regular people, bloggers, joined bullying Russia with passion and energy, solving their psychological problems or seasonal acutes.

    That tide of propaganda reached the peak on Clinton’s election campaign and rolled over on Clinton and all the party of war, washing them away. This acute offense to Russia with the attempt to “change the regime” from outside epic failed with the epic failure of its inspirers and sponsors. The situation is calming down gradually, the press is regaining its normal vision after their heat of passion.

    You have managed a lot in order to destroy Russia. When Obama bragged, “Russian economy is in tatters” meaning “I did it, look at me how great I am, strong I am” 🙂 the Russian economy were really in slight recession, a lot of loans in USD should have been immediately returned, the foreign capitals were fleeing, the oil dramatically dropped (which I believe was also intentionally provoked, but nobody says about it). So the huge foreign bucks were pulled from the country, leading to national currency drop in 2 times, so basically all people became 2 times poorer, even though that was good for internal industry. Weakened Russia were no longer able to help the former soviet republics so much, bying their love. The disappointed Belarus started looking away from not so generous Russia, so may fall off Russia soon, though it would be difficult economically to them. With Ukraine – you know – former relatives are now the enemies forever. But with Russia itself, your major target of all this mess, you have failed.

    And Russia, having repelled one more offense as many many times in the history before, is returning to its centuries old question “Who is guilty, and what to do”, and cannot find the answer as always in history.

    You as Americans have this attitude in mentality and culture, always fight, always compete and rival. If you are too afraid to fight with an equal, you fight with a weak to feel strong. That tough attitude is what made you the strongest and the richest country in the world. You project this mentality to other countries and fight and fight. But for what? Nobody knows, just not to feel themselves – losers. But this time you have just epic failed and lost, my congratulations. But let’s make clear that concern only the previous administration, Democrats have always been too more interested in world’s dominance, than own country’s problems. Let’s wait for the next time.

    PS I’m not saying this interpretation in comprehensive. But if you wonder why you are not popular in Russia that might be a part of the answer… Russia is very tough still, she welcomes fair and equal negotiations, and able to keep her words and be a devoted ally or even a friend, but never ever appreciate brute force and threatening. So… that pathosly… 🙂 And you have epic failed so pathosly, let’s live friendly guys. 😉

    Reply
    • Mad Dog

      Wow, the view of the world according to Putin and his minions. Really surprised that they have even got to you outside of Rodina. Okay, you stopped me with this: “US represented by the Secretary of State, Clinton, became furious. ” Again, WOW, this is just far too funny and it seems you have this preoccupation with Clinton and some kind of “machine”. Absent evidence, this is just emotional rhetoric and your conspiracy theory about Clinton being behind the mess in the Ukraine in her fervent attempts to prevent ‘Sovietization’ is really just full of holes. (not least of which is the failure to mention the tightening of the screws on political dissent in Russia, etc. before any of this happened) Then you follow it up with Obama bragging??? (FYI, the Russian economy was in tatters based on most economic indicators, especially from 2014, so Obama was not far off the mark. This is so easy to do when the economy is so polarized, i.e. based on a single commodity. Look here to see where Russia was at that time: http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/russia). C’mon, that is a real misreading of the facts and then you end the story with the Democrats being bent on world domination, another strange take on the actual state of the world. Good way to ignore any part that Putin had in any of this, though. Nice try,but no cigar.

      Reply
      • stranger

        Clinton said that HERSELF and almost literally as this. I gave you the citation some time ago, I can do it again if you don’t remember. Don’t forget that she was not a candidate that time in 2012, she was the Secretary of States(!) in Obamas administration, one of the highest official positions in US. And her words must have meant what her team and the whole administration were doing.

        Disagree? Don’t you believe HEROWN words?? Do you mean she could lie?? Omg

        You are just trying to avoid facts and reduce it to emotions, labels, negative associations and switch the topic. See, how you are trying to manipulate your auditorium? Seriously…

        When Obama bragged, he meant “look how cool am I” that was not simply the acknowledgement of the fact, he definitely made a lot of efforts to intentionally put the Russian economy down and made all people in Russia two times poorer via the rubble falling.

        Why did the rubble fall – simply because it depends on free dollars circulating in Russian internal market and in the reserves of CB. That is the dollar centered financial system your advisors set up in Russia in 1991. More external loans were claimed and not refunded, lower oil, gas prices, more capitals fled, sanctions, etc, etc, more bucks leaked – lower the rubble was.

        Why did oil futures prices dropped?? That is more interesting question. My version is
        1) removed American ban to export own raw oil and gas to other countries
        2) the removed sanction oil embargo from Iran which directly pushed Iran to fight for the customers and discount against Saudi
        3) the unpredictable behavior of Kings and Princes of Saudi, the best US friend and ally in ME, to push down the prices loosing own income
        4)and the only objective reason – slowing of worlds economy and particularly the production in China so decreasing oil demand

        All of that fortunately coincided with sanction pressure to Russia while oil prices drop gave the strongest effect. Well looking above I assume the oil prices were about to fall but somebody kicked them at the edge to crack down intentionally. Though nobody actually was relating those facts so I’m not a specialist and don’t insist.

        Obama also did everything to spoil and break up any relationships with Russia and directly or indirectly unleashed the tide of anti Russian hysteria in mass media. He also made all troubles for Trump to be able to recover the relationships with Russia, including expedited sending of NAT0 troops to Russian borders before Trump could cancel it.
        And now the joyful Obama smiling at all 32 tooth rides kite at the billionaire Richard Brenson’s private Virgin Islands,having completely forgotten about the international mess he created, his failed Noble prize expectations, and the world put at the edge on a nuclear war.

        When he bragged that meant they did it, which to some extent was true, they failed to complete or gain any good results from that. The idea of sanctions was that Russians becoming poorer and facing economical troubles would immediately run to overthrow “Putin” by Ukrainian example. That hopes completely failed. Russia did not gave in to the untimatum and was not collapsed.

        As for democrats, that is the basic known fact, democrats are more concerned by the world’s problems and with own believe in selfmightiness and selfrightfullness and selfcleverness they try to bring peace everywhere by non stopping wars, they are spending huge money for that. The Republicans on the other hand are for lowing taxes, decreasing the external spending on “all the world” and focusing on internal problems and middle class wealth. That was one of the reasons Trump won. Isn’t it?? You said, you are yankee…

        I’m saying from Russia’s prospective and said the picture is not comprehensive. But definitely Russia and “Putin” have not done as much as you try to paint in shit, and definitely no more, you are doing for 30 years plus.

        C’mon, admit that all you, who painted Russian government and Russia’s action in shit, deceiving newbies, all you have epic failed and got lost!

        Reply
      • stranger

        Ok, ones again, if you disagree, please explain your Secretary of State words when she said in 2012:
        1) WE are working to slow down or completely prevent the resovetization disguised by the customs/trade union
        2) we are working with all post soviet countries, Ukraine disapointed us, Belarus had us out so far

        The Obama’s claim “we have brockered the transition of power in Ukraine”. What did you do in Ukraine in the first hand.

        The US behavior to support the Maydan against elected and more or less pro Russian president of Ukraine.

        Nullands words “we have invested 5bil in Ukraine” (for NGO, right journalists, etc.)

        But first of all you disagreed with what Clinton said herself. What is your explanation/interpretation. of her words?

        Reply
        • stranger

          Forgot the link
          gma.yahoo.com/clinton-fears-efforts-sovietize-europe-111645250–politics.html

          Reply
        • Mr.Bushkin

          Quote: “The Obama’s claim “we have brockered the transition of power in Ukraine”. What did you do in Ukraine in the first hand.”

          Did Obama mean the chasing of Yanukowich by Maidan-head Parubij instead of the implementation actual power transition agreement ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vereinbarung_%C3%BCber_die_Beilegung_der_Krise_in_der_Ukraine ) and causing the counter action by Party of Regions in eastern parts of Ukraine by this?

          US reperesentatives neither participated in the corresponding negotiations nor did they sign anything.

          Reply
          • stranger

            Thanks! As you remember this document didn’t worth the paper it was written at. The president agreed on preterm reelections. In fact he gave up all his positions and agreed on a peaceful transition.

            But you remember what was next? In several week after that, the nationalists stated that no any agreement with Yanukovich is possible, that Klichko, Yats, Tyagnibok are nobody and they will fight to the end. In the end of feb, the weapon appeared from protesters, the demonstration to the parliament, and the harshest for all 3 months bloodshed for 3 days.

            The real transition of power started after that, and is not related in any way to the document above.

            The American officials did took part in the negotiations with Yanuk all the time.

            But please, tell what do you think Obama was talking about by that his phrase?

          • Mr.Bushkin

            Quote: “But please, tell what do you think Obama was talking about by that his phrase?”

            My subjective interpretation is based on Nuland’s “Fuck the EU” telephonate with US state department participating indirectly as Yatsenyuk, Tyagnibok, Klichko and Parubij.

          • stranger

            No, no, no, you cannot leave like that. Do you remember the context? That are just small pieces of mosaic only from what is known to the public.

            Nuland: OK… one more wrinkle for you, Geoff. I can’t remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltmanthis morning, he had a new name for the UN guy, Robert Serry, did I write you that this morning?

            Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.

            Nuland: OK. He’s now gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, f..k the EU.

            I’ve googled Serry, almost everything google gives is the story how “Russians” threatened him in Crimea so that he had to complete “his mission”(??)

            Who in the world is that Robert Serry and what was he supposed to do in UN by the agreement with Ban Ki-moon to f..k EU and “glue the things together”?? To overcome possible EU resistance in UN to recognize the coup as a legal change of power? Or what else could it be??

          • stranger

            I apologize for confusing chronology. Nuland’s phone call was reported on 4 feb 3 week before the culmination. They discussed about forming new government, afaiu after Yanukovich agreed to accept somebody from opposition to a gov position.

            But the agreement you gave was from 21 feb, just next day after the “bloody Thursday” – the pick of violence, and one day before nationalists statement they refuse to give up weapon and will not observe this agreement, the violence continued.

            The agreement was rather reasonable and proposed a peaceful process. If it had been implemented, there would have been nothing from the recent harshest events and Russia would not have interfered, no MH 17, no nothing at least until the next acute. But nationalists refused to disarm and continued violence.

            Back to Nulland, they definitely discussed the forming of the new government, but they mentioned something EU was against and they needed to “glue things up” via UN with the help of Dutch ambassador in Ukraine Robert Perry and his relations up to Pan Gi Moon. What was that? Was that only to promote Yachenuk and remove Klichko? Hardly that would need discussion in UN. Something more global and important. First of all to bring into power abs loyal to them, anti-Russian, oriented to the west, to break up with Russia, but not too far nationalists.

            Taking into account Obama words, My guess they were trying to manage the crisis outcome (actually they did follow the protest from the very begging and earlier to the very end) to finally bring in the forces loyal to them and serving their political interests, and bypass European efforts to return just peace with no politics.

            Isn’t it? Would very appreciate your opinion on what did Nulland actually mean there…

          • Mr.Bushkin

            Quote: “Who in the world is that Robert Serry and what was he supposed to do in UN by the agreement with Ban Ki-moon to f..k EU and “glue the things together”?? To overcome possible EU resistance in UN to recognize the coup as a legal change of power? Or what else could it be??”

            I do not think so, because the coup of 2014 is illegal even by Ukrainian laws, since three quarters (“absolute majority”) of total deputy voices are required for removal of Yanukowich from power instead of actual 72,89% according to the version of Ukrainian constitution, to which Ukrainian parliament has rolled it back prior to voting about Yanukowich.

            This also keeps him being the legal president of Ukraine until Poroshenko’s election, since he has not been removed from power by Ukrainian parliament.

          • stranger

            Excuse me, but still, what did Nulland mean by getting the Dutch ambassador in Ukraine to help them to “glue all things, UN helps” through UN to f.k EU? What exactly they wanted to push through UN bypassing or even f..kng EU? Up to you to answer of course, I see you try to be careful

          • Mr.Bushkin

            Quote: “Excuse me, but still, what did Nulland mean by getting the Dutch ambassador in Ukraine to help them to “glue all things, UN helps” through UN to f.k EU? What exactly they wanted to push through UN bypassing or even f..kng EU? Up to you to answer of course, I see you try to be careful”

            No problem. I am simply not the one to patronize Nuland.

          • stranger

            So… what do you think Nulland meant? Or you prefer not to answer, which is also understood?

          • Mr.Bushkin

            Quote: “So… what do you think Nulland meant? Or you prefer not to answer, which is also understood?”

            I’d relate her statement to the political situation in Ukraine.

            Aside of this, I prefer not to jump on conclusions without having all relevant information, which would otherwise contradict any scientific, juristical or military approach.

          • stranger

            Ok, I’ve heard you.

            Just to note that unfotunatelly scientific approach doesn’t work here, that is from a completely different area, juristical – you know it will never be brought to the court, even MH17 is procrastinated for 3 years and that is not the end, military – especially too, a next world war?

            But what is possible. You know the so called theory of mosaic. The insider trading based on secret internal financial information is prohibited, but. If you collect the same data by pieces, hints, from various sources and figure out only based on the public sources, that is welcome. A kind of what cats are doing when they don’t republish disinformation from other propagandistic sources, but they are only single sided. If they challenged both sides equally, would be no questions.

  4. Mad Dog

    I know she said it. So what? Not anything new, nothing nefarious outside of the real fact that Putin had his eyes on just such a move. Bring Eastern Europe back under the protection of Vladmir and his cronies.
    And where did you get this 5 billion dollar figure from? What did that consist of? Oh, I know, you got it from RT, that bastion of True Views/True News. Gee, no wonder you are a bit misguided. You seem to believe quotes out of context are indicators of nefarious deeds, attribute half truths as full blown facts, but you are just deceiving yourself in so many ways. Nuland BTW, was talking about aid since 2001! Nothing to do with Obama or Clinton, much of the money spent on things like job creation, HIV prevention, human trafficking, drug prevention, and most of the money was provided before Yanukovych was elected in 2010! So, please tell me again how that 5 billion yankee dollars was aimed at Maydan?

    The other stuff you mention is just as silly, with the move to abscond with Crimea and then all that border mess with Ukraine including sending Russian forces over the border and other units to borders with other countries elicited a response from NATO.

    But a life dedicated to honoring the brave souls in RT would be able to recognize any of that. Oh yeah, the 70 page reports from the Atlantic Council (I know what your response will be to that….LOL) lambasts Russia and Syria for specifically targeting hospitals and clinics in Aleppo. Read it before just dismissing it as there are a number of sections on how Russian media changed their tune after inadvertently posting news clips that pointed in the same direction….where have we seen this before.

    Reply
    • stranger

      “Bring Eastern Europe back under the protection of Vladmir and his cronies.”

      Where did you get this nonsense? “Putin” was looking in involving formers USSR republics in economical integration, like a customs or trade union. Just like your Obama was looking for trans-Atlantic and trans-pacific unions. With the tightly integrated and compatible industries, that would have been beneficial to everybody, not necessarily beneficial with EU. Look at the map, Eastern Europe – is Poland, Baltic, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Serbia etc. What “Putin” has to do with them? Other than that more allies is better. But Poland, Baltic historically has always been hostile to Russia and nobody expects anything else from them now. Nobody has ever threatened them – they are just lying.
      The other points were also the Russian concern on raising of anti Russian nationalistic movements in those republic. And not the least the presence of the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea. But the forceful dominance over Eastern Europe is just your fantasy, and Clinton’s maybe too.

      You intentionally ignore the most important point from her phrase. She said they would work on slowing that down or completely preventing. What’s their business?! Why in the heck they interfere in something they don’t understand. So that phrase means they intentionally worked on preventing economical integration between Russia and Ukraine! How would you explain that in another way?? What specifically did they do to prevent it??

      “And where did you get this 5 billion dollar figure from?”

      Nulland’s speech, I believe most have been spent on NGO, grants to “right” journalists, election campaigns for the “right” candidate, financing of protests during Orange Revolution etc. That far nationalism and softer looking for “Ukrainian identity” in oppose to Russia have been promoted right from 1991, and intensified after the Orange Revolution – when the na3i collaborators were officially heroized etc. That started not from Maydan, that has been for many years. Maydan was the culmination and the victory of that forces. It was not Nulland who created nationalists, but they tried to ride and direct as much as they could.

      Atlantic Council s.u.c.k.s, they are nobody, with no political power and doesn’t bear any responsibility for their fantasies, they are not even a mass media abiding to at least some journalistic standards and risking to loose license. But I’m ok to read their report. I used to read something from them, to understand what those guys are. They pick up facts out of context, give a weird interpretation and speculations. Very similar to this site but more of weird speculations. But no problem with reading anything.

      You dedicated 90% of your post to myself as well as RT. What does it have to do with the topic?? Could be you be less emotional and closer to the topic?

      Reply
    • stranger

      “You seem to believe quotes out of context are indicators of nefarious deeds, attribute half truths as full blown facts, but you are just deceiving yourself in so many ways. ”
      I’m not! I’m giving known facts, always referring original sources giving some context and avoid overgeneralizations! If you disagree with the specific facts based on a specific source, give your own facts with the source, give your own explanation to observed evidences visible to the public or just from the common sense. But you discuss my personality and give tons of cliches and stereotypes, your grandfather was telling you from the time of Caribbean crisis. ??

      Reply
      • Mad Dog

        Well, as you mentioned: Nulland’s speech, I believe most have been spent on NGO, grants to “right” journalists, election campaigns for the “right” candidate, financing of protests during Orange Revolution etc…..as you believe. Doesn’t make it true. I mentioned your belief in RT, etc., because the stuff you say comes straight from their alt. news! Pretty easy. As for Clinton, of course as SecStae, she would work to do whatever the aims of the US Gov. are, but what else besides diplomatic efforts does this imply. Plus, she wasn’t their from 2001 when the $5 billion you harped on started to flow into a variety of areas. Not a very convincing case, despite the half truths from RT and others.

        Reply
        • stranger

          “Doesn’t make it true.” doesn’t make it false either.

          As for the “alt media”, they are saying what your mainstream media don’t tell due to own financial and political interests. You mainstream media showed themselves disgusting esp during Clinton’s campaign, so not much trust to them is left. Please don’t mix up the media which gives you the other side of the coin by painting them all conspirological. That is simply not true.

          “she would work to do whatever the aims of the US Gov. are, but what else besides diplomatic efforts does this imply. ”
          You are trying to be so naive as if you don’t know what your country has been doing over decades. Really I start to doubt you are honest and not just kidding us. Besides diplomatic efforts, that includes the threatening to other country’s leaders, sanctions, financing of oppositional parties and separate politicians, NGO which always promote the right pov, the grands for journalists for “development of democracy” but actually to promote own political interests, the own propagandistic TV, radio or just Inet channels, up to supplying weapon, own instructors, all military help, to the selected group of opposition, which doesn’t represent the interests of their country, but serves your own interests, up to a military invation. How many Color Revolutions have you organized or sponsor for decades?? How many times did you invade? Including the heating up and sustaining the civil war in Syria for 5 years. Dozens if not hundreds times over the history.

          If Clinton did it diplomatically, nobody would ever argue or complaint, that would be fair. But what actually happened all sudden and nobody guilty especially not your dear country of course. The violant coup? Hundred dead on capturing administrative buildings and clashing with police, the mysterious snipers who directly killed police, and reportedly demonstrants? When diplomacy doesn’t work, the cannons talk?

          “Plus, she wasn’t their from 2001 when the $5 billion you harped on started to flow into a variety of areas.”
          You are kidding, that is not only one poor Clinton who is responsible for everything, that a group or a specific ideology in US establishment which has more or less support over time. You know that the establishment is very inhomogeneous. Call them neocons, party of war, missioners, democrats, whatever.

          Nobody pays money for free, that is not charity, money should work, they expect the return on their money, now or later.

          Reply
        • stranger

          I can give you a tiny example how your tax money work in other countries. That Radio Liberty, used to be financed by US congress, and now by some US fund, a propagandistic tool to try influencing the politics in other country by addressing to wide auditorium in the target country.

          Partially, the Belorussian division of RL, speaking solely Belorussian language, which is a close dialect of Russian while Belarusians themselves doesn’t use it themselves day by day, much less then Ukrainians speak the other dialect – Ukrainian. RL has dozens of divisions and always speak the national language even if not everybody there understand.

          Recently I found a post on the social media from RL, which says on behalf of Belorussians: “look have many times we were in war with Russians” wtf? They illustrate with a timetable the 300 years of war from 1300-1600. wtf? More than 400 years ago? For comparably short historical period of Lithuanian and Poland occupation? There was no any Belorus that time! That territory was all Poland and the Great Kindom of Lithuania which Belaruses lived in, but were not always treated as equal. Some known Poland army commanders were born at the territory of modern Belarus but they called themselves Poles, and fought for Polish crown. Now Belorussians are imposed the new historical view they are “Litvins”, that Lithuania is their motherland and not Russia or the union of Slavs people at all, impose they should separate from Russia or even fight it. Wtf again. Did you ever compare Lithuanian and Belorussian together? Did you compare their languages? Nothing similar.

          That is a small example as the propagandistic Radio of your country gradually day by day try to separate people and incite them to each other’s creating a conflict. They have managed with Ukraine, the next target is Belorus.

          Reply
          • Mad Dog

            You are joking, right? That Radio Liberty, used to be financed by US congress, and now by some US fund, a propagandistic tool to try influencing the politics in other country by addressing to wide auditorium in the target country. Gee, you mean Russia has never done that? You mean there is freedom to obtain information in Russia? You mean there are dissenting media sites that haven’t been persecuted in Russia? Do you mean places like Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc., don’t do even worse? Blame it all on Clinton and Radio Free Europe (which existed because there really was an iron curtain on information flow at the time) and Radio Liberty, but do leave out anything coming from Rodina, the land of free speech and golden opportunities.

          • stranger

            Don’t whatabout, as they said. I was talking about Radio Liberty, finance by a government fund of your county, which don’t deserve the word Liberty in the name, which is just piece of shit. I gave an examples of Phy Op of your country in Russian and neighbour countries.

  5. Dude

    I do not understand what’s all the buzz about here?
    Were Ukrainian tanks shooting from the residential areas?
    NO.

    Occupant rushka-orks in Donbass do it all the time – artillery fire from the occupied residential areas. In hope that Ukrainian troops will be intimidated, and will not respond likewise. And it is true, Ukrainians do not shell residential areas.

    Pootler infamously stated that his goons will be “behind women and children”.

    Sapienti Sat.

    Reply
  6. Dude

    Wow.. that’s an impressive volume of pointless verbal diarrhea from rushka-troll “stranger”?
    What happened? Fuses blown? 🙂

    Reply
    • Mad Dog

      Sensitive area I guess. Nothing is Russia’s fault and their minions (led by Russians at first…LOL) in Donbas do no wrong.

      Reply
          • stranger

            Not for sure, but from our previous conversations,from the knowledge of very specific local “folklore” it can be assumed, dude never denied… I have no idea from where, maybe Kiev or Lviv, may be else, maybe he is laughing now how we are misled…

          • stranger

            I can carefully guess Dude is from a more/less large city or studied and lived in a city. Because he definitely has some tech education and English. In the Western Ukraine it is most likely Lvov.

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)