ASIP

These are all bla-bla- bla. The report is just interpretation of exclusively Ukrainian research data, collected before year 2000. Shale gas deposits in Donbass are still "estimates." If you want to be taken seriously, please show real oil and gas wells, derricks etc., in that area. Give numbers of output, production. Compare to entire Ukraine. Can I receive a numerical confirmation of "your" statement that Donbass is a principal producer of oil and gas in Ukraine? You are twistiing my point. Coal can be a strategic resourse, but in the particular Ukrainian situation, it would be much more economical to leave it under the ground and buy, say, Australian coal. Ditto with all other Donbass heavy industry, which is obsolete. Well-well, a classical "if you don't like the message, attack the messenger" propaganda trick. The web page is a concise collection of statistical data and textbook data. All in one place. Do you have problems with the data? Or you will argue that they are invented by Andrey Ivchenko? This is OK now. The main reason Ukrainian government is fighting is the will of Ukrainian people to resist an invasion of Russia. Chances are Ukraine will lose the war. Everybody understands that if Putin decides, Russian tanks will roll in the streets of Kiev within hours. Situation is very bad for Ukraine now.

Solidarity, Not a single barrel of oil has been extracted in that area. Your figures are estimates. Test drilling for fracking gas has to be started yet. Economics of this "eventual" gas recovery is not clear. "the basin is ranked 36th among 102 world provinces that were designated for appraisal of undiscovered oil and gas resources by the US geological survey" - how big is the value of something undiscovered? The Dnieper-Donets basin is much larger than the fighting area. There is no industrial gas development in the fighting area. Total discovered reserves of natural gas in both Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts (rebels occupy approx. one half of them) are less than 1% of those of Ukraine. It's peanuts. http://www.photoukraine.com/russian/articles?id=111 "Abstract The Dnieper-Donets basin is almost entirely in Ukraine, and it is the principal producer of hydrocarbons in that country. " The last statement is ridiculously wrong. It might be so for gas in 1960s, but not now. Never has been for oil. Subsidizing coal has nothing to do to "strategic" steel production or energy source. It's a social issue. It's big money sucker for Ukraine. Ukraine does not need that coal. Russia has closed its coal mines in neighboring Rostov region. Buying coal from Australia would make Ukrainian steel more competitive. Coil is in little use for energy generation in Donbass. This fact disproves your claim of significant economical importance of the area occupied by rebels and Russian army. The only big role that the conflict area plays for Ukraine is salt and rich soil. If you prefer me to change my definition of your post from "propaganda" to "uneducated and wishful interpretation of a second hand information", I can agree.

The post above is not a lie. It's a shear propaganda. Donetsk and especially Lugansk are depression regions. There is no industrial amount of neither oil or gas. Coal is highly subsidized, not economically viable. Yes, the region provided some flow of hard currency into Ukraine, but mostly due to actually dumping practices.

Consensus in Ukraine (and among normal people in Russia) is that fighting back is the only way to stop Putin's invasion. This problem was considered before fighting on the Ukraine mainland started. The Donbass (that area) is economical liability, not a benefit (Russia doesn't want it either). But surrender it to Putin solves no problems. Putin will continue to spread his cancer into Ukraine. This has happened in history before: Churchill: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." 1938, after Prime Minister Chamberlain signed an agreement with Hitler. Ukraine chose that Finland did in 1940. However, Ukrainian conditions now are much, much worse than those of Finland then.

No, the majority of the "separatists" or "rebels" are still citizens of Ukraine. By estimate of a front-line Ukrainian soldier, right now, the share of Russian soldiers among killed or captured fighters is approximately one third (up from one tenth in the beginning of fighting). But this is applicable for the main fighting area. Two days ago Russia performed two strikes from the south. One, to the north, to the back of Ukrainian army at Illovaysk. Another, to the west, towards Mariupol. This opens a completely new front at the shore of See of Azov. These two battle groups, I think, are purely regular Russian army. There may be some rebels' representatives for propaganda purposes.

Getting a lots of information and analyzing it...

It seems there are some. To bring Humanitarian aid you don't need 280 trucks. 20 is enough. Hint: at least some trucks inspected by Western journalists are almost empty. To bring weapons to Ukraine from Russia you don't need white 18-wheelers. Drab ones do the job. Every day. Conclusion: 280 white 18-wheelers are needed only for bringing a thousand of Russian military personal inside Ukraine officially. Once they are there, let's provocations begin.

That is not quite right. Russian forces already have enough weapons inside Ukraine. At least having a 100-km wide open border, weapon supply is not a problem. The goal is to have a 1000-men strong contingent of Russian military who are inside Ukraine kind of legally. This opens several game-changer options for Putin.

No. This assertion does not pass a simple logic test. This is not a PR move. This is a military operation. Has been done before. Czechoslovakia 1968, Georgia 2008. Could you please point out where you did this prediction? I mean Crimea. Because before February of 2014 nobody outside of the Russian Army HQ predicted that. With the buffer state you are way off. The idea of NovoRussia was to have a land corridor to Crimea. If you look at the map, the NovoRussia covers only a part of the Ukrainian-Russian border. No Russian politician ever spoke about such a buffer. This is a nonsense. Unless in your terms the "buffer" means a "beachhead".

Completely agree! These are exactly sentiments of people in Eastern Europe.

Ukraine has relieved its demands, which are actually international rules. The latest requirements are: any point of entry, Russian trucks may go on. But! The freight must be certificated by the Red Cross. This what Russia is resisting - the cargo inspection. They claim the trucks are sealed, no inspection. Approx. one third of the convoy stays some 300 km from Ukrainian border. About 150 trucks... disappeared. Most analysts assume they are heading to Izvarino, a check point under control of separatists to enter Ukraine without any control. It's only your opinion. I see no any facts that can support this point of view. There are dozens of comments in Russian media. They do not agree with you. Quite opposite! Russian diplomacy sucks again. Refusing to follow international rules and procedures, constant lying about collaboration with the ICRC result in exposing hypocrisy of Russia.

This is all not true, I mean what CTV "reports". Actually, this is garbage.

Are you really so ignorant or just pretending that you don't understand what is going on? Do you expect any official from the "independent" countries would accept that Putin wiped his shoes on them? Belarus and Kazakhstan are in a custom union with Russia; and by the treaty, Putin had to consult with these countries before he takes any steps on import. Many goods enter this union through Belarus, not Russia's border, for example. Here he decided everything himself and just inform his "partners" post-factum. He decided that goods allowed through other country borders. And of course, the Russian propaganda calls such action "consultations"...

Oh, you definitely haven't read how this is discussed in the Russian-speaking media. For your information: http://inforesist.org/u-rossii-net-soyuznikov-u-nee-est-libo-konkurenty-libo-vassaly-libo-vragi/ http://www.dw.de/%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B5%D1%82-%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D1%81-%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D0%B8-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BC-%D0%B2-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5-%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D1%8D%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%BE/a-17840055

I have to accept my wording wasn't the best. I would like to roll back a little bit. Thank you for your patience.

In our company, on a work ethics training, we were taught not to endorse the idea you are promoting. Never assume people should behave as you think is right. People may not have "same limitations". As I already explained, you have a very limited pool of information sources. Even when you "base your opinions on what you see happening on the ground" almost certainly means you won't be able to generate correct understanding.

Not true. There is no any friendship among BRICS countries. It's more a phantom of propaganda. Especially "friendly" look relations between Russia and China. About the "Stans". Do you read Russian media? I remind you that the latest Russian embargo on the Western produce is widely treated as a demonstrative humiliation of Kazakhstan and Belorussia. My point was actually not about those countries (there are groups of population who admire Putin) but about Putin's attitude to them. Now the Russia's foreign policy (and internal too) is driven by Putin's personal ambitions, not the countries long-term interests. It's not only my idea, it's what many Russians say. My perception of Putin is, of course, wider, than presented, but is a reflection of the common trend in regions close to and dealing with the subject.

Absolutely! With a minor clarification. At this moment Russia is usurped by Putin. This man has no friends. In his world, there are only vassals and enemies. He is a bully. As a bully he treats negotiations as an evidence of the opponent weakness, hence, an invitation for ramming his way. Only a united front of the civilized world can affect him.

If Canada does not stop Putin (together with the democratic world), we can get problems from the North. This is not a fight for Ukraine, it's a fight for predictable order in the world. BTW, noting "Finland" in your profile. Russian political analysts say that the next goal of Putin's plan of resurrection of the new Russian Empire is Estonia (Narva) and the other Baltic states. I think, for Putin, Helsingfors is a fair prize too...

You did not get it. Doing business with Russia is wrong because Putin does not obey rules. You invest, you develop something at Russian territory and ... they grab it from you. Under any pretext. It's not ideology, it's a pure business. You risk, you loose...

And East Prussia to Germany...

Relax, you are not at a Putin's fundraising meeting. Putin is an aggressor. Russian people now are not the same they were 70 years ago. You can read their opinions. They don't agree with you. And it seems you forget, Russia has claims in Arctic, just in Canada's backyard. Doing business with Russia was a mistake in the first place. What we see now is the same pattern of Putin, only at a larger scale.

So, it is not then...

I am not sure that your statement is true. Design service life of Canadian CF-18 is 6000 flight hours (from open sources). My understanding is that this limit is not reached yet. And wing structural condition is not good (from rumors).

Reports from who? The only reports I heard were from Russian propaganda (so called Spanish air traffic controller). Even Russian MoD did not dare to repeat this BS.