Tank column crosses from Russia into Ukraine: Kiev military
Source: Reuters
A column of 32 tanks, 16 howitzer artillery systems and trucks carrying ammunition and fighters has crossed into eastern Ukraine from Russia, the Kiev military said on Friday.
"The deployment continues of military equipment and Russian mercenaries to the front lines," spokesman Andriy Lysenko said in a televised briefing referring to Thursday's cross-border incursion.
The report of a new Russian movement of armor across the border follows a charge on Thursday by pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine that Kiev government forces had launched a new offensive - which Kiev immediately denied.
Sporadic violence has continued since a Sept. 5 truce in a conflict that has cost over 4,000 lives.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/07/us-ukraine-crisis-military-idUSKBN0IR11020141107
Not, as far as I can tell, confirmed by anyone other than the Ukraine military so far.
malthaussen
(17,204 posts)Don't let the NRA see this, or they'll be wanting them too.
-- Mal
Paolo123
(297 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Paolo123
(297 posts)But the Russia is not making a claim that everyone is taking at face value. The Ukrainian Military is. Therefore, my comment is relevant to the story if one wants to think a little bit about it rather than automatically accept the Kiev version like most people in the US do despite Kiev being caught lying endlessly.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)role in supporting the "rebels".
Funny how just a few months ago, the "rebels" were down to practically nil on equipment, now they have plenty of equipment of a more modern nature, hmmmm, wonder where that came from?
atreides1
(16,079 posts)...have problems with credibility!
Sort of like the US and Syria have regarding Syrian rebels...
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Paolo123
(297 posts)Although it is well documented that they captured a fair bit from Ukraine
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... since we (the USA) have a right wing government on it's way into office.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)In 2006, we won the House and the Senate. Did we effectively change George Bush's policy? In September 2006 when the REPUBLICANS still controlled the Senate, Senator John Warner allowed the inclusion of a resolution that Bush convene a regional summit to help the Iraqis resolve the political problems between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds (this was taken from Kerry/Feingold) into the must pass defense bill. It passed with no problem. However, I doubt Bush spent a second considering the idea.
After the Democrats took over the Senate, they did pass a resolution that Biden sponsored that boiled down to the same thing, but spoke of the Iraqis considering a less federalized form of government with three relatively autonomous countries. (It passed after Biden was persuaded to
change the proposal from one that called for creating this form of government to one that called for a summit where (and other possibilities) would be considered - but the Iraqis, not the west would draw the lines.) Still, there was NO summit - the Congress could recommend it, but not actually do it.
In addition, in 2007, Reid/Feingold ( essentially Kerry/Feingold) did pass the Senate and House and was vetoed by Bush - overriding the veto was impossible. I assume that this is what would happen on anything where they wanted on foreign policy or use of the military disputing the President.
Just as we could not force a move towards diplomacy and peace, the Congress pushing for anything military AGAINST the wishes of the President doesn't really work. It is like trying to push a piece of string, rather than pulling it.
Where things could get interesting is the vote on use of force against ISIS. The Republicans have had the edge most of the time in this century on "keeps America safe". (Their fear mongering on ebola likely led to some of their support in the last election - even though by any real assessment, Obama was actually pretty good on this -- especially in contrast to Reagan's inaction on AIDS. ) ISIS has demonized itself and I suspect that other than on both extremes, there is support for fighting them. (In fact, the argument with the mainstream of Republicans and the Democratic neo cons has been that they want us to have an all out war against Assad as well.) Here, they - like us when Bush was President - can pass any resolution they want, but as Bush had no summit, Obama does not have to change his policy if he thinks it is unwise.
Even on Iran, although Congress can pass a war authorization -- only the President can actually take us to war. ( Note the IWR - it did NOT start a war in October 2002 -- that happened in March 2003 when Bush ordered the attacks. Note that this is not completely parallel because Bush asked for the IWR, here I am speaking of the fear of a possibility of an AIPAC/Netanyahu ginned up bill that declares war on Iran - obviously not initiated by Obama. They can not force Obama to actually take the country to war.)
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)... they said, "no". When Newt Gingrich asked NSA to make TCP/IP public, they said, "yes".
There is another thread concerning Republican congress-critters complaints that Obama is fucking up their diplomatic efforts in Iran.
I think it is safe to say that Republicans have most of the power on foreign policy. They let Democrats play at it, but when push comes to shove, the NSA, CIA, FBI and Pentagon will ignore a Democratic President and take their orders from leading Republicans instead. We know they fucked Carter at every turn. And we're seeing hints of that now with Obama.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The VP has very little INDEPENDENT power.
As to the thread on Iran -- the fact is that no one but the President can negotiate for the US with a foreign country. It is against the law. Not to mention, there are NO Republican diplomatic efforts with Iran. They are simply arguing for more US sanctions -- and many many Democrats including Chair of SFRC, Menendez, are with them. Obama has said that enacting new sanctions as they negotiate and as Iran has acted in good faith under the interim agreement would kill chances of an agreement.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)take what Kiev says as truth and there is probably good reason that this may not be completely true. But what does seem to be true is a couple of months ago the rebels were down to making museum pieces run and now they have more, newer and better equipment than the Ukrainian government has had. I wonder where this resupply of new equipment has come from. You have to be crazy not to think equipment, training and fighters are not being supplied by Russia.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)Just look at those fascist outfits they wear. Filthy Nazis!
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)That was the moment.
I'm well aware of the general history of Nazism in Europe.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)nilesobek
(1,423 posts)hit pieces lately as has the British Press. As soon as it becomes beneficial for London to stop the Anti-Russia rhetoric, it will come to an abrupt halt and they will resume the full-on bashing of America, all the while, America will forget about the Ukraine because its not going to work out quite like Georgia, see, its too close to Moscow to be ignored.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)KIEV, Ukraine, Nov. 7 (UPI) -- Russia dismissed allegations that its troops were advancing on Ukraine's border, claiming Friday the accusations were made "without producing actual evidence."
On Wednesday, Canada's Foreign Minister John Baird issued a statement expressing concern "by reports of Russian troops moving closer to the border with Ukraine," and urged "Russia to immediately withdraw its troops not only from border regions but also from Ukraine's sovereign territory."
Russia's Defense Ministry took issue with Baird's condemnation.
"We paid attention to the statement made by Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird and those by several U.S. and NATO officials before him who voiced concerns over alleged movement of Russian troops to Ukrainian border. These statements were made with reference to certain reports without producing actual evidence. Even not speaking of hoary traditional arguments presented as rumors in social network."
A defense ministry official claimed on Friday that the allegations of troop advances were drawn from "one source... located at one of Kiev administrative buildings today," although it was unclear to what the official was referring.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/11/07/Russia-denies-troop-advance-on-Ukraine-amid-new-allegations-of-tank-incursion/8351415369095/?spt=sec&or=tn
bemildred
(90,061 posts)The United States says it can't confirm reports of a new Russian military incursion in eastern Ukraine despite claims by the Kiev government.
A Ukrainian military spokesman said on Friday that a column of 32 tanks, 16 howitzer artillery and 30 truckloads of troops crossed into the separatist-controlled Lugansk region.
US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki admits Russian battle tanks, armoured vehicles and cargo trucks had been seen on Thursday at a rail yard about 25 kilometres from the border.
She said the United States did not have "independent confirmation" of the latest reports but voiced Washington's dismay.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/08/us-not-confirming-russian-incursion
former9thward
(32,025 posts)The U.S. has spy satellites which would immediately see a column of tanks crossing the border.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)
In_The_Wind This message was self-deleted by its author.