Bitcoin Forum

http://edition.cnn.com/

Good Job.

http://cs618616.vk.me/v618616675/9889/KJejZ_lnG5I.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLVsP4M6ITU&list=PLmyeYXPoJZYpoojX_GF19WF7BJ2IdAgED

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VWYKzcmBCk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM2uG9evNlo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYvRpDXEir0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMeCp_pdhr4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldBUugf_D5s

http://rusvesna.su/news/1401718683
http://lifenews.ru/news/134322

https://pp.vk.me/c620624/v620624918/8f9e/hKHLJ2zgHyQ.jpg

None of the Western news media outlets have covered the carpet bombing of Lugansk. Everyone is covering the battle near the border post in Lugansk, but all are silent on the aerial bombardment.

Yes, and there seems to have been a second airstrike against the blockpost in Mirnyj:
http://www.aif.ru/euromaidan/1181540

I think it might be a case, where the pilot misidentified the target and bombed the city center

Here is more about the airstrike against Lugansk:
http://kompravda.eu/daily/26238.5/3120452/

The journalist, who was an eyewitness says 7 people died in his field of vision.
The journalist himself was en-route to the spot, and only accidentally got delayed when he met an acquaintance and exchanged a few words with him. Otherwise he would have been among the dead.
He writes of a demolished fountain in front of the building and remembers how yesterday he was taking pictures of kids in front of that fountain.

All killed are civilians: 4 women and 3 men. The strike seems to have been targeted specifically in front of the building, where people usually congregate.

Funnily enough, I can see Voice Of Russia and a few YT channels as the only ones covering this.

Do you have any other english language sources on this?

Run http://kompravda.eu/daily/26238.5/3120452/ through Google translate.

Also in Russian:
http://www.interfax.ru/world/379240
The Minister of Health of Lugansk Peoples Republic, Natalia Arhipova is the among the murdered people.

The Ukrainian authorities are quick to blame the resistance fighters, saying that they mis-aimed an artillery shot.
However in this CCTV recording it is clearly visible that 3-4 shots hit the ground in an evenly-spaced row from right to left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLuInNXfXFk
Artillery hits are more scattered.

A 5% slow-down can be seen here:
http://rusvesna.su/news/1401724110

this is a reflection of the american people.. no one is interested in this kind of stuff. instead, CNN airs what we are really interested. did aliens hijack the malaysia airlins plane? where is lindsay lohan now?

The Russia Today is available in English and Russian, in addition to a variety of other languages.

Here is the article covering this topic:

http://rt.com/news/163076-ukraine-lugansk-clashes-jet

This one is important! You can see trails of 3-6 rockets that were launched from the jet!

---

The Ukrainian officials are twisting the truth, trying to say that it was someone from the ground who shot at the jet and that the heat-seeking missile hit a warm air-conditioner on the fourth floor of the building.

The problems are:
 - A large number of fallen trees on the ground
 - Impact craters on the ground.
 - There never was an air conditioner under that window to begin with.

http://rusvesna.su/news/1401724110

It's all manufactured, the media tells everyone what to believe and what to think to distract them from real issues.

Lugansk People's Republic's health minister killed

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_06_02/Lugansk-Peoples-Republics-health-minister-killed-militia-9856/

I am still waiting for coverage from BBC and CNN.

Lol at people who still rely on cnn/bbc

I noticed that comments on all newschannels are flooded by UKR-trolls trying to convince people that it was a non-existent air-conditioner that got hit.

Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemns air strikes against Lugansk:
"On the 2nd of May Kiev government has again conducted a crime against its own people. Peaceful residents of Ukraine were killed as a result of an air strike against the building of Lugansk regional administration."
http://itar-tass.com/politika/1233571?utm_medium=rss20

Yep the Western media only shows you what it wants you to hear.
Important things are left out of the news everytime, and instead they come with crappy news like Justin bieber, Miley Cyrus or Beyonce.
I have heard nothing about this and im gonna look in the papers tommorow if I can find anything about this.
But it's not clear to me what really happened because almost every newsarticle is in Ukranian? or Russian?
And the google translate one is a really bad translation.

This thread already gives a good recap of the events and video sources (I didn't know I'd be saying it, but thankfully CCTV and people with cameraphones are everywhere).

If you have a question to some specific articles, give a shout here, and I or someone else will help with a translation.

The Daily Mail has published another news article a few minutes ago, about the ongoing unrest in the Donbass region. But still, no mention about the UAF carpet bombing or the civilian deaths.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2646252/Ukraine-forces-fight-500-pro-Russian-gunmen-attack-border-camp-HQ-children-s-hospital-comes-attack-Sloviansk.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldBUugf_D5s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05m9gLftj5M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUIiRPO0W28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLVsP4M6ITU&list=PLmyeYXPoJZYpoojX_GF19WF7BJ2IdAgED

I'm not sure how this changes my upcoming trip to Vegas. I saw someone mentioned air conditioners. Are the room air conditioners not working? Are the casinos out of whiskey?

This is the view of most Americans and why CNN doesn't cover every detail of world news. Greedy American pigs just don't give a shit about suffering in the rest of the world. America protects women and children from abuse because it's so horrible but what is the first thing the American soldiers do when they attack another country? They start raping and killing the women and children. I'm surprised the Vietnamese/Laotians/Cambodians and Thai aren't still sending suicide bombers to America!

There are news from same location, and the same data.

About fake Air Conditioner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdlZEPCP6-M

He also says that before Su-25 made the lethal strike, another plane circled the area doing recon.

In spite of the lack of media coverage of this event in general, somehow I don't see RT as being the most unbiased distributor of this kind of information.

Who direct You to see RT.com?
http://anna-news.info/

AnnaNews does not respond... In the meantime RT is not unbiased, yet, they do a good job of fact checking.

The article about the airstrike on RT:
http://rt.com/news/163076-ukraine-lugansk-clashes-jet/

In English

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxQztBXlgIc

Didn't see anything in german TV, but it's mentioned on the web site:
http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/ukraine-gefechte100.html
They are quoting someone from Lugansk: at least two killed and 10 wounded people

Danke.

There is written about some explosion in Building, not about multiple explosions and non exploded bombs.

http://iouc.net/2014/06/02/june-2nd-2014-extreme-violence-in-lugansk/

The financial times is also reporting but in the middle of another news and with the title calling attention to rebel attacks on border posts and new attempts of infiltration of military support from Russia:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b86e8ca4-ea23-11e3-afb3-00144feabdc0.html

Anyway, even if these bombings are condemnable, I wouldn't call them a "carpet bombing".

Good... even earlier I had stated that some of the German media sources are unafraid to post the truth, unlike their counterparts in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Confirmed: Ukrainian air force fired over 150 missiles at Lugansk, bombed admin HQ
http://rt.com/news/163352-ukraine-airstrike-lugansk-missiles/

Kiev uses the same tactical guide as US:
1. Deny.
2. If denying becomes impossible, twist the facts.
3. If twisting the facts becomes impossible, tell the truth or a part of it.

^^^ Now with the OSCE observes (who are known to be having pro-NATO views) having confirmed the Lugansk aerial bombing, the Kiev junta will be left without much PR options.

I havent seen anything today about this in the newspapers.
Or on the Western online news websites, ofcourse Russia today is also from Putin
So if we can trust them is a different story to.
But I like them because they touch subjects most newstations dont dare to cover.

CNN report about Airstrike on Lugansk.

http://vk.com/video211957138_168749883

Bull shit. The government-media complex may not care but most Americans abhor violence as much as anyone.

Our soldiers don't "hit the ground raping" either. Our government makes stupid decisions but generally speaking our soldiers follow their inherently stupid orders and conduct themselves as well as anyone else.

There are always bad actors in any group, to judge them all by a few bad actors is short sighted and ignorant. To acknowledge that fact though would require you to rethink your anti American prejudice and we both know that irrational prejudice doesn't require thought. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYdvuaSUBpY

Quite surprising. I am watching an unbiased video from the CNN after ages.  ;D

The CNN is admitting that 8 civilians (including 5 women) were dead during the attack, and they are further saying that the Kiev propaganda that the rebels caused the attack is 100% wrong.

I served in Vietnam. You're wrong. We were horrible and abusive. You need to open a history book. Solders do things they would never think of doing back home. If your beloved country is so wonderful why do we incarcerate more citizens than any other country in the world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/incarceration-rate-per-capita_n_3745291.html

It doesn't matter whether the CNBC and BBC want to hide the atrocities. The European media is reporting them without any fear of the CIA and NATO.

http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/cronaca/2014/06/02/ucraina-ribelli-lugansk-usate-bombe-a-grappolo_11dad8a0-6269-42fc-81fe-8f35e7549a84.html


History is usually written by the winning side. So you won't find much about the atrocities.

Would someone following this (and Ukraine situation in general) mind giving me a (non-video) brief? The death toll looks pretty severe from RT, but it's extraordinary compared to other reported numbers.

My hazy understanding so far: pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine want to break away and have ???-ed the Ukrainian government. Ukraine responded to ??? by killing hundreds of their own citizens in a bombing run which was primarily targeting ???. US says separatists are neo-Nazi terrorists backed by Russia. Russia says Ukraine is US pawn backed solely to financially and militarily harm and threaten Russian ambitions to ???.

Western media outlets have no reporters in the Donbass. RT is having 2-3 reporters in the major cities (Donetsk, Lugansk.etc), but none in the front-line areas (Krasnyi Liman, Slavyansk, Kramatorsk.etc). The death toll was given by reporters of Lifenews, who were present in the front-line areas.


At least initially, the main rebel demand was more autonomy and federalization. They were not aiming to secede from Ukraine.


Most of the residential areas were targeted during the artillery shelling. Bombing by fighter jets was used only once (in Lugansk). The Ukrainian army justifies this, saying that the rebel fighters have retreated to the residential areas.


US is accusing Russia of arming the separatists. Russia is accusing the US-backed president of ethnic cleansing.

Thank you. What did these possibly-anti-Ukrainian-gov't discontented and alienated malefactors (... for lack of a better generalization) do to the Ukrainian government to evoke this response?

-And which ethnicities are we talking about? Talk to me like I'm an American, please. ;D

The pro-federalization protesters in the East adopted the same methodology, which was used by the pro-European protesters during the Kiev protests. They occupied the administration buildings and demanded a referendum on autonomy.


In the Donbass region, somewhere around 70% of the population is ethnic Ukrainian, while some 25% is Russian. There is a significant Greek minority, mostly concentrated around Mariupol. Other minorities are too small to speak of. There is a lot of inter-ethnic marriage, so talking about the ethnic composition is not that useful. 

But the ethnic Ukrainians of the East are very different from the ethnic Ukrainians of the West. Everything is different. From language to religion. So it is not surprising that their political preferences are quite opposite to each other.

Nothing wrong with being an American person - it's American politicians and media that most Russians have gripes with.

To add to what Bryant said, I think a short historic trip 100 years back is in order. As with most conflicts around the worlds, this one didn't just spring out of thin air, it has historic roots and had been building up.

I first want you to bear with me and take a look at the following page, which is in Russian. Look at the maps, which show the division in use of Russian language in the East vs. Ukrainian in the West, and the political preferences from the previous elections - Yanukovich had the votes of the East, Yushenko - of the West:

http://yablor.ru/blogs/dve-ukraini/3638493

Now, let's go 100 years back to a time shortly before the Revolution on 1917 and take a look at the same region, which was part of the Russian Empire. By that time, the county of Novorossia, was divided into three smaller counties, but their demographic composition didn't change. They were populated by Russians and Russian-speaking people, like Cossacks.

Again, here are two Russian Wikipedia sites, that I want you to take a look at for the sake of the maps:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CD%EE%E2%EE%F0%EE%F1%F1%E8%E9%F1%EA%E0%FF_%E3%F3%E1%E5%F0%ED%E8%FF
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%95%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F

After the Revolution, Lenin had a "brilliant" idea of transferring what was Novorossia to that what was to become Ukraine. After a short ("only" 6 years) civil war and some atrocities committed by Petljura bands (who is now a national hero of Western Ukraine), everything quited down and people were mostly going about their business, continuing to speak their language, and generally not feeling very much Ukrainian. But there was no pressure.

A shake-up came during WWII, when another the-now Western-Ukrainian national Hero, Bandera, rose to power, forming troops for German's SS and exterminating all who didn't agree with him, which included Russians, Jews, Poles, much like Petljura did before him.

After WWII the remnants of Bandera bands were ravaging in Ukraine well into 1950s, but then, all became well again, and people went about their business.

After the fall of USSR, someone in the young Ukriane had a "brilliant" idea that Ukraine needs a stronger feel of national unity and identity, and that it also needs to distance itself from the Soviet past. This resulted in strong prosecution of the people of South-East on the language front, and the revival of something anti-Soviet as the new national hero - Bandera. This didn't sit well with people of the East, but was pushed on them anyway, so the pressure was building up. The central and Western regions on the other hand got really taken by the idea. For the American: think Southern states and Northern states during your Civil war.

Remember that less than 100 years passed since the regions were separated from Russia, and there hasn't even been a full generation shift. People still identify themselves strongly with Russia, but during the Soviet times, people just didn't feel that they suddenly ended up in foreign parts.

In the present, you remember that Yanukovich had the support of the South-Eastern regions. During that time the regions had managed to regain some of their rights, like the right to speak the language of the majority. When he was removed by force and replaced by the coup government, the first thing that government did, was to revoke the Constitution, replacing it with a previous version, effectively prohibiting use of Russian language in the regions where you can live for weeks without hearing a word of Ukrainian. For an American: Think that the next president is a Latin American, and as Us already has a large Spanish-speaking part, he imposes a decree that Americans are only allowed to speak Spanish.

This was not seen as a good omen, so, as Briant noted, the protests started, using the same strategy as the Maidan protests in Kiev that lead to the coup government's ascent to power. However, this time, the protesters were labelled as "terrorists" and "separatists", while the same type of protesters in Kiev were "freedom and democracy fighters". The initial protests were not separatist, however. The demands were: federalisation of Ukraine and greater self-governance to the regions. For the Americans: you already have that in the form of the states. This was ridiculed by the coup government, the US and Europe as an impossible form of state (which is a hypocrisy, since many European countries, as well as US are federations).

They were trying to push the genie back into the bottle. But the harder you push, the harder they fight back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwWsLrn7njU

reserved

Thanks, Nemo. :)

What are the strategic reasons for the US/EU not wanting Russia to take back areas not fully assimilating to what the Ukraine government seems to be considering its culture while the current Ukrainian government seems Hell-bent on maintaining unity with people they appear hostile toward and who reciprocate those feelings? That question is, of course, assuming that reconciliation and moving toward federalism is no longer a viable option (though an alternate could just be allowing East Ukraine to form an independent nation). Is the US/EU willing to maintain civil conflict and political instability in Ukraine just to maintain a buffer between Russia and "the West," or are there other reasons the US/EU is intervening?

I'm also curious what Lenin's intent was in pushing "New Russia" into Ukraine.

Eastern Ukraine contains almost all the heavy industries, factories, and coal mines of Ukraine. It is the East which is subsidizing the agriculture and other activities of the West. Also, a lot of Western Ukrainians work in the metal factories of the East.

Deep hate to Russians.

I can get that, but why does the EU/US care about trying to force them to stay together in a relationship they don't seem interested in? Ukrainian coal is mostly consumed domestically (having a coal deposit is more-or-less worthless at current market prices, and they don't extract a particularly significant amount, anyway), and it looks like they're trying to legislate domestic consumption of as much coal as possible so they don't rely on foreign energy as much (and maybe just to subsidize the mining sector). It doesn't look seem like there could be any significant interest in their resources, and there's clearly no humanitarian goal for the EU/US, so what are they looking for in opposing Russia (and/or Ukranian federalists/separatists/rebels/whatever) on this?

1. Without the South-East, Ukraine will be a landlocked country, without any sea coast.
2. Without the South-East, the Russian-Ukrainian border will be much reduced, and the NATO won't be able to place their missiles on the Russian border.
3. Without the tax money from the East, Ukraine will go bankrupt.

Got it. Thanks! This place is superior to Wikipedia any day.  :)

Care to guess the outcome? What's really going to come out of this?

Putin is indifferent to the warfare being waged in the Donbass region, and the Ukrainian military is slowly progressing by taking over the smaller villages and towns. The battle may be over in a month or so.

Interesting, thanks.

Adding to what Bryant said:
The option of federalisation is not off the table yet, as well as the option of stopping the fighting. In yesterday's press conference in France (http://rt.com/news/163676-putin-ukraine-french-us/) Putin gave an interesting answer:
http://rt.com/files/news/27/f5/c0/00/20.jpg

I don't think Putin wants to integrate Novorossia into Russia, as it would just mean moving the East/West border. He'd be more interested in having a friendly, or at least, neutral buffer state with no NATO bases on its soil. Think Belarus.

As for the why Western Ukraine fights for the Eastern territories, add to the Bryant's list deposits of shale gas, for development of which Shell already has a contract with Ukraine:

I don't know what the outcome would be. It all depends on what instructions Poroshenko gets after the 7th of June. One thing is clear, Russia has so far refused to take the bait and send in its troops, so I don't see that happening unless some extraordinary atrocities start being committed. And even then, Russia would try first to push through a UN resolution to send in a peacekeeping contingent to stay on the right side of the international law (or what ever is left of it by now).

If Putin sits idle, he will not get the buffer state he wants. The Kiev junta will invade Novorossia, and half the population might end up in Russia as refugees. The Novorossian army lacks aircraft and tanks. They won't be able to hold on for much longer.

Youtube erase video about Airstrike on Lugansk.

http://rutube.ru/video/317dd8d8fe5a531bd9ea5a5eadd38f18/
http://rutube.ru/video/e5f1312144cc31b2d2f962a40daf9aa6/
http://rutube.ru/video/07aa949c3976033a3ac2a9aeb7038e87/
http://rutube.ru/video/8d51fc9917cc53c804c5bc449850bce3/
http://rutube.ru/video/d583748b59a31f18fbabaa5708e69a0f/
http://rutube.ru/video/83c0fd7b20d189ef3c6e0af3d2285c41

Here's one showing the bombing from a distance: http://rutube.ru/video/c712f39a7a45d40d9c073f1c9b99e5fe/?ref=search

Collateral damage: http://rutube.ru/video/eb9249dca09dab748e453999d9477d13/?ref=search

Another one showing the missile launch: http://rutube.ru/video/34f6fc8219609fda3b11e26b827d5fb3/?ref=search

The CNN actually showed a few videos in its channel, and at least some of their journalists seems to be unbiased. The BBC on the other hand is quickly becoming a trash piece. I have forgot the last time when I read an unbiased article there, on their website.