Ukraine - These are the weapons needed.

[Hickdive]

... Of most importance are those weapons that can be used in urban warfare and counter-insurgency.

If that is the case why then go on to list a series of weapons systems that are specifically not very useful for urban and counter-insurgency warfare?

Why a preponderance of anti-armour systems if you're fighting an insurgency?

Leaving aside the political elements of your argument, this just looks like someone playing top trumps.

 

[Jayjay]

... Of most importance are those weapons that can be used in urban warfare and counter-insurgency.

If that is the case why then go on to list a series of weapons systems that are specifically not very useful for urban and counter-insurgency warfare?

Why a preponderance of anti-armour systems if you're fighting an insurgency?

To target the Russian tanks and artillery. That's the main reason why the separatists have any ground at all.

 

[Hickdive]

If that is the case why then go on to list a series of weapons systems that are specifically not very useful for urban and counter-insurgency warfare?

Why a preponderance of anti-armour systems if you're fighting an insurgency?

To target the Russian tanks and artillery. That's the main reason why the separatists have any ground at all.

In which case you're hardly fighting an "insurgency".

 

[Axulus]

Should the Ukraine survive the next two years, at least it is likely that a President with backbone will be elected - one of the few reasons to welcome Hillary.

The Ukrainians are in desperate need of more than Obama's trivial and half-hearted ace bandages and aspirin - they need real weapons and real military supplies. Of most importance are those weapons that can be used in urban warfare and counter-insurgency.

Why do you want other people sons to needlessly die? Why don't you go and fight?]People are dying there with cluster bombs you fuckwits in America supplied them with. Apparently phosphorus has been used too. Are you Americans the biggest fuckwits on the planet that you want to send more weapons over and see more people killed?

We need to go and try to help these poor souls make peace if we can, not give them more of our satanic weapons of mass destruction.

Is there any length you won't go to smear the US? You cheerfully use dead bodies to further your deluded political view of the world. Are you a paid shill for Russia or just willfully ignorant and deluded beyond all redemption? Absolutely shameful.

Human Rights Watch found evidence of surface-fired 220mm Uragan (Hurricane) and 300mm Smerch (Tornado) cluster munition rockets. In the 12 incidents documented by Human Rights Watch in October, cluster munitions killed at least 6 people and injured dozens. The real casualty number from use of cluster munitions in the conflict is probably higher, Human Rights Watch said, since it has not investigated all allegations of cluster munition use. Also, in some cases, it was not possible to determine what weapon caused the death or injury because several types of explosive weapons were used at the same time in the same area.
In early July 2014, evidence also strongly indicated ground-launched cluster munitions were used in two separate locations in eastern Ukraine during fighting between Ukrainian government forces and armed insurgents.On 3 July, the remnants of a 300mm 9M55K Smerch cluster munition rocket and a 9N235 fragmentation submunition were identified from photographs reportedly taken at Kramatorsk in eastern Ukraine

http://www.stopclustermunitions.org...er-bombs/cluster-munition-use-in-ukraine.aspx

In case you didn't realize, the Smerch (Tornado) cluster munition rocket and the 9N235 fragmentation submunition are weapons of soviet origin.

And the incendiary weapons (there is nothing I found confirming prosperous weapon use in particular) used were also of soviet origin.

A subsequent investigation by VICE News, including an independent expert analysis of retrieved rocket remnants by Armament Research Services (ARES), showed that the "fireworks" were in fact thousands of incendiary elements cascading out of a Soviet-era 9M22S rocket in mid-flight.

https://news.vice.com/article/a-rai...iet-era-incendiary-weapons-to-attack-iloviask

 

[Axulus]

How would increasing the amount of military equipment on both sides make the situation better?

The best argument is that by making the conflict more costly for Russia, they'll eventually back down. The crucial questions are the following:

1. How much cost is Russia willing to endure?
2. Is it credible that the US and the West will be willing to force Russia to exceed that cost?
3. How many dead bodies and how much suffering will be required to make the threat credible?
4. What will the lasting implications be for relations between the West and Russia in such a scenario?

Also important to consider:

5. Why is the West mute in Ukraine's apparent willingness to use cluster bombs and incendiary weapons against the rebels? Will supplying them with further arms result in further human rights abuses/war crimes?

 

[ksen]

I guess max isn't really for less government spending after all.

Hey max, whose taxes should we raise to pay for this or should we just charge it, like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, to our kids and grandkids?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I endorse Hillary for president of Ukraine.

 

[KeepTalking]

Should the Ukraine survive the next two years, at least it is likely that a President with backbone will be elected - one of the few reasons to welcome Hillary.

The Ukrainians are in desperate need of more than Obama's trivial and half-hearted ace bandages and aspirin - they need real weapons and real military supplies. Of most importance are those weapons that can be used in urban warfare and counter-insurgency.

There are plenty of choices on the arms market, but the Ukraine needs weapons that are from reliable suppliers (which leaves out the fickle french and the spineless Germans). US weapons are fine, so are others. Among the weapons that ought to be supplied, post haste:

1) The M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) was designed to provide direct fire support for infantry units. The MGS is one of 10 variants of the Stryker series of wheeled armored vehicle. The M1128 was designed for low-intensity combats and takes some of the main battle tank roles. Deliveries of first pre-production vehicles commenced in 2002 and vehicle entered service with the US Army in 2007.
It is armed with a M68A1E4 105-mm rifled tank gun. It is a modified version of the tank gun, used on the M1 Abrams and M60 series main battle tanks. This gun is fitted with an autoloader. The gun is fully-stabilized and can fire accurately on the move. The Mobile Gun System fires high-explosive, anti-tank and canister rounds.

or the ASCOD system of fighting vehicles:

2) Anti-Tank Missiles

a) Rafael, based in Haifa, Israel, manufactures the Spike family of anti-armour weapons. The weapons are lightweight fire-and-forget anti-tank missiles and use electro-optical and fibre-optic technologies. The systems are used by infantry soldiers, special rapid reaction forces, ground forces and helicopter aircrew.
Spike anti-tank missile family

The Spike family includes: Spike-SR with a range of 800m, Spike-MR (Gill) with range of 2,500m, Spike-LR with 4,000m range and Spike-ER (formerly known as NTD Dandy) with a range of 8,000m. Spike-LR and Spike-ER can also be fitted on light combat vehicles and a package for mounting Spike-ER on helicopters is also available. The Spike missile system is currently in production and in service with the Israeli, Dutch, Chilean, Colombian, Finnish, German, Polish, Italian, Peruvian, Spanish and Singaporean armed forces. Can be mounted on Infantry fighting vehicles (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/gill/).

b) Javelin Missile

The Javelin is considered the world's best shoulder fired anti-tank weapon and 12 nations currently operate the Javelin under foreign military sales from the US. Each missile weighs 11.8kg, while its command launch unit (CLU) and round weigh 6.4kg and 15.9kg respectively. The Javelin employs a long-wave infrared (LWIR) seeker for guidance to destroy tanks, bunkers, buildings, small vessel and low-speed helicopters with a high hit probability. It can also be fired from tripods, light armoured vehicles, trucks, and remotely piloted vehicles. It carries a tandem shaped charge enabling a maximum range of 2,500m.

c) LAHAT - Laser Homing Attack Missile

The laser homing attack missile (LAHAT) is a light-weight anti-tank guided missile produced by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). It was initially developed for Merkava tanks, and can be fired from vehicles, helicopters, vessels and remote installations.
The LAHAT is a very compact missile with a length of 975mm and diameter of 104.5mm. It weighs 12.5kg and relies on semi-active laser (SAL) guidance to engage targets using direct or indirect designation system.

The missile can destroy stationary and moving targets at ranges up to 8km with pin-point accuracy. The high-performance armour piercing warhead ensures the LAHAT can penetrate even add-on reactive armour.

d)The next generation light antitank weapon (NLAW) developed by Saab Bofors Dynamics, is the first ever non-expert short-range anti-tank missile system operable by an individual soldier. The NLAW is in service with the armed forces of the United Kingdom, Finland, Luxembourg and Sweden. Each missile launch unit weighs just 12.5kg enabling one-man-portability in confined spaces. The NLAW weapon system approaches the target guided by predicted line of sight (PLOS). It employs overfly top attack (OTA) mode for tanks and other armoured targets, while direct attack (DA) mode is used for non-armoured targets. The single shape charge warhead of the NLAW has been designed to defeat modern MBTs fitted with ERA.

3) MBTanks - Of the many options:

a) The upgraded T72, the PT-91 Twardy. While the Leopard II would be the preferred option, the Germans are unreliable and spineless. The PT-91 (Polish) is a fully modernized tank with reactive armor, advanced fired control, auto-loading etc.

b) Merkava LIC - Modernized for urban warfare (and able to transport and be operated by minimally trained soldiers).

4) SP Artillery - G6, South Africa. One of the best, originally designed by the artillery genius Gerald Bull.

"However, the best of the towed guns – at least on paper - is from South Africa. The original G5 was developed by Dr. Gerald Bull (a real genius with guns, who was killed by an Israeli hit squad after he went to work for Saddam Hussein). Weighing in at 14 tons, it can reach out with conventional shells and hit targets as far as 39 kilometers away. The newer G5-52 extends this guns reach to just over 55 kilometers. Like the Russians, South Africa created a self-propelled version of this gun, the G6 (with the newer version being the G6-52). These guns reach even further (the extended-range version can fire “velocity-enhanced” projectiles as far as 67 kilometers)." http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2005/200577234250.asp

Oh come on Max, why are you being so timid?

Why not just give them a couple of these bad boys, and call it a day:

 

[funinspace]

Iran - These are the weapons needed

Of course, Putin has chess pieces on the board as well. We better hope McCain isn’t trying to play checkers on a chess board….

Cool Putin toys ( air defense missile system):


A renewed S-300 delivery deal is already being claimed as a deal by Iran.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/congress-protests-russias-sale-of-missile-system-to-iran/

Tehran and Moscow announced on Wednesday that they had inked an agreement to finalize delivery of the S-300 system, according to Iranian state-controlled media reports.

The arms deal had been in the works for some time, but hit several roadblocks after Russia reneged on its promise to make good on an $80 million deal enabling Iran to purchase five S-300 systems, which are long-range surface-to-air defense artillery.

But hey, maybe even the S-400 systems could be in the cards, depending…..
http://rt.com/news/224443-russia-iran-defense-deal/

"A step has been taken in the direction of economic and military technologies cooperation, at least such defensive systems as the S300 and S400 we would probably be delivering," Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, who is also the president of the International Center for Geopolitical Analysis, said, which was reported by RIA. Sanctions from the West have brought the two countries' positions on defense cooperation closer, Ivashov added.

And it seems that Israel really doesn’t like the idea of Iran getting its hands on a pretty decent air defense system.

 

[maxparrish]

The other replies to me (except LD's) were of similar opinion but were barren of content. However, I assure you that "Max" does not "want another arms race with the Russians". Rather Max has, for the last year, wanted to see Obama demonstrate greater vision and leadership than ineffective (and belated) economic sanctions and repeated jaw boning to a bemused Putin.

The reality is that Putin has, for sometime, made it clear that he believes that the breakup of the Soviet Union was a tragedy. He has also made it clear, starting with Georgia, and continuing with his massive reform and modernization of the Russian military, that he has the intention and increasing military capability to slowly consume his neighbors. His success in the Crimea, and the wests initial timid 'retaliation' by canceling the oligarchy members credit cards (and the like) only confirmed to him that the US, and its allies, would roll-over and whimper. (Indeed, Obama exposed his belly by assuring the Russians no lethal weapons would be given to Ukraine for its defense).

So after a year of ineffective sanctions (even with plummeting oil prices) Putin intentions remain, and either the West stands up to the rebuilding of a new Russian Empire threatening the security and independence of European nations (and engendering the need for an new and expensive remilitarization of Europe) or it continues down a path of appeasement and helpless concessions to a remaking of the Russian empire. And like all chains of appeasements to totalitarians it will eventually end either with war or finlandization.

The appropriate response to Russian aggression was only frightening to the soapy headed left (and the pro Russian far right neo-isolationists). To the sober minded it was no more "threatening" than arms exports to dozens of nations (done by all the major powers) for many decades. It was not a new Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. It was simply supplying the arsenal of democracy to a country whose survival is in our interests - just as the US has done for Israel, Taiwan, post war Korea, Afghanistan, many other countries (just as Russia and China has done for many states and insurgencies).

From the outset had Obama threatened to supply lethal weapons and US re-deployment of defensive missiles to Poland, Putin may well have not invaded the Crimea, or at least not started the war in the east. But having openly taken those options of the table, Obama signalled acquiescence and spinelessness to Russian aggression.

The least the West could do is provide the weapons the Ukrainians are in desperate need of. Short of "boots on the ground" in the Ukraine, this is the best option available.

Obama and the US is not the only sole member of "The West". That is where your analysis utterly fails. Europe needs to come to a consensus on what needs to be done (seeing as they have by far the largest stake in the situation), with the US lending advice and a helping hand with what they decide plus humanitarian aid for any victims of the conflict. Putin's actions don't threaten US territory and we have no treaty obligations to defend Ukraine against Russian hostilities.

My analysis is 100 percent correct. I stated " Rather Max has, for the last year, wanted to see Obama demonstrate greater vision and leadership than ineffective (and belated) economic sanctions and repeated jaw boning to a bemused Putin." I stand by that - Obama failed to push for stronger sanctions sooner, failed to use the Polish missile issue for leverage (the Poles wanted the missiles), and failed to employ AT LEAST the threat of defensive/offensive weapons - indeed he actually told the Russians they never need worry about the US arming the Ukraine (a huge blunder in the game of nations).

While Europe needs to cooperate for some kinds of strategy (i.e. economic sanctions), not so for the others. In this weeks peace meeting Obama should make it clear to the allies that lethal aide is back on the table (leaking it to the Russians). If a serious long-term peace accord fails he should followup with action. While European consensus is desirable, it is not essential. There are some that do support lethal aide (e.g. Poland).

And yes, Putin's actions will (if left unchecked) sooner or later trigger US treaty obligations. The Poles and the Baltic States sees what comes from appeasement and the deployment of 150 US tanks in eastern Europe is not going to change that trajectory.

And, frankly, your recommendation is very sketchy. The Russian public is very much behind Putin in this conflict. They will see further US involvement as license to increase Russian involvement, implementing a tit-for-tat strategy, further escalating hostilities in the region.

I would go with the consensus of foreign policy experts in this matter (whatever it happens to be), with Europe leading the way, over your simplistic analysis. If the consensus is to provide defensive arms for Ukraine, and Ukraine requests our aid for such, then so be it.

And I would go with the US leading the way, with the Ukrainians deciding for themselves if they wish to risk Russian ire by taking arms. Its their country, they are taking the risk of confronting the Russian bear's aggression - people should have the moral spine to at least give them the means to fight for their survival.

(PS Who cares what the Russian public supports. Remember Afghanistan? Remember what happened to that support AFTER Reagan started supplying the Afgan insurgents with serious weapons? )

 

[jonatha]

I endorse Hillary for president of Ukraine.

Only if we get Yulia Timoshenko in exchange

 

[fromderinside]

And I would go with the US leading the way, with the Ukrainians deciding for themselves if they wish to risk Russian ire by taking arms. Its their country, they are taking the risk of confronting the Russian bear's aggression - people should have the moral spine to at least give them the means to fight for their survival.

(PS Who cares what the Russian public supports. Remember Afghanistan? Remember what happened to that support AFTER Reagan started supplying the Afgan insurgents with serious weapons? )

Not a bad idea actually. Except I'd advise we'd continue tests with such as laser, pulse, and microwave weapons on the front instead of supplying those old fashioned pieces of metal that are so easy to destroy.

Thanks for reminding that it was actually Ronny, not Jimmy, that fashioned the environment in Afghanistan setting the stage for bin Laden.

 

[maxparrish]

... Of most importance are those weapons that can be used in urban warfare and counter-insurgency.

If that is the case why then go on to list a series of weapons systems that are specifically not very useful for urban and counter-insurgency warfare?

Why a preponderance of anti-armour systems if you're fighting an insurgency?

Leaving aside the political elements of your argument, this just looks like someone playing top trumps.

Technically, the term insurgency has nothing to do with the kind of weapons being employed. (Wiki: "An insurgency is a rebellion against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognized as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents.[1]"). However, this aggression might be better termed as both an insurgency and a limited invasion. The exact makeup of the belligerents is unclear (many being mercenaries or russian troops), but the nature of the war is not.

The separatists have plentiful heavy weapons: main battle tanks (mainly T-72 and earlier), modern artillery, APCs, and MRL systems. There is, to date, no "separatist" air force. The Ukrainians are in need of weapon systems that can operate in an urban warfare environment AND check Russian armor. The recommended list focus's on these needs:

1) Light and Medium Anti armour missiles.
2) Light Tanks
3) Stryker Urban Combat vehicles
4) Specialized MBT for urban warfare (Merkava).
5) SP artillery.
6) And I should have added: anti-mine and anti-artillery radar locators.

What it does not include are attack helicopters, plentiful MBT's, fixed wing aircraft, or MRS (rockets). There is not an air war in the Ukraine so at this point it may not be required. Moreover, the Ukraine needs at least 400 more MBT's to seriously challenge an all out invasion and that is not on the table.

With the proper weapons, the Ukrainians can turn every urban center into a Stalingrad - making the Russians pay dearly for towns and cities.

 

[maxparrish]

Today Obama found some backbone and wisely let it be known that he is putting "defensive" lethal weapons on the table. While this is progress, it may be too late for such tepid responses. The Russians have sent troops back into the Ukraine and the Ukrainians are losing ground. Offers for negotiation have been rejected by Russian proxies.

After a year of fighting, these are the weapons being considered:

- including anti-armor missiles
- reconnaissance drones
- armored Humvees
- radars that can determine the location of enemy rocket and artillery fire.

This is insufficient and needlessly tries to make weapon distinctions without a difference. Almost all weapons are both offensive and defensive. Humvees and drones would be small potatoes aid.

Yet we must suffer all the wailing and moaning over how this pathetic list will cause "an arms race". Putin has to be highly amused at the clown act on this side of the divide.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If I were running the CIA, I'd get a lot of flowers for the Crimean people to throw at their Russian liberators' feet. Then secretly turn those flowers into bombs. The Crimeans will kill a bunch of Russian soldiers, the Russians will shoot a bunch of Crimeans in response and there'll be mass outrage with each side blaming the other and the Crimean people will demand that the Ukranian government and its Western allies liberate it. Other than the need for our soldiers to have to be careful about the flowers getting thrown at them, it's a flawless plan.

Just one more reason why it's stupid that the world hasn't put me in charge.

 

[Axulus]

My analysis is 100 percent correct. I stated " Rather Max has, for the last year, wanted to see Obama demonstrate greater vision and leadership than ineffective (and belated) economic sanctions and repeated jaw boning to a bemused Putin." I stand by that - Obama failed to push for stronger sanctions sooner, failed to use the Polish missile issue for leverage (the Poles wanted the missiles), and failed to employ AT LEAST the threat of defensive/offensive weapons - indeed he actually told the Russians they never need worry about the US arming the Ukraine (a huge blunder in the game of nations).

For fucks sake, why? Why not let Europe lead on this one?

While Europe needs to cooperate for some kinds of strategy (i.e. economic sanctions), not so for the others.

You've got it bassackwards. It is the US that needs to cooperate with European strategy.

In this weeks peace meeting Obama should make it clear to the allies that lethal aide is back on the table (leaking it to the Russians).

Hasn't it always been on the table? Only a complete moron would think otherwise. Putin, whatever you may want to say about him, isn't a moron.

If a serious long-term peace accord fails he should followup with action. While European consensus is desirable, it is not essential. There are some that do support lethal aide (e.g. Poland).

Once again, why?

And yes, Putin's actions will (if left unchecked) sooner or later trigger US treaty obligations. The Poles and the Baltic States sees what comes from appeasement and the deployment of 150 US tanks in eastern Europe is not going to change that trajectory.

Attacking a treaty country is a completely different scenario and you know it.

And I would go with the US leading the way, with the Ukrainians deciding for themselves if they wish to risk Russian ire by taking arms. Its their country, they are taking the risk of confronting the Russian bear's aggression - people should have the moral spine to at least give them the means to fight for their survival.

They are fighting for their survival, and using cluster bombs and incendiary weapons in the process, weapons whose use is typically considered a war crime.

(PS Who cares what the Russian public supports.

Because the Russian public's perception of the conflict will influence how much cost they are willing to incur. Of course it matters. The fact that you dismiss it demonstrates the simpleton nature of your analysis.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

... Of most importance are those weapons that can be used in urban warfare and counter-insurgency.

If that is the case why then go on to list a series of weapons systems that are specifically not very useful for urban and counter-insurgency warfare?

Why a preponderance of anti-armour systems if you're fighting an insurgency?

Leaving aside the political elements of your argument, this just looks like someone playing top trumps.

Because the "insurgency" is really Russian forces in disguise.


Or look at the videos of the big boom over there recently (big enough that plenty of ignorant types called it nuclear.) Ukrainian artillery found a "rebel" ammo dump. Really now?? Where did they get enough ordinance to make a boom like that? They're being supplied by outsiders--Russia.

 

[barbos]

If that is the case why then go on to list a series of weapons systems that are specifically not very useful for urban and counter-insurgency warfare?

Why a preponderance of anti-armour systems if you're fighting an insurgency?

Leaving aside the political elements of your argument, this just looks like someone playing top trumps.

Because the "insurgency" is really Russian forces in disguise.

And French, you forgot French forces in disguise.

Or look at the videos of the big boom over there recently (big enough that plenty of ignorant types called it nuclear.) Ukrainian artillery found a "rebel" ammo dump. Really now?? Where did they get enough ordinance to make a boom like that? They're being supplied by outsiders--Russia.

Too much Hollywood war porn? Ammo does not boom at once,
The only reason it does is because Hollywood workers actually blow some explosives/gasoline, not an actual ammo.
Such a militarist/interventionist like yourself should know that.

 

[tupac chopra]

Today Obama found some backbone and wisely let it be known that he is putting "defensive" lethal weapons on the table. While this is progress, it may be too late for such tepid responses. The Russians have sent troops back into the Ukraine and the Ukrainians are losing ground. Offers for negotiation have been rejected by Russian proxies.

After a year of fighting, these are the weapons being considered:

- including anti-armor missiles
- reconnaissance drones
- armored Humvees
- radars that can determine the location of enemy rocket and artillery fire.

This is insufficient and needlessly tries to make weapon distinctions without a difference. Almost all weapons are both offensive and defensive. Humvees and drones would be small potatoes aid.

Yet we must suffer all the wailing and moaning over how this pathetic list will cause "an arms race". Putin has to be highly amused at the clown act on this side of the divide.

Even though you in some sick way want Ukrainians to kill other Ukrainians. The Ukrianians themselves don't want to kill each other.

When Ukrainians Choose Not to Die in a War

Ukraine is historically a peaceful nation. For some time now, it has avoided military conflicts like those that have flared elsewhere in eastern Europe—Yugoslavia, Georgia, etc. That came to a crashing end last year when the Kyiv government launched its ‘anti-terrorist operation’ against the people in the east of the country. But from the beginning of the conflict, Ukraine has seen refusals by soldiers to fire on their fellow citizens, desertions from the army and refusals to show up for conscription. Women—the mothers, wives, sisters and daughters of military conscripts—have held protests and even riots against the war or against force military service.

The protests have been sparked, first of all, by the fact that many Ukrainians do not accept the interpretation of the war as offered by the government. They don’t necessarily see foreign (ie Russian) aggression. They only know that when a Ukrainian soldier lifts his gun or artillery barrel, it is a compatriot, a fellow Ukrainian, who appears in the gunsight.

O1.ua news outlet in Odessa city reports, “In the village of Limansky (Reni district), a representative of the military recruitment office arrived with call-up papers accompanied by two armed gunmen. It nearly cost them their lives. The peasant villagers almost lynched the three.“

Before the trip to the village, the military commissar of the district, Igor Skrypnik, was aware of the hostile attitude of the civilian population toward the mobilisation process. So he asked for protection while distributing mobilization papers. Two policemen armed with weapons were assigned. But it produced the opposite result.

“When two gunmen in camouflage appeared in the village, it immediately attracted people’s attention and caused a spontaneous riot,” said the acting chairman of the local state administration, Sergey Barinov. “About 200 residents of Limansky village surrounded the representative of the military and the armed police officers and threatened to punish them.“
“Deputy Chairman Ivan Stadnikov of the Reni district state administration and Military Commissar Igor Skrypnik immediately went to the village. After difficult negotiations, a compromise was reached. But then the local residents seized the call-up papers, defiantly poured gasoline on them and set them alight – right before the eyes of the officials who had brought the papers to the village.”

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because the "insurgency" is really Russian forces in disguise.

And French, you forgot French forces in disguise.

Or look at the videos of the big boom over there recently (big enough that plenty of ignorant types called it nuclear.) Ukrainian artillery found a "rebel" ammo dump. Really now?? Where did they get enough ordinance to make a boom like that? They're being supplied by outsiders--Russia.

Too much Hollywood war porn? Ammo does not boom at once,
The only reason it does is because Hollywood workers actually blow some explosives/gasoline, not an actual ammo.
Such a militarist/interventionist like yourself should know that.

There are plenty of videos around of ammo dumps going up where there was no question it was an ammo dump. They can make quite a boom.

As for the Ukraine: you're saying this didn't happen? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8ZND55fXok#t=25

(There are plenty of other videos of it also. This was simply the first I found on Google.)