Did Poroshenko lie about troops at Debaltseve?

Luftwaffe said:

Take that as "I understand why Putin is doing what he is doing, although I don't support it."

I only support what furthers US interests thank you very much. The Russians I can give a **** about.

Click to expand...

Hey, love the honesty.

JANFU said:

They let defense expenditures fall. They did not want to piss Putin off.
After the Georgia incidents is when this should have happened.

Click to expand...

Of course, it should have all been done earlier. But at the time of the Georgian embroglio it should already have been Finished. We knew the Russians were dangerous as did most Eastern Europeans and the rest of the world for that matter. But a few countries in the EU have highly miss informed populations that make them dangerous for strategy, loose canons in negotiations and stumbling blocks, when you are in a tight spot.

So it will be interesting to see if they will have learned this time. After all, Putin proved the mantra about the EU having guaranteed peace in Europe was a fantastic lie.

No one, except Poroshenko, can know if he lied or not.

To lie requires an intent to deceive.

And only he can know what his intent was.


There should be a third option 'Unknown'

DA60 said:

No one, except Poroshenko, can know if he lied or not.

To lie requires an intent to deceive.

And only he can know what his intent was.


There should be a third option 'Unknown'

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, your point is well taken, though I doubt Pero could have told such a lie that he would be the only one knowledgable of.

Simpleχity;1064347515 said:

No one knows precisely what Poroshenko knew and when except the government hierarchy. Debaltseve was indeed a tactical defeat for the government, but it was also a strategic victory in the sense that it moved several Western nations significantly closer to arming Ukraine. Casualties aside, I think the Poroshenko came out ahead here. The rebels obtained a destroyed town. But in the process the world witnessed their ceasefire violations, prisoners will be repatriated, OSCE international monitors are now in the area, and some nations moved several notches closer to arming Ukraine. Whether he controls the rebels or not, Putin takes an international credibility hit here either way.

Click to expand...

We know what he said and we know what people were reporting. If he did not know then that is gross incompetence to the point of being absurd.

So you think that the deliberate sacrifice of the lives of his men in this way was worth what you would call a "strategic victory"?

MildSteel said:

So you think that the deliberate sacrifice of the lives of his men in this way was worth what you would call a "strategic victory"?

Click to expand...

Unlike you, I don't pretend to know the precise situation around Debaltseve at 00:01 am on 14 February 2015. I don't allow bias to color my battle-space synopsis. The OSCE didn't know because the rebels had denied them access to the Debaltseve area. I know people fighting on both sides of the conflict and even they didn't know the situation with certainly either. Government forces were indeed surrounded, but when this actually occurred is unknown with certitude. I tend to think this happened after the ceasefire went into effect, which is why the rebels felt compelled to violate the ceasefire. They needed extra time to firmly establish "facts on the ground" before allowing access to the OSCE international monitors.

To answer your question, belligerents sacrificing a particular location for the greater overall good is a common theme in warfare. Leningrad is a prime example.

Simpleχity;1064351174 said:

Unlike you, I don't pretend to know the precise situation around Debaltseve at 00:01 am on 14 February 2015. I don't allow bias to color my battle-space synopsis. The OSCE didn't know because the rebels had denied them access to the Debaltseve area. I know people fighting on both sides of the conflict and even they didn't know the situation with certainly either. Government forces were indeed surrounded, but when this actually occurred is unknown with certitude. I tend to think this happened after the ceasefire went into effect, which is why the rebels felt compelled to violate the ceasefire. They needed extra time to firmly establish "facts on the ground" before allowing access to the OSCE international monitors.

Click to expand...

First of all you say you don't know, then you say you tend to think. What are you trying to do, have it both ways? No I'm not there. I was not there when the U.S. dropped a bomb on Hiroshima. How do I know that they actually did it? I have never been there. What is fact is that there were reports that they were surrounded at that time. What is fact is that there was independent reporting that they were surrounded immediately after that time. To believe your version we would have to conclude that on Saturday night at 11:59 p.m. the troops were not surrounded, but then by Sunday, the next day when the ceasefire went into effect, they were surrounded, that is if your version is compatible with independent reporting. I find it rather difficult to believe that all of a sudden, in the course of more or less 24 hours, that those troops became surrounded. What is more likely is that, consistent with prior reports, that they were surrounded, possibly as the ceasefire was being negotiated and even more likely when it went into effect on Sunday. Not only that but we know for a fact the Poroshenko lied about the nature of the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops. So what is more likely is that you have spun a tale to support your biased view.

Simpleχity;1064351174 said:

To answer your question, belligerents sacrificing a particular location for the greater overall good is a common theme in warfare. Leningrad is a prime example.

Click to expand...

So it is your view that Poroshenko deliberately sacrificing his men in this way, through deceit was worth it. You know what? That is a bunch of BULLS***. First of all it was a humiliating defeat. And I am not the only one that says that. Worldwide, even people who don't like what Putin is doing at all agree with that. Next of all, he needlessly sacrificed the lives of young people for the sake of a humiliating defeat. It is totally disgusting what Poroshenko did here.

MildSteel said:

First of all you say you don't know, then you say you tend to think. What are you trying to do, have it both ways?

Click to expand...

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I do not factually know, but I do have an opinion. You on the other hand, claim to know factually.

MildSteel said:

So it is your view that Poroshenko deliberately sacrificing his men in this way, through deceit was worth it.

Click to expand...

Do you always have problems with plain English? I merely said it is a possibility and history is replete with such exemplars.

MildSteel said:

First of all it was a humiliating defeat.

Click to expand...

Indeed it was. Their position was militarily untenable and a pullback should have occurred in January.

MildSteel said:

Next of all, he needlessly sacrificed the lives of young people for the sake of a humiliating defeat. It is totally disgusting what Poroshenko did here.

Click to expand...

Once again, you play the prosecutor, judge, and jury despite not being in total possession of res ipsa loquitur evidence. In short ... I am right because I say I am right.

Simpleχity;1064351315 said:

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I do not factually know, but I do have an opinion. You on the other hand, claim to know factually.

Click to expand...

Well let me put it like this, I could be wrong because I am not there. I was not there when they say they went to the moon. For all I know, you could be Yatsenyuk. Who knows? What I know is what I have read. And what I have read appears to suggest that Poroshenko lied. To believe your version, those troops would have had to have been surrounded in a 24 hour time frame. What is more believable is that they were already surrounded when the ceasefire went into effect, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU HAVE SAID.

Simpleχity;1064351315 said:

Do you always have problems with plain English? I merely said it is a possibility and history is replete with such exemplars.

Click to expand...

Yep I have a problem with the English that YOU are using. Because your English says that Debaltseve was a strategic victory for Ukraine and that the needless sacrifice of the lives of young people through deceit was worth it. Yep, that's some pretty messed up English.

Simpleχity;1064351315 said:

Indeed it was. Their position was militarily untenable and a pullback should have occurred in January.

Click to expand...

Now we are cooking with gas. So don't say it was a strategic victory for Ukraine.

Simpleχity;1064351315 said:

Once again, you play the prosecutor, judge, and jury despite not being in total possession of res ipsa loquitur evidence. In short ... I am right because I say I am right.

Click to expand...

What we have is evidence that the troops were already surrounded when the ceasefire went into effect. You have presented an interpretation of the facts that would require us to believe that all of a sudden the troops became surrounded in a 24 hour timeframe after the ceasefire went into effect, despite the fact that there were reports that they were surrounded before the ceasefire went into effect. Yep, if I had to make a call, it is more likely that they were already surrounded and that your interpretation is bogus.