Kiev Regime Seeks To Unfreeze Conflict In Eastern Ukraine

Donate

Loading the player...

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Voiceover by Harold Hoover

On February 1st and 2nd, heavy clashes continued between the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF), backed up by pro-Kiev paramilitary groups, and forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) in the Adveevka industrial area near the DPR capital of Donetsk. At the same time massive artillery strikes were reported along nearly all of the DPR contact line.

Pro-Kiev forces deployed more heavy military equipment and made two fresh offensive attempts against DPR forces positions at the Adveevka industrial area, but were pushed to retreat, suffering casualties. Both sides are claiming heavy death tolls.

The Poroshenko regime urgently needs to attract the attention of foreign players to obtain their assistance amid the ongoing political and economic crisis in Ukraine. Another goal is to disrupt possible US-Russian rapprochement, escalating the situation in Europe.

Mainstream media assists the regime, pushing an idea of humanitarian crisis in Kiev-controlled areas and blaming DPR forces for violations of the Minsk agreement.

Once again, the Kiev regime violates humanitarian and moral norms to achieve its own political goals.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Trustin Judeau

    You know what – Russia could have ended this conflict years ago by adding Donbass to the country.They didnt do this.Syria is the same thing.Lavrov tried to stop the, regaining Aleppo twice.First in February with his phony ceasefire and then in September -again ceasefire.

    • Alex Popoff

      You are right about Donbass,but this rebuke should be addressed to west, that supports genocide of russians in Ukraine. Russia is weak and vulnerable (and we can partially blame Putin for this), so it just acts in current circumstances. Not Russia dictates the rules, but NATO with military budget 10 times bigger.

      About Syria, this is not true. In fact, Lavrov twisted Kerry’s brains by promising to fight ISIS, fighting US proxies instead. So I think every time Russia declared ceasefire, it got in exchange something from US.

      • Trustin Judeau

        My problem with ceasefire in Syria was that it didnt work.It stopped SAA advance.If there was no ceasefire Aleppo would have been liberated by August and Al Bab also.And remember the rebels took Khan Touman and other towns.About Donbass the situation will remain dire and the conflict will continue

        • Bob

          Political and military strategies are not always going to be in perfect alignment. Sure, the ceasefires stopped the momentum of SAA, but is was short term and at least gave them time to bring in reinforcements. However, the political advantage shifted decidedly to Russia in the interim – the Pentagon bombed SAA in Deir Ezzor and deliberately trashed John Kerry in process – and Kerry himself refused to separate his long heralded ‘moderates’ from al-Nusra, the US looked hopelessly intransigent.
          Even in pro-NATO MSM that shifted the game, the US lost all their traction and the Obama era dealing was finished then and there. It was a delay in military terms, but Russia played it politically well, they went from necessarily dealing with US, to declaring US unable to deal responsibly and then sidelined them.

        • jj

          That is why these agreements and ceasefires brokered by the west and with the west should be delayed or avoided as much as possible. They are always used when the west and its precious terrorist proxies have major setbacks. They are used to help the proxies regroup and tie arms behind the backs of the Russians, Syrians or others fighting against their evil agenda.

      • jj

        Russia IS strong and capable and has missiles that NATO cannot defend against. But Russia is too often cowed by what the west thinks and the west’s propaganda. The west already accuses and sanctions Russia over things it is not doing, so it seems Russia should start doing those things (if needed).
        Russia needs to stop being trapped by western propaganda. It can do much better if it acted more strongly in its interest and didn’t care so much about what the west thinks.

        • Arthur Smith

          >Russia is too often cowed by what the west thinks and the west’s propaganda
          We are content with winning over hearts of western people, if we tried to play tough (which would probably expose how weak we are) many wouldn’t give a chance to pro-russian sources, discarding them as complying with bullies.

          >The west already accuses and sanctions Russia over things it is not
          doing, so it seems Russia should start doing those things (if needed).
          You know, there are some serious reasons for supressing Russia’s potential, even if it’s not the ones motivating western elites. We’ve got great cards and unless we follow some provocation into crippling conflict, Russia will get a game-breaking advantage pretty soon. After that even destroying Russia itself won’t be enough to close the Pandora’s Box.

    • Byzantines

      Its because the former Yeltsin minister prowestern Lavrov is above even Putin in Russia.

    • Arthur Smith

      Well, we even could end all the other conflicts in the world by nuking it to oblivion. Would it be worth it? What makes you believe Russia can survive consequances of ending the conflict soon after it started? Why do you think we even need a whole and functioning Ukraine after atrocious nature of “ukrainian” (artificially forged in Austrian concentration camps) identity have been laid bare?

      No, the Ukraine will fall apart, since even it’s own citizens don’t care enough to mend it. To end the conflict would mean there is no delay anymore for final question – is Ukraine a part of Russia or is Russia excluded from deciding it’s fate. Our refusal to act is an answer in itself – we need Ukraine to collapse once and for all, then every region will go it’s own way.

      • jj

        Russia prevented Crimea from being terrorized and destroyed.
        The west is cowardly and they would back down long before a genuine threat of nuclear war. The U.S. likes to gang attack much smaller countries – it won’t usually go after a small country on its own. It gets several other countries to go along and uses proxies and terrorists and uses “agreements” to tie the hands behind the backs of the targeted peoples/countries.

        • Arthur Smith

          Crimea already had soldiers stationed on it’s territory and is vital for control over the Black Sea. Also it was only transfered to Ukrainian SSR to avoid giving it up for Crimean California in 1954.

          >The west is cowardly
          Yeah, everyone sees how cowardly they are deploying more and more troops on our borders. Russia is too weak to take even slightest risk and won’t bluff. It’s not about military capabilities, but lack of true elites.

          • jj

            “giving it up for Crimean California in 1954”

            What is “Crimean California”? And I thought it was just Khrushchev’s doing because he is from Ukraine.

          • Arthur Smith

            No, that was actually pretty smart move.
            http://www.fort-russ.com/2015/03/how-stalin-played-americans-with.html
            Have fun with the article – it’s a thriller)
            The only one better trick we pulled on US is utilization of weapon plutonium that bankrupted american nuclear fuel industry and preserved ours.

          • jj

            But it looks like the problem was created in the first place by imperial Russia giving all the financial assistance to Jews and Germans in the first place: “The [Russian – KR] Imperial government has provided financial assistance and granted a number of privileges to some ethnic groups. The privileges were mainly enjoyed by German colonists, and some others, including Jewish settlers. The privileges were expressed in large land plots, tax incentives, special terms loans and exemption from military service. That’s why these groups subsequently formed the basis of the forces that sought to create an independent national state in Crimea.”

            Also, what happened to the Jewish population, as the article goes on and on about more Jews being settled there (and even displacing the locals – I guess that Ukrainian woman at Eurovision should of sung about the true reasons for the deportation of Crimean Tartars)? After Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine, did the Jewish population decline and leave without all the extra financial assistance? What was the approximate Crimean Jewish population in 1945 and 1991 then, and what is it today?

          • Arthur Smith

            >problem was created in the first place by imperial Russia
            Just regular benefits for settlers in the wilderness.

            >did the Jewish population decline and leave without all the extra financial assistance?
            Since 1939 to 1959 it went down from 65k to 26k – some got sent to the border with China, some moved to the actual Israel and yes, got assistance with that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnicities_and_languages

          • jj

            The population table shows Jews were still a fairly small percentage and that the Russian and Ukrainian population was strongly rising as well. I don’t see how the threat of “Crimea California” could be realized with only 5-6% Jews.

          • Arthur Smith

            You don’t need a major part of population to get collateral of an unpaid debt.

          • jj

            Yes, I see about the debt part. But what I don’t see how they could get an autonomous country being only around 5% – which was a big part of that article. I mean, what about the huge and increasing Russian population which was living there? And the article went on about non-Jews being removed for the Jews, but apparently, it was not Russians, as their numbers were increasing. The Crimean Tartars did decrease (at least markedly percentage-wise), but aren’t they as backstabbing as the Jews – so why should Russia have cared.

          • Arthur Smith

            It was before the creation of modern Israel and development of soviet nuclear weapons. If US decided Israel is to be in Crimea – jews currently in Palestine would probably move there.

          • jj

            But the Jews were already keen on getting back their Biblical Israel and they had settlers going to Palestine back in the 1800’s and the movement was increasing.
            Plus it is the Bible connection as to why many American Christians (especially those in the so-called “Bible belt” across the South) support Israel. To this day, they and their politicians from the region, support Israel – lobbying, sending money, etc.
            Crimea, on the other hand, has no Biblical connection. There would be no support, including donations, among the populace. Of course, the government and that “Joint” committee (mentioned in the link) notwithstanding. But the Jewish-Crimea would be much harder to sell to the general U.S. populace.

    • jj

      All these ceasefires and agreements are pushed by the west when they start losing control and their targeted side starts have strong success against their proxies.
      They have a way of maneuvering these agreements to tie the hands of Russia (and others) while giving their sides a chance to regroup. After that, their sides disobey the agreements (and the west says little, if nothing), while they scream about Russia violating it (even when Russia isn’t) – and this screaming and accusations seems to work as a preventative measure and, unfortunately, cowers Russia from making the right and just steps.
      That is why these “agreements” with the west/U.S. as a broker should be avoided and delayed as much as possible, if they cannot forego/dismiss them altogether.

  • Brad Isherwood
  • Brad Isherwood

    “Our future depends equally on courage and endurance by our soldiers at the front, and on the integrity and responsibility of politicians. We cannot allow our military to protect us from the enemy at the cost of life, while returning home to find a country eroded within by corruption, bribery, dishonesty, populism and irresponsibility.”

    Excerpt from http://www.catholicregister.org/home/international/item/21090-ukrainian-bishops-say-military-struggle-must-be-matched-by-moral-change

    Ukrainian Bishop going to lead the Ukronazi Tanks in an assault, ….like the Papal Legate
    Of old?