July 17, 2014
Russian-backed terrorists shot down a Malaysian Airlines passenger plane. All passengers and crew on board were killed, a total of 298 people. The aircraft was shot down by a Russian Buk missile launcher.
October 14, 2014
A funeral procession came under fire by Russian-backed militants in the village of Sartana near Mariupol. Seven civilians were killed and 17 were injuried.
November 5, 2014
Russian-backed militants fired at school No.63 in Donetsk from of Makiivka. As a result, two teenagers were killed and three were injured.
January 13, 2015
A passenger bus was shelled by Russian-backed militants near Volnovakha. This resulted in the immediate deaths of 10 passengers, 4 men and 6 women, including a 14-year-old girl. 18 other people were injuried.
January 21, 2015
A trolley on Bosse Street in Donetsk was shelled by Russian-backed militants. Over a 24 hour period, 20 civilians were injured and 15 people were killed. The shelling was carried out by the so-called nomadic mortar mounted on a vehicle.
January 24, 2015
The whole Vostochnyi urban district in Mariupol was shelled by Russian-backed militants. More than 20 people were killed and 75 were injured.
February 10, 2015
An airfield in Kramatorsk was shelled by Russian-backed militants. Shells also hit a residential area. Seven civilians were killed and 21 wounded, including two children.
February 13, 2015
Russian-backed terrorists shelled Artemivsk with cluster munitions from a BM-37 Uragan launcher. A school boy and young woman were killed; her daughter and 4 more people were injured, so that three children of the age 6-8 are among injured.
February 22, 2015
Russian-backed terrorists planted a bomb in Kharkiv during a peaceful rally in commemoration of the Maidan anniversary. Four people were killed and nine were injured.
March 6, 2015
Samantha Power announced at a meeting of the UN Security Council that the bodies of 500 civilians killed by Russian terrorist forces have been found in the basements of apartment buildings in Debaltseve!
The presence of a system indicates the presence of intent and a direct order.
Therefore, this raises a question of intentional
MASS EXTERMINATION OF UKRAINIAN PEOPLE
by Russian terrorist forces led by Vladimir Putin
The soundtrack of this video is a record of the broadcast “Yevgenia Albats. Do the Russians want war?” from February 9, 2015 at 8:07 pm. This is an interview of Pavel Felgenhauer by Yevgenia Albats, which gives an idea about real possibilities and intensions of the regular military forces of the Russian Federation.
Pavel E. Felgenhauer is a Russian military observer and analyst. He was born in 1951 in Moscow, graduated from Moscow State University in 1975. He served as a researcher and senior research officer in the Soviet Academy of Sciences. From 1991 through 1993, he was associated with the Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Moscow, as a military analyst and military correspondent. From 1993 through 1999, Mr. Felgenhauer was a member of the editorial board and chief military correspondent of the Moscow daily Segodnya. Since 1999, he has been an independent military observer and analyst. He publishes columns in newspapers Moscow Times and Novaya Gazeta and works with Russian and foreign electronic and printed media.
In the studio of Ekho Moskvy is Pavel Felgenhauer, a military observer of Novaya Gazeta. My first question: There is different information about the purpose of Merkel and Hollande’s visit to Moscow. Now, Merkel went to USA, and the next meeting is in Minsk on Wednesday. What are your versions, why did Merkel and Hollande come to Moscow and why did Merkel come to the USA?
Does this mean that NATO will appear in Ukraine?
First of all, the visit of Merkel has been planned in advance.
Merkel and Hollande.
No, Merkel’s visit to Washington. It turned out that it is very relevant now. It is clear why they want to try to extinguish the conflict [in Ukraine]. It is a crossing point now. And there is a possibility that a further escalation of hostilities will start. Military experts understand that the separatists or militia’s offensive died out. They almost never could take the enemy artillery positions. It was like Verden but the number of participants was different, of course. When you take the infantry trenches, you should advance to the artillery positions, because the artillery continues to shell you. The hostilities now are like in the First World War, the aviation is not involved at all. There are only artillery, infantry, and tanks. By the way, the broad use of tanks also started during the First World War. But one cannot achieve too much by such a tactic. They never could break the front line. And now it is necessary to agree on a truce, an operative pause because there is no other possibility. There are in fact no our regular troops at the forefront.
Ours, do you mean…
Russian. Regular troops.
Do you have evidences that Russian regular troops are there?
They were there in the past. There was a great invasion in late August.
Not only it, the whole south group was ripped to shreds. [Before the Russian troops involvment] there were only about 10 days left until the complete end of the war and fall of the self-proclaimed republics. This was explained later by Strelkov-Girkin.
By now, our regular troops are engaged in logistical support; also artillery, electronic warfare systems, anti-aircraft cover the back. Locals are at the forefront. But their possibilities are already almost exhausted. By now, either an operative pause or a bigger escalation is needed.
The bigger escalation means invasion of 20-30 thousand regular Russian troops, air offensive up to the Carpathians, up to the Polish border. Otherwise, there is no reason to do it. This is a logic of war. I am almost sure that Putin does not want this also.
Therefore, some kind of truce or operative pause is inevitable now and a subsequent attempt to resolve the problem by political means in order to achieve the goals of Moscow and Europe. The current truce is suited for all. This is why the Europeans tried to prevent the bigger escalation with their visits exactly now.
I want to explain one thing. It took 2-3 months to prepare this offensive, which began in mid-January, because it takes so much time. Such are realities of the preparation of a serious military offensive.
It was necessary to create completely different military units, instead of the so-called Somali army, which use to be there. Our officers called it so. Those unorganized semi-criminal gangs reminded them Somali fighters riding in Jeep trucks. It was necessary to create assault combat units led by (among others) Russian officers. Such units should be able to actually perform the tasks in offensive combat. Before, in the summer, there were no such units. It takes so much time.
Apparently, a serious preparation began on January 15, after the elections to Verkhovna Rada. Because it was a political decision, not a military one. The elections to the parliament resulted in a coalition in Kyiv that was absolutely unacceptable for Moscow, for the Kremlin. We call it the war party. It was completely surprising that Poroshenko received so few votes, and Yatsenyuk and Turchinov, who are considered in Moscow as a completely inappropriate pro-Western group, received so many of them. Our diplomats informally call this group a party of war, which has to be eliminated. The elections destroyed all the process. In fact, there were no new negotiations or agreements after November.[September] Minsk agreements died out already in November. A technical preparation of the future offensive began to solve political problems mainly. Not taking Debaltseve;
Moscow is not interested in Debaltseve or even Mariupol. Or who control some line, village or hill. It should not be interesting for you. Moscow is interested in Crimea and in control of Kyiv and of the whole Ukraine. This is what is interesting for Moscow. Putin has told this always. He demands now from Western colleagues that negotiations should begin after the ceasefire. Between Kyiv and rebels, militants. And he demands the regime change. A constitutional one. Ukraine should turn into a kind of Bosnia.
Do you want to say that …
Into a kind of confederation, with the purge of the Rada and new elections, so that pro-Russian majority or at least a controlling stake of Russia would be there. This would be a political solution. The truce will be then as … for Moldova. It will be a kind of confederation, maybe even a demilitarized one. With Russian peacekeepers, who will keep the peace.
So, you do not mean that Russia plans to strike a corridor to Kyiv and take it by storm.
Economic, political, and financial measures will be primarily used, as well as military ones.
So, Putin does not have an idea of occupation of Ukraine.
We do not have enough forces for the occupation. At least million people is needed for this. To take Kyiv and to control Kyiv, like to take Baghdad and to control Baghdad, are two different things. We could probably take Kiev but we could not control it, 4 million people. Do you know how many troops are needed for this? 200 thousandat least,300 thousand is better. It is just a simple calculation in order to set a curfew and more or less stable regime of occupation.
This will require mobilization.
Yes, of reservists. The present military forces are not enough for this. Because everything what happens now is an attempt to humiliate the Ukrainians and cause a political crisis in Kyiv. They showed “cyborgs” in humiliated state; they wanted to close the Debaltseve cauldron which would also humiliate the Ukrainians. Then [it will lead to] a political crisis in Kyiv and a change of the regime. This is the main strategic goal. If it can be achieved with the help of Merkel and Hollande, it would be great. So, this is the real goal, but not some villages in Donbas which are not interesting at all for Moscow, unlike Crimea.
Will supplies of American weapons save Ukraine?
The Ukrainians really need many things they are missing. What they have is from the Soviet Union: armament, equipment from the 70s, and even 60s, something from the 80s. This cannot help them too much. For example, the defeat of the Ukrainian group South and the disaster in Ilovaisk were mainly due to the fact that we have Israeli drones, but they do not. After the war of 2008, our military understood that it is not so good not to have drones. The Georgians had them. Our generals told that they literally hanged over their heads and they could do nothing. The Georgians saw what Russian troops were planning to do. When they saw that we planned to cross the Inguri river, they began to retreat towards Tbilisi and we could not capture the Georgian army as we planned, in the Western part of the country. So, first of all, we bought drones. Some of them, Forpost, were produced here under Israeli license. The Ukrainians do not have all of this. They do not know what our troops are doing; they cannot adjust fire, using drones. They really need them, rather Israeli ones, not American, which are too complicated. But Israel will not sell them to Ukraine, because it has bad relations with Ukraine and does not want to quarrel with Russia. But Ukraine needs them.[Ukraine needs] communication systems in general and good management. For example, on January 17, the Ukrainians tried to make a rather strong counterattack leading to counteroffensive in Donetsk near the airport. But they failed because they lost control of the troops – signal communications did not work. This is what they need primarily. This is not a lethal weapon but information systems: to gather information, to send it and work it out, to deliver it to the troops. This is not even a GPS-positioning. Just simply to understand where to shoot. Multiple launch systems can cover big areas, but you have to know where the enemy is.
Actually, it seems that the Americans have already prepared this. Because they have many different things. The Americans do not throw away anything, they keep it all in warehouses. They have there some things that they do need themselves, but they can be used [by somebody else].
Sniper rifles are needed. They speak of Javelins. I do not know if this is possible. It is very expensive. This is a very good anti-tank weapon, but it is 150,000 dollars for one piece. Because you shoot it and then forget about it. I do not know how many of them the Americans can give, and I do not think this will essentially change the situation on the ground. Another example is Carl Gustav [anti-tank rifle], which was previously in service in the US Army. It is a grenade launcher, but without targeting system. Unlike our mortars, it has a burster charge. You can’t fire our grenade launchers from within a bunker or a building because of the back blast that can burn out everything inside. This launcher has a burster charge which shoots out and then the propulsion motor shuts down during the flight. The Swedes engineered them and the Americans bought a lot of them at some point. Now, they are not used any more but they are kept in warehouses.
This would be a big help for them in trench warfare. It’s impossible to immediately re-arm the Ukrainian army according to the Western standards and calibers. It would be a complete disaster from the logistics point of view, because we have our own calibers, 122 millimeters and there are no such ones in the West, we have 152 millimeters, six inches, while they have 155.
A system of GPS-pointing used by Israel during the war in Lebanon is very effective; it was designed for Western howitzers. It uses completely different shells.
To implement it right now during hostilities and without the truce is very difficult, almost impossible. Probably, it can be implemented partially in some areas. I think the Pentagon has already inspected what the Ukrainians need and what the Americans do not need themselves and can give [to Ukraine].
But Obama is against supplies of lethal weapons.
Many of this stuff is not lethal. For example, a reconnaissance drone cannot be called a lethal weapon, but it can change the power balance essentially, provided that the Ukrainians learn how to use them. Therefore, the start of more substantial supplies of weapons in the amount of what they say up to 100 million each year or even up to a billion each year, can essentially improve the quality of the Ukrainian military forces. So, the substantial supplies of American weaponry can really change the situation on the ground. Remember Afghanistan, where Stingers, challenging the Russian air force, changed thepicture of the battlefield. As a final result, the USSR withdrew from Afghanistan, and then collapsed.
Translated by Maria Holubeva
Edited by Sveta Kemblowski