Герш/
Консул
Кстати, по Викиликс у амеров было много проблем со вполне реальным химическим оружием в Ираке, которое Саддам приныкал.
Донецкая республика-2
- Автор темы Rzay
- Дата начала
- Статус
Michael
Принцепс сената
Я перечислю три вещи про пресскоференцию МО:Но по сравнению с 1983 г. есть прогресс: нет "удалившегося в сторону Японского моря". Также: факты-то приведены, анализируй как хочешь - а про другую сторону мы ничего не знаем, может у них тоже косяки одни...
1) Выдали значок, указывающий расчетное положение Боинга, за украинский самолет
2) Показали снимки с космоса комплексы БУК, часть которых находится на территории, подконтрольной повстанцам, назвали все "украинскими"
3) Сказали, что есть адрес на билборде, на котором вообще нет надписей.
По мне это возвращение к советским временам. В краткосрочной перспективе эта пресконференция имела мебольшой эффект (о ней говорили в СМИ, т.е. люди узнали, что официально у РФ другое мнение), но в долгосрочной - это сжечь свою репутацию.
S
Sextus Pompey
Guest
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/07/229681.htm#UKRAINE
Кто-то бросится защищать госпожу Харф или все сторонники Украины просто проигнорируют это:
MS. HARF: No. I think you have wrong information there. There hasn’t been – they have maintained – the Ukrainians have maintained a ceasefire. The 40-kilometer ceasefire they have declared around the crash site, the Ukrainians have maintained it.
QUESTION: Okay. Are you concerned that a break in ceasefire could impede the investigation?
MS. HARF: Well, obviously, we would be concerned about the separatists not upholding a ceasefire. The Ukrainians have repeatedly shown their willingness and ability to do so.
...
QUESTION: Well, yesterday – this is sort of related Ukraine, I guess, and Russia. Yesterday the intel community said they were going to lay out evidence sort of backing their assertions about who brought down Malaysia Airlines 17. They did lay out a bunch of different things, but they didn’t actually lay out the real documentation that supports those assertions. Why haven’t we seen --
MS. HARF: I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking for. Well, they did a couple things yesterday. They showed – they walked through an intelligence assessment case and they talked about some additional pieces of declassified information that I can walk through today that bolsters our case that we know what happened here. They also showed imagery of training facilities; they showed imageries of the site, including a trajectory based on classified information that they were able to provide that showed the trajectory of the SA-11. So those are important, and let’s get – let me finish
Хотелось бы посмотреть на эти доказательства. Пока видел только мультик...
Russia – this is a little separately here – has also released a map with the alleged locations of Ukrainian SA-11 units within range of the crash. This is another red herring they’ve put out there. We are confident that this information is incorrect. The nearest Ukrainian operational SA-11 unit is located well out of the range from both the launch and the crash site. So part of their case yesterday was not only giving more information about what we know, but giving our professional, technical assessment of some of the Russian claims that, I think, we have tried to increasingly knock down.
Вот так вот... Она уверена и все тут... Русские сами нарисовали Буки на спутниковых снимках... "Джентльменам принято верить на слово" (с)
QUESTION: When you said – when they – when you said they showed evidence of this, what do you mean by that, “they showed”? They – I mean, did they have a presentation? I --
MS. HARF: Well, they – they did. They did. They showed some imagery, they showed a number of images; they showed some maps, they showed some graphics. I’m happy for you to get in touch with DNI Public Affairs, who can probably give you that packet that they showed. They showed some – one of the maps that we actually have posted on our Facebook page and our Kyiv Embassy that shows the trajectory of the SA-11 missile. That trajectory is based on classified information. I can’t detail all of what that information is, but that is based on the information we have.
Ну покажите мне эти снимки! А то все видели, а я нет...
QUESTION: And some of the evidence U.S. is relying on are social media postings and videos made public by the Ukrainian Government. Have those all been authenticated?
MS. HARF: Again, that’s why I said the audio data, which is part of the social media, has been authenticated by the intelligence community analysts. Social media is obviously only one part of the puzzle here. It’s something we look at, but obviously, we back everything up to the extent that we can when we can with other intelligence as well.
Где эти "other intelligencе"?
QUESTION: Secondly, I’m not sure that – I know that there were some suggestions that the Ukrainian fighter plane shot down this – with a missile, but the --
MS. HARF: So the Russians have basically had a couple of alternative explanations.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. HARF: There was the Ukrainian fighter jet. I think we – the intelligence community went to great lengths yesterday to show why that’s not the case.
The other – one of the other things they said was that it was a Ukrainian SA-11 system that the Ukrainians had fired. Again, I think they made very clear why that’s not also the case.
QUESTION: But the theory that – or the – I don’t know what you would – the suggestion isn’t necessarily that the Ukrainian jet – I mean, you have – you’ve discovered that the Ukrainian jet was in the vicinity, but it was not capable of shooting (inaudible) down --
MS. HARF: No, I can’t confirm that there was even a Ukrainian – we have no confirmation that I have seen that there was a Ukrainian jet.
QUESTION: Oh, that there was even --
MS. HARF: I’m not saying there wasn’t. I just can’t confirm it.
...
QUESTION: Right. But I mean, if you just look at that – a lay person looking at it, it’s a line drawn on a satellite photo with no – nothing to back it up.
MS. HARF: Well, as I said, it’s based on a series of classified information --
QUESTION: Which we have to --
MS. HARF: -- which we are --
QUESTION: -- we have to take the leap of faith to believe that – right?
MS. HARF: Well, Matt, we are trying to put as much out of this out --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. HARF: -- information out about this as possible. We are trying very hard to do so. It is a process that takes, I think, more time than any of us, certainly you or I, would like.
QUESTION: Right.
...
MS. HARF: We’re working to get more information declassified and put out there as quickly as we can. It’s just a difficult process (inaudible).
QUESTION: Okay. But do you understand that given the conflicting claims, no matter how ridiculous you say the other side’s version is and no matter how implausible it might be – but saying that you’ve put together the imagery showing the root of this --
MS. HARF: Trajectory.
QUESTION: -- trajectory showing imagery.
MS. HARF: Just one piece. It’s one piece of evidence.
QUESTION: Well, I know, but anyone can draw a line on a map. They can. I mean, I’m not saying that --
MS. HARF: That’s not what our intelligence community does. That’s not what the U.S. Government does when we go out there and present a case to the world. We have --
Дальше читать надоело..
Кто-то бросится защищать госпожу Харф или все сторонники Украины просто проигнорируют это:
MS. HARF: No. I think you have wrong information there. There hasn’t been – they have maintained – the Ukrainians have maintained a ceasefire. The 40-kilometer ceasefire they have declared around the crash site, the Ukrainians have maintained it.
QUESTION: Okay. Are you concerned that a break in ceasefire could impede the investigation?
MS. HARF: Well, obviously, we would be concerned about the separatists not upholding a ceasefire. The Ukrainians have repeatedly shown their willingness and ability to do so.
...
QUESTION: Well, yesterday – this is sort of related Ukraine, I guess, and Russia. Yesterday the intel community said they were going to lay out evidence sort of backing their assertions about who brought down Malaysia Airlines 17. They did lay out a bunch of different things, but they didn’t actually lay out the real documentation that supports those assertions. Why haven’t we seen --
MS. HARF: I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking for. Well, they did a couple things yesterday. They showed – they walked through an intelligence assessment case and they talked about some additional pieces of declassified information that I can walk through today that bolsters our case that we know what happened here. They also showed imagery of training facilities; they showed imageries of the site, including a trajectory based on classified information that they were able to provide that showed the trajectory of the SA-11. So those are important, and let’s get – let me finish
Хотелось бы посмотреть на эти доказательства. Пока видел только мультик...
Russia – this is a little separately here – has also released a map with the alleged locations of Ukrainian SA-11 units within range of the crash. This is another red herring they’ve put out there. We are confident that this information is incorrect. The nearest Ukrainian operational SA-11 unit is located well out of the range from both the launch and the crash site. So part of their case yesterday was not only giving more information about what we know, but giving our professional, technical assessment of some of the Russian claims that, I think, we have tried to increasingly knock down.
Вот так вот... Она уверена и все тут... Русские сами нарисовали Буки на спутниковых снимках... "Джентльменам принято верить на слово" (с)
QUESTION: When you said – when they – when you said they showed evidence of this, what do you mean by that, “they showed”? They – I mean, did they have a presentation? I --
MS. HARF: Well, they – they did. They did. They showed some imagery, they showed a number of images; they showed some maps, they showed some graphics. I’m happy for you to get in touch with DNI Public Affairs, who can probably give you that packet that they showed. They showed some – one of the maps that we actually have posted on our Facebook page and our Kyiv Embassy that shows the trajectory of the SA-11 missile. That trajectory is based on classified information. I can’t detail all of what that information is, but that is based on the information we have.
Ну покажите мне эти снимки! А то все видели, а я нет...
QUESTION: And some of the evidence U.S. is relying on are social media postings and videos made public by the Ukrainian Government. Have those all been authenticated?
MS. HARF: Again, that’s why I said the audio data, which is part of the social media, has been authenticated by the intelligence community analysts. Social media is obviously only one part of the puzzle here. It’s something we look at, but obviously, we back everything up to the extent that we can when we can with other intelligence as well.
Где эти "other intelligencе"?
QUESTION: Secondly, I’m not sure that – I know that there were some suggestions that the Ukrainian fighter plane shot down this – with a missile, but the --
MS. HARF: So the Russians have basically had a couple of alternative explanations.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. HARF: There was the Ukrainian fighter jet. I think we – the intelligence community went to great lengths yesterday to show why that’s not the case.
The other – one of the other things they said was that it was a Ukrainian SA-11 system that the Ukrainians had fired. Again, I think they made very clear why that’s not also the case.
QUESTION: But the theory that – or the – I don’t know what you would – the suggestion isn’t necessarily that the Ukrainian jet – I mean, you have – you’ve discovered that the Ukrainian jet was in the vicinity, but it was not capable of shooting (inaudible) down --
MS. HARF: No, I can’t confirm that there was even a Ukrainian – we have no confirmation that I have seen that there was a Ukrainian jet.
QUESTION: Oh, that there was even --
MS. HARF: I’m not saying there wasn’t. I just can’t confirm it.
...
QUESTION: Right. But I mean, if you just look at that – a lay person looking at it, it’s a line drawn on a satellite photo with no – nothing to back it up.
MS. HARF: Well, as I said, it’s based on a series of classified information --
QUESTION: Which we have to --
MS. HARF: -- which we are --
QUESTION: -- we have to take the leap of faith to believe that – right?
MS. HARF: Well, Matt, we are trying to put as much out of this out --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. HARF: -- information out about this as possible. We are trying very hard to do so. It is a process that takes, I think, more time than any of us, certainly you or I, would like.
QUESTION: Right.
...
MS. HARF: We’re working to get more information declassified and put out there as quickly as we can. It’s just a difficult process (inaudible).
QUESTION: Okay. But do you understand that given the conflicting claims, no matter how ridiculous you say the other side’s version is and no matter how implausible it might be – but saying that you’ve put together the imagery showing the root of this --
MS. HARF: Trajectory.
QUESTION: -- trajectory showing imagery.
MS. HARF: Just one piece. It’s one piece of evidence.
QUESTION: Well, I know, but anyone can draw a line on a map. They can. I mean, I’m not saying that --
MS. HARF: That’s not what our intelligence community does. That’s not what the U.S. Government does when we go out there and present a case to the world. We have --
Дальше читать надоело..
S
Sextus Pompey
Guest
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/07/229681.htm#UKRAINE
Кто-то бросится защищать госпожу Харф или все сторонники Украины просто проигнорируют это:
MS. HARF: No. I think you have wrong information there. There hasn’t been – they have maintained – the Ukrainians have maintained a ceasefire. The 40-kilometer ceasefire they have declared around the crash site, the Ukrainians have maintained it.
QUESTION: Okay. Are you concerned that a break in ceasefire could impede the investigation?
MS. HARF: Well, obviously, we would be concerned about the separatists not upholding a ceasefire. The Ukrainians have repeatedly shown their willingness and ability to do so.
...
QUESTION: Well, yesterday – this is sort of related Ukraine, I guess, and Russia. Yesterday the intel community said they were going to lay out evidence sort of backing their assertions about who brought down Malaysia Airlines 17. They did lay out a bunch of different things, but they didn’t actually lay out the real documentation that supports those assertions. Why haven’t we seen --
MS. HARF: I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking for. Well, they did a couple things yesterday. They showed – they walked through an intelligence assessment case and they talked about some additional pieces of declassified information that I can walk through today that bolsters our case that we know what happened here. They also showed imagery of training facilities; they showed imageries of the site, including a trajectory based on classified information that they were able to provide that showed the trajectory of the SA-11. So those are important, and let’s get – let me finish
Хотелось бы посмотреть на эти доказательства. Пока видел только мультик...
Russia – this is a little separately here – has also released a map with the alleged locations of Ukrainian SA-11 units within range of the crash. This is another red herring they’ve put out there. We are confident that this information is incorrect. The nearest Ukrainian operational SA-11 unit is located well out of the range from both the launch and the crash site. So part of their case yesterday was not only giving more information about what we know, but giving our professional, technical assessment of some of the Russian claims that, I think, we have tried to increasingly knock down.
Вот так вот... Она уверена и все тут... Русские сами нарисовали Буки на спутниковых снимках... "Джентльменам принято верить на слово" (с)
QUESTION: When you said – when they – when you said they showed evidence of this, what do you mean by that, “they showed”? They – I mean, did they have a presentation? I --
MS. HARF: Well, they – they did. They did. They showed some imagery, they showed a number of images; they showed some maps, they showed some graphics. I’m happy for you to get in touch with DNI Public Affairs, who can probably give you that packet that they showed. They showed some – one of the maps that we actually have posted on our Facebook page and our Kyiv Embassy that shows the trajectory of the SA-11 missile. That trajectory is based on classified information. I can’t detail all of what that information is, but that is based on the information we have.
Ну покажите мне эти снимки! А то все видели, а я нет...
QUESTION: And some of the evidence U.S. is relying on are social media postings and videos made public by the Ukrainian Government. Have those all been authenticated?
MS. HARF: Again, that’s why I said the audio data, which is part of the social media, has been authenticated by the intelligence community analysts. Social media is obviously only one part of the puzzle here. It’s something we look at, but obviously, we back everything up to the extent that we can when we can with other intelligence as well.
Где эти "other intelligencе"?
QUESTION: Secondly, I’m not sure that – I know that there were some suggestions that the Ukrainian fighter plane shot down this – with a missile, but the --
MS. HARF: So the Russians have basically had a couple of alternative explanations.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. HARF: There was the Ukrainian fighter jet. I think we – the intelligence community went to great lengths yesterday to show why that’s not the case.
The other – one of the other things they said was that it was a Ukrainian SA-11 system that the Ukrainians had fired. Again, I think they made very clear why that’s not also the case.
QUESTION: But the theory that – or the – I don’t know what you would – the suggestion isn’t necessarily that the Ukrainian jet – I mean, you have – you’ve discovered that the Ukrainian jet was in the vicinity, but it was not capable of shooting (inaudible) down --
MS. HARF: No, I can’t confirm that there was even a Ukrainian – we have no confirmation that I have seen that there was a Ukrainian jet.
QUESTION: Oh, that there was even --
MS. HARF: I’m not saying there wasn’t. I just can’t confirm it.
...
QUESTION: Right. But I mean, if you just look at that – a lay person looking at it, it’s a line drawn on a satellite photo with no – nothing to back it up.
MS. HARF: Well, as I said, it’s based on a series of classified information --
QUESTION: Which we have to --
MS. HARF: -- which we are --
QUESTION: -- we have to take the leap of faith to believe that – right?
MS. HARF: Well, Matt, we are trying to put as much out of this out --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. HARF: -- information out about this as possible. We are trying very hard to do so. It is a process that takes, I think, more time than any of us, certainly you or I, would like.
QUESTION: Right.
...
MS. HARF: We’re working to get more information declassified and put out there as quickly as we can. It’s just a difficult process (inaudible).
QUESTION: Okay. But do you understand that given the conflicting claims, no matter how ridiculous you say the other side’s version is and no matter how implausible it might be – but saying that you’ve put together the imagery showing the root of this --
MS. HARF: Trajectory.
QUESTION: -- trajectory showing imagery.
MS. HARF: Just one piece. It’s one piece of evidence.
QUESTION: Well, I know, but anyone can draw a line on a map. They can. I mean, I’m not saying that --
MS. HARF: That’s not what our intelligence community does. That’s not what the U.S. Government does when we go out there and present a case to the world. We have --
Дальше читать надоело..
Кто-то бросится защищать госпожу Харф или все сторонники Украины просто проигнорируют это:
MS. HARF: No. I think you have wrong information there. There hasn’t been – they have maintained – the Ukrainians have maintained a ceasefire. The 40-kilometer ceasefire they have declared around the crash site, the Ukrainians have maintained it.
QUESTION: Okay. Are you concerned that a break in ceasefire could impede the investigation?
MS. HARF: Well, obviously, we would be concerned about the separatists not upholding a ceasefire. The Ukrainians have repeatedly shown their willingness and ability to do so.
...
QUESTION: Well, yesterday – this is sort of related Ukraine, I guess, and Russia. Yesterday the intel community said they were going to lay out evidence sort of backing their assertions about who brought down Malaysia Airlines 17. They did lay out a bunch of different things, but they didn’t actually lay out the real documentation that supports those assertions. Why haven’t we seen --
MS. HARF: I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking for. Well, they did a couple things yesterday. They showed – they walked through an intelligence assessment case and they talked about some additional pieces of declassified information that I can walk through today that bolsters our case that we know what happened here. They also showed imagery of training facilities; they showed imageries of the site, including a trajectory based on classified information that they were able to provide that showed the trajectory of the SA-11. So those are important, and let’s get – let me finish
Хотелось бы посмотреть на эти доказательства. Пока видел только мультик...
Russia – this is a little separately here – has also released a map with the alleged locations of Ukrainian SA-11 units within range of the crash. This is another red herring they’ve put out there. We are confident that this information is incorrect. The nearest Ukrainian operational SA-11 unit is located well out of the range from both the launch and the crash site. So part of their case yesterday was not only giving more information about what we know, but giving our professional, technical assessment of some of the Russian claims that, I think, we have tried to increasingly knock down.
Вот так вот... Она уверена и все тут... Русские сами нарисовали Буки на спутниковых снимках... "Джентльменам принято верить на слово" (с)
QUESTION: When you said – when they – when you said they showed evidence of this, what do you mean by that, “they showed”? They – I mean, did they have a presentation? I --
MS. HARF: Well, they – they did. They did. They showed some imagery, they showed a number of images; they showed some maps, they showed some graphics. I’m happy for you to get in touch with DNI Public Affairs, who can probably give you that packet that they showed. They showed some – one of the maps that we actually have posted on our Facebook page and our Kyiv Embassy that shows the trajectory of the SA-11 missile. That trajectory is based on classified information. I can’t detail all of what that information is, but that is based on the information we have.
Ну покажите мне эти снимки! А то все видели, а я нет...
QUESTION: And some of the evidence U.S. is relying on are social media postings and videos made public by the Ukrainian Government. Have those all been authenticated?
MS. HARF: Again, that’s why I said the audio data, which is part of the social media, has been authenticated by the intelligence community analysts. Social media is obviously only one part of the puzzle here. It’s something we look at, but obviously, we back everything up to the extent that we can when we can with other intelligence as well.
Где эти "other intelligencе"?
QUESTION: Secondly, I’m not sure that – I know that there were some suggestions that the Ukrainian fighter plane shot down this – with a missile, but the --
MS. HARF: So the Russians have basically had a couple of alternative explanations.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. HARF: There was the Ukrainian fighter jet. I think we – the intelligence community went to great lengths yesterday to show why that’s not the case.
The other – one of the other things they said was that it was a Ukrainian SA-11 system that the Ukrainians had fired. Again, I think they made very clear why that’s not also the case.
QUESTION: But the theory that – or the – I don’t know what you would – the suggestion isn’t necessarily that the Ukrainian jet – I mean, you have – you’ve discovered that the Ukrainian jet was in the vicinity, but it was not capable of shooting (inaudible) down --
MS. HARF: No, I can’t confirm that there was even a Ukrainian – we have no confirmation that I have seen that there was a Ukrainian jet.
QUESTION: Oh, that there was even --
MS. HARF: I’m not saying there wasn’t. I just can’t confirm it.
...
QUESTION: Right. But I mean, if you just look at that – a lay person looking at it, it’s a line drawn on a satellite photo with no – nothing to back it up.
MS. HARF: Well, as I said, it’s based on a series of classified information --
QUESTION: Which we have to --
MS. HARF: -- which we are --
QUESTION: -- we have to take the leap of faith to believe that – right?
MS. HARF: Well, Matt, we are trying to put as much out of this out --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. HARF: -- information out about this as possible. We are trying very hard to do so. It is a process that takes, I think, more time than any of us, certainly you or I, would like.
QUESTION: Right.
...
MS. HARF: We’re working to get more information declassified and put out there as quickly as we can. It’s just a difficult process (inaudible).
QUESTION: Okay. But do you understand that given the conflicting claims, no matter how ridiculous you say the other side’s version is and no matter how implausible it might be – but saying that you’ve put together the imagery showing the root of this --
MS. HARF: Trajectory.
QUESTION: -- trajectory showing imagery.
MS. HARF: Just one piece. It’s one piece of evidence.
QUESTION: Well, I know, but anyone can draw a line on a map. They can. I mean, I’m not saying that --
MS. HARF: That’s not what our intelligence community does. That’s not what the U.S. Government does when we go out there and present a case to the world. We have --
Дальше читать надоело..
S
Sextus Pompey
Guest
Это доказано? Кем?
Michael
Принцепс сената
Если я правильно понимаю, несколько дней назад повстанцы на юге зажали украинцев в котел, но сил этот котел сомкнуть и разбить зажатую группировку у них не оказалось.
Если я верно интерпретирую события и сообщения последних дней об обстрелах со стороны России, в том числе те видео, которые Дедал приоводил, в РФ решили им помочь с тыла, но пока не вторгаясь открыто, а артилериским огнем.
Артемий
Принцепс сената
Аккаунт как минимум одного из этих солдат реально существует, начат очень давно (я проследил до середины прошлого года), человек на фотографиях год назад и сейчас один и тот же.
Удивляет одно: как можно такое выложить и сразу не загреметь надолго за разглашение гостайны? Правда, последний заход на страницу -- позавчера, что как бы намекает...
Удивляет одно: как можно такое выложить и сразу не загреметь надолго за разглашение гостайны? Правда, последний заход на страницу -- позавчера, что как бы намекает...
Артемий
Принцепс сената
И еще интересный момент. Два солдата заявлены как друзья. Ванёк Жеребцов и Вадим Григорьев. При этом Вадимов Григорьевых оказывается два -- один с id 228257354, копию страницы которого показывают в блоге, а другой с id 59239645, страница которого действительно удалена. Причем в списке друзей Жеребцова числится этот, второй.
Что-то здесь не так.
Что-то здесь не так.
Dedal
Ересиарх
БС -это пушка....это я ещё могу поверить, что у прапора куплено и в грузовике привезено к границе...Да и, что она местная -это возможно. У нас такого добра и своего пруд пруди. А вот танк...это , как я уже писал, только с санкции сверху. Продать то его ещё можно...а вот транспортировать в тёмную как?
PS И ещё...Я не позволю себе давать советы уважаемому Владимиру Владимировичу(надеюсь он не читает Хисторику
) но я не вижу прока сюда технику гнать...как говорил один сведущий человек "осёл гружённый золотом возьмёт любую крепость". А уж воинскую часть и подавно. Я полагаю, что куда рентабельнее было присылать людей с чемоданами гривневой налички, тем более что её , якобы, захватили много в Крыму...И вежливо постучавшись в ворота любой части, можно бы купить всё что есть в их супермаркете ...Большая экономия могла бы быть на логистике И злобные очернители не могли бы лить воду на мельницу Вашингтона...
Dedal
Ересиарх
Вы уверены, что эта колонна переходила границу? Ну... это уже свидетельство очевидца. Следовательно мои подозрения оправдываются и российские поставки имеют место. Знать бы объёмы этих поставок и их характер...
Dedal
Ересиарх
Это фуфель, а не доказательство... Но обстрелы из приграничной зоны , вероятно , имеют место быть. Не стану утверждать, что стреляет армия РФ, это вполне могут быть и инсургенты переходящие для этих целей на сопредельную территорию, но это может делается только с попустительства ...Как я понимаю жизнь.
Вообще то...по отдельным долетающим сведениям, которые я не могу не доказать, поддержка от РФ усиливается в последние дни.
Dedal
Ересиарх
Не могу судить...По СМИ судить- все патриоты. Реально , видимо, отношение разное. К властям всё хуже и хуже и это не связано только с войной. Жизнь ухудшается на глазах. Говорил с харьковчанами, вполне оранжево настроенным, по прошлой жизни...клянут киевских бояр за всё и корят себя за дурость. Мне остаётся только делать умное лицо, говоря : "я же предупреждал"
К повстанцам, в основном, негативное...народ в массе уверен, что они продали родину или засланцы Путина. Да и реальный негатив , по данным "из уст в уста", а не из СМИ, накапливается. Я не могу что-то определённое говорить о том, чего не вижу...Если судить по моему кругу- это одна картина. Если по обрывкам фраз в транспорте, то другая... Но у меня нет широкой сети осведомителей, которые бы мне доносили о настроениях во всех регионах
Dedal
Ересиарх
Видео из окружения...гаплык полный...Если сольют окружённую группировку, то это будет громадный удар ....по всем статьям ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFNGIT-wo9Y#t=14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFNGIT-wo9Y#t=14
веранна
Претор
Разумеется, никем не доказано.
Эксперты ОЗХО в пресс-релизе от 17.06.14 сообщили только, что
А вот КТО их использовал - открытый вопрос. США, конечно, обвиняют Асада, Дамаск уведомляет, что предприятие по производству хлорпикрина, расположенное в 40 км от Алеппо, было захвачено оппозицией и что она также захватила химические вещества в Тартусе и Аль-Байде...
Но, как говорил Энштейн, воображение важнее, чем знание
Эльдар
Принцепс сената
Но у меня нет широкой сети осведомителей, которые бы мне доносили о настроениях во всех регионах
Это легкомысленно и непредусмотрительно с Вашей стороны.
Dedal
Ересиарх
Что и требовалось доказать!!!!!!!!
- Статус