Merged Ukraine erupts in riots and general strike.

[Childlike Empress]

More escalation - now there are snipers shooting people in broad daylight, both police and demonstrators. Apparently dozens dead. Just like in Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc. Here's a video making the round (people get killed, NSFW). Look at around 20 seconds in, how the bullet hits the tree and where the people are looking at. They get shot from behind - the people filming are the people shooting.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The authorities are saying their police don't carry firearms so it must be "violent protesters?" Jeez ... people running around in masks, cops shot in the neck ... obvious state repression. The most Nazi province voted to break away? Wow. They really love Europe.

"We will not back down. We will stand and give our lives if needed, for normalized trade relations with EU bloc nations, including financial exchange integration and ..."

Or it's more poetic in their eyes, I suppose. And they're young. And/or they really hate Putin.

Damn that Putin and his meddling. We need another Orange Revolution in there. Get John McCain and the NED on the phone.

 

[Caustic Logic]

It shows policemen around a fire that has been burning for at least a few seconds prior to video being shot. No evidence it was a firebomb. No indication of where the fire came from. Given the number of civilians that go against the policemen (10 against 300 or so), and given the source, it's certainly a scene staged for propaganda purposes, nothing more. Does it make you happy to shill for Putin?

That, or Ukrainian police perfers to turtle up when they have a 30 to 1 advantage, even after the opposing side firebombs them. If it's the latter you'll have to explain why, prefferably with a manual.

McHrozni

I saw a throwing motion and heard a clink. Something glass. I saw policemen backing up some, as protesters push them back and throw burning stuff at them (those, not cocktails). I see some of the fire - burning for a few frames (not seconds I should hope) before the camera pans there - is exactly in their midst, as if it's on them/they are on fire. It moves as they move, and turns quickly to fog as someone hits them with an extinquisher. They are armed with that. They acted quickly. They expected it. It's happened before (my impression).

And the "protesters," (assailants, more accurately - I see no protestation or speech of any kind) who show no fear of getting shot, are trying to push them back further, and threatening to run them over with a truck. It's true they do not actually do that, with RT's camera rolling.

Are your eyes okay? Why would the police huddle so close to and push back with their bodies a fire that was already burning? Or is it just that you enjoy glossing over the crimes of anyone you perceive as anti-Russia?

 

[Klimax]

The authorities are saying their police don't carry firearms so it must be "violent protesters?" Jeez ... people running around in masks, cops shot in the neck ... obvious state repression. The most Nazi province voted to break away? Wow. They really love Europe.
...

Just note: Nazi province appears to be incorrect term and in fact from recent history it appears to be wrong attribute. (Until very recently did Svoboda gained any support there and only after some at least surface-level changes)

As for shooting cops, link needed. So far only "snipers shooting". But nothing about targeting cops.

Paraphrased from:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/20/uk-ukraine-idUKBREA1H0EM20140220

 

[angrysoba]

The authorities are saying their police don't carry firearms so it must be "violent protesters?"

Well, actually, in the same video you are now commenting on...

I saw a throwing motion and heard a clink. Something glass. I saw policemen backing up some, as protesters push them back and throw burning stuff at them (those, not cocktails). I see some of the fire - burning for a few frames (not seconds I should hope) before the camera pans there - is exactly in their midst, as if it's on them/they are on fire. It moves as they move, and turns quickly to fog as someone hits them with an extinquisher. They are armed with that. They acted quickly. They expected it. It's happened before (my impression).

And the "protesters," (assailants, more accurately - I see no protestation or speech of any kind) who show no fear of getting shot, are trying to push them back further, and threatening to run them over with a truck. It's true they do not actually do that, with RT's camera rolling.

Are your eyes okay? Why would the police huddle so close to and push back with their bodies a fire that was already burning? Or is it just that you enjoy glossing over the crimes of anyone you perceive as anti-Russia?

...while I can certainly see a number of protesters who do not look like pacificists to me, there is most certainly a rifle pointing out and firing from the police ranks.

 

[Caustic Logic]

More escalation - now there are snipers shooting people in broad daylight, both police and demonstrators. Apparently dozens dead. Just like in Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc. Here's a video making the round (people get killed, NSFW). Look at around 20 seconds in, how the bullet hits the tree and where the people are looking at. They get shot from behind - the people filming are the people shooting.

Thanks for mentioning it here then. That will take/deserves special analysis, so I won't even bother watching it just yet.

But the McHrozni school of video analysis has failed, and I can vouch for CE's good eye with these things. Anyone else is free to earn that respect by assessing the firebombing of police video correctly. Let's find some points of agreement, smart people.

Klimax, re: flippant language - duly noted. That's me being a bit smart-ass. But still - most heavily in favor of a party that has to clarify it's not Nazi anymore, and its leader I guess no longer strikes poses like this. I'm genuinely pretty behind. But I'm not liking the tone of some of these protesters. Or the looks of these ones.

As for cops, let me see ... Petri mentioned it at the Syria Wiki ... interesting page, BTW - citing:
RT - whatever you think, usually doesn't just make stuff like this up:

Twenty-six people were killed overnight in the most violent clashes yet to have occurred between security forces and protesters since the opposition took to the streets of Kiev in November 2013. Ten of the casualties are Ukrainian police officers, who died of gunshot wounds, as did the rest of the victims, the Interior Ministry reported.
The Ukrainian Ministry of the Interior believes the casualties in the clashes could have been killed by the radicals, because the police do not use fire arms.
"Taking into consideration the nature of the dead civilians’ wounds and also the nature of the weapons, which have been confiscated, we can assume that these wounds were inflicted by violent protesters,” a statement at the Ministry’s website says. “Police officers and interior troops do not use fire arms. Law enforcers are only using non-lethal weapons.”
Some of the European leaders have not been convinced and have been quick to lay the blame for the violence on the Ukrainian president.
Several EU leaders have already spoken of introducing sanctions against the Ukrainian leadership, who they view as responsible for the crisis.

And then RT again, saying Rioters seize over 1,500 guns in Ukraine mayhem - security services.

Cue the surge of murky political murders and revenge massacres across rural Ukraine? Yeah, that reading too far ahead.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Well, actually, in the same video you are now commenting on...



...while I can certainly see a number of protesters who do not look like pacificists to me, there is most certainly a rifle pointing out and firing from the police ranks.

Oh yeah? I was focusing on the fire, and had the audio low. But I heard the clink ... reviewing. That, the throwing is dramatized, in editing - there's a splice. But, it's at the right spot. You almost exactly see it hit them and flare up on impact. Then it pans up. But yes, I hear pops. A flash near the cops' feet, one behind their lines, but maybe too far to one side (0:09)? Augh ... This deserves slowing down and stuff, apparently. I MIGHT do that.

Where's the rifle most visible? Time-stamp and part of the screen?

 

[angrysoba]

More escalation - now there are snipers shooting people in broad daylight, both police and demonstrators. Apparently dozens dead. Just like in Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc. Here's a video making the round (people get killed, NSFW). Look at around 20 seconds in, how the bullet hits the tree and where the people are looking at. They get shot from behind - the people filming are the people shooting.

Are you saying those dead bodies are not really dead bodies? Or that they really are getting shot by their own side and presumably knowingly so?

 

[angrysoba]

Oh yeah? I was focusing on the fire, and had the audio low. But I heard the clink ... reviewing. That, the throwing is dramatized, in editing - there's a splice. But, it's at the right spot. You almost exactly see it hit them and flare up on impact. Then it pans up. But yes, I hear pops. A flash near the cops' feet, one behind their lines, but maybe too far to one side (0:09)? Augh ... This deserves slowing down and stuff, apparently. I MIGHT do that.

Where's the rifle most visible? Time-stamp and part of the screen?

0.40 and very visible slightly to the left of centre in the screen.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Angry, thanks. I managed to save it, better playback. But that's plenty clear. Just that 40 second is so far into it. Could that kind of rifle fire anything other than live ammo I wonder? We see it fire. I'm no expert.

I won't keep the pace of argument so y'all run ahead and in day I'll look good and report back maybe with new video links in a day or three.

Just for fun:
Obama: Ukraine, Syria are not pieces on 'some Cold-War chessboard'

Zbigniew Brzezinsky, the Grand Chessboard, 1997-ish: identified three geo-political pivots for control of Eurasia, which the West should try for: Iran, Azerbaijan (wasn't it?) and Ukraine. No, Syria was not included, but they're a stepping stone to Iran.

I'm not here to argue this comparison. I just said that. Retort at will.

 

[McHrozni]

I saw a throwing motion and heard a clink. Something glass. I saw policemen backing up some, as protesters push them back and throw burning stuff at them (those, not cocktails). I see some of the fire - burning for a few frames (not seconds I should hope) before the camera pans there - is exactly in their midst, as if it's on them/they are on fire. It moves as they move, and turns quickly to fog as someone hits them with an extinquisher. They are armed with that. They acted quickly. They expected it. It's happened before (my impression).

The camera does not show the firebomb being thrown or impacting. There is no way to tell from the video whether that's what happened or not.

And the "protesters," (assailants, more accurately - I see no protestation or speech of any kind) who show no fear of getting shot, are trying to push them back further, and threatening to run them over with a truck. It's true they do not actually do that, with RT's camera rolling.

What I see is a large group of policemen cowering away from a much smaller group of people who are apparently trying to kill them. It's extremely damning for the civilians, if it's true. If it was on a virulently anti-Russian channel, I'd be inclined not to dismiss it out of hand. Coming from RT however, I can only do just that - a faked scene, nothing more.

McHrozni

 

[Childlike Empress]

Zbigniew Brzezinsky, the Grand Chessboard, 1997-ish: identified three geo-political pivots for control of Eurasia, which the West should try for: Iran, Azerbaijan (wasn't it?) and Ukraine. No, Syria was not included, but they're a stepping stone to Iran.

Zbig sat on the panel discussing Ukraine at the Munich Security Conference two weeks ago. A guy from the Duma was there and congratulated Brzezinski for his books which he all read. He showed himself impressed that most of Washington's foreign policy was driven by Zbig's "insights". No comment from the old reptile.

That was a hilarious event anyway, Berlin's man the boxer was there as well, spreading flyers. I wonder if it is archived... (edit: It is. If you have 100 min to waste ... the arrogance of the EU bureaucrat "moderating" is also breathtaking)

There are more videos of police on fire, btw, but i'm too lazy to look them up now just to get another ignorant comment from the usual suspects.

 

[angrysoba]

The camera does not show the firebomb being thrown or impacting. There is no way to tell from the video whether that's what happened or not.



What I see is a large group of policemen cowering away from a much smaller group of people who are apparently trying to kill them. It's extremely damning for the civilians, if it's true. If it was on a virulently anti-Russian channel, I'd be inclined not to dismiss it out of hand. Coming from RT however, I can only do just that - a faked scene, nothing more.

McHrozni

I think that both you and Childlike Empress see the most bizarre things in the videos that get posted here. And you both seem to think that while these riots/protests are going on, one side or the other is using a lot of resources to fake scenes for propaganda purposes.

In the beginning of the video a burning missile is very clearly seen going into the lines of the police.

Near the end of the video a rifle is very clearly seen coming out of the police lines.

Both of you seem to be blind to one or the other of these events, for some unknown reason.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Are you saying those dead bodies are not really dead bodies? Or that they really are getting shot by their own side and presumably knowingly so?

What do these questions have to do with my comment?

 

[angrysoba]

What do these questions have to do with my comment?

I see no evidence that they are getting shot from behind. And I think it would be bizarre of them to be shielding their fronts if they were getting shot behind.

So, given that I don't believe your analysis of the video is correct, I have to ask you how on Earth you think this got filmed.

If, as you say, they are getting shot from behind, then my questions apply.

Are they filming all this while knowingly or unknowingly being shot at by those ostensibly on their side?

 

[Childlike Empress]

I see no evidence that they are getting shot from behind. And I think it would be bizarre of them to be shielding their fronts if they were getting shot behind.

So, given that I don't believe your analysis of the video is correct, I have to ask you how on Earth you think this got filmed.

If, as you say, they are getting shot from behind, then my questions apply.

Are they filming all this while knowingly or unknowingly being shot at by those ostensibly on their side?

I told you to pay attention to the bullet hitting the tree (0:20) and where the people are looking after that. Would the bullets come from the direction they are shielding against, the bullet wound at the tree wouldn't be visible from the camera position and the people wouldn't look in the direction of the camera. Also, other people are hit hiding behind their shields. They were surprise-shot from the direction of the camera, it's really quite obvious.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The Daily Beast tells me (priveleged e-mail)

Hours after Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych announced a truce on Thursday, Kiev broke into more lethal violence. At least 20 protesters have died in gunfire that opened in Kiev’s Independence Square, as well as one police officer, the interior minister said. Since Tuesday, over 50 people have been killed in the Ukrainian protests. More than half of the Ukrainian Olympic team has also left Sochi to protest Russia's role in creating the political tensions that led to the violent protests.

I hear you can read about it there.

ETA: Angrysoba, not having watched it, and acknowledging the rifle you spotted, I suggest you watch that again and try imagining it as CE describes it and see if it makes sense. Don't watch it trying to disbelieve based on a preconceived notion. Not saying you did, just make sure. That jams you up.

ETA: Having watched it, again that's 0:20, same diagnosis but more emphatic. That needs explained. Fuller analysis later.

ETA: SEEing your comment below and not wanting to make another one, I'll be sure to follow my own advice as I analyze, and see if your explanation makes enough sense.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The camera does not show the firebomb being thrown or impacting. There is no way to tell from the video whether that's what happened or not.

doo dee doo, you just called it a firebomb. It shows it impacting, pretty much. That's all I'll vouch for yet.

ETA: Ah, you think the whole scene is staged, because that's an RT camera. No wonder you can admit to a staged firebomb. But maybe it's not! We don't see it hit! Maybe they were just roasting marshmallows right before the flare up!

"I can only do just that - a faked scene, nothing more."

You're confessing this disability?

 

[angrysoba]

I told you to pay attention to the bullet hitting the tree (0:20) and where the people are looking after that. Would the bullets come from the direction they are shielding against, the bullet wound at the tree wouldn't be visible from the camera position and the people wouldn't look in the direction of the camera. Also, other people are hit hiding behind their shields. They were surprise-shot from the direction of the camera, it's really quite obvious.

No.



There is a bullet that grazes a tree and a puff of smoke that follows in the direction from which the shielded protesters have come.

It looks more like it caught the edge of the tree furthest from the camera. Nothing particularly unusual about that and that explains why the people further from the camera than the tree turn to look at it.

And, of course, if the bullet came from in front of them then that will also explain why the majority of the time they are facing the direction we would expect them to face if bullets were coming from in front of them. To quote you, "It's really quite obvious".

Similarly, if the people with the shields were being hit from behind and from the direction of the camera then they would have their shields facing the camera because they would have worked out where the shooting was coming from.

Perhaps the reason why people holding the shields nonetheless get shot is because the shields are not impregnable and hiding behind a bit of metal from people who are shooting at you with rifles is not a strategy with a 100% success rate.

Again, this really is quite obvious.

 

[IDB87]

I told you to pay attention to the bullet hitting the tree (0:20) and where the people are looking after that. Would the bullets come from the direction they are shielding against, the bullet wound at the tree wouldn't be visible from the camera position and the people wouldn't look in the direction of the camera. Also, other people are hit hiding behind their shields. They were surprise-shot from the direction of the camera, it's really quite obvious.

To be fair, only one person looks in the direction of where the round hit, but there's no indication he's looking for it specifically. He could simply be looking in that direction for any number of reasons. The rest of the group huddles down when the shot is heard, presumably.

As for which direction it came from, it's hard to tell.

I have two theories, both of which seem possible to me:

1)If the shot was from the protesters side, it may have been a small caliber round as it doesn't appear to escape the tree on the police side. It appears to hit the tree and break up, causing a 'puff' of debris in the direction of the protesters.

2)If the shot came from the police side, it may have been a high caliber round which goes through the tree with zero resistance, hence the small hole. Over penetration comes to mind.

I would have to defer to someone who has a handle on terminal ballistics.

I also do not understand how you can say that the wound would not be visible if indeed the round came from the police side. What is preventing that wound from being visible? Would it be impossible for another police asset to be at a different elevation shooting at a target that is not on screen?