Foreign country. Foreign troops. Taking out your government. Killing your people.
Well the Crimeans are claiming that there exists popular support for Russian governance in the Crimea (to say nothing of Eastern Ukraine), so even if you're arguing that Hungary and Czechoslovakia were cases of invasion your argument would not extend to the present issue.
Didn't say it was (ok giving up most of the world after WWII was a mistake I'll grant you), just throwing water on the strange argument that Russia is some sort of peacenik nation historically. You don't get that big by being peaceful.
Agreed, but I can't remember anyone saying that Russia is a peaceful nation. Russia has always been one of the more agressive nations in world history. Altough I would like to argue that they had little choice, since Russia, for a majority of its history, has always been attacked on all sides by enemies.
I do not agree that they were invasions. I'm not sure what they were.
Technically, they weren't invasions since the Soviet troops were already in the country, but they are often described as invasions for lack of a better word.
Dogma - Your responses do come across as arsey and pedantic sometimes. (IMO)
I have a doctorate in political science with a specialization in IPoli, on matters such as this it is to be expected.
Iron_Captain wrote: Technically, they weren't invasions since the Soviet troops were already in the country, but they are often described as invasions for lack of a better word.
They are strange cases. I've considered classifying them as coups, but that doesn't seem right either.
Altough I would like to argue that they had little choice, since Russia, for a majority of its history, has always been attacked on all sides by enemies.
I will agree that it has had its share of invasions and threats, especially from mongol and turkic empires.
As an OT, but what are Cossacks? Are they former mongol/turkic types or something else? They always seem to pop up in the news.
I used the restroom at a Holiday Inn once, but they made me leave. What does "smelly exceptionally stupid looking wild bear" mean exactly and why were the police shooting darts at me?
Frazzled wrote: I used the restroom at a Holiday Inn once, but they made me leave. What does "smelly exceptionally stupid looking wild bear" mean exactly and why were the police shooting darts at me?
If they were trying to shoot animal tranq darts at you... you'd be an enraged "smelly exceptionally stupid looking wild bear"-umie...
Dogma, I think the fact that troops are based there is not at issue. It is an invasion when your troop incursion is designed to change the policies/regime of the current government. After all, Clausewitz argued that war was simply political policy by another means.
In other news, isn't this Crimea thing a bit of a Fait Accompli? There really isn;t anything anyone can do about it.
Frazzled wrote: Don't be daft boy and play your mindless word games somewhere else.
Seaward wrote: Anyway, I suppose we'll just have the conversation around you.
Frazzled wrote: We'll just have to risk it.
"Back at the Hall of Justice, Aquaman makes sandwiches."
Breotan wrote: I've had him on ignore for a number of months now. Not for his opinions, mind you, but because his incessant quote parsing, pedantry, and deflection.
Debating opposing viewpoints is far more pleasant these days, despite the new crop of trolls who've recently set up camp in the OT.
All reasons why dogma shares my ignore list with our resident Tacticool Operator I can't say that I miss the constant arguing that up is down and that night is day.
Altough I would like to argue that they had little choice, since Russia, for a majority of its history, has always been attacked on all sides by enemies.
I will agree that it has had its share of invasions and threats, especially from mongol and turkic empires.
As an OT, but what are Cossacks? Are they former mongol/turkic types or something else? They always seem to pop up in the news.
Cossacks are interesting. They are an East Slavic people that forms a traditional warrior caste with its own seperate communities and its own seperate culture. They usually have been fiercely loyal to the Russian state and the Orthodox church. Their origins are unkown, but likely to be with the Mongol/Turkic steppe peoples. They were almost wiped out during the Soviet period, as they sided with the whites in the Civil War, but since the fall of the USSR, they have made a careful recovery, and the last decade, since Putin supports them, they have been doing quite well. I have posted this before, it is an interesting article and video about the return of the cossacks by the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/world/europe/cossacks-are-back-in-russia-may-the-hills-tremble.html The cossacks have been incredibly important in Russian history, as they guarded the borders against enemy raids, and it is the Cossacks who eventually conquered all of Siberia and even fought against China. There used to be cossacks in Ukraine as well, and they are an important part of Ukraines history, but I don't know if there are any left nowadays. In short: The cossacks are communities of highly conservative warriors who traditionally fought on horseback and guarded Russia's frontiers. In modern Russia they are mainly active in law enforcement and they have their own army divisions. They support the Russian state, but have a very high degree of autonomy. In Crimea, they are currently active in organising pro-Russian demonstrations and beating up anti-Russian protesters.
Dogma, you're kinda wrong, at least on Hungary. In the case of Czech '68, the Soviet forces were predominantly already in Czechoslovakia (although technically Hungary, Bulgaria, and East Germany DID invade). In the case of Hungary '56, there were very little Soviet forces in Hungary itself at the time, due to the reorganization of the Central Group of Forces following the Soviet withdrawal from Austria the prior year (the successor "Southern Group of Forces" primarily located within Hungary was not established until after the Revolution). The vast majority of forces INVADED from the East via Romania, the only Soviet forces actually within Hungary being some Soviet Air Force squadrons not tasked with occupational duties.
Re: Invasion, as I understand it Luftwaffe pilots stationed at Holloman AFB in New Mexico (and other foreign troops in the US for training) aren't allowed to leave US military installations in uniform, as that would constitute a former invasion of US soil. Similarly, Swiss troops in uniform on exercise in Switzerland accidently crossed into Liechtenstein, which constituted a formal (if not accidental) invasion (prompting apology from the Swiss government), despite the fact that (as I understand it) the Swiss government is responsible for Liechtensteins national defense via treaty.
I understand the dangers of what you are saying here, but if you look at that thread on hedge funds Sebster is currently embroiled in, I think it clearly shows that some people simply have an unacceptable signal to noise ratio and you're going to have a much better Dakka experience if you simply ignore them. I'm careful not to block people for their POV though, just how they express it (or more accurately, if they even express one at all instead of just making noise).
I know some people here (maybe even you, I forget) have a Christopher Walken style approach where they don't ever ignore anyone, but whoever that was is obviously a better man that I.
Ukraine appeals to West as Crimea turns to Russia BY ANDREW OSBORN AND ALASTAIR MACDONALD
SEVASTOPOL/KIEV Tue Mar 11, 2014 7:42pm EDT
(Reuters) - Ukraine's government appealed for Western help on Tuesday to stop Moscow annexing Crimea but the Black Sea peninsula, overrun by Russian troops, seemed fixed on a course that could formalize rule from Moscow within days.
With their own troops in Crimea effectively prisoners in their bases, the new authorities in Kiev painted a sorry picture of the military bequeathed them by the pro-Moscow president overthrown two weeks ago. They announced the raising of a new National Guard to be drawn from volunteers among veterans.
The prime minister, heading for talks at the White House and United Nations, told parliament in Kiev he wanted the United States and Britain, as guarantors of a 1994 treaty that saw Ukraine give up its Soviet nuclear weapons, to intervene both diplomatically and militarily to fend off Russian "aggression".
But despite NATO reconnaissance aircraft patrolling the Polish and Romanian borders and U.S. naval forces preparing for exercises in the Black Sea, Western powers have made clear that, as when ex-Soviet Georgia lost territory in fighting in 2008, they have no appetite for risking turning the worst East-West crisis since the Cold War into a military conflict with Moscow.
Diplomacy seemed restricted to a war of words. The U.S. and Russian foreign ministers did speak by telephone. But the U.S. State Department said Moscow's position offered no room for negotiation and the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement condemning U.S. financial aid to the "illegitimate regime" in Kiev, which it calls ultra-nationalists with "Nazi" links.
That language echoed ousted Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich, who gave a news conference in Russia insisting that he was still the legitimate head of state. Toppled by protests sparked by his rejection of closer ties with the European Union in favor of a deal from Russian President Vladimir Putin, Yanukovich blamed his enemies for provoking Crimean secession.
Parliament in Kiev, whose position is backed by Western governments, dismisses plans for a referendum on Sunday to unite the region with Russia as illegitimate and resolved on Tuesday to dissolve Crimea's regional assembly if by Wednesday it had not scrapped the plebiscite. There seems no chance that it will.
Moscow, which to widespread scorn denies its troops have any role in the takeover of the once Russian-ruled region, says people in Crimea, a small majority of whom are ethnic Russians, should have the right to secede. It has made much of anti-Russian sentiment among some Ukrainian nationalists - though many native Russian speakers in Ukraine are wary of Putin.
SANCTIONS, REFERENDUM
U.S. lawmakers are preparing sanctions against Russia and European Union leaders could impose penalties, such as bans on visas for key officials, as early as Monday.
By then, however, Crimea could already have voted - in a referendum not recognized by Kiev or the West - to seek union with Russia. The ballot paper offers no option to retain the status quo of autonomy within Ukraine.
Voters among the two million population must choose either direct union with Moscow or restoring an old constitution that made Crimea sovereign with ties to Ukraine. On Tuesday, the regional assembly passed a resolution that a sovereign Crimea would sever links to Kiev and join Russia anyway.
The Russian parliament has already approved the accession in principle of Crimea, which was handed to Ukraine by Soviet rulers 60 years ago. Still, it is not clear whether or how soon Putin would formalize such a union as he engages in a complex confrontation with the West for geostrategic advantage.
In disputes with Georgia, Russia has granted recognition to small breakaway states on its borders, a process critics view as annexation in all but name. It fiercely criticized Western recognition of the independence of Kosovo from its ally Serbia - a process which Crimea's parliament nonetheless cited as a legal precedent for its own forthcoming declaration of independence.
There seems little chance that Crimea's new leaders, who emerged after Yanukovich's overthrow as Russian-backed forces took control of the peninsula, will fail to get the result they want. A boycott by ethnic Tatars, 12 percent of the regional population and deeply wary after centuries of persecution by Moscow, will have little effect as there is no minimum turnout.
In Sevastopol, the Crimean home port of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, Valery Medvedev, the chairman of the city's electoral commission, made no pretence at concealing his own preference:
"We're living through historic times. Sevastopol would love to fulfil its dream of joining Russia. I want to be part of Russia and I'm not embarrassed to say that," he told reporters.
There is little sign of campaigning by those opposed to the government line. Billboards in Sevastopol urge people to vote and offer a choice of two images of Crimea - one in the colors of the Russian flag, the other emblazoned with a swastika.
UKRAINIAN TROOPS
It is unclear whether thousands of Ukrainian servicemen, many of whom are native Crimeans but are effectively trapped on their bases and ships by Russian troops and local militia allies, will take part in the referendum.
One sailor, who declined to be named, said he would only vote if he got the order from his commander to do so, a position echoed by many other servicemen spoken to by Reuters. They all said they would vote for Crimea to remain part of Ukraine.
Elena Prokhina, an ethnic Russian planning to vote for union with Moscow, said she feared the referendum could lead to conflict with others in Ukraine, notably nationalists in the Ukrainian-speaking west of the country of 46 million.
"Knowing what I know about the fanaticism of the western Ukrainians, we will have to defend our rights after the referendum," she said. "They won't just let us leave."
Around Sevastopol, Ukrainian military facilities remained under virtual siege on Tuesday. At an air defense base outside Sevastopol, dozens of men who looked like Russian soldiers were camping outside the gate, while an armed Ukrainian serviceman could be seen pacing the base's roof keeping a wary eye on them.
In the port, two Ukrainian warships remained on alert but unable to set sail because of Russian vessels and a cable strung across the harbor by Russian forces. Relatives of the sailors come to the dockside every day to converse and provide food.
A Ukrainian officer said there was a fragile understanding between the two fleets not to escalate the situation, but he said nerves were frayed: "The Russians have not troubled us until now," he said. "But all it takes is one order and they will open fire. We won't be able to hold out long".
CALL FOR HELP
In parliament, the acting defense minister said that of some 41,000 infantry mobilized last week, Ukraine could field only about 6,000 combat-ready troops, compared to over 200,000 Russians deployed on the country's eastern borders. The prime minister said the air force was outnumbered 100 to one.
Acting president Oleksander Turchinov warned against provoking Russia, saying that would play into Moscow's hands, as he announced plans to mobilize a National Guard, though he gave little detail of its size or expected functions.
Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk, who will visit the White House and United Nations Security Council this week, said the 1994 treaty under which Ukraine agreed to give up its Soviet nuclear weapons obliged Russia to remove troops from Crimea and also meant Western powers should defend Ukraine's sovereignty.
"What does the current military aggression of the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory mean?" he said.
"It means that a country which voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons, rejected nuclear status and received guarantees from the world's leading countries is left defenseless and alone in the face of a nuclear state that is armed to the teeth.
"I say this to our Western partners: if you do not provide guarantees, which were signed in the Budapest Memorandum, then explain how you will persuade Iran or North Korea to give up their status as nuclear states."
Parliament passed a resolution he had proposed calling on the United States and Britain, co-signatories with Russia of that treaty to "fulfil their obligations ... and take all possible diplomatic, political, economic and military measures urgently to end the aggression and preserve the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine".
But Western powers have been careful to note that Ukraine, not being a member of NATO, has no automatic claim on their help and Ukrainian officials gave no details on what they hoped for. The wording of the 1994 treaty indicates that help is only required if Ukraine is threatened by a nuclear attack.
(Additional reporting by Natalia Zinets, Pavel Polityuk, Richard Balmforth and Ron Popeski in Kiev; Writing by Alastair Macdonald; Editing by Peter Graff)
No it isn't. The Soviet Union was an empire, but Russia is no more an empire than the US is.
And the Lannisters do not control Westeros
They don't actually. At best they have a tenuous control over half. The Westerlands, the Reach, the Riverlands and the Crownlands. The North, the Vale, the Iron Islands, the Storm Lands, and Dorne are all in open rebellion, are neutral or are publicly loyal and allied to the Lannisters but secretly plotting against them (Dorne).
All the Lannisters control are ravaged and partially depopulated lands riddled with roving bands of bandits and deserters, and numerous defeated Lords and houses forced to pledge allegiance to the Lannisters after their side was defeated but who cannot be considered loyal (Riverlands Lords and Stannis' men who sought Joffrey's pardon instead of fleeing north with him).
Easy E wrote: What I am really interested in is how our opposition in the Crimea will impact Russia's cooperation in the Middle-East?
What cooperation?
You know, the cooperation where they back a dictator quashing an uprising in his own country, provide weapons, intelligence and advisers. Then help an exporter of terrorism continue along a path that could lead to an nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Easy E wrote: What I am really interested in is how our opposition in the Crimea will impact Russia's cooperation in the Middle-East?
What cooperation?
You know, the cooperation where they back a dictator quashing an uprising in his own country, provide weapons, intelligence and advisers. Then help an exporter of terrorism continue along a path that could lead to an nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
That cooperation
The same cooperation in which the US backs radical islamist groups and tries to mess up yet another Middle-Eastern country?
Iron_Captain wrote: The same cooperation in which the US backs radical islamist groups and tries to mess up yet another Middle-Eastern country?
You see, there you go again. You think someone has said something unkind about Russia, and you rush to tell us how the US is as bad or worse.
All I did was list examples of where there has been no cooperation between the US and Russia, and asked where the cooperation was. There was no criticism nor judgement. Just an attempt to be humorous.
Your defensiveness, reflex instinct to lash out, and rigid thinking may cause some misunderstandings like this.
Iron_Captain wrote: The same cooperation in which the US backs radical islamist groups and tries to mess up yet another Middle-Eastern country?
You see, there you go again. You think someone has said something unkind about Russia, and you rush to tell us how the US is as bad or worse.
All I did was list examples of where there has been no cooperation between the US and Russia, and asked where the cooperation was. There was no criticism nor judgement. Just an attempt to be humorous.
Your defensiveness, reflex instinct to lash out, and rigid thinking may cause some misunderstandings like this.
I am sorry, but I can't really see the humour in it. I am afraid I still see any (perceived) assault on Russia as personal and a justification to lash out. It is an instinctive cultural trait I suppose . I shall try to reign it in as much as possible and refrain from criticsing the US too much from now on. It is hard, but I shall try.
Meanwhile, it would be nice if more people would show some understanding for Russia as well. Russia is not as nearly as bad as often depicted in Western media.
Seeing criticism of a country as a personal insult is a big flaw many people have. It makes for repetitive and boring threads full of bickering.
Being able to accept that yes, the country you were born in/like a lot has done bad gak is actually a good thing to be able to do. It's also a good thing to accept that because other countries have done bad things, it doesn't suddenly mean some other country should be allowed to.
As to Russia, being gay I have my doubts about how "good" it is.
I recognize Russia's vital insterests in keep its neighbors as key allies and under thier sphere of influence. The Ukrainians threatened to break up Russia's buffer zones and ally with the West.
I can understand why it was in Russia's vital interests to prove to its other buffer zones that such a move can not be tolerated. It is REALpolitik 101.
I would expect some of the Cons in this thread to recognize that too. However, it is much more fun for them to bait the Russian bear.
In principle, I am complete opposed to what Russia is doing in the Ukraine and Crimea, but it is a Fait Accompli and simple REALpolitik. I can appreciate it for what it is.
No it isn't. The Soviet Union was an empire, but Russia is no more an empire than the US is.
And the Lannisters do not control Westeros
They don't actually. At best they have a tenuous control over half. The Westerlands, the Reach, the Riverlands and the Crownlands. The North, the Vale, the Iron Islands, the Storm Lands, and Dorne are all in open rebellion, are neutral or are publicly loyal and allied to the Lannisters but secretly plotting against them (Dorne).
All the Lannisters control are ravaged and partially depopulated lands riddled with roving bands of bandits and deserters, and numerous defeated Lords and houses forced to pledge allegiance to the Lannisters after their side was defeated but who cannot be considered loyal (Riverlands Lords and Stannis' men who sought Joffrey's pardon instead of fleeing north with him).
Sorry, Game of Thrones fan.
Lol, as am I... however, I would point out that it was the Lannisters who got the Boltons AND the Freys to violate the hospitality tradition, and through those 2 houses, control the North. I'm sure that, if it werent for the Imp taking care of Tywin, they would have eventually pulled in the Iron Islands, the Stormlands, and Dorne (seeing as how they have one of their own hostaged there)
It was more a jibe on the state of current political affairs... Sure the US/Russia don't ACTUALLY control much of the world, but it tends to be that when one or the other pulls the strings, others dance to the tune.
Iron_Captain wrote: I am sorry, but I can't really see the humour in it. I am afraid I still see any (perceived) assault on Russia as personal and a justification to lash out. It is an instinctive cultural trait I suppose . I shall try to reign it in as much as possible and refrain from criticsing the US too much from now on. It is hard, but I shall try.
Meanwhile, it would be nice if more people would show some understanding for Russia as well. Russia is not as nearly as bad as often depicted in Western media.
If this is how you show humility you are going be in trouble the first time you get in to a fight with a significant other. Just saying, this circuitous dancing around your own hypocrisy is going to bite you in the ass when your boyfriend or girlfriend gets sick of your crap.
The Obama administration and Congress are moving on several fronts to try and calm the Ukraine stand-off -- and pressure Russia to cooperate -- ahead of a looming Crimea referendum which could further inflame the crisis.
President Obama, in a diplomatic snub at Russia, met Wednesday with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk at the White House.
Can we not have a unified front? Jebus we cannot even get our act together
Sitting side by side in the Oval Office with Yatsenyuk, Obama said he hoped last-ditch diplomatic efforts might lead to a "rethinking" of Sunday's referendum on whether Crimea should join Russia. If the vote does occur, Obama said, "We will not recognize any referendum that goes forward."
Has Yatsenyuk even tried to get in contact with Putin? This guy wanting the US/EU to hold up its agreement made with the prior leader but not even acknowledge Russia agreement Double Standards and we're looking stupid
He warned that Russia could face "costs" and blasted the "slapdash election" as one being done at "the barrel of a gun."
Yatsenyuk said Ukraine will "never surrender" in the fight over its territory. "Ukraine is and will be part of the Western world," Yatsenyuk said in English.
Putin turns eases the flow of natural gas in retaliation....
Crimea being forced into the election or doing it of their own free choice?
A bipartisan group of senators also said they plan to travel to Ukraine on Thursday to meet with members of the interim government.
The developments come ahead of a scheduled Crimea vote on Sunday on whether to split off from Ukraine and join Russia. The United States and its top allies are presenting a united front against that referendum, arguing that the results will not be legitimate.
Double Standards Anyone disagree?
But, applying a carrot-and-stick approach, the U.S. is both courting and pressuring Russia. As Obama met Wednesday with the new Ukrainian prime minister, Secretary of State John Kerry announced plans to travel to London to again meet with Russia's foreign minister in the hopes of calming the Ukraine crisis ahead of Sunday's vote.
Crimea gone. Think ahead to avoid eastern Ukraine joining Russia
"Nothing justifies a military intervention that the world has witnessed," Kerry told a House panel on Wednesday morning. He said he would travel Thursday evening to London in order to meet Friday with Russia's Sergei Lavrov, and present a series of "choices" for the Russian government.Kerry argued that there are ways to resolve the stand-off and protect Russia's interests in the region. He added: "We will do what we have to do if Russia cannot find a way to make the right choices here."
Ignoring the fact that Putin started off securing a logistical line to his base. Kerry, you were a former Naval Officer..brown water Navyyou cannot be that dumb to not see what happen first and the snow ball effect
He was referring to sanctions and other steps the U.S. and other countries are poised to take. The situation could become more dire if not resolved soon, as Crimea prepares to vote Sunday on whether to split off from Ukraine and become part of Russia.
In anticipation of that vote, the G7 world leaders said Wednesday they will not recognize that decision. The leaders of the seven nations, including the United States, said in a statement that any attempt by Russia to change the status of Crimea would be a violation of international law and a referendum to annex Crimea "would have no legal effect."
Putin thinking long term already.
Ease off the flow of Natural Gas
Make the US/EU scramble to save the rest of Ukraine
Putin makes the US/EU as the "bad" guys in this. Does he have popular support in Russia for this?
"Given the lack of adequate preparation and the intimidating presence of Russian troops, it would also be a deeply flawed process which would have no moral force. For all these reasons, we would not recognize the outcome," the statement said. The statement was from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain and the United States, along with the European Council and the European Commission.
This is not new. Quite a few countries are guilty of it
The leaders released the statement as members of Congress weigh some of the most significant sanctions on Russia since the end of the Cold War.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday advanced sanctions legislation that would pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin to pull Russian troops out of Crimea.
It authorizes $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine's new government and allows the Obama administration to impose economic penalties on Russian officials responsible for the intervention in Crimea or culpable of gross corruption. All Democrats supported the measure. Republican objections include how the U.S. will pay for the loan guarantees and provisions in the bill expanding the lending authority of the International Monetary Fund.
1 Billion dollars eh...and we have major issues ourselves
House Republicans are pushing their own bill.
Washington has been more strident in its measures thus far against Russia than its allies have, with European countries from Germany to Britain fretful that a sudden deterioration in relations with Moscow could be harmful for their manufacturing exporters and financial institutions.
]"Putin has miscalculated by playing a game of Russian roulette with the international community, but we refuse to blink, and will never accept this violation of international law," said Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, who introduced the legislation. "Ukraine is confronting a menacing threat challenging its very existence and in t heir hour of need, we firmly stand with the Ukrainian people to choose their own destiny without Russian interference."
Anyone even think on what effect Putin/Russia can do in retaliation?
The House overwhelmingly backed providing only the assistance to Ukraine last week and passed a resolution calling for sanctions on Russia Tuesday. Neither included language on the IMF, which the United States, European countries and others are working with to provide billions of dollars in loans to Ukraine's cash-depleted authorities.
Putin and other Russian officials have threatened retaliation for any Western punishment over Russia's occupation of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula. But with the U.S. and its European allies ruling out military options, a broad consensus has emerged among the Obama administration and Democratic and Republican lawmakers that sanctions are the strongest option available.
We're thinking we're still a force to be reckon with...even Vulcans are siding with Putin
Tensions are increasing ahead of the Russian-backed referendum this weekend in Crimea, where voters may declare the territory independent and propose becoming a Russian state. The U.S. and the European Union have both declared the vote as illegitimate.
Are we not increasing the tension ourselves..Trinton in Black Sea...couple more fighters and KC bird in Lithuania(?)
The Associated Press contributed to this report
Crimea a write off. Save the rest or we're all getting screwed and Putin more likely already 10 steps ahead of everyone else. We need to make him react towards us and not us reacting towards him
Iron_Captain wrote: I am sorry, but I can't really see the humour in it. I am afraid I still see any (perceived) assault on Russia as personal and a justification to lash out. It is an instinctive cultural trait I suppose . I shall try to reign it in as much as possible and refrain from criticsing the US too much from now on. It is hard, but I shall try.
Meanwhile, it would be nice if more people would show some understanding for Russia as well. Russia is not as nearly as bad as often depicted in Western media.
If this is how you show humility you are going be in trouble the first time you get in to a fight with a significant other. Just saying, this circuitous dancing around your own hypocrisy is going to bite you in the ass when your boyfriend or girlfriend gets sick of your crap.
At least I admit to my own failings. Can't say the same of everyone else here. Maybe you'd care to enlighten me to my 'circuitous dancing around my own hypocrisy'? Because I can't see it and I'd like to be aware of personal flaws, so that I may improve them.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia is not as nearly as bad as often depicted in Western media.
Stalin perpetrated the largest genocidal acts in history, nothing anybody else has done compares. When you're current leader is looking back on the USSR as the good 'ole days its kind of hard to trust him.
Its not even close to that bad now, but its rather disturbing how favorably they look back.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia is not as nearly as bad as often depicted in Western media.
Stalin perpetrated the largest genocidal acts in history, nothing anybody else has done compares. When you're current leader is looking back on the USSR as the good 'ole days its kind of hard to trust him.
Its not even close to that bad now, but its rather disturbing how favorably they look back.
Well good thing Stalin was Georgian not Russian and lead the USSR, also not Russia.
Baiting aside, I'm still amazed at the support Putin has garnered from some of the more vocal fringe Right wing groups in America because he's (i'm guessing here) anti-gay. With all the the rhetoric of "King Obama" and "tyranny" I find it strange to say the least. America might not be perfect, but at least I don't have to worry about my tea being spiked with Po-210.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia is not as nearly as bad as often depicted in Western media.
Stalin perpetrated the largest genocidal acts in history, nothing anybody else has done compares. When you're current leader is looking back on the USSR as the good 'ole days its kind of hard to trust him.
Its not even close to that bad now, but its rather disturbing how favorably they look back.
As evil as Stalin was don't forget Mao and his Great Leap Forward which killed upwards of 50,000,000 million people. The thing about finding villains in history is that each time you do hear about one you'll always find another bastard trying to outdo the last big bad.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia is not as nearly as bad as often depicted in Western media.
Stalin perpetrated the largest genocidal acts in history, nothing anybody else has done compares. When you're current leader is looking back on the USSR as the good 'ole days its kind of hard to trust him.
Its not even close to that bad now, but its rather disturbing how favorably they look back.
Well good thing Stalin was Georgian not Russian and lead the USSR, also not Russia.
Baiting aside, I'm still amazed at the support Putin has garnered from some of the more vocal fringe Right wing groups in America because he's (i'm guessing here) anti-gay. With all the the rhetoric of "King Obama" and "tyranny" I find it strange to say the least. America might not be perfect, but at least I don't have to worry about my tea being spiked with Po-210.
YTou must be looking really hard and in weird places. The usual right wing crazy hotspots are shouting just this side of war.
Iron_Captain wrote: I am sorry, but I can't really see the humour in it. I am afraid I still see any (perceived) assault on Russia as personal and a justification to lash out. It is an instinctive cultural trait I suppose . I shall try to reign it in as much as possible and refrain from criticsing the US too much from now on. It is hard, but I shall try.
Meanwhile, it would be nice if more people would show some understanding for Russia as well. Russia is not as nearly as bad as often depicted in Western media.
If this is how you show humility you are going be in trouble the first time you get in to a fight with a significant other. Just saying, this circuitous dancing around your own hypocrisy is going to bite you in the ass when your boyfriend or girlfriend gets sick of your crap.
At least I admit to my own failings. Can't say the same of everyone else here. Maybe you'd care to enlighten me to my 'circuitous dancing around my own hypocrisy'? Because I can't see it and I'd like to be aware of personal flaws, so that I may improve them.
Sure. Let's break down the posting I originally quoted.
You said:
I am afraid I still see any (perceived) assault on Russia as personal and a justification to lash out. It is an instinctive cultural trait I suppose
What I am reading is that you get defensive whenever someone attacks your beloved Russia, and justify your outbursts as a "cultural trait" derived from instinct, aka something naturally occurring and not learned behavior. So you are claiming a natural justification for your overly defensive stance on any criticism leveled at Russia. Interesting, so let's read on.
Then you said:
I shall try to reign it in as much as possible and refrain from criticsing [sic] the US too much from now on. It is hard, but I shall try. Meanwhile, it would be nice if more people would show some understanding for Russia as well. Russia is not as nearly as bad as often depicted in Western media.
Hmm... the plot thickens. So, YOU cannot control your outbursts, or your misguided impressions of other countries, but you expect EVERYONE ELSE to be gentle when discussing the bastion of progress and hope that is Russia? There is your hypocrisy. You are telling us to do as you say but not as you do, all the while STILL bashing the US in your insincere attempt to display humility. Oh, it is so hard not to criticize the US, right. You try every time you approach a key board, but your fingers just find their way to the right keys and before you know it obnoxious, passive aggressive comments just seem to enter themselves onto the page. Right? You try so hard, but your instincts just kick in, right? It is just natural, right? What a conundrum!
Please.
If you are a slave to your own cultural identify, and the propaganda that comes with it, and use that identity to form opinions and level attacks against others who do not share that identity, then don't be surprised, outraged or indignant when you receive a similar brand of attacks aimed at your culture. I.e. don't be a hypocrite, treat others with the kind of respect you would want to be treated with, and you won't run into so many problems.
Or keep doing what you are doing and marvel at the abuses leveled at you by us demonic Westerners.
I am afraid I still see any (perceived) assault on Russia as personal and a justification to lash out. It is an instinctive cultural trait I suppose
What I am reading is that you get defensive whenever someone attacks your beloved Russia,
True. I love Russia very much and do not like to see her slandered. I assume you love your native country as well. People here become agitated when I criticise the US, it is only logical that I would become agitated when people here criticise Russia.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: and justify your outbursts as a "cultural trait" derived from instinct, aka something naturally occurring and not learned behavior. So you are claiming a natural justification for your overly defensive stance on any criticism leveled at Russia. Interesting, so let's read on.
You may have been reading it wrong. A 'cultural trait' is not natural, it is learned behaviour. The statement is also not intended as justification, and certainly not a 'natural' one, but rather as possible explanation. Russians are already an easily agitated, defensive people and I have been living in the West for 5 years, in which I had to deal with no small amount of ignorance, hostillity and racism towards me and my country. Russophobia is still alive and well in the West. I hope you can understand that I sometimes react frustrated and defensive towards criticism that is unnecessary or ignorant in my eyes.
I shall try to reign it in as much as possible and refrain from criticsing [sic] the US too much from now on. It is hard, but I shall try. Meanwhile, it would be nice if more people would show some understanding for Russia as well. Russia is not as nearly as bad as often depicted in Western media.
Hmm... the plot thickens. So, YOU cannot control your outbursts, or your misguided impressions of other countries, but you expect EVERYONE ELSE to be gentle when discussing the bastion of progress and hope that is Russia? There is your hypocrisy. You are telling us to do as you say but not as you do, all the while STILL bashing the US in your insincere attempt to display humility. Oh, it is so hard not to criticize the US, right. You try every time you approach a key board, but your fingers just find their way to the right keys and before you know it obnoxious, passive aggressive comments just seem to enter themselves onto the page. Right? You try so hard, but your instincts just kick in, right? It is just natural, right? What a conundrum!
You are wrong here. I do not feel an 'automatic' instinctive need to criticise the US whenever I get near a keyboard. Never did I say that Russia is a 'bastion of progress and hope'. I am trying to reign in the strong urge to post criticism where it does not contribute to the discussion, which is hard with people like you doing just that and twisting my words and constantly accusing me of things like 'Spreading Russian propaganda' and being a 'Stalinist fanboy'. Pozor vam. I did not ask people to refrain from criticising Russia, I just asked them to try and get some understanding of Russia, to get past the ignorance displayed by many in this thread and to look past the Russophobe Western media. It is the first step to understanding, we will get nowhere if the pot keeps calling the kettle black.
If you are a slave to your own cultural identify, and the propaganda that comes with it, and use that identity to form opinions and level attacks against others who do not share that identity, then don't be surprised, outraged or indignant when you receive a similar brand of attacks aimed at your culture. I.e. don't be a hypocrite, treat others with the kind of respect you would want to be treated with, and you won't run into so many problems.
Or keep doing what you are doing and marvel at the abuses leveled at you by us demonic Westerners.
Your post got more and more hypocritical the longer I read, but this part was the worst.
I am not a slave to my cultural identity. Not at all. I am only 50% Russian and I have lived in 5 different countries. I know the West, I know Russia and I know the differences between the two worlds. I would say I am less a 'slave' to a single cultural identity than most people here. All I am asking for is that people look past their own cultural identity and try to understand and accept different viewpoints. That is something you could definitely learn. You call others a hypocrite while being very hypocritical yourself. You tell me to respect others while you are not respecting me. You twist my words into things I have never said. Why?
members of right sector have killed two pro-russian protestors in ukraine
"Two people have been killed after armed men from the radical Right Sector movement attacked local self-defense activists and barricaded themselves inside their HQ in Ukraine's Kharkov. Two negotiators have been taken hostage, the city mayor said.
The armed group that barricaded itself inside the local headquarters of Right Sector was shooting and throwing flash grenades and Molotov cocktails at Kharkov anti-Maidan activists who gathered outside.
Two people were killed in the shooting and at least four more were wounded, authorities said. The armed group has taken hostage three men – two activists and one policeman –who reportedly went inside to negotiate their surrender. "
also, you all may remember how those nice, newly appointed guys from right sector demanding that people from right sector get access to the military armories, and the newly appointed government saying no?
well, the armories they wanted to loot are now missing lots of machine guns, grenades, and missile launchers.
Not only that, but now the prime minister of crimea has announced he has intelligence on another right sector inspired attack.
"On Wednesday the Crimean Prime Minister Sergey Aksenov announced he had information that the Right Sector might be planning an attack on one of the Ukrainian army units in the peninsula under the guise of Russian servicemen as a provocation to disrupt the referendum. Some 10,000 members of the Crimean military, recently formed from self-defense squads, and over 5,000 police officers will ensure that the referendum goes smoothly, Aksenov said. "
on the weapons being stolen recently
"Fears of possible armed assaults and provocation in Ukraine and neighboring countries are on the rise after yet another report that rocket grenade launchers, firearms and munitions have been stolen from a military warehouse in western Ukraine.
A source in the Ukrainian Interior Ministry told RIA Novosti that the coup appointed Interior Minister Arsen Avakov has recently been notified that a large cache of guns and ammunition was missing from one of the military warehouses.
“Reports to Avakov indicate that over 5,000 Kalashnikov rifles, 2,741 Makarov handguns, 123 light machineguns and 12 Shmel rocket launchers were stolen from the Interior Troops’ depots in the Lvov Region in late February,” the source said.
“The investigation has also established that 1,500 F-1 hand grenades and a large number of munitions are missing,” it added.
Earlier it was reported that at the end of February 2014 during the assaults on a number Ukrainian military units in the Western Lvov Region, radicals stole some 1,200 firearms, including around 1,000 Makarov handguns, over 170 Kalashnikov rifles as well as machineguns and sniper rifles.
The authorities in Ukraine have so far failed to track down these weapons igniting speculation that these weapons could be used to provoke more unrest in Ukraine which could eventually spill outside the country. "
right sectors preamble to all this from last week, emphasis mine.
"7 March 2014 - 10:58am
A leader of the Ukrainian faction Right Sector, Dmitry Yarosh, has demanded the country's military to give his organization weapons, military weapons and open military training centers, ITAR-TASS reports.
He explained that his organization will need to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Yarosh does not rule out that Right Sector may take more decisive actions
A leader of the Ukrainian faction Right Sector, Dmitry Yarosh, has demanded the country's military to give his organization weapons, military weapons and open military training centers, ITAR-TASS reports.
He explained that his organization will need to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Yarosh does not rule out that Right Sector may take more decisive actions"
Easy E wrote: In principle, I am complete opposed to what Russia is doing in the Ukraine and Crimea, but it is a Fait Accompli and simple REALpolitik. I can appreciate it for what it is.
Spoken like a member of a nation that has never been the subject of realpolitik. Keep it up.
yeah... so, not only has 10% of the popular vote in ukraine been for an overtly neo nazi party (svoboda)...
but now, we have the right sector leader (who is one of the newly, violently, apointed leaders) is running for PRESIDENT.
"Yarosh, who considers the far-right Svoboda "too liberal", wants to ban both the former ruling party (Party of Regions) and the Communist Party of Ukraine."
well, this guy who thinks the neo-nazi party is "too liberal" is quite popular, and actually has a chance to win the presidency.
what was that people were saying earlier about the neo nazi movment being "isolated" radicals, and nothing to be worried about?
this guy looks like exactly the kind of person who should be put into power by violent means....
Ukraine's Neo-Fascist Right Sector Leader Dmytro Yarosh to Run for President
Automatically Appended Next Post: seriously... at what point do you say "hmm we have too many neo nazis"
is it when more then 1/10 of the general population votes for them? (keep in mind, at present, there are more nazis as a % of voters in ukraine, then there were in 1933 germany where only 3% of the general population supported them)
is it when an openly neo-nazi affiliated person can openly run for an office as high as the presidency?
seriously.... if someone ran for president as a KKK or nazi representative in the states, I dont think so many people would be apologists about it and turn such a blind eye to it.
They are of course free to do such things and is their right as citizens.
They of course have no chance of winning but that doesn't mean they should be stopped from running, it would be illegal to do that.
As for the situation in Ukraine. well... Them being Nazis hardly justifies Russia's invasion. Maybe if they'd actually had time to do some Nazi stuff, like tossing ethnic russians into gulags or some other major human right's violations it would be justified, but they haven't yet.
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, you may have missed that little coup that happened last month...
Ukrainian parliament remains a legal, democratically elected representative body as far as I can tell from the brief lecture of the current constitution.
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, you may have missed that little coup that happened last month...
Ukrainian parliament remains a legal, democratically elected representative body as far as I can tell from the brief lecture of the current constitution.
It is, and it voted the President out. The people didn't storm the palace and drive him out at gun point. The legally elected Parliament impeached the President and stripped him of his powers.
Grey Templar wrote: As for the situation in Ukraine. well... Them being Nazis hardly justifies Russia's invasion. Maybe if they'd actually had time to do some Nazi stuff, like tossing ethnic russians into gulags or some other major human right's violations it would be justified, but they haven't yet.
And I would very much like to keep it that way. We should not wait until the nazis start messing stuff up, by then it will be too late. We should take preventive measures. We should never accept the regime in Kiev as legitimate until they throw out all the far-right and nazi groups. What kind of regime does business with nazis? Even worse, this regime has nazis in it. Why does the West take this matter so lightly? The February protests were very anti-Russian in nature, some people there really said absolutely horrible things. And now those people are in the government. Sure, they haven't done much yet, but who is to say they aren't going to put their words into action? There is a historical precedent, I don't blame people for looking to Russia for protection.
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, you may have missed that little coup that happened last month...
Ukrainian parliament remains a legal, democratically elected representative body as far as I can tell from the brief lecture of the current constitution.
It is, and it voted the President out. The people didn't storm the palace and drive him out at gun point. The legally elected Parliament impeached the President and stripped him of his powers.
The impeachment procedure violated the constitution however, which makes it invalid.
actually, right now the body count is
post revolution coup government + allies has killed two people who were anti maiden protestors
russia has killed 0,
so yeah, only one side has really done something "wrong" in that sense...
Also the fact that people from right sector have literally killed anti-maiden protestors in areas of the ukraine other then crimea, should be evidence enough that the revolutionaries are certainly NOT in control of themselves or the country enough to guarantee the safety of anti-maiden/pro-russian peoples.
even if the self defense forces in crimea, are 100% russian as is alleged but not proven, they still have total permission to be there under previous treaties, and they are not killing anyone unlike the right sector groups.
They of course have no chance of winning but that doesn't mean they should be stopped from running, it would be illegal to do that.
.
I never said ban him from running... it should simply illustrate what kind of people are being put in power, and what kind of people now have support to have even MORE power in the next election.
I dont think you understand the situation over there... they have enough support to be appointed to key positions in the judicial, law, and military in the past month... why would a fringe party even get any appointments at all? let alone such key positions and in such #'s.
svoboda ALONE had 10% of the seats from the last election BEFORE they gained popularity just before the maiden riots. since they have formed coalitions with some other parties, and formed a majority opposition prior to the revolution.
in other words, the momentum is behind these radical groups, not in front of them... western support has only made them bolder and more accepted, so while I dearly wish you to be correct, I really do not think the pendulum is swinging that way.
Short month or so until the election shows who was right either way.
also, I think auto correct is neo-nazi, it keeps trying to correct Svoboda to bodacious
And the guy in the ski mask looks like Ivan Drago... Guess we'd better send "Rocky" over to fix this situation.
actually... I could see Sly being able to get through to putin... he would just run in shirtless speaking with an odd accent.. instantly garnering putins respect for the shirtlessness alone... but the risk with that is just having sly turn like steven segal did when we sent him in to singlehandedly defeat the russians back in 2011.
There are quite a lot of not ethnic Russians in Crimea who won't be very happy that Russia has used political turmoil in Ukraine to move their forces in and annex the region from under their feet. I wonder what will happen to them? Russia is probably preparing to quell any resistance and throw them out.
Howard A Treesong wrote: There are quite a lot of not ethnic Russians in Crimea who won't be very happy that Russia has used political turmoil in Ukraine to move their forces in and annex the region from under their feet. I wonder what will happen to them? Russia is probably preparing to quell any resistance and throw them out.
Probably nothing. Russia is already filled to the brim with ethnic minorities, a few more won't make a difference. Especially since Ukrainians and Tatars are already the two largest existing minorities in Russia. Ukrainians are barely distinguishable from Russians, and are thus often treated as if they were Russians. Tatars are often viewed as an integral part of Russia, and their language and culture are very well protected. They even have their own autonomous state.
I am pretty sure everyone will be fine. Putin is no Stalin.
Iron_Captain wrote: The impeachment procedure violated the constitution however, which makes it invalid.
I have yet to find anything in the current constitution that would indicate that. If you did, share it with us. Otherwise, stop selling your personal opinion as fact.
Iron_Captain wrote: The impeachment procedure violated the constitution however, which makes it invalid.
I have yet to find anything in the current constitution that would indicate that. If you did, share it with us. Otherwise, stop selling your personal opinion as fact.
According to article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution, the parliament can impeach the president if he commits treason or other crime. However, the February 22 vote was very hasty and did not meet the exact consitutional requirements outlined in article 111, thereby making it invalid.
Article 111. The President of Ukraine may be removed from the office
by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in compliance with a procedure
of impeachment if he commits treason or other crime.
The issue of the removal of the President of Ukraine from the office
in compliance with a procedure of impeachment shall be initiated by the majority of the constitutional membership of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall establish a special ad hoc investigating commission, composed of special prosecutor and special investigators to conduct an investigation.
The conclusions and proposals of the ad hoc investigating commission shall be considered at the meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
On the ground of evidence, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall, by at least two-thirds of its constitutional membership, adopt a decision to bring charges against the President of Ukraine.
The decision on the removal of the President of Ukraine from the office
in compliance with the procedure of impeachment shall be adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by at least three-quarters of its constitutional membership upon a review of the case by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and receipt of its opinion on the observance of the constitutional procedure
of investigation and consideration of the case of impeachment, and upon a receipt of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to the effect that the acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of treason or other crime.
Also, there is article 5, which states that no one shall usurp State power, which is exactly what the opposition did.
Article 5. Ukraine shall be a republic.
The people shall be the bearer of sovereignty and the sole source of power
in Ukraine. The people shall exercise power directly or through the state authorities and local self-government bodies.
The right to determine and change the constitutional order in Ukraine shall belong exclusively to the people and shall not be usurped by the State, its bodies, or officials.
No one shall usurp the State power.
The opposition also violated the agreement signed with Yanukovich wich would have provided for a peaceful, democratic transition instead of the coup that has ocurred now.
I have yet to find anything in the current constitution that would indicate that. If you did, share it with us. Otherwise, stop selling your personal opinion as fact.
This is how one impeaches the Ukrainian President according to the Ukrainian Constitution. But, as I said, what is actually in the Constitution is a matter of debate, so Constitutionality is not really a concern.
The legislature wanted rid of Yanukovych, and had the power to force him from office; thanks to a rather large series of protests.
is it when more then 1/10 of the general population votes for them? (keep in mind, at present, there are more nazis as a % of voters in ukraine, then there were in 1933 germany where only 3% of the general population supported them)
is it when more then 1/10 of the general population votes for them? (keep in mind, at present, there are more nazis as a % of voters in ukraine, then there were in 1933 germany where only 3% of the general population supported them)
fine you got me, serves me right for going off my own memory with that particular stat, correct year I was thinking of was circa 1930 where they went from under 3% to almost 20%.
"Even more dramatic was
the rise of the National Socialist NSDAP, which regi
stered landslide successes and saw its share of the
vote rocket from 2.6% to 18.3%."
the point still stands, these kind of extreme groups swell in #'s with the kind of momentum they get from things such as economic troubles.
since we are well past the 10% mark now, its not an insignificant # of people supporting the neo nazi and neo facist parties, stop claiming that its insignificant and OK that these kind of people are getting such alarming momentum/support and western powers are backing their legitimacy.
from less then 3% to more 33% in three years was very possible then in germany, from 10% to oever 30% is also very much possible today in ukraine
Howard A Treesong wrote: There are quite a lot of not ethnic Russians in Crimea who won't be very happy that Russia has used political turmoil in Ukraine to move their forces in and annex the region from under their feet. I wonder what will happen to them? Russia is probably preparing to quell any resistance and throw them out.
The majority (by a small margin) of people living in the Crimea are ethnic Russian, and speak Russian as a first language. The area itself only became part of the Ukranian prefecture during the 1950's under Khrushchev - I've read that there are a number of Tartars, ethnic Ukranians there (who are generally boycotting this referendum) but they are a minority. Put simply, this is another example of the 'Balkanisation' of Eastern Europe, of where lines were put down after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and they weren't always put in the right place. Now it's a giant cluster-feth trying to sort out who should live with who, under whose rule and in what way.
It's going to be a hard time for whoever 'loses' in this instance, but Russia is going to get what it wants regardless of Western threats because (really, quite rightly) we are not going to risk things escalating and us going to war. The ethnic Russians in Crimea were having a hard time of it before, now it is going to be the ethnic Tartars and Ukranians.
I know the impeachment was not constitutionally valid. I'm asking where in Ukraine constitutional law does it say that an invalid impeachment procedure results in the revoking of mandate for the parliament.
As far as I can tell, at best you could argue that Yanukovytch remains the president of Ukraine, although it probably won't take long for the current government to go through the procedure in a formal manner.
His Master's Voice wrote: I know the impeachment was not constitutionally valid. I'm asking where in Ukraine constitutional law does it say that an invalid impeachment procedure results in the revoking of mandate for the parliament.
As far as I can tell, at best you could argue that Yanukovytch remains the president of Ukraine, although it probably won't take long for the current government to go through the procedure in a formal manner.
Oh, don't worry, the current Ukrainian government may be illegal, but the parliament itself still has its mandate. The problem that he president has to sign a law passed by the Verkhovna Rada before it becomes valid. The parliament can't make legal laws without president. So according to the Ukrainian Constitution, all laws passed by the Rada that have not been signed by Yanukovich are illegal. And the new government has issued and changed quite a lot of laws since it got into power. All those laws and decisions (and the entire government itself) are unconstitutional. Which is the reason why the (also unconstitutional) Crimean government no longer recognizes the unconstitutional government in Kiev and has issued an unconstitutional referendum, which caused the unconstitutional government in Kiev to make the unconstitutional decision to unconstitutionally dissolve the unconstitutional Crimean government.
Really, the discussion is not important anyways, no one in Ukraine actually seems to pay attention to the Constitution anymore.
Well, the voting stations are closed now, and indeed, the first exit polls indicate that 93% voted in favour of Crimea becoming part of Russia In all honesty, I suspect that most people who wanted Crimea to remain part of Ukraine stayed at home. The result of the referendum was already known before it started, as most of Crimea's population is Russian.
Must be our past experience with such referenda in Austria...
Spoiler:
Wikipedia description: Voting ballot from 10 April 1938. The ballot text reads "Do you agree with the reunification of Austria with the German Reich that was enacted on 13 March 1938, and do you vote for the party of our leader Adolf Hitler?" The large circle is labelled "Yes", the smaller "No".
results are showing about 93% in favour of joining russia.
the international observers present found no evidence of voter pressure, or any of the "at gunpoint" nonsense that the chicken littles are caterwauling about.
" “I haven’t seen anything even resembling pressure,” he said. “People themselves want to have their say.”
Many were impressed by the turnout, which appeared to be so high as to have people stand in lines to get to the ballot box in the morning. The turnout for the referendum in Crimea at 17.00 local time (15.00 GMT) was 70 per cent, the referendum’s website said.
"The lines are very long, the turnout is big indeed,” a member of the international observer mission, Bulgarian parliament member Pavel Chernev, said. "Organization and procedures are 100 percent in line with the European standards," he added.
135 international observers have arrived from 23 countries, including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia and Poland, Crimean authorities said. Among those monitoring the referendum are members of the EU and national European parliaments, international law experts and human rights activists. "
Breotan wrote: But didn't Obama draw a line or something?
What he considers a line is what the rest of the world calls a game of Red Rover, though be it with a shrinking number of players for the US side of things.
In other news... how likely is it now that the eastern portions of Ukraine will now vote to secede and how greedy will Putin get?
Breotan wrote: But didn't Obama draw a line or something?
What he considers a line is what the rest of the world calls a game of Red Rover, though be it with a shrinking number of players for the US side of things.
In other news... how likely is it now that the eastern portions of Ukraine will now vote to secede and how greedy will Putin get?
First the Ukrainians will attempt to build a legitimate defense and cut ties with the Crimea.
"Eastern Ukraine" cries foul, Russia swoops in, wrecks face, occupies, and another round of referendums goes live.
Western Ukraine tries to fight back, then it itself gets occupied, toppled, pro-Russian "legitimate" government installed. Eastern Ukraine returned sans Crimea.
Obama will be on his 27th line and 200 Russians will be sanctioned from coming to America.
End result: Obama and USA looks pathetic (in irony, the Democrats will get another President in office as warmongering Republicans calling for a stronger Commander in Chief fail to field a capable candidate, alienate war-weary populace).
China and Russia will now expand beyond their regional demesne, look to challenge American supremacy globally. America left holding the bag.
Net result: Games Workshop increases prices another 50%.
Net result: Games Workshop increases prices another 50%.
Now that is a real crime.
Don't do the crime if you cannot smack around Kirby, teabag Ward, bury C.S. Goto under a swarm of crickets, then lock them all up in a Hyperstone Maze to do the time.
Putin's playing an interesting game right now. He's lining up his next batch of chess pieces quite beautifully, and it'll be interesting to see how the West responds to the next set of moves.
Well, I am just happy the referendum went peacefully and that Crimea is now going back where it belongs. Being from Sevastopol, I have always felt Russian, never Ukrainian and I am happy that Sevastopol will now also officially be a part of Russia again. A pity I can't be there for the party But now it is interesting how the situation in Odessa, Kharkov, Donetsk, Luhansk etc. develops, and what Putin will do there. And also if the government in Kiev is going to do anything to resolve the issues among ethnic Russians there.
Ketara wrote: Putin's playing an interesting game right now. He's lining up his next batch of chess pieces quite beautifully, and it'll be interesting to see how the West responds to the next set of moves.
More sanctions.
Unless the rest of Ukraine becomes a battleground with real casualties, sanctions out the Wazoo.
I sense a business opportunity. Sell the Ukrainians $10Bn worth of Japanese military hardware. We'll be the middle man. We make money. Japan quietly rearms against the Chinese by selling arms to Ukraine. Ukraine now has a modern military.
Alternatively we could arrest Justin Bieber and drop him out of a plane over St. Petersberg. If the Russians do not withdraw we'll threaten to air drop Miley Cyrus, One Direction, and R. Kelly. That should do it.
Personally Ukraine is too close to Russia. If they split up into Russia and West Ukraine thats cool. If they don't thats cool. Its their problem. Not ours.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, I am just happy the referendum went peacefully and that Crimea is now going back where it belongs. Being from Sevastopol, I have always felt Russian, never Ukrainian and I am happy that Sevastopol will now also officially be a part of Russia again. A pity I can't be there for the party But now it is interesting how the situation in Odessa, Kharkov, Donetsk, Luhansk etc. develops, and what Putin will do there. And also if the government in Kiev is going to do anything to resolve the issues among ethnic Russians there.
So tell me Rooskie are the Russians going to take Eastern Ukraine as well?
Frazzled wrote: If they split up into Russia and West Ukraine thats cool.
Yeah, nothing like splitting a country into a vassal state and a cripple that will either become a vassal in the future or remain on life support forever.
Frazzled wrote: If they split up into Russia and West Ukraine thats cool.
Yeah, nothing like splitting a country into a vassal state and a cripple that will either become a vassal in the future or remain on life support forever.
Totally cool.
Cool as in leave us out of it.
or we could sell them $10Bn worth of stuff.
Kirim now joined Russia. the new pro-Russian government issued an offer for any Ukrainian troops to 'swear an oath of fealthy' to the Russia
E.U. reactions are .... for me, considered 'empty threats' to the new 'Russian Empire' where Putin will one day crown himself as a new Tzar. They're broke now. the best thing they can do is to confiscate any russian assets in EU soils. but I don't think that this can hurt Russia. If there will be the next Crimean war. E.U. will lose.
Lone Cat wrote: If there will be the next Crimean war. E.U. will lose.
No it wouldn't. This is a military which struggled with Georgian air defense.
Whilst I'm not backing the idea that the Russians could ultimately win a war with the West (even minus the US), things have changed to an extent since Georgia.
Going back to the Nazi's. I've heard mention of them being around 10% of the population with them being strongest in the western area's of Ukraine. With the secession of the Crimea and the possible lost of the Eastern Regions in the coming months/years how much stronger as a party will they get because of the change of population (because of several million pro Russians leaving) in Ukraine? Could they double in size practically over night and actually take over the country or at least exhert enough influence?
Whilst I'm not backing the idea that the Russians could ultimately win a war with the West (even minus the US), things have changed to an extent since Georgia.
Lone Cat wrote: If there will be the next Crimean war. E.U. will lose.
No it wouldn't. This is a military which struggled with Georgian air defense.
Whilst I'm not backing the idea that the Russians could ultimately win a war with the West (even minus the US), things have changed to an extent since Georgia.
WHAT!? Big Bear Russia lost its Ostessian war against weaker Georgia? the armed forces are now 'under upgrading process' but by now. is it finalized?
I though this war will be fighting with cash as well as troops, guns ,ammo and people. EU is 'broke' right now y'know? and Russia is now a rising economy as well as China! Not counting a very large chunks of Crimean people who fully pledged its allegiance to Russia! infact. many of them are Russians (And not 'Ukrainians') so morale counts!
Actually I'm not siding with Russia nor its macchiavellian schemes to flex its muscle (or possibly annexing one more country) but i'm emphasizing on economic strengh factors as well as subjective allegiances of the crimeans (or east Ukrainians in general). unless E.U. governments do the similar military efforts the US has been doing in the WW2. they'll lost the second Crimean War.
The thought of the "EU" going on the offensive is bad comedy. Putin knows this.
Who said anything about going on the offensive?
Because thats the only way it could occur. USSR er Russia gets a hint of "EU" troops going to Ukraine and its tanks will have reached the Polish border before you can say "European dithering."
Commissar-Danno wrote: Going back to the Nazi's. I've heard mention of them being around 10% of the population with them being strongest in the western area's of Ukraine. With the secession of the Crimea and the possible lost of the Eastern Regions in the coming months/years how much stronger as a party will they get because of the change of population (because of several million pro Russians leaving) in Ukraine? Could they double in size practically over night and actually take over the country or at least exhert enough influence?
They already have a large influence, but if Eastern Ukraine would also secede, they would probably grow even more in power. That is a worrying scenario.
Frazzled wrote: except of course who is going to fight? Germany? They're limited by Constitution and have minimal forces.
France? How are they going to get there? With what?
UK? Same to same.
Who else?
The thought of the "EU" going on the offensive is bad comedy. Putin knows this.
That is exactly what the Secretary-General of NATO also noted on Dutch television last month
Its not like Ukraine will turn into the next Nazi Germany and try to take over the world. Worst case scenario is they rot in their own little corner of the world and become like North Korea.
Commissar-Danno wrote: Going back to the Nazi's. I've heard mention of them being around 10% of the population with them being strongest in the western area's of Ukraine. With the secession of the Crimea and the possible lost of the Eastern Regions in the coming months/years how much stronger as a party will they get because of the change of population (because of several million pro Russians leaving) in Ukraine? Could they double in size practically over night and actually take over the country or at least exhert enough influence?
They already have a large influence, but if Eastern Ukraine would also secede, they would probably grow even more in power. That is a worrying scenario.
Why? Please define how that would be worse than Russia now? Crony capitalism vs. crony mercantilism with dictatorial governments. Not seeing a lot of difference.
Frazzled wrote: except of course who is going to fight? Germany? They're limited by Constitution and have minimal forces.
France? How are they going to get there? With what?
UK? Same to same.
Who else?
The thought of the "EU" going on the offensive is bad comedy. Putin knows this.
That is exactly what the Secretary-General of NATO also noted on Dutch television last month
Yep. Which is fine. NATO is not an offensive organization. The EU is a commercial organization.
What they could do is embargo the natural gas. But that would take iron.
Its not like Ukraine will turn into the next Nazi Germany and try to take over the world. Worst case scenario is they rot in their own little corner of the world and become like North Korea.
I don't think the Ukrainians have any plans for world conquest, but it could be worrying for ethnic minorities in Western Ukraine. I don't think it will turn into a 1943 style genocide, but they could be seriously deprived of their rights.
having another north korea, on the border with europe is even more so...
not to mention, the western support/blind eye towards this lends it legitimacy, and means that other similar groups in nearby countries such as greece will also be encouraged...
^ No matter how many tanks and armored vehicles they sold to Royal Thai Army (the organization that actually favors Fascism). Urkraine cannot retake Kirim without the outsider's help.
Actually Kirim is NOT belonged to the 'original' Ukraine in the first place. Nikita Kruschev gave Kirim to 'Soviet of Ukraine' for some reasons. possibly the politics inside the Communist Party of Russia... where he must do everything to erode/eliminate Stalinist (and traces of it).
Who knows why Kruschev gave 'The Soviet of Ukraine' an entire Crimea peninsular?
Its not like Ukraine will turn into the next Nazi Germany and try to take over the world. Worst case scenario is they rot in their own little corner of the world and become like North Korea.
I don't think the Ukrainians have any plans for world conquest, but it could be worrying for ethnic minorities in Western Ukraine. I don't think it will turn into a 1943 style genocide, but they could be seriously deprived of their rights.
I think the non Russian populations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine have a lot more to worry about, and right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lone Cat wrote: ^ No matter how many tanks and armored vehicles they sold to Royal Thai Army (the organization that actually favors Fascism). Urkraine cannot retake Kirim without the outsider's help.
Actually Kirim is NOT belonged to the 'original' Ukraine in the first place. Nikita Kruschev gave Kirim to 'Soviet of Ukraine' for some reasons. possibly the politics inside the Communist Party of Russia... where he must do everything to erode/eliminate Stalinist (and traces of it).
Who knows why Kruschev gave 'The Soviet of Ukraine' an entire Crimea peninsular?
Agreed, but thats just Step One. Step Two is Eastern Ukraine.
I think NATO and the EU have over played their hand in trying to expand their respective organizations into the Ukraine by supporting the government which ousted the pro russian president. This is a classic power play by the west, nothing more. What we're basically saying is that the people who want to have a democratic vote to leave a country they do not identify with are evil purely because they are Russian. Whilst those Ukrainians whose only motivation, like every other eatern european country, is hatred and fear of russia are the good guys. Ukraine wants military protection. It does not want human rights, democracy. The media reporting on this event almost makes you sick. Its okay for Kosovo to vote to leave Serbia but not for Crimea to leave the Ukraine? Its okay to dismember an artificial state like Yugoslavia but its not okay to dismember an artificial state like the Ukraine. In fact, yugoslavias borders were actually older than the Ukraines which only came into existence in 1954 and were massively different before WW2. This is a farcical display of hypocrisy and undignified venom from Western leaders. What gives them the right to say they are on the side of the angels and that the Ukrainian people are innocents chanting "Mhysa". They don't care about Ukrainians or democracy or human rights or whats just or peace. They care about enhancing Western power at the expense of Russia; which they've been doing for years. Oh, and they have no problem about once again telling bare faced lies to their own people and demonizing the enemy. Like how Senator Kerry says you can't behave in a 19th century manner and invade a country on false pretexts. WTF do you think Iraq was? Those weapons of mass destruction? Sadamn a threat to peace and a power. Its actually insulting and undemocratic that they are prepared to use manipulative tactics and determined to cast themselves and the Ukrainians as the legions of christ assembled against hell. Its pathetic.
Plus, in pure machiavellian terms. We do not need the Ukraine in NATO or the EU. We have most of central and eastern europe along with the baltics. These are in NATO and secure. So what if russia maintains parts of the former USSR republics? It changes nothing because they already had the Black Sea Fleet there. This is a bridge too far. They have tried to swallow up the Ukraine and Putin has used force. Hes called the West out on its bluff and eastern european countries who were promised military protection are realising that NATO might not be willing to engage militarily with russia in a great power war for their sake. These over reaching idiots have humiliated themselves and Western power with their own impotence and made themselves look weak. They should never have forced the issue of Ukraine entering Europe as it undermines the assurances which were given to other eastern european countries who will (wrongly) perceive a decline in Western power. Now they've put themselves in a situation where they are doing nothing effectual to stop Russia dismembering the ukraine. Keeping Yanokovich in power was safer instead of caving in to pressure from dumb nationalists in the west of the country. I thought the EU was about removing that degenerate disease from human society not encouraging it.
Because thats the only way it could occur. USSR er Russia gets a hint of "EU" troops going to Ukraine and its tanks will have reached the Polish border before you can say "European dithering."
Seems like Totalwar1402 has the right of it - there seems to be huge amount of double standards being applied by many nations in terms of who is allowed to break up nations...........
Frazzled wrote: Cool as in leave us out of it.
or we could sell them $10Bn worth of stuff.
Oh, I get that. At the same time, due to my clearly skewed perspective, I really want to punch you in the face for saying it out loud
Lone Cat wrote: Who knows why Kruschev gave 'The Soviet of Ukraine' an entire Crimea peninsular?
Well, it's in most high school textbooks.
If it was just about Crimea? Let them have it. The problem is that they won't stop there. They'll keep pushing into the space occupied by former soviet satellites until either they take over everything, the neglected economy gives in and causes an inward collapse of the state or China decides to start doing to them what they're doing to Ukraine and force them to divert their attention from Europe.
The West set several precedents for violating the national sovereignty and aggressively interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent countries. Now Russia is making use of those precedents.
Its not like Ukraine will turn into the next Nazi Germany and try to take over the world. Worst case scenario is they rot in their own little corner of the world and become like North Korea.
I don't think the Ukrainians have any plans for world conquest, but it could be worrying for ethnic minorities in Western Ukraine. I don't think it will turn into a 1943 style genocide, but they could be seriously deprived of their rights.
I think the non Russian populations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine have a lot more to worry about, and right now.
The Tatars not so much. As the millions of Tatars already living in Russia would be able to tell you, the rights of Tatars are very well guarded. That won't be any different for the Crimean Tatars. The Crimean government has already promised to make Tatar an official language. That is actually better than in Ukraine. The Cossacks are not likely to stay in Crimea either, they will probably return to their host in Kuban, so they won't cause further trouble either. The Ukrainians on the other hand, well, maybe the Crimean government could make some arrangements for them, but I am afraid they won't, so they will have to either become Russian and adapt like the millions of Ukrainians living in Russia or to return to Ukraine. Maybe not very nice for them, but at least they won't be threatened. Nothing will change for them apart from the fact that Ukrainian will no longer be an official language.
Because thats the only way it could occur. USSR er Russia gets a hint of "EU" troops going to Ukraine and its tanks will have reached the Polish border before you can say "European dithering."
Why would EU troops move to the Ukraine?
The argument was military action by the EU. The EU would have to get forces to Ukraine, which means invasion as Russian forces would have already prepared Kursk II for them. Any action by the "EU" (hahahahaha) is inherently offensive in nature in this context.
Also, equivocation does not suit you.
WTF?
Here's a fun question.
Russia takes East Ukraine
West Ukraine goes Fascist.
Poland - remembering what happened THE LAST TIME A FASCIST STATE WAS ON ITS BORDER invades
Poland - killing the Nazi ghost in 2015?
Here's a fun question. Russia takes East Ukraine West Ukraine goes Fascist. Poland - remembering what happened THE LAST TIME A FASCIST STATE WAS ON ITS BORDER invades Poland - killing the Nazi ghost in 2015?
Western Ukraine has been a part of Poland before. I would have no problem in it becoming part of Poland again, but I don't live in Western Ukraine. I don't know how the Ukrainians would feel about that. They did massacre the Poles in Volhynia in 1943... Also, Poland is really playing world history on hard mode, being caught between Germany and Russia. How many times has Poland been invaded again? But seriously, I have a deep respect for the Poles.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The West set several precedents for violating the national sovereignty and aggressively interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent countries. Now Russia is making use of those precedents.
You reap what you sow.
Que?
When's the last time the West invaded, then annexed?
Here's a fun question.
Russia takes East Ukraine
West Ukraine goes Fascist.
Poland - remembering what happened THE LAST TIME A FASCIST STATE WAS ON ITS BORDER invades
Poland - killing the Nazi ghost in 2015?
Western Ukraine has been a part of Poland before. I would have no problem in it becoming part of Poland again, but I don't live in Western Ukraine. I don't know how the Ukrainians would feel about that. They did massacre the Poles in Volhynia in 1943...
Also, Poland is really playing world history on hard mode, being caught between Germany and Russia. How many times has Poland been invaded again? But seriously, I have a deep respect for the Poles.
Because thats the only way it could occur. USSR er Russia gets a hint of "EU" troops going to Ukraine and its tanks will have reached the Polish border before you can say "European dithering."
Why would EU troops move to the Ukraine?
Also, equivocation does not suit you.
To stop further invasion.... that's why.
I can totally see letting Crimea go to Russia. Then, invite the rest of Ukraine into NATO.... then, ask the NATO countries to help fund a large NATO present in the region to prevent further "annexation" by Russia.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The West set several precedents for violating the national sovereignty and aggressively interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent countries. Now Russia is making use of those precedents.
You reap what you sow.
Que?
When's the last time the West invaded, then annexed?
I invaded a fine Mexican restaurant today celebrating Benito Juarez's birthday. Does total and complete destruction of their bathroom count as annexation?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The West set several precedents for violating the national sovereignty and aggressively interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent countries. Now Russia is making use of those precedents.
You reap what you sow.
Que?
When's the last time the West invaded, then annexed?
I invaded a fine Mexican restaurant today celebrating Benito Juarez's birthday. Does total and complete destruction of their bathroom count as annexation?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The West set several precedents for violating the national sovereignty and aggressively interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent countries. Now Russia is making use of those precedents.
You reap what you sow.
Que?
When's the last time the West invaded, then annexed?
Please point out in my comment where I specified "annexed".
My point was a general one, in that the West has a track record of violating the sovereignty and interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent foreign nations by bombing, undermining, and invading them (and on occasion even breaking them up) when it suits the West's own interests to do so, often breaking international law in the process. Now we have a situation where Russia has followed suit and violated the sovereignty of a neighbouring country and interfered in its domestic affairs in order to pursue and protect it's own national interests, breaking international law in the process.
I'm not saying I agree with Russia's actions in occupying and annexing the Crimea (with an apparent democratic mandate, lets keep in mind - they were invited in by the Parliament and supposedly won an overwhelming majority referendum approving it) because I don't, but I do feel uncomfortable condemning the behaviour of another country when my own country is guilty of and gotten away with similar acts in the past.
Pot. Kettle. Black?
However, I do think that Russia should not be allowed to move further into east Ukraine. Let Putin have Crimea, but block any further moves against East Ukraine.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The West set several precedents for violating the national sovereignty and aggressively interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent countries. Now Russia is making use of those precedents.
You reap what you sow.
Que?
When's the last time the West invaded, then annexed?
Please point out in my comment where I specified "annexed".
You didn't have to.. you're justifying Russia's actions by saying the "West" is doing the same sort of thing.
Again, when did the modern West start annexing some countries?
My point was a general one, in that the West has a track record of violating the sovereignty and interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent foreign nations by bombing, undermining, and invading them (and on occasion even breaking them up) when it suits the West's own interests to do so, often breaking international law in the process. Now we have a situation where Russia has followed suit and violated the sovereignty of a neighbouring country and interfered in its domestic affairs in order to pursue and protect it's own national interests, breaking international law in the process.
I'm not saying I agree with Russia's actions in occupying and annexing the Crimea (with an apparent democratic mandate, lets keep in mind - they were invited in by the Parliament and supposedly won an overwhelming majority referendum approving it) because I don't, but I do feel uncomfortable condemning the behaviour of another country when my own country is guilty of and gotten away with similar acts in the past.
Pot. Kettle. Black?
Give me an example... what did the West do recently that can justify Russia's actions here?
However, I do think that Russia should not be allowed to move further into east Ukraine. Let Putin have Crimea, but block any further moves against East Ukraine.
Yup. Agree with you there... and even NATO-ize the feth out of that region too.
You're equating the Russian Federation with the USSR despite the fact that they are not the same, that is equivocation. Equivocation does not suit you because you're bad at hiding it.
Here's a fun question.
Russia takes East Ukraine
West Ukraine goes Fascist.
Poland - remembering what happened THE LAST TIME A FASCIST STATE WAS ON ITS BORDER invades
Poland - killing the Nazi ghost in 2015?
You're not posing a question, you're presenting an absurd scenario.
-Shrike- wrote: Whembly, I thought Ukraine (as a whole) didn't want to join NATO. How would forcing them to become part of that organization help in any way?
Ukraine (okay, probably Western Ukraine) was always interested.
As it was, it could never happen because of the Russian base in Crimera.
You're equating the Russian Federation with the USSR despite the fact that they are not the same, that is equivocation. Equivocation does not suit you because you're bad at hiding it.
What can I say, I like to annoy the Russians. And now in the spirit of the Singing Revolution "Lietuva, Tėvyne mūsų"
Frazzled wrote:
Here's a fun question. Russia takes East Ukraine West Ukraine goes Fascist. Poland - remembering what happened THE LAST TIME A FASCIST STATE WAS ON ITS BORDER invades Poland - killing the Nazi ghost in 2015?
You're not posing a question, you're presenting an absurd scenario.
Its why we count on you with your years of book learnin to ferret these things out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Russia to sanction US Senators.
Shadow Captain is right when he says Russia =/= Soviet Union. Despite what is taught in the American Educational System, the USSR (i.e. the Soviet Union) was not the Russian Empire but actually a union of various sub-republics (Russia included) that formed a collective government. The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was just one of several such republics (as was the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), and while it was in fact the largest and arguably the most powerful, the government of the RSFSR, the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR, was subordinate to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Contrary to what you might think the head of state of the Soviet Union wasn't always a Russian... although who exactly the head of state was at any given time is up for debate, as it seems the Chairman/Premier of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and the First/General Secretary of the Communist Party somewhat alternated/vied for power.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The West set several precedents for violating the national sovereignty and aggressively interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent countries. Now Russia is making use of those precedents.
You reap what you sow.
Que?
When's the last time the West invaded, then annexed?
Please point out in my comment where I specified "annexed".
You didn't have to.. you're justifying Russia's actions by saying the "West" is doing the same sort of thing
Again, when did the modern West start annexing some countries?
.
No, thats not at all what I'm saying. I disagree with Russia's actions. But I also disagree with the similar acts of Western governments in the past (Iraq). I am not saying that two wrongs make a right (Iraq does not justify Crimea), I am saying that Western hypocrisy has weakened our moral superiority thereby giving Putin a precedent to use as an excuse. We have shown Putin that you can break or circumvent international law when convenient to protect your own national interests and get away with it. The USA does it with near impunity.
And, again. I never specified "annexed". Those are your words, not mine.
The West has shown Russia that you can get away with breaking international law by invading and violating the sovereignty of indepedent countries and interfering in their domestic affairs in the pursuit of your own national interests. Russia thinks it can get away with it too.
Give me an example... what did the West do recently that can justify Russia's actions here?
Your words, not mine. I don't think the previous actions of the West justify the recent actions of Russia, but I do think that it encouraged Putin.
But anyway, my examples...
Iraq.
Libya.
The aborted intervention in Syria. (Limited strike? Is that what we're calling War these days? )
And the West's recent involvement in Ukraine, and attempts to draw it into NATO and the EU. (Didn't Baroness Ashton, a British EU comissioner go to Ukraine to meet with protesters and publicly declared that the EU supported the revolution, whilst Yanukovich was still officially the President?)
Yup. Agree with you there... and even NATO-ize the feth out of that region too.
And I disagree with you there...Pushing NATO right up to Russia's borders will only restart the Cold War. Through its history Russia has been invaded time and time again from Western Europe. Napolean. WW1. WW2. With no natural defensive borders its paranoid that it'll be invaded again (hence the Soviet Union's obsession with buffer states and the Warsaw Pact; and Russia's horror at the prospect of sharing borders with NATO countries). We should try to keep Ukraine as neutral ground, and ensure that it has good relations with both the West (i.e. Europe) and Russia. Let Ukraine join the economic parts of the EU (but nothing involving the military).
Expanding NATO right up to Russia's own borders is like raising your fist to a paranoid schizophrenic.
Because thats the only way it could occur. USSR er Russia gets a hint of "EU" troops going to Ukraine and its tanks will have reached the Polish border before you can say "European dithering."
Why would EU troops move to the Ukraine?
Also, equivocation does not suit you.
To stop further invasion.... that's why.
I can totally see letting Crimea go to Russia. Then, invite the rest of Ukraine into NATO.... then, ask the NATO countries to help fund a large NATO present in the region to prevent further "annexation" by Russia.
Do you think NATO wants Ukraine to join now? I'm guessign the message was sent, and now NATO might not be so keen to move right up to the borders of Russia.
Because thats the only way it could occur. USSR er Russia gets a hint of "EU" troops going to Ukraine and its tanks will have reached the Polish border before you can say "European dithering."
Why would EU troops move to the Ukraine?
Also, equivocation does not suit you.
To stop further invasion.... that's why.
I can totally see letting Crimea go to Russia. Then, invite the rest of Ukraine into NATO.... then, ask the NATO countries to help fund a large NATO present in the region to prevent further "annexation" by Russia.
Do you think NATO wants Ukraine to join now? I'm guessign the message was sent, and now NATO might not be so keen to move right up to the borders of Russia.
I agree.
Expanding NATO right up to Russia's own borders is like raising your fist to a paranoid schizophrenic.
We should be looking for a compromise with Russia, not trying to beat it into a humiliating submission.
Ukraine should be neutral ground.
Let it enter into economic agreements with the EU (provided that those agreements are not mutually exclusive with similar agreements with Russia).
But keep Ukraine out of NATO.
No, thats not at all what I'm saying. I disagree with Russia's actions. But I also disagree with the similar acts of Western governments in the past (Iraq). I am not saying that two wrongs make a right (Iraq does not justify Crimea), I am saying that Western hypocrisy has weakened our moral superiority thereby giving Putin a precedent to use as an excuse. We have shown Putin that you can break or circumvent international law when convenient to protect your own national interests and get away with it. The USA does it with near impunity.
And, again. I never specified "annexed". Those are your words, not mine.
What hypocrisy?
The West has shown Russia that you can get away with breaking international law by invading and violating the sovereignty of indepedent countries and interfering in their domestic affairs in the pursuit of your own national interests. Russia thinks it can get away with it too.
Which international laws were broken?
...
Your words, not mine. I don't think the previous actions of the West justify the recent actions of Russia, but I do think that it encouraged Putin.
I think Putin was encouraged because he believe the West won't stop him. Simply that.
You might have a point here... but, understand it was a fething hotbed of terrorist activies. Besides... ask the Frenchies about this one.
The aborted intervention in Syria. (Limited strike? Is that what we're calling War these days? )
What mission? We didn't even start.
And the West's recent involvement in Ukraine, and attempts to draw it into NATO and the EU. (Didn't Baroness Ashton, a British EU comissioner go to Ukraine to meet with protesters and publicly declared that the EU supported the revolution, whilst Yanukovich was still officially the President?)
So?
...
And I disagree with you there...Pushing NATO right up to Russia's borders will only restart the Cold War. Through its history Russia has been invaded time and time again from Western Europe. Napolean. WW1. WW2. With no natural defensive borders its paranoid that it'll be invaded again (hence the Soviet Union's obsession with buffer states and the Warsaw Pact; and Russia's horror at the prospect of sharing borders with NATO countries). We should try to keep Ukraine as neutral ground, and ensure that it has good relations with both the West (i.e. Europe) and Russia. Let Ukraine join the economic parts of the EU (but nothing involving the military).
Expanding NATO right up to Russia's own borders is like raising your fist to a paranoid schizophrenic.
Nah... it's the rightresponse. Anything less than that would be deemed toothless. The current sanctions? It's a joke.
I can totally see letting Crimea go to Russia. Then, invite the rest of Ukraine into NATO.... then, ask the NATO countries to help fund a large NATO present in the region to prevent further "annexation" by Russia.
The EU and NATO are not the same things, please do not conflate them.
As to "further invasion": what responsibility does the EU have to defend the Ukraine?
I can totally see letting Crimea go to Russia. Then, invite the rest of Ukraine into NATO.... then, ask the NATO countries to help fund a large NATO present in the region to prevent further "annexation" by Russia.
The EU and NATO are not the same things, please do not conflate them.
As to "further invasion": what responsibility does the EU have to defend the Ukraine?
?
I'm not conflating the two as I'm not really considering the EU. This is more about NATO than EU.
Kofi Annan wrote:On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."[1]
And Colin Powell regrets the speech that he gave to the UN, presenting the alleged evidence of WMD's (the stated justification for the invasion).
Colin Powell wrote:Powell retraction
In 2004 and 2005 Colin Powell acknowledged that much of his 2003 UN presentation was inaccurate:
“ I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for [the mobile bio-labs], and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid.[9] April 3, 2004
I feel terrible ... [giving the speech] ... It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now.[10] Sep 8, 2005
Did you even read that wikipedia page yourself? I can find nothing in there that specifically states the UN authorised an invasion in 2003. As I understand it, the USA recycled outdated resolutions from the 1990's that permitted military action in the event that Saddam did not allow UN Weapon Inspectors to carry out their work, and did not obtain new up to date resolutions (please correct me if I'm wrong - going entirely by memory here).
You might have a point here... but, understand it was a fething hotbed of terrorist activies. Besides... ask the Frenchies about this one.
I do understand. Thats why I think it was a bad idea to bomb Gadaffi and side with the ragtag bunch of revolutionaries and Islamic extremists with affiliations to Al Qaeda. Ditto for Syria.
The "Enemy of my Enemy is my friend" does not apply when your enemy's enemy is your enemy too.
What mission? We didn't even start.
You do know the definition of "aborted", right?
My point was that it would have been IMO wrong and possibly illegal to start bombing Syria. The political momentum to do so fizzled out and so it was never carried out.
So?
So violating the national sovereignty of indepedent nations is OK when its the West doing it, but not OK when Russia does it?
Nah... it's the rightresponse. Anything less than that would be deemed toothless. The current sanctions? It's a joke.
The right response being increasing diplomatic tensions and the risk of an open conflict with Russia that could very easily escalate into World War III?
I can totally see letting Crimea go to Russia. Then, invite the rest of Ukraine into NATO.... then, ask the NATO countries to help fund a large NATO present in the region to prevent further "annexation" by Russia.
The EU and NATO are not the same things, please do not conflate them.
As to "further invasion": what responsibility does the EU have to defend the Ukraine?
Look, if you want to believe the West is hypocritical and all that... go ahead.
But, I think simply ramping up economic sanctions and diplomatically worded letters is asinine to believe it'd have any impacts on Russia.
Nah... it's the rightresponse. Anything less than that would be deemed toothless. The current sanctions? It's a joke.
The right response being increasing diplomatic tensions and the risk of an open conflict with Russia that could very easily escalate into World War III?
Do you want a war with Russia?
Letting Russia keep Crimea and then NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine will NOT start a war.
Look, if you want to believe the West is hypocritical and all that... go ahead.
But, I think simply ramping up economic sanctions and diplomatically worded letters is asinine to believe it'd have any impacts on Russia.
Nah... it's the rightresponse. Anything less than that would be deemed toothless. The current sanctions? It's a joke.
The right response being increasing diplomatic tensions and the risk of an open conflict with Russia that could very easily escalate into World War III?
Do you want a war with Russia?
Letting Russia keep Crimea and then NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine will NOT start a war.
Russia is NOT that fething Dumb.
The cost will be too high.
Russia is not that dumb? Despite my love for Russia, I'll have to disagree here. Russia is more than dumb and crazy enough to start a war about it. And they can. Having the the world's largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction gives Russia a certain deserved confidence in war with the West. The question is: is the US willing to wage war with a country that could wipe out the entire US in the blink of an eye? The US may have that same power, but are they as crazy as Russia? Lots of Russians regret that the Cold War never went hot. If Russia chooses war, honestly, I think that NATO will just negotiate and concede rather than fight. The West does not want to sacrifice everything for a former Soviet region it doesn't really care about. For Russia on the other hand, this region is of paramount importance, no cost is too high. Someone compared Russia to a paranoid schizophrenic. Well, it is more like a paranoid schizophrenic with a tendency towards violence and acces to nuclear weapons. Putin has already stated in 2008 that 'NATO-izing' Ukraine will mean war. Provoking and humiliating Russia will only escalate the situation and will not lead to a good, peaceful solution.
They passed enough laws a few years ago to make it clear that this will never be an option and anyone thinking about it will spend some time in Siberia to think about what they have done.
Letting Russia keep Crimea and then NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine will NOT start a war.
Russia is NOT that fething Dumb.
The cost will be too high.
Russia is not that dumb?
No... they're not.
Despite my love for Russia, I'll have to disagree here. Russia is more than dumb and crazy enough to start a war about it. And they can. Having the the world's largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction gives Russia a certain deserved confidence in war with the West. The question is: is the US willing to wage war with a country that could wipe out the entire US in the blink of an eye?
Um... you do know that the US is the only country that used Nukes in a war.
The US may have that same power, but are they as crazy as Russia?
If nukes were used against us? Oh hell yes... and the Russians knows this.
Lots of Russians regret that the Cold War never went hot. If Russia chooses war, honestly, I think that NATO will just negotiate and concede rather than fight.
O.o they're still alive?
The West does not want to sacrifice everything for a former Soviet region it doesn't really care about. For Russia on the other hand, this region is of paramount importance, no cost is too high. Someone compared Russia to a paranoid schizophrenic. Well, it is more like a paranoid schizophrenic with a tendency towards violence and acces to nuclear weapons.
We'll see eh?
Putin has already stated in 2008 that 'NATO-izing' Ukraine will mean war. Provoking and humiliating Russia will only escalate the situation and will not lead to a good, peaceful solution.
How would NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine would provoke/humilate Russia? They got what they wanted... which is Crimea.
Letting Russia keep Crimea and then NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine will NOT start a war.
Russia is NOT that fething Dumb.
The cost will be too high.
Whembly, I'm honestly intrigued about what you think the EU/US should do, other than sanctions and asset freezing? Really, what other options are there?
'The cost will be too high' is a phrase that was bandied about in the early 20th century, when countries were hurriedly signing mutual defence pacts to help protect territory. We all know how that worked out.
I don't believe the Ukraine joining NATO is a terribly smart thing to do - in fact, I think it's a terrible idea! It makes the chances of an escalation that much more likely, and we shouldn't be poking the bear with a stick if we're not willing to get swiped..
Letting Russia keep Crimea and then NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine will NOT start a war.
Russia is NOT that fething Dumb.
The cost will be too high.
Whembly, I'm honestly intrigued about what you think the EU/US should do, other than sanctions and asset freezing? Really, what other options are there?
'The cost will be too high' is a phrase that was bandied about in the early 20th century, when countries were hurriedly signing mutual defence pacts to help protect territory. We all know how that worked out.
I don't believe the Ukraine joining NATO is a terribly smart thing to do - in fact, I think it's a terrible idea! It makes the chances of an escalation that much more likely, and we shouldn't be poking the bear with a stick if we're not willing to get swiped..
What are we... chopped liver?
Let me ask you another question: Do you think Putin would stop?
Letting Russia keep Crimea and then NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine will NOT start a war.
Russia is NOT that fething Dumb.
The cost will be too high.
Whembly, I'm honestly intrigued about what you think the EU/US should do, other than sanctions and asset freezing? Really, what other options are there?
'The cost will be too high' is a phrase that was bandied about in the early 20th century, when countries were hurriedly signing mutual defence pacts to help protect territory. We all know how that worked out.
The costs back then wasn't "human life on Earth" though.
It's an agreement that gives Turkey control over the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles and regulates the transit of naval warships. The Convention gives Turkey full control over the Straits and guarantees the free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime. It restricts the passage of naval ships not belonging to Black Sea states.
Spoiler:
Turkey could restrict Russian naval ships and allow NATO ships passage.
The convention guarantees free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime and only restricts passage of naval ships not belonging to Black Sea states.
Russia is a Black Sea state and it's still peacetime, so I'm not sure how they could do anything to Russia without violating the treaty. Unless I'm missing something...
d-usa wrote: The convention guarantees free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime and only restricts passage of naval ships not belonging to Black Sea states.
Russia is a Black Sea state and it's still peacetime, so I'm not sure how they could do anything to Russia without violating the treaty. Unless I'm missing something...
Nope... you're spot on. Turkey will have to break that treaty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Aren't Russia's Black Sea ports the only ones that don't freeze over in winter too?
Economic sanctions really are a good tactic. Despite Putin's posturing, it would definitely hurt.
Russia would survive without international trade, but their economy would take a nosedive. And I think they rely on a lot of food imports too.
No... they have other warm ports. It's just that this one is a really, REALLY nice one to have.
ABC News wrote:Russian Deputy PM Laughs at Obama’s Sanctions
Russia and the United States Locked in a Duel of Super Powers
Kirit Radia wrote:MOSCOW – Russia’s deputy prime minister laughed off President Obama’s sanction against him today asking “Comrade @BarackObama” if “some prankster” came up with the list.
The Obama administration hit 11 Russian and Ukrainian officials with sanctions today as punishment for Russia’s support of Crimea’s referendum. Among them: aides to President Vladimir Putin, a top government official, senior lawmakers, Crimean officials, the ousted president of Ukraine, and a Ukrainian politician and businessman allegedly tied to violence against protesters in Kiev.
It remains to be seen whether the sanctions will dissuade Russia from annexing Crimea, but one an early clue that they will not be effective came just hours later when President Putin signed a decree recognizing Crimea as an independent state, perhaps an early step towards annexation.
U.S. official have warned of additional sanctions for Russian action, hoping it will deter Russia from any further aggression towards Ukraine, but it didn’t appear to upset the often outspoke Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin is seen in this July 17, 2012 file photo during a meeting with Indian Minister for External Affairs, S.M. Krishna in New Delhi.
Raveendran/AFP/Getty Images
Rogozin, a friend of actor Steven Seagal, took to Twitter to tweak Obama, tweeting he thinks “some prankster” came up with the sanctions list
In a later tweet addressed to “Comrade @BarackObama,” he asked, “what should do those who have neither accounts nor property abroad? Or U didn’t think about it?”
Another Russian on the sanctions list, Vladislav Surkov, also seemed unconcerned.
Surkov, a top Putin ideologue often called the Kremlin’s grey cardinal, reportedly told a Russian newspaper, “It’s a big honor for me. I don’t have accounts abroad. The only things that interest me in the U.S. are Tupac Shakur, Allen Ginsberg, and Jackson Pollock. I don’t need a visa to access their work. I lose nothing.”
Here’s who gets hit with the sanctions:
U.S. officials said that, among the sanctioned individuals were the “key ideologists and architects” of Russia’s Ukraine policy, while adding that some of the Russian officials were included in the list for their role in curbing “human rights and liberties” in Russia.
The sanctions freeze any assets under American jurisdiction and prevent American banks from doing business with the named individual, essentially freezing them out of the international banking system. The sanctions also impose a ban on their travel to the United States. Separately, but in coordination with the White House, the European Union announced sanctions today on 21 individuals that it plans to name later. U.S. officials told reporters that the American and European lists “overlapped” in some area, but declined to say how.
While some of the sanctioned officials are bold faced names, the White House move is unlikely to affect Russia’s decision making with regard to Crimea’s bid to join the Russian Federation. Russia’s stock market actually improved on the news that so few officials were included on the list. U.S. officials warned that, if Russia does go ahead with annexation of Crimea, additional penalties will follow, with more, harsher measures to come if Russia attempts to enter eastern Ukraine.
Kremlin aides
Vladislav Surkov – An aide to President Vladimir Putin, he was once considered one of Russia’s most powerful men. He has been called the Kremlin’s “gray cardinal” for his role as a power broker behind the scenes. He’s also credited the architect of Russia’s political system, with power concentrated in the presidency. In the past he was credited with shaping the ideology of the ruling United Russia party. He has also written rock music lyrics and is rumored to have authored a book.
Sergei Glazyev – An economic aide to Putin who oversaw relations with Ukraine. He frequently blasted the protest movement in Kiev and was outspoken in his criticism of American and European support for the protests.
Top government official
Dmitry Rogozin – An outspoken, hawkish Deputy Prime Minister, he’s known to have a close friendship with Hollywood actor Steven Seagal. As a member of Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev’s government, Rogozin is responsible for the armed forces and arms industry.
Russian lawmakers
Elena Mizulina – A senior lawmaker, she is considered one of the Kremlin’s morality enforcers in the parliament. She is perhaps best known as the co-author of last year’s homosexual “propaganda” law which sparked outrage overseas. She also proposed a measure to give Ukrainians Russian passports.
Leonid Slutsky – A lawmaker in the lower house of Parliament. He is the chair of the Committee on CIS Affairs, Eurasian Integration, and Relations with Compatriots. He was one of the Russian observers attending Sunday’s referendum in Crimea.
Andrei Klishas – A member of the upper house of Parliament, the Federation Council, who proposed retaliatory action in case of Western sanctions on Russia. He is chairman of the Federation Council Committee of Constitutional Law, Judicial, and Legal Affairs, and the Development of Civil Society.
Valentina Matviyenko – The head of the Federation Council, she is the most senior lawmaker on the sanctions list.
Crimean officials
Sergey Aksyonov – Once an obscure pro-Russian politician in Crimea, he has now been declared the prime minister.
Vladimir Konstantinov – The newly declared speaker of Crimea’s parliament.
Sergey Aksyonov – Once an obscure pro-Russian politician in Crimea, he has now been declared the prime minister.
Vladimir Konstantinov – The newly declared speaker of Crimea’s parliament.
Ukrainian officials
Viktor Medvedchuk – A pro-Russian politician, he is being sanctioned for having “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support” to impeached President Viktor Yanukovich. Ukraine’s opposition has accused him of orchestrating or aiding a crackdown on protesters and opposition.
Viktor Yanukovich – The ousted president of Ukraine. He was elected in 2010 but was chased from office by protests last month.
Best user comment: "Next Week Obama will freeze Putin's Facebook Account!"
Whembly, I'm honestly intrigued about what you think the EU/US should do, other than sanctions and asset freezing? Really, what other options are there?
Putting an ABM system in Poland.
Breotan wrote: So, we now learn about these "targeted" sanctions and what the Russians (and perhaps much of the rest of the world) thinks of them. Go Team Obama!!!
The sanctions were very obviously targeted, so I'm not certain why you felt the need to use quotation marks in order to indicate sarcasm.
Perhaps you meant to place them around the word "sanctions"?
Here's a fun question.
Russia takes East Ukraine
West Ukraine goes Fascist.
Poland - remembering what happened THE LAST TIME A FASCIST STATE WAS ON ITS BORDER invades
Poland - killing the Nazi ghost in 2015?
Western Ukraine has been a part of Poland before. I would have no problem in it becoming part of Poland again, but I don't live in Western Ukraine. I don't know how the Ukrainians would feel about that. They did massacre the Poles in Volhynia in 1943...
Also, Poland is really playing world history on hard mode, being caught between Germany and Russia. How many times has Poland been invaded again? But seriously, I have a deep respect for the Poles.
Poland is in EU Firm grip and will not pledge allegiance to Novaya Russia. nor will they do the same mistakes of imperial games again.
There were times Poland was a large nation and Lithuania was in its fold. (There was a moment the Poles were more powerful than the Russ, it changed with the rise of Ivan the Terrible)
dogma wrote: A fair point, though I would contend that many of the technological claims ring hollow. I expect the T-99 to be the next T-95.
We'll see how the PAK FA does.
Oh, it'll be great.
I don't think even the Russians know what it'll be great at, but it'll doubtlessly be great at something. Probably not VLO strike fighter gak, but I bet it'll be a hell of an air show stud.
Letting Russia keep Crimea and then NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine will NOT start a war.
Russia is NOT that fething Dumb.
The cost will be too high.
Whembly, I'm honestly intrigued about what you think the EU/US should do, other than sanctions and asset freezing? Really, what other options are there?
'The cost will be too high' is a phrase that was bandied about in the early 20th century, when countries were hurriedly signing mutual defence pacts to help protect territory. We all know how that worked out.
I don't believe the Ukraine joining NATO is a terribly smart thing to do - in fact, I think it's a terrible idea! It makes the chances of an escalation that much more likely, and we shouldn't be poking the bear with a stick if we're not willing to get swiped..
Ah, appeasement, because that worked so well in '38 when another country started annexing regions to protect their 'native' citizens, didn't it guys?
Letting Russia keep Crimea and then NATO-izing the rest of Ukraine will NOT start a war.
Russia is NOT that fething Dumb.
The cost will be too high.
Whembly, I'm honestly intrigued about what you think the EU/US should do, other than sanctions and asset freezing? Really, what other options are there?
'The cost will be too high' is a phrase that was bandied about in the early 20th century, when countries were hurriedly signing mutual defence pacts to help protect territory. We all know how that worked out.
I don't believe the Ukraine joining NATO is a terribly smart thing to do - in fact, I think it's a terrible idea! It makes the chances of an escalation that much more likely, and we shouldn't be poking the bear with a stick if we're not willing to get swiped..
Ah, appeasement, because that worked so well in '38 when another country started annexing regions to protect their 'native' citizens, didn't it guys?
Godwinned!
This thread has been godwinned about 20 times already. You're late to the party.
You may have heard about a little controversy involving the mention of Adolf Hitler in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Now a new YouGov poll provides a sense of what difference mentioning Hitler can make.
In the poll, respondents were asked whether they thought the U.S. should get involved in Ukraine and what types of involvement were appropriate — sanctions, economic aid, diplomacy, military intervention, and so on. But the poll also involved an experiment. Half of respondents were asked about Ukraine only after they answered these two questions:
“Do you think Vladimir Putin’s actions in Crimea today are similar to what Hitler did in Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938?”
“Would you consider it ‘appeasement’ for the U.S. and other western democracies not to take strong action to defend Ukraine?”
The other half of respondents answered these questions after they were asked about Ukraine. So we can see what effect bringing up Hitler and appeasement had on opinion.
Doug Rivers reports the results:
Only 21% of those asked in the conventional way favored U.S. involvement in the Ukraine. When this question was preceded by the questions about appeasement and comparing Putin to Hitler, support for U.S. involvement rose to 29%. It didn’t change the overall result — a majority of Americans still oppose getting involved in the Ukraine even after the parallel to 1938 is mentioned — but it does make a difference of about 8%.
Mentioning Hitler also tended to increase the percentage of Americans who favored sanctions, economic aid, providing weapons to Ukraine, and intervening militarily — although sanctions and economic aid were by far more popular than either military option. For more, see the post.
It's an agreement that gives Turkey control over the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles and regulates the transit of naval warships. The Convention gives Turkey full control over the Straits and guarantees the free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime. It restricts the passage of naval ships not belonging to Black Sea states.
Spoiler:
Turkey could restrict Russian naval ships and allow NATO ships passage.
That'll make a dent to Russian's economy.
That would be a very BAD idea. Russia has long (like since they first got to the Black Sea) considered access through the Bosphorous as a vital national interest. For a long time, Britain worked to resrtict/limit that access. IIRC it is one of the things that led to the Crimean War. To restrict it now would only escalate things quickly.
That would be a very BAD idea. Russia has long (like since they first got to the Black Sea) considered access through the Bosphorous as a vital national interest. For a long time, Britain worked to resrtict/limit that access. IIRC it is one of the things that led to the Crimean War. To restrict it now would only escalate things quickly.
It would also be illegal, since international law requires Turkey to always allow acces of ships belonging to the Black Sea states in peace time. Turkey is not allowed to close the strait for Black Sea states unless it is at war with one of those states.
That would be a very BAD idea. Russia has long (like since they first got to the Black Sea) considered access through the Bosphorous as a vital national interest. For a long time, Britain worked to resrtict/limit that access. IIRC it is one of the things that led to the Crimean War. To restrict it now would only escalate things quickly.
It would also be illegal, since international law requires Turkey to always allow acces of ships belonging to the Black Sea states in peace time. Turkey is not allowed to close the strait for Black Sea states unless it is at war with one of those states.
Hence I mentioned they would have to break international law.
Whembly, I'm honestly intrigued about what you think the EU/US should do, other than sanctions and asset freezing? Really, what other options are there?
Putting an ABM system in Poland.
Actually... I like this idea even better. Good call!
d-usa wrote: The convention guarantees free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime and only restricts passage of naval ships not belonging to Black Sea states.
Russia is a Black Sea state and it's still peacetime, so I'm not sure how they could do anything to Russia without violating the treaty. Unless I'm missing something...
Nope... you're spot on. Turkey will have to break that treaty.
Like the treaty that Russia broke to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity?
That would be a very BAD idea. Russia has long (like since they first got to the Black Sea) considered access through the Bosphorous as a vital national interest. For a long time, Britain worked to resrtict/limit that access. IIRC it is one of the things that led to the Crimean War. To restrict it now would only escalate things quickly.
It would also be illegal, since international law requires Turkey to always allow acces of ships belonging to the Black Sea states in peace time. Turkey is not allowed to close the strait for Black Sea states unless it is at war with one of those states.
That would be a very BAD idea. Russia has long (like since they first got to the Black Sea) considered access through the Bosphorous as a vital national interest. For a long time, Britain worked to resrtict/limit that access. IIRC it is one of the things that led to the Crimean War. To restrict it now would only escalate things quickly.
Turkey seems to have threatened to close the Bosphorus to Russian ships if there is violence against Crimean Tatars.
As to the Crimean War, there were many, many causes.
That would be a very BAD idea. Russia has long (like since they first got to the Black Sea) considered access through the Bosphorous as a vital national interest. For a long time, Britain worked to resrtict/limit that access. IIRC it is one of the things that led to the Crimean War. To restrict it now would only escalate things quickly.
Turkey seems to have threatened to close the Bosphorus to Russian ships if there is violence against Crimean Tatars.
As to the Crimean War, there were many, many causes.
Of course there were. I just vaguely recall access to the Bosphorus as one of them.
There is a large victory rally in Moscow right now and one of the guys that got to speak said that Obama was a puppet of the KKK I just found that really funny and had to mention it here
whembly wrote: CNN is reporting that the Ukrainian base in Crimea is under attack...
I hope this is just a journalistic malpractice... o.O
They have said that tons of times now already, and all the previous times it was not true or massively overreacted. I guess it is the same now. Russia and Ukraine have already agreed that those Ukrainian soldiers that do not want to swear allegiance to Russia will be peacefully withdrawn this month.
That would be a very BAD idea. Russia has long (like since they first got to the Black Sea) considered access through the Bosphorous as a vital national interest. For a long time, Britain worked to resrtict/limit that access. IIRC it is one of the things that led to the Crimean War. To restrict it now would only escalate things quickly.
Turkey seems to have threatened to close the Bosphorus to Russian ships if there is violence against Crimean Tatars.
As to the Crimean War, there were many, many causes.
OT but can someone illuminate me. Supposedly the minority group in Crimea is predominately Tatars correct? Is this the same tribe of fellow horse people that Temudgin allegedly completely destroyed?
Frazzled wrote: OT but can someone illuminate me. Supposedly the minority group in Crimea is predominately Tatars correct? Is this the same tribe of fellow horse people that Temudgin allegedly completely destroyed?
Yes and no. The Crimean Tatars of today have several ethnic ancestors (Tatars, Kipchaks, Turks, etc.).
Frazzled wrote: OT but can someone illuminate me. Supposedly the minority group in Crimea is predominately Tatars correct? Is this the same tribe of fellow horse people that Temudgin allegedly completely destroyed?
The Tatar ethnicity is not the same as the Tatar Confederation and, while the Confederation was destroyed, the ethnicity was not.
“Do you think Vladimir Putin’s actions in Crimea today are similar to what Hitler did in Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938?”
“Would you consider it ‘appeasement’ for the U.S. and other western democracies not to take strong action to defend Ukraine?”
Well in that case the US might do something in a couple of years if another nation attacks them...........Plus we have only just finished paying off the debt that the UK ran up to the US paying off the last world war............
Ukrainian soldier killed in Crimea base; PM says conflict is now military
Shooting in Ukrainian army base near Crimean capital is a 'war crime,' Ukrainian PM says.
Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk said on Tuesday that the conflict in its Crimea peninsula, now under Russian control, had entered a military phase after an Ukrainian officer was killed in an alleged Russian shooting at a Crimea base.
"The conflict is moving from a political one to a military one because of Russian soldiers," he told a meeting at Ukraine's defense ministry. "Today, Russian soldiers began shooting at Ukrainian servicemen and this is a war crime without any expiry under a statute of limitations."
Yatseniuk said he had ordered Ukraine's defense minister to call a meeting with his counterparts from Britain, France, and Russia - signatories to a 1994 treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's borders to "prevent an escalation of the conflict".
Earlier, a military spokesman said a Ukrainian officer was killed in a shooting at a military facility on the outskirts of the Crimean capital Simferopol, but it was unclear who was behind the incident.
Some Ukrainian military facilities in Crimea have been under the control of Russian forces for several weeks after Russian troops poured into the Black Sea peninsula ahead of a referendum at the weekend that handed over control from Ukraine to Russia.
There was no immediate evidence that Russian soldiers were involved in Tuesday's incident, witnesses said, and there are contradictory accounts about the identity of the victim, with Ukrainian media claiming he is a Ukrainian soldier, and pro-Russian sources saying he is a member of the local "self defence forces."
It was not possible to see far into the compound, because streets leading to it had been blocked by so-called "self-defense" units of pro-Russian volunteers who have been patrolling the streets of Crimea in the run-up to the referendum.
There have been major concerns over whether the governments of Russia and Ukraine, who are at loggerheads over Moscow's annexation of Crimea, could achieve a smooth handover of control of Ukrainian military bases in the region.
Pro-Russian nationalists have been seen gathering outside Ukrainian military bases on several occasions this month, demanding that Ukrainian soldiers leave and hand over control to Russian forces.
The fact that the road blocks outside the facility in Simferopol were staffed by "self-defense" units suggested it was they who were involved in the incident rather than Russian forces. The situation was calm by 1520 GMT.
On Sunday, the Ukrainian and Russian Defense Ministries said they had agreed on a truce.
Yatsenyuk knows that as soon as this conflict becomes a war, he has a week in office left in the best of cases. He also knows that no one, not the US, not NATO, not the EU countries, not Turkey, would ever intervene militarily on his behalf.
Basically, Putin is free to do whatever he wants with Ukraine, as long as the west's inevitable sanctions seem to be worth it. Yatsenyuk will hiss and spit and denounce Russia, and that will be the extent of his power.
CNN: "We don't care about being right, we care about being first."
That isn't just CNN, it's all news agencies. Verifying stories means some other station gets the jump on you, and no station will allow that to happen. The shame of it is I don't think people really insist on news right now even if it isn't true, they'd much rather hear reliable news given with informed context, even if it comes a few hours later. But the news agencies themselves don't realise that, and just push to get stuff on air as soon as possible.
It's a bit like how until quite recently the stars of political reporting were the people with inside contacts who could report on all the inner goings on of the appointment of the new Interior Land Management advisor etc... But then with the internet it become pretty clear pretty quickly that people don't actually give a gak about that gossip, what people actually read was the stuff that helped them understand the policy being debated.
CNN: "We don't care about being right, we care about being first."
That isn't just CNN, it's all news agencies.
To be fair, CNN is going way overboard with the inept news coverage in the race to be first. They did this during the Boston Marathon bombing and again most recently with their coverage of the missing flight out of Malaysia. Sure, other networks have their... flaws, but CNN takes "the dumb" to a whole new level.
CNN: "We don't care about being right, we care about being first."
That isn't just CNN, it's all news agencies.
To be fair, CNN is going way overboard with the inept news coverage in the race to be first. They did this during the Boston Marathon bombing and again most recently with their coverage of the missing flight out of Malaysia. Sure, other networks have their... flaws, but CNN takes "the dumb" to a whole new level.
They're probably trying to race Fox News to the bottom.
That isn't just CNN, it's all news agencies. Verifying stories means some other station gets the jump on you, and no station will allow that to happen. The shame of it is I don't think people really insist on news right now even if it isn't true, they'd much rather hear reliable news given with informed context, even if it comes a few hours later. But the news agencies themselves don't realise that, and just push to get stuff on air as soon as possible.
Also consider that putting out a story before anyone else increases the likelihood that your story will be cited by other journalists, which leads to hits for the relevant news agency's website (read: advertising dollars) and enhanced publication credentials for the author.
CNN: "We don't care about being right, we care about being first."
That isn't just CNN, it's all news agencies.
To be fair, CNN is going way overboard with the inept news coverage in the race to be first. They did this during the Boston Marathon bombing and again most recently with their coverage of the missing flight out of Malaysia. Sure, other networks have their... flaws, but CNN takes "the dumb" to a whole new level.
Wait CNN took time away from their All Malaysia Flight Speculation! ALL THE TIME! policy?
In their defense one cannot count to 30 before Fox mentions "Obamacare" or MSNBC screams "CHRISTIE IS THE ANTICHRIST!"
As for asking "Russians" to apply for visa... yikes! What makes a Ukrainian citizen? o.O
So... Iron_Captain, if you truly believe that Crimea really want to be annexed into Russian... why won't Russia let Chechnya go?
Ukraine is also very much dependent on Russia, lots of Ukrainians in the East work in Russia, so leaving the CIS would hurt Ukraine a lot.
As to Chechnya, the situation there is completely different. The short version of the story is that the Chechen seperatists are radical islamists, want to install Sharia law and opress their people and they have no major world power backing them up.
There is also the matter that Chechnya has been a part of Russia since 1500, so one could consider it an integral part of Russia.
On the other hand, the Chechen people have been resisting Russian rule since the moment they were conquered (and even before that) and if they hadn't been terrorist scum, I would have been of the opinion that they should get their independence if they want it so much.
However, seeing what they did at Beslan, my opinion towards them is best not shared here on Dakka.
I really didn't care about it in general. But, since the aftermath of Beslan... I don't care about anything what the separatist want. To me, they're scum of the earth. And that's give "scum" a bad name.
My earlier point was that Putin justified the annexation because Crimea apparently wants to... (whether it's legit or not). Chechnya wanted out...
No worries... I realize english isn't your first language (but, you're doing exceptionally well). I only know english and can read a dead languange in ancient Latin and Attic Greek (not very well either).
whembly wrote: No worries... I realize english isn't your first language (but, you're doing exceptionally well). I only know english and can read a dead languange in ancient Latin and Attic Greek (not very well either).
*not posting the images as it breaks the swear word policy here at dakka.
Thanks. I have lived in the UK for a while, but English is still not my native language, and it is sometimes still hard. Especially slang terms and memes etc. I really thought it meant something quite different Those pictures are funny.
Interesting. Now Estonia is worried. However Estonia is part of NATO. Would Germany go to war to defend Estonia if "undisclosed troops wearing green" suddenly appeared in that country?
Also interesting out. If "green troops" appear in Ukraine and RUssia says no Russian troops there, can the US arclight them and say they're just killing terrorists?
1) Purely personal opinion/conviction: Apart from maybe the UK, France and Poland noEU country would go to war with anybody for whatever reason save self-defense. I honestly believe our pledges of mutual assistance aren't worth the paper they're written on once the gak hits the fan.
NATO actions are a different story, because those mean that 'Murica will be coming over and kick ass. Much easier to be brave when you know your big brother is backing you up.
Russia has also stationed nearly a quarter million of it's troops on the rest of the Ukranian border and appear as if they can invade at any time. About a third of the Ukranian military is "trapped" in the Crimea. If Russia wanted to push in, nothing would stop them right now.
That's, ultimately, the crux of the issue. Absent permission that is granted by a Ukrainian government that is recognized as being legitimate, any US intervention is really just invasion.
Also interesting out. If "green troops" appear in Ukraine and RUssia says no Russian troops there, can the US arclight them and say they're just killing terrorists?
During a military exercise the US is alleged to have killed over 300 so called "green troops". In response, the US has said "They were unmarked, so we assumed they were target dummies."
So... Iron_Captain, if you truly believe that Crimea really want to be annexed into Russian... why won't Russia let Chechnya go?
The hypocrisy is so bad you'd laugh if their weren't lives at stake. Russia thinks that Crimea has the right to go when it has no history while Russia keeps Chechnya firmly under control. The US cries crocodile tears about international law and sovereignty of nations even though the US claims to be upholding international law by bombing Libya and having its leader executed.
Has anyone heard what the Russians are doing with the Ukranian soldiers that they've been capturing?
Are they releasing them back to the Ukraine, holding them as POW's, or are they just making them "dissapear" since the Russians aren't broadcasting themselves as Russians?
Interesting. So to all those people claiming that the Russian intimidation will have rigged/swung the vote, there was previously a Crimean President democratically elected on that platform. And then his position was abolished by the Ukrainian Parliament.
Starting to sound to me like Crimea's wanted to be Russian for a long time now.
Interesting. So to all those people claiming that the Russian intimidation will have rigged/swung the vote, there was previously a Crimean President democratically elected on that platform. And then his position was abolished by the Ukrainian Parliament.
Starting to sound to me like Crimea's wanted to be Russian for a long time now.
Don't think anyone's claiming there isn't a significant pro-Russian segment of Crimea, but you're an easy mark if you think the fake referendum was anything other than astroturfing. 56% of Crimea is ethnic Russian, but there was an 85% turn out with 95% voting for Joining with Russia rather than independance - that means not only would every single person with Russian heratige have to get out and vote for joining with Russia, but significant majority of ethnic Ukrainians and Tartars (who have zero love for Russia) happily voted to become ethnic minorities in Russia. No, it was a poorly and obviously rigged referendum.
Interesting. So to all those people claiming that the Russian intimidation will have rigged/swung the vote, there was previously a Crimean President democratically elected on that platform. And then his position was abolished by the Ukrainian Parliament.
Starting to sound to me like Crimea's wanted to be Russian for a long time now.
Don't think anyone's claiming there isn't a significant pro-Russian segment of Crimea, but you're an easy mark if you think the fake referendum was anything other than astroturfing. 56% of Crimea is ethnic Russian, but there was an 85% turn out with 95% voting for Joining with Russia rather than independance - that means not only would every single person with Russian heratige have to get out and vote for joining with Russia, but significant majority of ethnic Ukrainians and Tartars (who have zero love for Russia) happily voted to become ethnic minorities in Russia. No, it was a poorly and obviously rigged referendum.
I've also heard that a significant portion of the population was actually barred from being allowed to vote...
While this wasn't quite as obviously fudged as Kim Jong Un's most recent election, it was still pretty clearly a dirty vote.
Don't think anyone's claiming there isn't a significant pro-Russian segment of Crimea, but you're an easy mark if you think the fake referendum was anything other than astroturfing. 56% of Crimea is ethnic Russian, but there was an 85% turn out with 95% voting for Joining with Russia rather than independance - that means not only would every single person with Russian heratige have to get out and vote for joining with Russia, but significant majority of ethnic Ukrainians and Tartars (who have zero love for Russia) happily voted to become ethnic minorities in Russia. No, it was a poorly and obviously rigged referendum.
Just over 60% of Crimean residents are ethnic Russians, and ~24% are ethnic Ukrainians; and ethnic Ukrainians would not necessarily support the notion that Crimea should be a part of Ukraine.
As to the turnout rate, no one really knows. It is somewhere between 78% and 85%. But, assuming 85%, it isn't hard to believe that a region which has long rebelled against Ukrainian governance would predominantly vote for Russian annexation.
Don't think anyone's claiming there isn't a significant pro-Russian segment of Crimea, but you're an easy mark if you think the fake referendum was anything other than astroturfing. 56% of Crimea is ethnic Russian, but there was an 85% turn out with 95% voting for Joining with Russia rather than independance - that means not only would every single person with Russian heratige have to get out and vote for joining with Russia, but significant majority of ethnic Ukrainians and Tartars (who have zero love for Russia) happily voted to become ethnic minorities in Russia. No, it was a poorly and obviously rigged referendum.
Just over 60% of Crimean residents are ethnic Russians, and ~24% are ethnic Ukrainians; and ethnic Ukrainians would not necessarily support the notion that Crimea should be a part of Ukraine.
As to the turnout rate, no one really knows. It is somewhere between 78% and 85%. But, assuming 85%, it isn't hard to believe that a region which has long rebelled against Ukrainian governance would predominantly vote for Russian annexation.
And not for "independance" which was also supposedly an option? No, bad astro turfing at best. I could believe a vote to join Russia might succeed, that is a possibility, but the vote that was taken, because of both the manner it was conducted and the highly dubious results , should not have any amount of bearing on the legitimacy of what I has happened, and in my opinion actually detracts further from any legitimacy Russia's actions might have had, making Putin seem Stalin-esque.
I'm not even sure it was an attempt at astroturfing. Usually, elections with an outcome of 90%+ in favor of one option are not supposed to fool anybody, they are supposed to show all those who did not vote, were prevented from voting or voted differently that they are totally powerless. They are a demonstration of control, and nothing more.
Furthermore, yes, it's probably true that the Crimean population would even have voted to unite with Russia in fair and free elections; what Putin showed was that he doesn't need to have those and nobody can do anything about it. It's simply a huge middle finger to the west and all the dissidents in Russia and Crimea.
Interesting. So to all those people claiming that the Russian intimidation will have rigged/swung the vote, there was previously a Crimean President democratically elected on that platform. And then his position was abolished by the Ukrainian Parliament.
Starting to sound to me like Crimea's wanted to be Russian for a long time now.
Since 1991 to be precise
Maddermax wrote: that means not only would every single person with Russian heratige have to get out and vote for joining with Russia, but significant majority of ethnic Ukrainians and Tartars (who have zero love for Russia).
That is not true. There sure are plenty of Tatars who have little love for Russia due to historic events, but many other Tatars were supportive of joining Russia. But don't expect to see those in Western media Some Tatars boycotted the referendum, but that was only a part of the Tatar community and the Tatar community is already only a small part of the Crimean population. Some ethnic Ukrainians were of course against, but most Crimean Ukrainians speak Russian as their native language and consider themselves as much Russian as Ukrainian, if not more Russian. It is not unlikely most of those Ukrainians voted in favour of joining Russia, especially considering the economic benefits joining Russia would bring and the messy state that Ukraine is in.
No, bad astro turfing at best. I could believe a vote to join Russia might succeed, that is a possibility, but the vote that was taken, because of both the manner it was conducted and the highly dubious results , should not have any amount of bearing on the legitimacy of what I has happened, and in my opinion actually detracts further from any legitimacy Russia's actions might have had, making Putin seem Stalin-esque.
so, we now have the new revolutionary paramilitary in ukraine robbing trains.
"On March 21, the train, en route from Moscow to the capital of Moldova, Chisinau, made a scheduled stop in the city of Vinnitsa in central Ukraine.
“To the horror of passengers…people dressed in the uniform of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) got into carriages and began a ‘document check’. People who showed Russian passports were then made to hand over their money and golden jewelry,” the Russian Ministry said on Monday in a statement published on its website.
The robbery was accompanied with “political sensitization,” diplomats said.
Moscow also said it was “bewildered” by the refusal of the Ukrainian police to take any action when the victims attempted to file a report.
“That is the kind of ‘rule of law’ that is currently being formed in Ukraine,” the ministry said. “It seems that the anarchy of the beginning of the 20th century is reviving.”
I was flicking through a copy of the Daily Fail earlier, and happened on the column by Peter Hitchen. He noted that one story not currently being reported by the Western media is how one of the far-right Ukrainian MP's forced his way into the office of the head of the largest Ukrainian television company with five muscular friends, and then started issuing threats and anti-ethnic Russian invective and insults. This same MP is currently on the new Ukrainian Committee for Free Speech.
Its in the background when it should be front page though...
That the neo nazi party literally BEAT a man to force him to resign should be much more prominent news... same with the train robbery story, and the attempted gas line seizure by the Ukrainian militants.
But that would be too much like confirming that the neo nazi party is doing nazi type stuff.
easysauce wrote: Its in the background when it should be front page though...
That the neo nazi party literally BEAT a man to force him to resign should be much more prominent news... same with the train robbery story, and the attempted gas line seizure by the Ukrainian militants.
But that would be too much like confirming that the neo nazi party is doing nazi type stuff.
You expect the world to admit it might have been wrong to jump on a side?
wow... the revolutionary government now has even more internal strife,
One of right sectors prominent leaders has been killed by police in a shoot out.
the police claim they had to shoot him 5 times to kill him, while right sector claims he was already tied up and wounded before he was killed execution style to get him out of the way.
either way, he is dead, and now right sector is vowing revenge.
I've been saying this from the beginning, The West is going to end up looking like fools because of their knee jerk "Putin Bad" reaction, while Putin's Gambit will come out looking better and better and better.
Could US foreign policy be any worse than it has been in the last 10 years? Seriously.
Eastern Ukraine in Putin hand in six month.....1 Billion dollar loan/frant/whatever going to go pay off what Western Ukraine owes Russia....US got fleeced...Western Europe on the petroleum nipple Russia provides...gets better and better
Over 1,500 nationalists from the Right Sector have circled Ukrainian parliament in Kiev threatening to storm it on Thursday. They demanded the resignation of the interior minister after their leader Muzychko was killed in a police operation.
Up to 2,000 members of the Right Sector, which recently was revamped into a political party, flooded the square in front of Verkhovna Rada in the Ukrainian capital on Thursday night. The radicals, who brought car tires to burn with them, were banging on the Parliament’s doors, smashing the glass parts in them.
Wearing masks and brandishing bats, they were shouting "Avakov, get out!"
If anyone is interested, this flowchart from Nomura is how their internal risk team is attempting to quantify the political uncertainty in the Ukraine.
sebster wrote: If anyone is interested, this flowchart from Nomura is how their internal risk team is attempting to quantify the political uncertainty in the Ukraine.
Weird, where is the "Russia tears Ukraine apart/Ukraine tears itself apart option?"
easysauce wrote: Over 1,500 nationalists from the Right Sector have circled Ukrainian parliament in Kiev threatening to storm it on Thursday. They demanded the resignation of the interior minister after their leader Muzychko was killed in a police operation.
Up to 2,000 members of the Right Sector, which recently was revamped into a political party, flooded the square in front of Verkhovna Rada in the Ukrainian capital on Thursday night. The radicals, who brought car tires to burn with them, were banging on the Parliament’s doors, smashing the glass parts in them.
Wearing masks and brandishing bats, they were shouting "Avakov, get out!"
Ukraine will never get its act together until its developed a quality women's beach volleyball team.
Eventually....someone might put Putin "In Check". The talk of "putting boots on ground" is getting out o hand.....That armor Corp going to steam roll right to the halfway point in Ukraine. Only thing holding it back is "attacks on ethnic Russians".
Jihadin wrote: Eventually....someone might put Putin "In Check". The talk of "putting boots on ground" is getting out o hand.....That armor Corp going to steam roll right to the halfway point in Ukraine. Only thing holding it back is "attacks on ethnic Russians".
Well as we have learned, nothing stops the unjustified and hostile expansion of aggressors like unjustifiably expanding and surrounding them with bases. "HOW DARE THEY"!
Why is NATO trying to get into eastern Europe and Russia's backyard?
yeah... her popularity is just one of the ways we see how outside of the US, support for the west on this issue is quite lax, plenty of countries who signed the UN resolution only did so under duress (sign this or that agreement we had wont happen, ect).
Map is wrong Andrew...An Embassy houses USMC security so basically that world map...belongs to the USMC....aannnddddd KM and other Leathernecks ego has hit a new high water mark,,
Jihadin wrote: Map is wrong Andrew...An Embassy houses USMC security so basically that world map...belongs to the USMC....aannnddddd KM and other Leathernecks ego has hit a new high water mark,,
Jihadin wrote: What US military bases do we have in Thailand? Australia? Iceland? Canada? Panama?
Think the one in Iceland may have closed down, but to my knowledge, which is based purely on hearsay and the ramblings of the older generations of my MOS, it was a weather station, as well as an MI detachment (or rather, more of a relay spot)
We have a mid sized maintenance facility for the army in Australia. From what I gather, it's right near one of the worst prisons in the country, and near a not so nice town.
We don't have an embassy say..Cuba..we do have an office there. Six peep office run by Immigration. We have an office in Iran run by Sweden. Not in North Korea...over all if we do not have an Embassy in country then its a office run by by USCIS or Sweden.
Jihadin wrote: What US military bases do we have in Thailand? Australia? Iceland? Canada? Panama?
The expansion of the US base in Darwin and deployment of US ground troops to the area was a fairly big deal here, to the extent that any foreign policy issue outside of a war receives that much interest.
I'm kind of surprised it didn't get any attention among the military set in the US. It was a fairly important part of the US looking to hem in Chinese expansion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Why do we have military bases in the US unless we plan on invading the US?!
I'm kind of surprised it didn't get any attention among the military set in the US. It was a fairly important part of the US looking to hem in Chinese expansion.
Jihadin wrote: What US military bases do we have in Thailand? Australia? Iceland? Canada? Panama?
There are joint US/Canadian NORAD installations in Canada. We have 2500 Marines stationed in Perth or Darwin, Australia (forget which), and the Navy and Air Force utilize Australian Naval and Air facilities for various purposes. The US has a defense pact with Iceland (we had a base there until 2006), used by AF/Navy for flight ops. Panama and Thailand I have no clue. The map is inaccurate btw, as we have bases in Africa, specifically Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, though I believe there are some others.
Jihadin wrote: What US military bases do we have in Thailand? Australia? Iceland? Canada? Panama?
The expansion of the US base in Darwin and deployment of US ground troops to the area was a fairly big deal here, to the extent that any foreign policy issue outside of a war receives that much interest.
I'm kind of surprised it didn't get any attention among the military set in the US. It was a fairly important part of the US looking to hem in Chinese expansion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Why do we have military bases in the US unless we plan on invading the US?!
That is pretty much the perfect answer.
It did get a lot of news here... at least I and most of my friends in the AF, Marines, and Navy knew about it... maybe he just wasnt paying attention? Or he doesn't care since the Army doesnt seem to be doing any rotations there.
Ironclad Warlord wrote: Didn't know people were still talking about this, I thought Russia got the Crimea, and American and the EU backed down, am I missing something?
The Crimea thing is almost settled, Russia gets it and the West can't do nothing about it.
What is more interesting in this moment is the rest of Ukraine.
