Well.Putin holding one major military exercise across Ukraine border....Obama reacting to it....going with more sanctions I believe...tit for tat sanctions..
Russia would never dare to annex further Ukrainian territory. The West's sanctions would be crippling: Cancellation of another 4 previously planned cocktail parties, travel restrictions for the vice secretaries of the vice governors of Sverdlovsk, Kalmykia and Lipetsk, plus freezing the eBay auction where Putin scored that neat, good-as-new fishing rod at a great price.
Allod wrote: Russia would never dare to annex further Ukrainian territory. The West's sanctions would be crippling: Cancellation of another 4 previously planned cocktail parties, travel restrictions for the vice secretaries of the vice governors of Sverdlovsk, Kalmykia and Lipetsk, plus freezing the eBay auction where Putin scored that neat, good-as-new fishing rod at a great price.
Allod wrote: Russia would never dare to annex further Ukrainian territory. The West's sanctions would be crippling: Cancellation of another 4 previously planned cocktail parties, travel restrictions for the vice secretaries of the vice governors of Sverdlovsk, Kalmykia and Lipetsk, plus freezing the eBay auction where Putin scored that neat, good-as-new fishing rod at a great price.
Russia will annex what the Ukraine government will let it annex, because in all this mess no one has been a larger ally to Russia than the idiots in Kiev. I mean, who was crazy enough to scare and push Crimea in Russia's arms?
If Kiev grows a brain then Russia isn't going to annex anything more. But if Ukraine falls in a Civil war or Kiev tries some gak against Eastern Ukraine then everybody knows what will happen.
Frazzled wrote: In other news Poland is biggie sizing their defense spending. Plus they are looking at a new kewl tank that looks like something the Tau would have.
Kind of surprised they aren't secretly working on nukes...
Well... after the events in Crimea... would you blame them?
You mean the Red Dawn style attack, where Russia violently overtook Ukraine? Now maybe instead of annexing Crimea into Russia, they could have supported a new State, but whatevers. I seam to remember a few conflicts where we thought people would be happy to see our troops and look how those turned out. If the Crimeans really have a problem with Russian annexation, I haven't seen any proof of it. I'm sure the West would have been happy to run the freedom fighters some weapons if it were the case.
Seriously, I think Russia did what anyone would do and what the West has done on a pretty regular basis. Although to be fair the west doesn't wait until the Warsaw pact is knocking on Mexicos door. Could you imagine the gakfit Nato would have if Russia started recruiting some of our economically weaker allies like Mexico or Greece to join the new Russian Federation?
NATO really overextended its reach by trying to make a grab for Ukraine, and it shows a real lack of understanding if they thought that Putin's Russia was just going to let that slide. NATO has no legitimate reason to try to extend its reach into Russia's back yard, the fact that people don't see how Russia could see this as a threat is mind boggling.
Russia has played it perfectly, making the West look like buffoons and Ukraine looks like a schizophrenic.
It all reminds me of a touching scene from one of my favorite movies.
"Hey Nato.....Do you like Apples?"
"I got Crimea! How do you like them Apples!"
Now all Russia has to do is economically cripple Ukraine by raising the cost of natural gas and boom there goes the Ukrainian economy.
I'm not sure who here really has the better hand to play, but I'm sure the Global Military Industrial complex is just watering at the mouth to sell weapons to everyone.
http://rt.com/news/nasa-suspends-relations-roscosmos-961/ I wonder how the Americans will get into space now? Also, are the astronauts on the ISS now trapped there? To me, it seems Nasa is shooting itself in the foot now. Wouldn't they do better to stay out of politics and focus their space stuff?
Frazzled wrote: The Poles? Read again they have about 500 MBTs and that new tank looks low and wicked.
Kind of surprised they aren't secretly working on nukes...
You underestimate their ingenuity. They build a nuke then put it on a catapult powered by methane gas. Then they get a metric ton of Polish sausage give it 10,000 football hooligans and....well you get the idea.
No one expects the Polish Catapult!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: http://rt.com/news/nasa-suspends-relations-roscosmos-961/ I wonder how the Americans will get into space now? Also, are the astronauts on the ISS now trapped there? To me, it seems Nasa is shooting itself in the foot now. Wouldn't they do better to stay out of politics and focus their space stuff?
Yea thats pretty stupid so about par for the course.
Frazzled wrote: You underestimate their ingenuity. They build a nuke then put it on a catapult powered by methane gas. Then they get a metric ton of Polish sausage give it 10,000 football hooligans and....well you get the idea.
No one expects the Polish Catapult!
I have been looking for an excuse to post a Polandball comic here. This is the perfect opportunity!
The thing that gets me is that Poland is allied with Germany...against Russia! Doesn't feel natural to somebody that's read a lot of eastern European history.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The thing that gets me is that Poland is allied with Germany...against Russia! Doesn't feel natural to somebody that's read a lot of eastern European history.
Not sure which history books you are reading. The Germans, Russians and even the Western Allies fethed Poland pretty badly in WW2.
I wonder if other countries will decide that giving up their nuclear deterrent is no longer in their interests
Considering that the Ukraine did that in exchange for protection and that from the countries that were supposed to protect them, one was the one that invaded them and the others just shrugged, it would take some pretty dumb head of state to give up their nuclear arsenal after this fiasco...
Frazzled wrote: You underestimate their ingenuity. They build a nuke then put it on a catapult powered by methane gas. Then they get a metric ton of Polish sausage give it 10,000 football hooligans and....well you get the idea.
No one expects the Polish Catapult!
I have been looking for an excuse to post a Polandball comic here. This is the perfect opportunity!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The thing that gets me is that Poland is allied with Germany...against Russia! Doesn't feel natural to somebody that's read a lot of eastern European history.
My enemy's enemy is my friend. Today.
PhantomViper wrote: Considering that the Ukraine did that in exchange for protection and that from the countries that were supposed to protect them, one was the one that invaded them and the others just shrugged, it would take some pretty dumb head of state to give up their nuclear arsenal after this fiasco...
I remember the usual useful idiots bleating that US foreign policy was telling countries to stockpile chemical/nuclear weapons to prevent invasion. Russia's actions seem to have robbed them of their voice.
Considering that the Ukraine did that in exchange for protection and that from the countries that were supposed to protect them, one was the one that invaded them and the others just shrugged, it would take some pretty dumb head of state to give up their nuclear arsenal after this fiasco...
Have you seen what is going on in the Ukraine? I'm pretty happy they don't have nukes. That is one unstable country right now.
NATO now has Ukraine.....and all the headaches, problems and financial responsibility that comes with supporting a country in complete chaos in almost every respect.
Russia got Crimea, and all the "problems" that come from a population that actively wants them there.
Russia 10, NATO -200
What long term effects this will have on the Russian and Global economy is really the biggest issue. Russia is in a pretty strong position, but we will just have to see how much effect NATO countries isolating Russia will have. Russia's Economy is based on Energy and Natural Resources, something the world really needs right now.
PhantomViper wrote:Considering that the Ukraine did that in exchange for protection and that from the countries that were supposed to protect them, one was the one that invaded them and the others just shrugged, it would take some pretty dumb head of state to give up their nuclear arsenal after this fiasco...
To be fair, it's not as if Ukraine had a real choice in the matter. Newborn Russia was always going to evacuate its nukes from newborn Ukraine, and those protection guarantees she got were a gesture, nothing more.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:My enemy's enemy is my friend. Today.
You would need to find some very, let's say, special people if you wanted to see Germans or Polish who actually thought of their neighbors as "enemies" in any sense of the word.
Andrew1975 wrote:Russia is in a pretty strong position, but we will just have to see how much effect NATO countries isolating Russia will have. Russia's Economy is based on Energy and Natural Resources, something the world really needs right now.
What isolation? For the forseeable future, Europe is dependent on Russian gas and can not risk any meaningful sanctions. And that's the end of the story; you can't isolate a country if its most important trade partner is not aboard.
Putin won, and can continue to win as long as he wants, because he knows that a) nobody will go to a war that could become a nuclear one for Ukraine, and b) Europe will not dare to hurt Russia economically, because the repercussions would topple all the involved European governments in the end, and leaders tend to like staying in power.
All this huffing and puffing of NATO, the EU, etc. was nothing but embarrassing mummery from the beginning.
That's what I was saying, Russia is in a very comfortable position. There is a lot of bluster about economic sanctions, but I don't really see that hurting Russia very much.
Private Eye 1362 wrote:HAGUE 'STARK WARNING TO PUTIN'
Whilst on a visit to Kiev the British Foreign Secretary William Hague has issued a stark warning to Vladimir Putin that unless Russia withdraws its troops from Crimea, Western leaders will continue to tweet pictures of themselves on the phone looking pensive to each other.
"Already today we've seen a number of tweets of David Cameron on the phone to Barack Obama doing his slightly constipated face," the Foreign Secretary told reporters. "President Putin needs to understand that the West is united in its determination to look really quite cross".
"At the moment they're only frowning but we are ruling nothing out - including tutting and even blowing air out of their cheeks. We hope the fact that these pictures are getting hundreds of re-tweets means President Putin knows the West means business".
Be careful what you wish for... cause gak is getting real in Crimea.
Danielle Wiener-Bronner wrote:Crimeans Cut Off from Methadone and McDonald's After Annexation
As Western leaders continue attempts to cajole and threaten Russia away from Crimea, the Kremlin is beginning to flex its muscle in the region — starting with shuttering methadone clinics that help rehabilitate heroin addicts, and likely prompting the decision by McDonald's to temporarily close its Crimea locations.
According to the Associated Press, local doctors promised the 800 patients who visit the clinics that the program, in place for five years, would be extended at least throughout 2014. But Russia’s Federal Drug Control Service chief Viktor Ivanov issued a harsh statement against the program, which is illegal in Russia, saying it will be shut down without offering concessions to its users. Ivanov, quoted in Russian news agency ITAR-TASS, maligned the program, saying:
Methadone is not a cure. Practically all methadone supplies in Ukraine were circulating on the secondary market and distributed as a narcotic drug in the absence of proper control. As a result, it spread to the shadow market and traded there at much higher prices. It became a source of criminal incomes
Andriy Klepikov, the executive director of the International HIV/AIDS Alliance in Ukraine, discussed the urgency of the situation in a blog post on The Huffington Post, saying that they could be without the drug in a few short weeks:
n Sevastopol substitution therapy sites have already been compelled to start decreasing patients' dosage. There is a very strong likelihood that these opioid substitution therapy patients will go into withdrawal and potentially revert to illegal drugs, which in turn puts them at much greater risk of contracting HIV through dirty needle
Ukrainian officials say they will not continue to send methadone to Crimea, and recommend that those seeking treatment move to the mainland. The methadone clinics have been used to help stop the spread of HIV in Crimea, and their ban could mean a reversal of any steps taken towards containing the disease. The AP reports:
The ban could undermine years of efforts to reduce the spread of AIDS in Crimea; some 12,000 of the region's 2 million people are HIV-positive, a 2012 UNICEF survey found. After years of rapid growth in the infection rate, the Ukrainian Health Ministry reported the first decline in 2012. Many have attributed that decline to methadone therapy. According to the International HIV/AIDS Alliance of Ukraine... drug injectors accounted for 62 percent of new HIV infections in Ukraine in 2002. By 2013, that number was down to 33 percent.
If anything, Russia could benefit from some methadone clinics of its own. HIV is spreading quickly in the country — Russian Federal AIDS Center said the number of registered HIV patients spiked by 11 percent in 2013.
Some Crimeans will also have to wean themselves off a (not serious) addiction as McDonald's plans to close down its locations in the region, for now. According to the company, "due to operational reasons beyond our control, McDonald's has taken the decision to temporarily close our three restaurants in Simferopol, Sevastopol and Yalta." Reuters reports that employees at these locations can relocate to branches in Ukraine, for the same pay and three months rent. The company added, "We understand and respect each employee's decision. If they do not wish to move to another city in Ukraine we will, in accordance with Ukrainian law, offer options to end their employment with a redundancy payment." McDonald's European headquarters said the plan is to "re-open our restaurants as soon as possible."
As far as we can tell, that makes two excellent reasons for Crimea to defect from Russia and return to Ukraine.
Pro-Russian protesters who seized the regional government building in the Ukrainian city of Donetsk are reported to have declared a "people's republic".
The rebels have called for a referendum on secession from Ukraine by 11 May.
Ukrainian security officials are being sent to the eastern cities of Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv after pro-Russia groups occupied government buildings.
Interim President Oleksandr Turchynov called the unrest an attempt by Russia to "dismember" Ukraine.
Continue reading the main story
At the scene
image of Steve Rosenberg
Steve Rosenberg
BBC News, Donetsk
When I was in Donetsk three weeks ago, the regional administration building reminded me of a fortress: it was protected by a ring of riot police, barbed wire and water cannon parked in the yard.
Looking at the building this evening, the change couldn't be more dramatic. The police have disappeared. In their place, pro-Russia activists are chanting "Russia! Russia!" Russian flags are flying from flagpoles outside.
The number of protesters on the square isn't large: 1,000 at most. And it was only a few hundred who stormed the building last night. What's more, surveys show that separatist sentiment in Donetsk and other parts of eastern Ukraine is not strong.
But small numbers can achieve big things when there is a power vacuum. And so far, the pro-Kiev authorities in Donetsk appear unable to restore order.
In an address on national TV, he said it was "the second wave" of a Russian operation to destabilise Ukraine, overthrow the government and disrupt planned elections.
Russia's foreign ministry accused Kiev of "blaming" Moscow for all its troubles.
But US Secretary of State John Kerry said that the events "did not appear to be spontaneous".
He called on Russia to "publicly disavow the activities of separatists, saboteurs and provocateurs" in a phone call to his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov.
The pair also discussed convening direct talks between Ukraine, Russia, the US and the European Union within ten days, the US state department said.
'War with Russia'
Russia recently annexed Ukraine's Crimean peninsula after a referendum there which Ukraine did not see as valid.
As tensions mounted on Monday, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Deshchytsya told Russia's Ekho Moskvy news agency that Kiev would go to war with Russia if it sent troops into eastern Ukraine.
Moscow has thousands of troops massed along its border with Ukraine. It says it has no intention of invading but reserves the right to protect the rights of ethnic Russians.
BBC Moscow correspondent Daniel Sandford says Donetsk - an industrial city with a population of about a million - differs from Crimea in that it has many Ukrainian speakers as well as a Russian-speaking majority.
Opinion polls there have shown considerable support for a united Ukraine, he adds.
Footage shows an unnamed delegate addressing the Donetsk Region People's Council, to declare it a "people's republic"
Online footage showed a Russian speaker telling the Donetsk assembly: "I proclaim the creation of the sovereign state of the People's Republic of Donetsk."
Earlier on Monday, protesters seized state security buildings in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Protesters broke into Donetsk's regional government building and another in Kharkiv - Ukraine's second largest city - on Sunday. Ukrainian authorities say protesters have now left the building in Kharkiv.
At an emergency cabinet meeting, interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk blamed Russia for the seizures.
"The plan is to destabilise the situation, the plan is for foreign troops to cross the border and seize the country's territory, which we will not allow,'' he said, adding that people engaged in the unrest had distinct Russian accents.
He said Russian troops remain within 30km (19 miles) of the frontier.
Pro-Russian activists who seized the Donetsk regional government building, take part in a meeting
The activists in Donetsk called for Russia to send in "peacekeepers" to protect them from Kiev
Pro-Russia activists vote on the proposal to declare a new "republic"
The activists occupying the Donetsk government building overwhelmingly backed the declaration
Pro-Russia activists guard a barricade set at the Ukrainian regional Security Service building in Donetsk on 7 April
Barricades are also being guarded at Donetsk's Security Service building
Police have blocked roads into Luhansk and armed reinforcements are being sent to the restive cities.
Officials said Ukrainian National Security Secretary Andriy Parubiy and Security Service chief Valentyn Nalyvaychenko have been sent to the city.
Continue reading the main story
Crisis timeline
21 Nov 2013: President Viktor Yanukovych abandons an EU deal
Dec: Pro-EU protesters occupy Kiev city hall and Independence Square
20-21 Feb 2014: At least 88 people killed in Kiev clashes
22 Feb: Mr Yanukovych flees; parliament removes him and calls election
27-28 Feb: Pro-Russian gunmen seize key buildings in Crimea.
16 Mar: Crimea voters choose to secede in disputed referendum
18 Mar: Russian and Crimean leaders sign deal in Moscow to join the region to Russia
In pictures: Eastern Ukraine tense
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov has already arrived in Kharkiv and First Deputy Prime Minister Vitaly Yarema is on his way to Donetsk, a spokeswoman said.
She said the three officials had "all the authority necessary to take action against separatism."
President Turchynov has cancelled a visit to Lithuania to deal with the unfolding events.
Russia's foreign ministry said it was "closely watching" events in eastern Ukraine, "particularly in Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv regions".
It reiterated Moscow's demands for the creation of a federal Ukraine with broader powers for provinces.
"Stop pointing to Russia, blaming it for all of the troubles of today's Ukraine," the statement said.
The crisis has heightened nervousness in many other eastern European states, with Czech President Milos Zeman saying Nato should deploy troops in Ukraine if Russia invades.
"If Russia decides to extend its territorial expansion to eastern Ukraine, the fun is over," he told Czech public radio on Sunday.
In another development on Monday, Nato said it was limiting Russian diplomats' access to its headquarters in Brussels.
It comes days after Nato foreign ministers agreed to suspend all practical co-operation with Moscow over its annexation of Crimea.
Crimea death
The latest developments come as Ukraine's defence ministry said a Russian soldier had killed a Ukrainian military officer still loyal to Kiev in eastern Crimea late on Sunday.
The circumstances are unclear. Russian news agencies said prosecutors had opened a criminal investigation into the death.
BBC map of cities in eastern Ukraine
Also on Monday, Russia's consumer protection agency said it had suspended imports from six Ukrainian dairy producers after finding their products violated regulations.
Last week Kiev temporarily suspended seven Russian food companies from selling products in Ukraine.
Ukraine is facing a tough economic situation after Russia's Gazprom almost doubled the price of gas it supplies to Ukraine.
The country's foreign exchange reserves have fallen to about $15bn (£9bn) from $20.42bn on 1 January, Ukraine's central bank said on Monday. The currency, the hryvnia, has also lost about 30% of its value so far this year.
Eastern Ukraine was the political heartland of Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian president who fled to Russia in February after months of protests.
Russia has branded the new leadership in Kiev illegitimate.
And it seems Kharkov is following: http://rt.com/news/kharkov-clashes-ukraine-independence-993/ Now protesters in Luhansk, Donyetsk and Kharkov have declared independence from Kiev. Interesting to see how it develops.
I wonder if Odessa will follow or not.
Easy E wrote: So, what should the West do if Russia moves into Eastern Ukraine, or Eastern Ukraine wishes to break-away and create a new pro-russian country?
Draw another one of their famous ''red lines'' and impose their feared sanctions on the advisors of the governor of Chuvashia.
I'm going to coin the new phrase "Slavic Spring" TM.
Note to US Foreign policy people. This is how you do it. Wait until there is a uprising, find out if they want your there and come in like Heros. Not "Well the Kurds who don't control anything will support us if we go into Iraq".
The aggressive, threatening rhetoric from the Kiev government seems really silly to me. WTF do they think they're going to do? Invade Russia? Nuke Moscow? If they push things too far, Russia will just make another land grab in the name of "national security" etc.
The only reason that they dare to be so bellicose with a country that could easily crush Ukraine if it came to a war is because they think the West will come to their rescue and fight WW3 on their behalf.
Clearly Obama is history's greatest monster for not sending in the entire US army in support of the Freedom™-loving people of Ukraine.
On a slightly less sarcastic note, just what would you prefer the US did?
I'd admit the rest of Ukraine into NATO and start investing in large NATO naval/air base there... preferable, right next to Crimea (but not near the Russian border in the east).
Clearly Obama is history's greatest monster for not sending in the entire US army in support of the Freedom™-loving people of Ukraine.
On a slightly less sarcastic note, just what would you prefer the US did?
Not put its foot in its mouth.
Obama isn't histories greatest monster, but he's definitely one of the worst Presidents at international relations.
It would have been best to say nothing, or just say Russia and Ukraine are both being horrible. Ukraine for falling apart in an ugly manner, and Russia for attempting to profit from the situation.
In which case he'd be slammed for being too soft on Russia. There really isn't anything (that I can think of right now at least) that Obama could do that'd let him off the hook, as it were.
Clearly Obama is history's greatest monster for not sending in the entire US army in support of the Freedom™-loving people of Ukraine.
On a slightly less sarcastic note, just what would you prefer the US did?
Not put its foot in its mouth.
Obama isn't histories greatest monster, but he's definitely one of the worst Presidents at international relations.
It would have been best to say nothing, or just say Russia and Ukraine are both being horrible. Ukraine for falling apart in an ugly manner, and Russia for attempting to profit from the situation.
Yeah because Russia is the ONLY country that would try to take advantage of the situation. If anything started this situation it was NATO meddling in areas they shouldn't be.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The aggressive, threatening rhetoric from the Kiev government seems really silly to me. WTF do they think they're going to do? Invade Russia? Nuke Moscow? If they push things too far, Russia will just make another land grab in the name of "national security" etc.
The only reason that they dare to be so bellicose with a country that could easily crush Ukraine if it came to a war is because they think the West will come to their rescue and fight WW3 on their behalf.
Most of the polls conducted so far don't show as much support for joining Russia in the eastern territories. Ukrainian gov't has also captured several Russian intelligence members in the same area. I read an article earlier today about the situation in Donyetsk or whatever and how it is identical to how it started in Crimea.
Its been reported that the guys actually starting the trouble in those regions were amongst the ones doing so in the Crimea. As far as the reports are going a load of armed (with modern gear, not surplus), apparently military trained rabble rousers went in, took over government locations, then dissipated leaving the regular protesters behind. The same armed protesters were seen in multiple locations, both in the Crimea and now Eastern Ukraine doing the same thing. Of course those fellows aren't in any way linked to the Russian military nor following the orders of the Russian administration.
The Ukrainians threatening these pro Russian protesters are of course just playing into Moscow's hands. Oh the Russians said they wouldn't invade, and maybe they won't, but they're doing their best to bugger up what's left of Ukraine in any case. Can't be saying no to your friends to the North mind. =P
Clearly Obama is history's greatest monster for not sending in the entire US army in support of the Freedom™-loving people of Ukraine.
On a slightly less sarcastic note, just what would you prefer the US did?
Not put its foot in its mouth.
Obama isn't histories greatest monster, but he's definitely one of the worst Presidents at international relations.
It would have been best to say nothing, or just say Russia and Ukraine are both being horrible. Ukraine for falling apart in an ugly manner, and Russia for attempting to profit from the situation.
Yeah because Russia is the ONLY country that would try to take advantage of the situation. If anything started this situation it was NATO meddling in areas they shouldn't be.
Maybe, but we weren't discussing what started it. Only what the reactions to it were.
well what started it is actually quite important as it affects the reactions to it...
you cannot poke the hornets nest, and blame them for being stung.
Im pretty sure russia wouldnt have been so on edge if
the USA hadnt unilaterally withdrawn from the anti-ballistic missle treaty that was a corner stone of de escalation between the two countries
I mean, the states has been pushing missile placement in the area as well, ukraine is a very shot drive from moscow, and now on top of that, they try to make it a NATO country as well.
the USA to this day, has put crippling sanctions on cuba for far less, and again, it was only after the states was pushing towards russia (then the USSR) that the russians pushed back. And of course, then as now, the states acts like russia made the first move.
This whole situation is just more poking the bear until it does something, then blaming the bear when it does.
so far russia's reaction had been very mute, offer sanctuary for the people who are sick and tired of the ukraine not having its act together (crimea) and hold back unless kiev starts shooting russians or something.
not surprisingly, as we see now that kiev and the pro-russians in ukraine are coming to arms, that may be a reality.
and where as when the pro-west revolutionaries violently overthrew the government, that is legitimate,
when the pro-russia groups do it violently, or even democratically, it literally does not matter, as they wont get any correct moves according to our side, anything they do is illegitimate.
we already see in the media, the big bad russia is "increasing" gas prices to the ukraine, and how russia is using gas as a weapon against the ukraine.
in truth, russia is just taking away subsidies and the discount from the price, for completely legitimate reasons. namely that the ukraine hasnt paid the bill in a long time, isnt able to pay it in the future, has had their credit rating downgraded to "default imminent".
The truth, in reality, is that russia is just asking for ukraine to ACTUALLY PAY for gas, and not giving them the 50% discount that good customers get. Why should they sell gas at such a heavy discount when they are not being paid for it? Its as if the expectation is that russia should give away billions worth of gas for free.
But western media and even the BBC write their articles with intentionally deceptive, and misleading language, to assert that russia is raising prices for no reason other then to cripple the ukraine or strike back at them.
their articles always state "russia increased gas prices" when the fact of the matter is "russia asked for the money they were owed, got told to feth off, and stopped subsidizing a country that is actively working against them and their interests"
Clearly Obama is history's greatest monster for not sending in the entire US army in support of the Freedom™-loving people of Ukraine.
On a slightly less sarcastic note, just what would you prefer the US did?
Not put its foot in its mouth.
Obama isn't histories greatest monster, but he's definitely one of the worst Presidents at international relations.
It would have been best to say nothing, or just say Russia and Ukraine are both being horrible. Ukraine for falling apart in an ugly manner, and Russia for attempting to profit from the situation.
Yeah because Russia is the ONLY country that would try to take advantage of the situation. If anything started this situation it was NATO meddling in areas they shouldn't be.
Maybe, but we weren't discussing what started it. Only what the reactions to it were.
So Russia is bad for playing the game better than NATO? Seams a little disingenuous.
Grey Templar wrote: Being better at the game doesn't make your actions right.
I'll say that Putin has done a marvelous job running rings around everyone, highlighting their incompetence.
it does when putins way with crimea didnt kill anyone...
the wests way in kiev killed ~100 people so far, and counting.
We will see though, if right sector makes good on their promise to start killing all the ethnic or pro russians in the next few weeks I really dont see how russia cant go in there.
But, you are correct, winning itself does not justify anything. But as of yet, russia doesnt have much to justify, while the other side really does.
Grey Templar wrote: Being better at the game doesn't make your actions right.
I'll say that Putin has done a marvelous job running rings around everyone, highlighting their incompetence.
His actions are right in the context of the conflict. The west keeps trying to move further and further into Eastern Europe, all the way into Russia's back door. If you think the pro western uprising was not driven, organized and funded covertly by the west, well I have some land to sell you.
Russia saw an opportunity and took it, rather peacefully at that. I don't see anything wrong with their actions, or how you can label Russia's actions "Horrible". In fact, we need to study that play book.
I'd admit the rest of Ukraine into NATO and start investing in large NATO naval/air base there... preferable, right next to Crimea (but not near the Russian border in the east).
Then I think Russia should respond by building a naval base in Cuba.
You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.
Steve steveson wrote: You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.
So all those people are Russian soldiers? lol The protests in the Donbass are coming from the people. It is something that has been boiling since the Orange Revolution, and now it has boiled over.
Russia is not more involved than the West was in the protests in Kiev. Actually even less so. In Kiev there were actually Western politicians that openly went there and supported the protests against the legitimate, democratic government.
This is not Crimea, the situation and history leading up to it are different here.
Steve steveson wrote: You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.
And you don't think the initial uprising had any CIA support or other western support? I bet there were plenty of western agents behind the pro western mobs. Look at the facts, NATO wants Ukraine and offers deal, Ukrainian President turns down deal, instant uprising......I'm sure the West had nothing to do with that.
Lets face it this was one covert op after another, Russia was just better at it.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia does not need to invade. At this rate, the Ukrainians will turn on themselves and Kiev will do all the work for Putin
I'd proffer Russia (or more "no id guys") has already invaded.
I'd proffer Western guys were there from the beginning, causing the situation in the first place. Russia's guys were just better. The West in their usually brilliant theories thought all they needed was to support an uprising in Kiev.....they were wrong.
I'm just countering your claim that Russian influence is in Ukraine. Russia is undoubtedly fostering these uprisings, but the West started it all in Kiev. Its a case of "Don't start none, won't be none."
The West is now crying "no fair" because they got out played, the west overplayed their hand and underestimated Russia. BOO HOO.
I don't know, maybe the West should start looking to fix the problems in their own backyards before trying to move into Russia's.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: In which case he'd be slammed for being too soft on Russia. There really isn't anything (that I can think of right now at least) that Obama could do that'd let him off the hook, as it were.
Well... it is a national pastime to blame any/all negative events on the current President.
*shrug*
Other than a NATO expansion (or maybe a war exercise in the Black Sea)... not much else he can do.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: In which case he'd be slammed for being too soft on Russia. There really isn't anything (that I can think of right now at least) that Obama could do that'd let him off the hook, as it were.
Well... it is a national pastime to blame any/all negative events on the current President.
*shrug*
Other than a NATO expansion (or maybe a war exercise in the Black Sea)... not much else he can do.
Well NATO expansion is what started this whole affair...so I don't think that is going to work, and a war exercise is probably not in anybody's best interests.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks anything should or could be done about this. I really don't see what the big issue is if Russia is able to take Ukraine in a relatively peaceful and popular movement. The Western sponsored uprising in Kiev was much more violent than any of the Russian sponsored take overs, which to me shows which movement was really more popular.
I doubt that Russia was sitting there plotting how to take Ukraine before the western meddling, they already had it where they wanted it. Now, while they may not have wanted to take it before, they certainly are not going to just let the west have it if they can defend that move so easily.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: In which case he'd be slammed for being too soft on Russia. There really isn't anything (that I can think of right now at least) that Obama could do that'd let him off the hook, as it were.
Well... it is a national pastime to blame any/all negative events on the current President.
*shrug*
Other than a NATO expansion (or maybe a war exercise in the Black Sea)... not much else he can do.
Well NATO expansion is what started this whole affair...so I don't think that is going to work, and a war exercise is probably not in anybody's best interests.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks anything should or could be done about this. I really don't see what the big issue is if Russia is able to take Ukraine in a relatively peaceful and popular movement.
I doubt that Russia was sitting there plotting how to take Ukraine before the western meddling, they already had it where they wanted it. Now, while they may not have wanted to take it before, they certainly are not going to just let the west have it if they can defend that move so easily.
Yeah... true.
If the US was really serious in making a response... one way is to expand our oil/gas industry and sell to Europe in order to compete with Gazprom.
Steve steveson wrote: You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.
And you don't think the initial uprising had any CIA support or other western support? I bet there were plenty of western agents behind the pro western mobs. Look at the facts, NATO wants Ukraine and offers deal, Ukrainian President turns down deal, instant uprising......I'm sure the West had nothing to do with that.
Lets face it this was one covert op after another, Russia was just better at it.
What on Earth are you talking about? The deal that the Ukrainian president turned down was a EU trade agreement it had nothing to with NATO, in fact NATO declined membership to Ukraine back in 2008 so I don't known where you are getting that NATO wants anything to do with Ukraine as well.
Also the Ukrainian people protested against the refusal of the trade agreement because most people see the EU as a source of prosperity and Russia just as a source of oppression so there is no need for any hidden conspiracy there as well. We are talking about a part of the world where democracy is such a young concept that you have open riots on the street when people find out that a politician was lying...
Also Putin got what he wanted, not because he is some genius mastermind that outmanoeuvred anyone, but because the European 'leaders' are incredibly weak at the moment thanks to the EU still being in a social turmoil because of the financial crisis and because the US isn't fooling anyone any more after their spectacular string of failures in the ME.
All this political posturing was completely unnecessary, Russia could have just rolled into Crimea with tanks at the front and the west wouldn't have been able to do anything anyway.
Steve steveson wrote: You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.
And you don't think the initial uprising had any CIA support or other western support? I bet there were plenty of western agents behind the pro western mobs. Look at the facts, NATO wants Ukraine and offers deal, Ukrainian President turns down deal, instant uprising......I'm sure the West had nothing to do with that.
Lets face it this was one covert op after another, Russia was just better at it.
What on Earth are you talking about? The deal that the Ukrainian president turned down was a EU trade agreement it had nothing to with NATO, in fact NATO declined membership to Ukraine back in 2008 so I don't known where you are getting that NATO wants anything to do with Ukraine as well.
My bad typed NATO instead of EU.
Also Putin got what he wanted, not because he is some genius mastermind that outmanoeuvred anyone, but because the European 'leaders' are incredibly weak at the moment thanks to the EU still being in a social turmoil because of the financial crisis and because the US isn't fooling anyone any more after their spectacular string of failures in the ME.
Right the West overplayed its hand. I don't think its because they are necessarily weak, but failed to really grasp the situation. Russia clearly outmaneuvered them and beat them at the game, not that they really wanted to, I think Russia would have been happier with the status qua as it was before. I mean Russia was already getting everything it wanted from Ukraine.
most people see the EU as a source of prosperity and Russia just as a source of oppression so there is no need for any hidden conspiracy there as well.
Not sure I agree with this, that may have been the perception in parts of western Ukraine, but I wouldn't call that most. It would also be an inaccurate assessment of who could provide the best financial support. Ukraine needs the gas subsidies that Russia gives it for its economy to survive, I'm not really sure what the EU could offer that would compare.....which is why the deal was refused.
Steve steveson wrote: You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.
And you don't think the initial uprising had any CIA support or other western support? I bet there were plenty of western agents behind the pro western mobs. Look at the facts, NATO wants Ukraine and offers deal, Ukrainian President turns down deal, instant uprising......I'm sure the West had nothing to do with that.
Lets face it this was one covert op after another, Russia was just better at it.
Also the Ukrainian people protested against the refusal of the trade agreement because most people see the EU as a source of prosperity and Russia just as a source of oppression so there is no need for any hidden conspiracy there as well. We are talking about a part of the world where democracy is such a young concept that you have open riots on the street when people find out that a politician was lying...
Lol, I stopped taking you seriously right there. I sincerely hope you don't actually believe what you are saying.
Otherwise I recommend a good conversation with an actual Ukrainian or a course on 'how not to generalise to the point of ridiculousness'.
Steve steveson wrote: You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.
And you don't think the initial uprising had any CIA support or other western support? I bet there were plenty of western agents behind the pro western mobs. Look at the facts, NATO wants Ukraine and offers deal, Ukrainian President turns down deal, instant uprising......I'm sure the West had nothing to do with that.
Lets face it this was one covert op after another, Russia was just better at it.
Also the Ukrainian people protested against the refusal of the trade agreement because most people see the EU as a source of prosperity and Russia just as a source of oppression so there is no need for any hidden conspiracy there as well. We are talking about a part of the world where democracy is such a young concept that you have open riots on the street when people find out that a politician was lying...
Lol, I stopped taking you seriously right there. I sincerely hope you don't actually believe what you are saying.
Otherwise I recommend a good conversation with an actual Ukrainian or a course on 'how not to generalise to the point of ridiculousness'.
Your family left Russia for presumably a better life in an EU country, you are living proof of what I just said... When you grow out of your "I'm an expatriate descendent so everything in my native country was better than where I am now" phase, you'll also realise this.
I'm just countering your claim that Russian influence is in Ukraine. Russia is undoubtedly fostering these uprisings, but the West started it all in Kiev. Its a case of "Don't start none, won't be none."
The West is now crying "no fair" because they got out played, the west overplayed their hand and underestimated Russia. BOO HOO.
I don't know, maybe the West should start looking to fix the problems in their own backyards before trying to move into Russia's.
Maybe we should just give Ukraine 50 nuclear tipped SS missiles with the notation "break glass in case of Roosky attack." That would stop this nonsense.
Let's just face facts. There are really no good ways to counter Putin's moves in his own backyard. I think it is time we all (The West) came to terms with that fact.
Also Putin got what he wanted, not because he is some genius mastermind that outmanoeuvred anyone, but because the European 'leaders' are incredibly weak at the moment thanks to the EU still being in a social turmoil because of the financial crisis and because the US isn't fooling anyone any more after their spectacular string of failures in the ME.
Right the West overplayed its hand. I don't think its because they are necessarily weak, but failed to really grasp the situation. Russia clearly outmaneuvered them and beat them at the game, not that they really wanted to, I think Russia would have been happier with the status qua as it was before. I mean Russia was already getting everything it wanted from Ukraine.
They didn't overplay anything, the EU isn't (or wasn't at least), in any geo-political struggle with Russia. This wasn't any covert political plot to "diminish" Russia's prestige or influence or whatever, it was just a trade agreement. What Putin did was insane by any definition, he committed an open act of war against an independent nation that had military defence agreements with both the UK and the US, only for the apparent purpose of 'saving face'.
And when I'm talking about EU politicians being weak, I don't mean as a character trait, I mean politically in their own countries. Every EU head of state is walking a very thin line with their constituents because of all the economical turmoil going around. The kind of sanctions that should have been imposed on Russia because of this, while having a much more serious impact on Russia, would only deepen that turmoil and probably cause any Prime Minister that supported them to loose their jobs at the next election if not sooner.
Not sure I agree with this, that may have been the perception in parts of western Ukraine, but I wouldn't call that most. It would also be an inaccurate assessment of who could provide the best financial support. Ukraine needs the gas subsidies that Russia gives it for its economy to survive, I'm not really sure what the EU could offer that would compare.....which is why the deal was refused.
The deal was refused because Russia threatened economic sanctions on Ukraine if they signed it. Russia threatened those sanctions because this deal would have lessened Ukraine's dependency on Russia's financial support and like you said yourself, remove Ukraine just that little bit from Russia's control. Claiming that the refusal was in the best interest of the Ukrainian people is a bit of a stretch to say the least.
I'm just countering your claim that Russian influence is in Ukraine. Russia is undoubtedly fostering these uprisings, but the West started it all in Kiev. Its a case of "Don't start none, won't be none."
The West is now crying "no fair" because they got out played, the west overplayed their hand and underestimated Russia. BOO HOO.
I don't know, maybe the West should start looking to fix the problems in their own backyards before trying to move into Russia's.
Maybe we should just give Ukraine 50 nuclear tipped SS missiles with the notation "break glass in case of Roosky attack." That would stop this nonsense.
What nonsense are you speaking of?
Lets go over the timeline here.
Russia already had a military support agreement with Ukraine. Russia was to protect Ukraine, in exchange Ukraine gave up its Nukes.
The Ukrainian government stalls on signing an economic agreement with the EU because the results of signing the agreement could be catastrophic for the Ukrainian economy depending on the wording of the agreement and Moscow's reaction to it.
Western sponsored uprisings in western cities of Ukraine start. We know these uprisings are western sponsored, its not even an argument. These are the same groups that sponsored the orange revolution in 2004.
" Activists of the Orange Revolution were funded and trained in tactics of political organization and nonviolent resistance by a coalition of Western pollsters and professional consultants who were partly funded by a range of Western government and non-government agencies. According to The Guardian, the foreign donors included the U.S. State Department and USAID along with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, the NGO Freedom House and George Soros's Open Society Institute. The National Endowment for Democracy, a foundation supported by the U.S. government, has supported non-governmental democracy-building efforts in Ukraine since 1988. Writings on nonviolent struggle by Gene Sharp contributed in forming the strategic basis of the student campaigns."
So if there is any nonsense being done, its by Western influences.
Basically the West tried to overthrow the elected government of Ukraine. While this may have worked in some western Ukraine cities, it did not go over well every where else.
If someone somehow toppled lets say D.C. or New York city, do you think the rest of the U.S. would just go with it? I can totally see Texas and other states annexing themselves if the U.S. federal government collapsed.
They didn't overplay anything, the EU isn't (or wasn't at least), in any geo-political struggle with Russia. This wasn't any covert political plot to "diminish" Russia's prestige or influence or whatever, it was just a trade agreement.
It was a trade agreement made to bring Ukraine more strongly into the sphere of influence of the EU and away from Russia's. That's the definition of and aggressive economic/ geo-political struggle meant clearly to diminish Russia's prestige and influence. If you can't see that, there is no point in having a conversation. This can be proven by who has backed and supported political movements in western Ukraine.
Sometimes, hell in fact most times a trade agreement is not just a trade agreement. Thats just being naive.
What Putin did was insane by any definition, he committed an open act of war against an independent nation that had military defence agreements with both the UK and the US, only for the apparent purpose of 'saving face'.
That may be the Western propaganda explanation. The real explanation however is that Russia has had a standing defense agreement with Ukraine since Ukraine gave up its Nukes. This agreement was requested by the current and still legitimate President of Ukraine. That's Right, the head of the Ukrainian government requested the support of Russian troops and by that agreement Russia is actually bound to provide said support.
And when I'm talking about EU politicians being weak, I don't mean as a character trait, I mean politically in their own countries. Every EU head of state is walking a very thin line with their constituents because of all the economical turmoil going around. The kind of sanctions that should have been imposed on Russia because of this, while having a much more serious impact on Russia, would only deepen that turmoil and probably cause any Prime Minister that supported them to loose their jobs at the next election if not sooner.
Makes you wonder why they thought this would be a good idea in the first place then, or why Ukraine might stop to think if EU economic support was really worth distancing itself from Russia, when Russia's current economic support is the only thing keeping the country from collapse.
Actually the EU has put the lightest of sanctions on Russia, because they may hurt the EU more than Russia. Russia's economy is currently based on vital natural resources, if the EU won't buy them, there are plenty of other buyers out there. The EU economy however is very vulnerable and needs those resources more than Russia needs to sell them to the EU. This was a stupid push by the west.
However now that The US is a net exporter of Natural gas and Oil, I can see some gears turning as to who might want to shake up the situation.
The deal was refused because Russia threatened economic sanctions on Ukraine if they signed it. Russia threatened those sanctions because this deal would have lessened Ukraine's dependency on Russia's financial support and like you said yourself, remove Ukraine just that little bit from Russia's control. Claiming that the refusal was in the best interest of the Ukrainian people is a bit of a stretch to say the least.
Again, western propaganda. Russia didn't threaten sanctions. They simply said they would no longer be able to provide gas subsidies as the new EU agreement would break the current agreement with The Eurasian Economic Community customs union. Ukraine was free to choose which agreement they wanted, but had to consider the consequences of breaking their current agreements. The main consequence would be that Ukraine would now have to pay THE SAME PRICE EVERYONE ELSE PAYS, not more.
This basically means that keeping its trade agreement with Russia was in everyone best interests, as without those subsidies that Russia grants Ukraine, they could not afford gas......well they can't afford it now even, as they are way behind in payments already. If Russia really wanted to destroy Ukraine, they by rights could just shut off the pipeline.
Steve steveson wrote: You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.
And you don't think the initial uprising had any CIA support or other western support? I bet there were plenty of western agents behind the pro western mobs. Look at the facts, NATO wants Ukraine and offers deal, Ukrainian President turns down deal, instant uprising......I'm sure the West had nothing to do with that.
Lets face it this was one covert op after another, Russia was just better at it.
Also the Ukrainian people protested against the refusal of the trade agreement because most people see the EU as a source of prosperity and Russia just as a source of oppression so there is no need for any hidden conspiracy there as well. We are talking about a part of the world where democracy is such a young concept that you have open riots on the street when people find out that a politician was lying...
Lol, I stopped taking you seriously right there. I sincerely hope you don't actually believe what you are saying. Otherwise I recommend a good conversation with an actual Ukrainian or a course on 'how not to generalise to the point of ridiculousness'.
Your family left Russia for presumably a better life in an EU country, you are living proof of what I just said... When you grow out of your "I'm an expatriate descendent so everything in my native country was better than where I am now" phase, you'll also realise this.
So now you also know the reasons my family left Ukraine (Sevastopol was still part of Ukraine at the time)? Wow! You are amazing!
Frazzled wrote: Blah blah, would Russia attempt to "annex" Ukraine if Ukraine had 50 20 megaton bombs? yes or no?
Maybe, since Russia has plenty of bombs itself, so Ukraine actually using those bombs would be its own doom, but It would be a huge lot less likely though.
Sadly, I think Frazz is on to something. We have learned yet again that the best defense against attack in Nukes.
Is it any wonder iran wants one so bad? The world stage is littered with countries that did not have nukes getting invaded while those that do have Nukes are not.
Frazzled wrote: Blah blah, would Russia attempt to "annex" Ukraine if Ukraine had 50 20 megaton bombs? yes or no?
Sadly, I think Frazz is on to something. We have learned yet again that the best defense against attack in Nukes.
Is it any wonder iran wants one so bad? The world stage is littered with countries that did not have nukes getting invaded while those that do have Nukes are not.
I think you are both crazy! Have you really given much thought to that situation?
Depends who had the codes. If it was the elected president of Ukraine, you know, the guy that asked for Russian assistance, I' don't think Russia has anything to fear. If anything Ukraine having Nukes would have meant a much more aggressive posture as Russia rolled through all of Ukraine, Czech style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia.
Russia really would have had little choice in the matter, as they still would most likely have a defense agreement with the Ukrainian government (as they still do, just depends on which government you see as legitimate), Russia would have had to roll in and protect the nukes from going rogue. Which probably would have required an extreme response from the West and escalating the conflict to the very brink of.....well BAD TIMES.
I think we can probably say the world is better off that Ukraine no longer had those nukes.
Frazzled wrote: I'd proffer the Ukrainians now disagree with you.
hey, at least they're still alive and able to disagree. As opposed to incinerated...
Or more likely crushed under Russian tank tracks, only later to be incinerated as the situation goes bat gak levels as east and west finally have that showdown we have all thought was just an old cold war fantasy.
I'd proffer, that some Ukrainians might disagree with me, but they would be idiots who haven't really put much thought into the situation. Having nukes would have demanded Russian tanks blitzing throughout Ukraine putting down a civil war (most likely in the most expedient way which is usually violent and not good for anybody) and protecting Nuclear facilities. However, looking at the numbers that are flocking to the pro Russian side, I'd say that most would agree with me.
Has the Ukrainian military even put up a token defense? Nope. Literally nothing, not one instance of the Ukrainian military standing against Russia. In fact there were instances where they were sharing the same bases. I think that speaks volumes about what the real situation is and how much support there really is for this new government.
So this same military was going to shoot Nukes at Russia? I don't think so. Would those Nukes have forced a much more violent situation, I think the answer is undoubtedly yes.
No Nukes meant Russia could relax a bit and just defend what they wanted and where people wanted them, with nukes this gets bad really quick as they have to go and take everything and clash with the resistance.
Fazz, I don't get why you think this is some tragic event for Ukrainians. The Russians are not gunning people down, they are not oppressing anyone. The fact that they have met little to no resistance seams to say that this is for the most part actually a welcomed event. I believe it may have stopped an actual massively violent and destructive civil war!
You know like how the US was going to bring sunshine and rainbows to Iraq and the people would repay them with kisses.......except the Russian actually figured out how to do it right.
Frazzled wrote: I'd proffer the Ukrainians now disagree with you.
hey, at least they're still alive and able to disagree. As opposed to incinerated...
Or more likely crushed under Russian tank tracks, only later to be incinerated as the situation goes bat gak levels as east and west finally have that showdown we have all thought was just an old cold war fantasy.
I'd proffer, that some Ukrainians might disagree with me, but they would be idiots who haven't really put much thought into the situation. Having nukes would have demanded Russian tanks blitzing throughout Ukraine putting down a civil war (most likely in the most expedient way which is usually violent and not good for anybody) and protecting Nuclear facilities. However, looking at the numbers that are flocking to the pro Russian side, I'd say that most would agree with me.
Has the Ukrainian military even put up a token defense? Nope. Literally nothing, not one instance of the Ukrainian military standing against Russia. In fact there were instances where they were sharing the same bases. I think that speaks volumes about what the real situation is and how much support there really is for this new government.
So this same military was going to shoot Nukes at Russia? I don't think so. Would those Nukes have forced a much more violent situation, I think the answer is undoubtedly yes.
America has nukes in Europe, are they American nukes or European. Ukraine never had nukes they were Russian, Russia took them back.
Europe will do nothing, Great Britain will do nothing. I'm typing this because our power stations are generating electricity with Russian gas.
America has nukes in Europe, are they American nukes or European. Ukraine never had nukes they were Russian, Russia took them back.
Europe will do nothing, Great Britain will do nothing. I'm typing this because our power stations are generating electricity with Russian gas.
See I have a solution. Import Tex Mex and you'll have all the home grown natural gas you could possibly handle.
You don't think we got all this natural gas here from frakking did you?
I'm not sure if they were Russian Nukes, Ukrainian Nukes or just plain old Soviet Union Nukes, I don't know who had the launch codes, but it doesn't matter. Anyway you look at it, Nukes in Ukraine would have made this situation very very bad.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia does not need to invade. At this rate, the Ukrainians will turn on themselves and Kiev will do all the work for Putin
I should again note here that with the exception of an accidental war, I don't care. I doubt very people in "the West" care. I'm surprised it was ever relased from Mother Russia anyway.
The Baltics, thats a different story. they're NATO, and if Russia starts something there its WWIII. They need to know there is iron still in NATO's words.
America has nukes in Europe, are they American nukes or European. Ukraine never had nukes they were Russian, Russia took them back.
Europe will do nothing, Great Britain will do nothing. I'm typing this because our power stations are generating electricity with Russian gas.
See I have a solution. Import Tex Mex and you'll have all the home grown natural gas you could possibly handle.
You don't think we got all this natural gas here from frakking did you?
The English are big fans of Curry, the amount of noxious fumes generated by Curry vs Tex mex would be a step backwards. Like going from Nuclear power down to hamsters in wheels. Believe me I know.....mmmmm Curry.
I should again note here that with the exception of an accidental war, I don't care. I doubt very people in "the West" care. I'm surprised it was ever relased from Mother Russia anyway.
The Baltics, thats a different story. they're NATO, and if Russia starts something there its WWIII. They need to know there is iron still in NATO's words.
Which is the ONLY reason we are hearing about this. NATO does not want "Slavic Spring" to spread. There are still lots of soviet sympathizers throughout Eastern Europe and a great many disillusioned with the West. Historically these people have been easy victims of cults of personality, and right now Putin really is building one, or more accurately the West is building one for him, by being political equivalent of the three stooges. Putin has an opportunity to start building Russia into a grand coalition again. The West needs to decide what to do, I say play ball with him.
Andrew1975 wrote: I'm not sure if they were Russian Nukes, Ukrainian Nukes or just plain old Soviet Union Nukes, I don't know who had the launch codes, but it doesn't matter. Anyway you look at it, Nukes in Ukraine would have made this situation very very bad.
They were Soviet nukes. After 1991, they became Ukrainian nukes. Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes in return for Russian protection, and now they are Russian nukes.
And we should be grateful for that. I don't want to think about what could have happened if Pravyj Sektor or 'Svoboda' had gotten their hands on those nukes.
Again, western propaganda. Russia didn't threaten sanctions. They simply said they would no longer be able to provide gas subsidies as the new EU agreement would break the current agreement with The Eurasian Economic Community customs union. Ukraine was free to choose which agreement they wanted, but had to consider the consequences of breaking their current agreements. The main consequence would be that Ukraine would now have to pay THE SAME PRICE EVERYONE ELSE PAYS, not more.
Which is in turn, IIRC, in violation of the deal made about the fleet base in Sevastopol. I seem to remember gas price discounts being part of that deal, but I could be misremembering.
Andrew1975 wrote: I'm not sure if they were Russian Nukes, Ukrainian Nukes or just plain old Soviet Union Nukes, I don't know who had the launch codes, but it doesn't matter. Anyway you look at it, Nukes in Ukraine would have made this situation very very bad.
They were Soviet nukes. After 1991, they became Ukrainian nukes. Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes in return for Russian protection, and now they are Russian nukes.
And we should be grateful for that. I don't want to think about what could have happened if Pravyj Sektor or 'Svoboda' had gotten their hands on those nukes.
I'm not concerned so much about what would have happened if some rogue state got their hands on them, because that wouldn't have happened. The issue is that if Nukes were there, with the possibility of going rogue, Russia would have been forced to roll into all of Ukraine much more aggressively and that would have been a bad situation all around.
Seriously this had the potential to be very bad with or without Nukes. We could have been looking at a Syrian level civil war. Instead what we have is Russia responding to a request for assistance from the democratically elected leader of Ukraine, instead of Rolling in guns blazing to quell a revolution Russia has used a relatively soft touch and kept the uprising from turning into a full out cluster feth of death.
I can not understand why some people really have their panties in a twist about this.
Andrew1975 wrote: I'm not sure if they were Russian Nukes, Ukrainian Nukes or just plain old Soviet Union Nukes, I don't know who had the launch codes, but it doesn't matter. Anyway you look at it, Nukes in Ukraine would have made this situation very very bad.
They were Soviet nukes. After 1991, they became Ukrainian nukes. Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes in return for Russian protection, and now they are Russian nukes.
And we should be grateful for that. I don't want to think about what could have happened if Pravyj Sektor or 'Svoboda' had gotten their hands on those nukes.
I'm not concerned so much about what would have happened if some rogue state got their hands on them, because that wouldn't have happened. The issue is that if Nukes were there, with the possibility of going rogue, Russia would have been forced to roll into all of Ukraine much more aggressively and that would have been a bad situation all around.
Seriously this had the potential to be very bad with or without Nukes. We could have been looking at a Syrian level civil war. Instead what we have is Russia responding to a request for assistance from the democratically elected leader of Ukraine, instead of Rolling in guns blazing to quell a revolution Russia has used a relatively soft touch and kept the uprising from turning into a full out cluster feth of death.
I can not understand why some people really have their panties in a twist about this.
Because it takes peoples mind off the cluster feth they've made of the economy
Again, western propaganda. Russia didn't threaten sanctions. They simply said they would no longer be able to provide gas subsidies as the new EU agreement would break the current agreement with The Eurasian Economic Community customs union. Ukraine was free to choose which agreement they wanted, but had to consider the consequences of breaking their current agreements. The main consequence would be that Ukraine would now have to pay THE SAME PRICE EVERYONE ELSE PAYS, not more.
Which is in turn, IIRC, in violation of the deal made about the fleet base in Sevastopol. I seem to remember gas price discounts being part of that deal, but I could be misremembering.
True, but that would be Russia's cross to bare loosing the base. I'm sure other arrangements could have been made if the trade agreement was broken. Such as even though you owe us billions we will still supply gas if we get to keep our base. It again depends on who you see as the legitimate government. If its the new regime, what agreements are even still on the table?
Military storm airfield, town in eastern Ukraine, wounded reported - protesters Published time: April 15, 2014 13:27
Edited time: April 15, 2014 14:07
Ukrainian troops are storming an airfield in the eastern city of Kramatorsk, said anti-Maidan activists as cited by RIA Novosti. The activists added that several people were injured.
Ukrainian troops approached the military airfield in armored personnel carriers between the eastern cities of Kramatorsk and Slavyansk, the people’s militia located at the airfield told RIA Novosti on the phone.
“They started negotiating with the people’s militia, which is in control of the airfield. The shooting started unexpectedly. There are injured among the people’s militia, and there may be deaths,” they said.
Other members of the militia have blocked the entrance to Kramatorsk and are ready to defend the city, the activists added.
At the same time, the eastern city of Slavyansk is being raided by Ukrainian troops, the head of the Donbass people’s militia, Sergey Tsyplakov, told RIA Novosti.
“Currently there is a major attack on Slavyansk, armored personnel vehicles are entering the city… there are many troops. The men are getting ready to defend [the city],” he said.
In turn, the Ukrainian media, quoting the Ministry of Defense, announced a special operation in Kramatorsk on Tuesday. However, they provided no further details.
This looks like war preparations. Checkpoint near #Skavyansk#Donetsk region @Ruptlypic.twitter.com/MdskpNtnW4
— denise reese (@denice_ruptly) April 15, 2014
Anti-government protesters have been holding rallies in the south-eastern part of the country following the coup in Kiev on February 22. Activists have seized government buildings in most of the cities in the Donetsk region. On Sunday, the Kiev government launched a crackdown operation in Slavyansk. Following the event, Ukraine’s Security Council approved a full-scale security operation in the country’s eastern regions. On Monday, coup-imposed President Aleksandr Turchinov signed a decree to officially begin a “special anti-terrorist operation” in the east of the country.
“There is a lot of military machinery here,” said one of the activists. “But the shooting hasn’t started yet.”
Moscow slammed Sunday’s order as “criminal.” It was issued by the coup-imposed acting President Aleksandr Turchinov, and approved a full-scale security operation in the country’s eastern regions.
Bryan McGrath commanded the destroyer USS BULKELEY (DDG 84) from 2004-2006. He is currently the Managing Director of the FerryBridge Group and is the Assistant Director of Hudson Institute’s Center for American Seapower.
Press reports indicate that on Saturday, a Russian SU-24 FENCER made “…multiple, close-range passes near an American warship in the Black Sea for more than 90 minutes…” flying within 1000 yards of the USS DONALD COOK (DDG 75) at an altitude of approximately 500 feet. DONALD COOK is an ARLEIGH BURKE Class guided missile destroyer equipped with the Aegis Combat System, the SPY-1D phased-array radar and dozens of surface to air missiles, and the SU-24 is a Soviet-era all-weather attack jet still in service with the Russian Air Force. The incident was no doubt tense, but a few thoughts from someone who has dealt with a few close aboard passes may provide some context.
1. While this type of thing is not “common”, it is meticulously trained for. US ships are equipped with sophisticated embedded training devices that allow for very realistic training. The crew of the DONALD COOK has likely gone through scores if not hundreds of scenarios in which conditions very much like what were seen on Saturday are imposed upon the crew and the crew must then react. Although the exact wording and the rules of engagement that govern their use are classified, press reports indicate that the COOK made numerous attempts to contact the Russian aircraft, but were not answered. Those “queries” would have been practiced throughout the training cycle and even from watch to watch while on deployment. The queries would have been made over at least two different frequencies, commonly known as the “military air distress” frequency and the “international air distress” frequency. It is likely that the pilot of the FENCER heard them, but was pre-briefed not to answer.
2. The Captain of the Destroyer had a lot of guidance. Prior to the DONALD COOK’s transit into the Black Sea, it is likely that the Commanding Officer (CO) had in depth discussions of “what if’s” with both his immediate superior (the Battle Group Commander) and the Sixth Fleet Commander. They would have discussed a range of scenarios and the actions considered appropriate. They would have discussed concepts such as “hostile acts” and “hostile intent” in detail. Additionally, it is likely that while this incident was ongoing, the CO was in constant communication with his superiors, passing them pertinent information and characterizing the situation. The CO of a U.S. ship does not have a “right” to self-defense. He has an obligation to exercise it. That obligation would have been near to his mind, and he would have had a clear understanding of just what constituted a self-defense engagement.
3. The CO was where he needed to be. The Aegis cruisers that joined the fleet in the 1980’s were the first U.S. warships designed for the Captain to be somewhere other than the bridge during combat operations (as opposed to what we’re used to seeing in WWII movies). The DONALD COOK is no different. It is very likely that the CO was in the “Combat Information Center (CIC)”, which is where his team of operators are located who employ the sensors, weapons, and command and control links that make the ship so powerful. Though the situation was likely very tense (at least initially), the space would have been eerily quiet, as most communication occurs over headsets and microphones, with perhaps a random radio frequency brought up in a speaker for emphasis. There are few things more impressive than a modern destroyer at the top of its game doing its job well. There is no wasted motion. All communication is brief. There is far more silence than there is chatter.
4. It is possible DONALD COOK knew the FENCER was inbound before it obtained radar contact. The United States continues to maintain an impressive array of “national assets” that enable it to sustain surveillance on areas of high interest, which this part of the world assuredly is—at least now; DONALD COOK could have received reports that the Russian aircraft had taken off. Although the Black Sea is confined waterspace, it is also 700 miles across at its widest point, so it is likely that a plane taking off from Russia would have had several hundred miles to fly in order to intercept the ship. This of course, depends on where it launched from. DONALD COOK also could have been alerted by electronic emissions from the FENCER’s onboard systems, which often are detected before radar contact is gained. It would be surprising indeed if DONALD COOK did not have “heads up” on the FENCER before it (the FENCER) was in position to do anything mischievous. That said, until someone put a pair of human eyes on the FENCER, that it was “unarmed” (as is reported) could not have been known. The FENCER would have been assumed to be armed. Often this visual confirmation is performed by a carrier based fighter jet (or in this geography, a land based jet), but there are no reports of there having been any U.S. jets involved in this scenario. Therefore, the “unarmed call” would have been made by a trained observer topside on the destroyer only when the FENCER had come within visual range—which is well inside its weapons release range. This certainly would have added to the tension, but once the “wings clean” report was received from the observer, tensions would have declined.
5. An attack on the DONALD COOK by the FENCER would have been illogical. It is logical that the Russians do not want war with us any more than we want war with them. The Russian pilot—unless he or she decided to act independently and crash the plane into the ship—was almost certainly under strict orders to avoid overtly provocative acts. For instance, we have reports that the FENCER passed at an altitude of 500 feet; if it got to 500 feet from a steep dive, this would be overtly provocative. More likely, the FENCER declined in altitude slowly, over time, in order NOT to be provocative. And while 1000 yards may seem close when one considers a jet moving at several hundred knots, it is still six ship lengths away from the DONALD COOK (or put another way, 45 DONALD COOKS in width). The closest point of approach to the ship was likely also something the pilot was ordered to observe. Given the illogic of an attack but the very clear logic of messaging and surveillance, the crew of DONALD COOK likely entered this situation with a bias toward it NOT being an attack. This should not be confused with it being “unready”. Quite the opposite. But it would have been looking for deviations from the expected such as deep dive angle, erratic maneuvering, and high rates of speed, to overturn the initial (correct) bias.
6. The SPY Radar adds interesting wrinkles. Some are familiar with the concept of “search” and “track” radars, in that search radars generally are lower frequency with greater range (and poorer accuracy); while track radars are higher frequency and are more accurate. In days past, a ship searched a given volume of airspace with one radar and then relied on the tracking radar to provide “fire control quality” data to the weapon system. The act of obtaining that data—illuminating the target with fire control radar—could under certain circumstances—be viewed by a fighter/attack jet as a hostile act to which it would then be obligated to respond. This is not the case with the SPY radar. If the SPY radar holds the track, then the track can be engaged—no additional tracking radar is required in order to fire the missile (although a high frequency “director” is used to illuminate the target during the final few seconds of missile flight). This is important because the FENCER pilot would have known the moment his onboard electronic sensors picked up the SPY radar transmission, that he or she was being tracked with sufficient accuracy to be shot down. This knowledge cannot be have made their flight terribly comfortable.
This sort of thing is likely to continue, and some behind the scenes discussions and coordination between the U.S. and Russia would be worthwhile. For the moment, my sense is that both sides realize what is at stake and are ensuring their tactical units are well-advised. So while it would be improper to overhype this incident, it would be just as improper not to view it with concern.
Reports from Slavyansk say that the army troops sent to the eastern Ukrainian city for an “anti-terrorist operation” are leaving en masse. Some troops are openly voicing support for the eastern Ukrainians, while others are speaking out against a war.
According to Interfax, citing local self-defense activists, some 300 Ukrainian troops agreed to lay down their weapons and “go home” following negotiations in Slavyansk.
Ukrainian soldiers,who's APCs were taken by protesters earlier today, leave Slovyansk. Some soldiers genuinely support protesters
— Ольга Ившина (@oivshina) April 16, 2014
“We managed to negotiate with them. About 300 military – only some of those who closed around the city – decided to lay down their arms and go home,” a self-defense activist was quoted as saying.
Conflicting reports are emerging about whether the activists would or would not allow the troops to keep their weapons and APCs. According to Western media journalists present at the scene, the locals would not allow them to take back the APCs surrendered earlier, but the soldiers were allowed to march away with their rifles.
The militia let departing Ukrainian soldiers keep their guns but not their APCs...
— Alec Luhn (@ASLuhn) April 16, 2014
Под крики "молодцы" украинские военных покидают Славянск. Оружие и техника осталась у протестующих pic.twitter.com/PiljiGCznA
— Ольга Ившина (@oivshina) April 16, 2014
Meanwhile, the anti-government activists guarding the armored vehicles have said that they did not “seize” them as the media claimed, and that the troops “switched sides” peacefully.
“They were not seized by the self-defense forces. In fact, the Ukrainian troops arrived here flying a Russian flag. In this way, they have taken the side of the people,” a Slavyansk activist told Russia-24 TV.
Photos from the scene now show women and children climbing onto the APCs and taking photos with the armed men in camouflage with St. George ribbons.
Photo from Twitter/@oivshina
Mood in Sloviansk totally relaxed, steady stream of parents taking pictures of their kids w/ militants . #Ukrainepic.twitter.com/KCU4xh2XsI
— Alexander Marquardt (@MarquardtA) April 16, 2014
It looks like Kiev is no longer in control of its own army.
Not very surprising if you ask me. It makes me wonder whether the new guys in Kiev have any knowledge about ruling the country or not. So far, they seem completely brainless
Now I'm thinking, why does Russia even want these guys back???
Well to be fair, Russia has only taken the Crimea, other areas are full of Ukrainians of Russian dissent. If you look at Ukraine, the east is really where all of the natural resources and basically all the hard economy comes from. The west of Ukraine has some of the nicer cities, but its mostly built on the labor and resources of the east. Russia would probably not want it all.
I just don't think there is much support for this new government anywhere but Kiev and some of the eastern cities. The question is what is the demographic of the average Ukrainian, soldier.....given the that the east which is pro Russian seams to be more working class I'm going to guess that most of the soldiers are from the east.
whembly wrote: I saw a link on my twitter feed that I thought was interesting...
Yeah, that sort of thing sounds more significant than it is. We do close aboards on foreign boats all the time.
You really got to have some fun in the Gulf during the late unpleasantness, especially with sketchy commercial ships. Don't really need to worry about provocation with those, so you can get a nice transonic run going and time the boom to being right abeam with them. Fun way to wake up some poor supertanker crew.
Andrew1975 wrote: I'm not sure if they were Russian Nukes, Ukrainian Nukes or just plain old Soviet Union Nukes, I don't know who had the launch codes, but it doesn't matter. Anyway you look at it, Nukes in Ukraine would have made this situation very very bad.
They were Soviet nukes. After 1991, they became Ukrainian nukes. Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes in return for Russian protection, and now they are Russian nukes.
And we should be grateful for that. I don't want to think about what could have happened if Pravyj Sektor or 'Svoboda' had gotten their hands on those nukes.
As opposed to Russian right-wing exteremists or ultranationalists getting their hands on Russian nukes? Russia hasn't been that much more stable than Ukraine until relatively recently, and even then there is still a risk of instability in Russia.
Andrew1975 wrote: I'm not sure if they were Russian Nukes, Ukrainian Nukes or just plain old Soviet Union Nukes, I don't know who had the launch codes, but it doesn't matter. Anyway you look at it, Nukes in Ukraine would have made this situation very very bad.
They were Soviet nukes. After 1991, they became Ukrainian nukes. Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes in return for Russian protection, and now they are Russian nukes. And we should be grateful for that. I don't want to think about what could have happened if Pravyj Sektor or 'Svoboda' had gotten their hands on those nukes.
As opposed to Russian right-wing exteremists or ultranationalists getting their hands on Russian nukes? Russia hasn't been that much more stable than Ukraine until relatively recently, and even then there is still a risk of instability in Russia.
A risk of instability? In present-day Russia? Seems very unlikely. During the 1990's, Russia was a horrible mess, Some cities and regions tried to split off from Moscow and there was a lot of justified concern about the nukes. You could just walk to a military base to buy guns, armour and even tanks and aircraft if you had enough money. But Russia is very different now. Putin has changed a lot of things. Unless Putin suddenly disappears, there will be no instability in Russia.
Also, a lot of the armed pro-Russian protesters in Eastern Ukraine are from Crimea. Some of my friends are there too. I guess that is where most of those weapons come from, it is the same 'self-defense' groups. I've also heard that Odessa has been seized by protesters and Odessa People's Republic declared. The protests are now really in large part of Ukraine. I am very curious and slightly worried but also amused to see where this is going. The Kievan government seems completely incapable, and the army even less so. They had to give up their operation after the protesters stole their vehicles and send the soldiers back. There is even a video on youtube of Ukrainian T-72 being agressively chased away by angry people in a Lada
Jews ordered to register in east Ukraine Jews in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk where pro-Russian militants have taken over government buildings were told they have to "register" with the Ukrainians who are trying to make the city become part of Russia, according to Israeli media.
Jews emerging from a synagogue say they were handed leaflets that ordered the city's Jews to provide a list of property they own and pay a registration fee "or else have their citizenship revoked, face deportation and see their assets confiscated," reported Ynet News, Israel's largest news website.
Donetsk is the site of an "anti-terrorist" operation by the Ukraine government, which has moved military columns into the region to force out militants who are demanding a referendum be held on joining Russia.
The leaflets bore the name of Denis Pushilin, who identified himself as chairman of "Donetsk's temporary government," and were distributed near the Donetsk synagogue and other areas, according to the report.
Pushilin acknowledged the flyers were distributed by his organization but he disavowed their content, according to the web site Jews of Kiev, Ynet reported.
Emanuel Shechter, in Israel, told Ynet his friends in Donetsk sent him a copy of the leaflet through social media.
"They told me that masked men were waiting for Jewish people after the Passover eve prayer, handed them the flyer and told them to obey its instructions," he said.
The leaflet begins, "Dear Ukraine citizens of Jewish nationality," and states that all people of Jewish descent over 16 years old must report to the Commissioner for Nationalities in the Donetsk Regional Administration building and "register."
It says the reason is because the leaders of the Jewish community of Ukraine supported Bendery Junta, a reference to Stepan Bandera, the leader of the Ukrainian nationalist movement that fought for Ukrainian independence at the end of World War II, "and oppose the pro-Slavic People's Republic of Donetsk," a name adopted by the militant leadership.
The leaflet then described which documents Jews should provide: "ID and passport are required to register your Jewish religion, religious documents of family members, as well as documents establishing the rights to all real estate property that belongs to you, including vehicles."
Consequences for non-compliance will result in citizenship bein g revoked "and you will be forced outside the country with a confiscation of property." A registration fee of $50 would be required, it said.
Olga Resnikova, 32, a Jewish resident of Donetsk, told Ynet she never experienced anti-Semitism in the city until she saw this leaflet.
"We don't know if these notifications were distributed by pro-Russian activists or someone else, but it's serious that it exists," she said. "The text reminds of the fascists in 1941," she said referring to the Nazis who occupied Ukraine during World War II.
whembly wrote: Um... wat? Didn't we see this movie before?
Jews ordered to register in east Ukraine Jews in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk where pro-Russian militants have taken over government buildings were told they have to "register" with the Ukrainians who are trying to make the city become part of Russia, according to Israeli media.
Jews emerging from a synagogue say they were handed leaflets that ordered the city's Jews to provide a list of property they own and pay a registration fee "or else have their citizenship revoked, face deportation and see their assets confiscated," reported Ynet News, Israel's largest news website.
Donetsk is the site of an "anti-terrorist" operation by the Ukraine government, which has moved military columns into the region to force out militants who are demanding a referendum be held on joining Russia.
The leaflets bore the name of Denis Pushilin, who identified himself as chairman of "Donetsk's temporary government," and were distributed near the Donetsk synagogue and other areas, according to the report.
Pushilin acknowledged the flyers were distributed by his organization but he disavowed their content, according to the web site Jews of Kiev, Ynet reported.
Emanuel Shechter, in Israel, told Ynet his friends in Donetsk sent him a copy of the leaflet through social media.
"They told me that masked men were waiting for Jewish people after the Passover eve prayer, handed them the flyer and told them to obey its instructions," he said.
The leaflet begins, "Dear Ukraine citizens of Jewish nationality," and states that all people of Jewish descent over 16 years old must report to the Commissioner for Nationalities in the Donetsk Regional Administration building and "register."
It says the reason is because the leaders of the Jewish community of Ukraine supported Bendery Junta, a reference to Stepan Bandera, the leader of the Ukrainian nationalist movement that fought for Ukrainian independence at the end of World War II, "and oppose the pro-Slavic People's Republic of Donetsk," a name adopted by the militant leadership.
The leaflet then described which documents Jews should provide: "ID and passport are required to register your Jewish religion, religious documents of family members, as well as documents establishing the rights to all real estate property that belongs to you, including vehicles."
Consequences for non-compliance will result in citizenship bein g revoked "and you will be forced outside the country with a confiscation of property." A registration fee of $50 would be required, it said.
Olga Resnikova, 32, a Jewish resident of Donetsk, told Ynet she never experienced anti-Semitism in the city until she saw this leaflet.
"We don't know if these notifications were distributed by pro-Russian activists or someone else, but it's serious that it exists," she said. "The text reminds of the fascists in 1941," she said referring to the Nazis who occupied Ukraine during World War II.
If this is real, its a big issue. I would have to see more info before I believed it. Is anybody really stupid enough to try to pull this off?
USA today and other israeli papers confirm that the leaflets are factual,
while you may think no one is stupid enough to pull it off,
let me re iterate:
Over 10% of popular votes in the ukrain went to a neo-nazi party.
the % has gone UP since then, and several other groups (right sector, ect) have allied into the neo nazi/antisemitic/ect movements that are gaining traction, not just in ukraine, but it lots of europe.
Svoboda has top positions in the new coup placed government, and as I have been saying for almost 5 months not, it is not by accident.
That we saw so many open supporters of neo-nazism in the maiden riots, and literally, NO ONE opposing them, should speak volumes to the amount of support they have. Neo nazis should be run out of town like KKK members, if you dont run them out, its acceptance of them.
Unfortunately thats what we have now in ukraine, total acceptance of these parties/groups like right sector, and a grown amount of direct support for them.
not ONLY that, but western media, governments and money, has directly supported these people...
so, NOW will people start taking this seriously? I recall an absurd amount of hand waivium in this thread about how having nazi parites gain legitimacy and popular support is somthing to be totally ignored as it doesnt matter.
Is registering jews, killing civies, robbing civies, threatenting to cleans ethnic russians, "nazi type stuff" enough for you to at least NOT want to be supporting these people?
the flyer is confirmed by numerous, reputable cources now, far from sketchy, and I fully expect the west to ignore or cover it up with heaps of lies, mostly along the lines of "the russians did it"
Let's rethink this Aid Package we're coming up with in the US goes on hold. If this is true I would urge Putin to "get ta stepping" in Eastern Ukraine. If Obama get frisky I fax a copy to him with a reminder of "your supporting these guys right?"
easysauce wrote: the flyer is confirmed by numerous, reputable cources now, far from sketchy, and I fully expect the west to ignore or cover it up with heaps of lies, mostly along the lines of "the russians did it"
Ummmm..... If the reports are that the leaflets are demanding that Jewish citizens register with the separatist pro-Russians why would the West ignore it or cover it up?
easysauce wrote: USA today and other israeli papers confirm that the leaflets are factual,
while you may think no one is stupid enough to pull it off,
let me re iterate:
Over 10% of popular votes in the ukrain went to a neo-nazi party.
the % has gone UP since then, and several other groups (right sector, ect) have allied into the neo nazi/antisemitic/ect movements that are gaining traction, not just in ukraine, but it lots of europe.
Svoboda has top positions in the new coup placed government, and as I have been saying for almost 5 months not, it is not by accident.
That we saw so many open supporters of neo-nazism in the maiden riots, and literally, NO ONE opposing them, should speak volumes to the amount of support they have. Neo nazis should be run out of town like KKK members, if you dont run them out, its acceptance of them.
Unfortunately thats what we have now in ukraine, total acceptance of these parties/groups like right sector, and a grown amount of direct support for them.
not ONLY that, but western media, governments and money, has directly supported these people...
so, NOW will people start taking this seriously? I recall an absurd amount of hand waivium in this thread about how having nazi parites gain legitimacy and popular support is somthing to be totally ignored as it doesnt matter.
Is registering jews, killing civies, robbing civies, threatenting to cleans ethnic russians, "nazi type stuff" enough for you to at least NOT want to be supporting these people?
I knew that Svoboda was anti Semitic, but that is a group from West Ukraine, and part of the original illegitimate uprising, hence one of the reasons I'm not a fan of the new regime. These pamphlets are said to be coming from the Pro-Russian Eastern Ukrainians. It doesn't make sense to me. Seams a Red Herring. I would need to see one of the actual West Ukrainian Governors say "Yes this is us", but so far they have all denied it.
This is something that I could type up and print on my computer, there is no signature, no nothing. I'm calling Shenanigans.
easysauce wrote: USA today and other israeli papers confirm that the leaflets are factual,
while you may think no one is stupid enough to pull it off,
let me re iterate:
Over 10% of popular votes in the ukrain went to a neo-nazi party.
the % has gone UP since then, and several other groups (right sector, ect) have allied into the neo nazi/antisemitic/ect movements that are gaining traction, not just in ukraine, but it lots of europe.
Svoboda has top positions in the new coup placed government, and as I have been saying for almost 5 months not, it is not by accident.
That we saw so many open supporters of neo-nazism in the maiden riots, and literally, NO ONE opposing them, should speak volumes to the amount of support they have. Neo nazis should be run out of town like KKK members, if you dont run them out, its acceptance of them.
Unfortunately thats what we have now in ukraine, total acceptance of these parties/groups like right sector, and a grown amount of direct support for them.
not ONLY that, but western media, governments and money, has directly supported these people...
so, NOW will people start taking this seriously? I recall an absurd amount of hand waivium in this thread about how having nazi parites gain legitimacy and popular support is somthing to be totally ignored as it doesnt matter.
Is registering jews, killing civies, robbing civies, threatenting to cleans ethnic russians, "nazi type stuff" enough for you to at least NOT want to be supporting these people?
I knew that Svoboda was anti Semitic, but that is a group from West Ukraine, and part of the original illegitimate uprising, hence one of the reasons I'm not a fan of the new regime. These pamphlets are said to be coming from the Pro-Russian Eastern Ukrainians. It doesn't make sense to me. Seams a Red Herring. I would need to see one of the actual West Ukrainian Governors say "Yes this is us", but so far they have all denied it.
And the Jewish community had a signed statement sent out stating that they were happy to be in the Ukraine, to be Ukrainian and they have not felt threatened or their position imperilled.
That flyer could be real, antisemitism is still very much alive in Ukraine. It is long been that way. Within living memory, jews were still being persecuted and killed in pogroms.
Antisemite are not unique to Western Ukraine either, altough they are by far the most numerous there.
In any case, if the Russians come in they will put a stop to it. I am not so sure the Kievan regime would do the same...
Of course it could also be propaganda from Kiev aimed at demonising the protesters.
Iron_Captain wrote: That flyer could be real, antisemitism is still very much alive in Ukraine. It is long been that way. Within living memory, jews were still being persecuted and killed in pogroms.
Antisemite are not unique to Western Ukraine either, altough they are by far the most numerous there.
In any case, if the Russians come in they will put a stop to it. I am not so sure the Kievan regime would do the same...
Of course it could also be propaganda from Kiev aimed at demonising the protesters.
Iron_Captain wrote: That flyer could be real, antisemitism is still very much alive in Ukraine. It is long been that way. Within living memory, jews were still being persecuted and killed in pogroms.
Antisemite are not unique to Western Ukraine either, altough they are by far the most numerous there.
In any case, if the Russians come in they will put a stop to it. I am not so sure the Kievan regime would do the same...
Of course it could also be propaganda from Kiev aimed at demonising the protesters.
Or it could be Russian propaganda?
Could be, but that would be highly unlikely. It could be used by the Russians as an excuse for invading, but that seems very, very far-fetched.
Russia supports the protesters, spreading negative propaganda about them seems contrary to that.
Iron_Captain wrote: That flyer could be real, antisemitism is still very much alive in Ukraine. It is long been that way. Within living memory, jews were still being persecuted and killed in pogroms.
Antisemite are not unique to Western Ukraine either, altough they are by far the most numerous there.
In any case, if the Russians come in they will put a stop to it. I am not so sure the Kievan regime would do the same...
Of course it could also be propaganda from Kiev aimed at demonising the protesters.
Or it could be Russian propaganda?
It must be a weird form of propaganda then, that makes your own side look bad and anti-semitic.
Iron_Captain wrote: That flyer could be real, antisemitism is still very much alive in Ukraine. It is long been that way. Within living memory, jews were still being persecuted and killed in pogroms.
Antisemite are not unique to Western Ukraine either, altough they are by far the most numerous there.
In any case, if the Russians come in they will put a stop to it. I am not so sure the Kievan regime would do the same...
Of course it could also be propaganda from Kiev aimed at demonising the protesters.
Or it could be Russian propaganda?
It must be a weird form of propaganda then, that makes your own side look bad and anti-semitic.
d-usa wrote: So the best way to stop the anti-Semites that want to be part of Russia is to let them become part of Russia?
Well, we don't know if the pro Russians are really anti-semites. We know for a fact there were proto-nazis in the western Ukraine radicals that overthrew the government.
We know an anti semetic letter was passed out in eastern Ukraine, but who passed it out is in question. Its pretty unofficial looking, has no signature and everyone is denying it. Could be a red herring or even a double red herring. From my time spent in Russia I can say that many Eastern Europeans are not terribly fond of Jewish people, so the could be and probably are anti Semites on both sides.
The question really is if this is a legitimate thing that is actually happening or some kind of hoax.
d-usa wrote: So the best way to stop the anti-Semites that want to be part of Russia is to let them become part of Russia?
Well, we don't know if the pro Russians are really anti-semites. We know for a fact there were proto-nazis in the western Ukraine radicals that overthrew the government.
We know an anti semetic letter was passed out in eastern Ukraine, but who passed it out is in question. Its pretty unofficial looking, has no signature and everyone is denying it.
The leaflets bore the name of Denis Pushilin, who identified himself as chairman of "Donetsk's temporary government," and were distributed near the Donetsk synagogue and other areas, according to the report.
Pushilin acknowledged the flyers were distributed by his organization but he disavowed their content, according to the web site Jews of Kiev, Ynet reported.
So yeah, everyone except the dude supposedly in charge of the pro-Russian rebels.
d-usa wrote: So the best way to stop the anti-Semites that want to be part of Russia is to let them become part of Russia?
Well, we don't know if the pro Russians are really anti-semites. We know for a fact there were proto-nazis in the western Ukraine radicals that overthrew the government.
We know an anti semetic letter was passed out in eastern Ukraine, but who passed it out is in question. Its pretty unofficial looking, has no signature and everyone is denying it.
The leaflets bore the name of Denis Pushilin, who identified himself as chairman of "Donetsk's temporary government," and were distributed near the Donetsk synagogue and other areas, according to the report.
Pushilin acknowledged the flyers were distributed by his organization but he disavowed their content, according to the web site Jews of Kiev, Ynet reported.
So yeah, everyone except the dude supposedly in charge of the pro-Russian rebels.
"The flyers were official-looking documents that carried what was presented as Pushilin’s signature, but the news site tvrain.ru on Wednesday quoted Pushilin as denying any connection to the flyers, calling them a provocation."
"In an interview with Ukrainian press, Pushilin confirmed that the flyers, marked with the emblem of his organization, were really distributed in Donetsk. But unlike various English translations, in the original interview with Ukrainian media, Pushilin not only rejected the content of the flyers, but also denied that his organization was behind their printing. “Some idiots yesterday were giving out these flyers in targeted areas,” he said, claiming that he had never himself used the “people’s governor” title the flyer bestows on him. Pushilin did not suggest who else may have been handing out the anti-Semetic flyers, but went on to criticize the original site for posting it online. "
This is what I find fishy about this situation. I have read about 10 different articles...they all tell a different story. The sheet has a signature, the sheet doesn't have a signature, Pushlin acknowledges, Pushlin has no idea. All the accounts have different FACTS.....which is just very odd.
Afaik, Pushilin has vehemently denied any connection to the flyers. I heard him saying it myself on TV. The only thing he acknowledged was that the flyers were distributed in Donyetsk (but not by his organisation). Of course, some Western and Ukrainian media had to make a 'liberal translation' of his words. I agree with Andrew above here. It smells like dirty tricks.
One question I do have is what is with all the masks. It makes me think these could be Russian operatives in disguise.
"The pact calls for all illegal armed groups to be disarmed, all illegally seized buildings to be returned to their legitimate owners and all occupied public spaces to be vacated. It promises amnesty for protesters who leave buildings and give up their weapons, apart from those convicted of capital crimes."
I'd love for Putin to say this includes the current reigning government of Ukraine just for the LOLs.
WASHINGTON AND NEW YORK (Reuters) - In September 2001, as the U.S. reeled from the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Vladimir Putin supported Washington's imminent invasion of Afghanistan in ways that would have been inconceivable during the Cold War.
He agreed that U.S. planes carrying humanitarian aid could fly through Russian air space. He said the U.S. military could use airbases in former Soviet republics in Central Asia. And he ordered his generals to brief their U.S. counterparts on their own ill-fated 1980s occupation of Afghanistan.
During Putin's visit to President George W. Bush's Texas ranch two months later, the U.S. leader, speaking at a local high school, declared his Russian counterpart "a new style of leader, a reformer…, a man who's going to make a huge difference in making the world more peaceful, by working closely with the United States."
For a moment, it seemed, the distrust and antipathy of the Cold War were fading.
Then, just weeks later, Bush announced that the United States was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, so that it could build a system in Eastern Europe to protect NATO allies and U.S. bases from Iranian missile attack. In a nationally televised address, Putin warned that the move would undermine arms control and nonproliferation efforts.
"This step has not come as a surprise to us," Putin said. "But we believe this decision to be mistaken."
The sequence of events early in Washington's relationship with Putin reflects a dynamic that has persisted through the ensuing 14 years and the current crisis in Ukraine: U.S. actions, some intentional and some not, sparking an overreaction from an aggrieved Putin.
As Russia masses tens of thousands of troops along the Russian-Ukrainian border, Putin is thwarting what the Kremlin says is an American plot to surround Russia with hostile neighbors. Experts said he is also promoting "Putinism" - a conservative, ultra-nationalist form of state capitalism - as a global alternative to Western democracy.
NOT PAYING ATTENTION?
It's also a dynamic that some current and former U.S. officials said reflects an American failure to recognize that while the Soviet Union is gone as an ideological enemy, Russia has remained a major power that demands the same level of foreign policy attention as China and other large nations - a relationship that should not just be a means to other ends, but an end in itself.
"I just don't think we were really paying attention," said James F. Collins, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Moscow in the late 1990s. The bilateral relationship "was seen as not a big deal."
Putin was never going to be an easy partner. He is a Russian nationalist with authoritarian tendencies who, like his Russian predecessors for centuries, harbors a deep distrust of the West, according to senior U.S. officials. Much of his world view was formed as a KGB officer in the twilight years of the Cold War and as a government official in the chaotic post-Soviet Russia of the 1990s, which Putin and many other Russians view as a period when the United States repeatedly took advantage of Russian weakness.
Since becoming Russia's president in 2000, Putin has made restoring Russia's strength - and its traditional sphere of influence - his central goal. He has also cemented his hold on power, systematically quashed dissent and used Russia's energy supplies as an economic billy club against its neighbors. Aided by high oil prices and Russia's United Nations Security Council veto, Putin has perfected the art of needling American presidents, at times obstructing U.S. policies.
Officials from the administrations of Presidents Bush and Barack Obama said American officials initially overestimated their potential areas of cooperation with Putin. Then, through a combination of overconfidence, inattention and occasional clumsiness, Washington contributed to a deep spiral in relations with Moscow.
COMMON CAUSE
Bush and Putin's post-2001 camaraderie foundered on a core dispute: Russia's relationship with its neighbors. In November 2002, Bush backed NATO's invitation to seven nations - including former Soviet republics Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - to begin talks to join the Western alliance. In 2004, with Bush as a driving force, the seven Eastern European nations joined NATO.
Putin and other Russian officials asked why NATO continued to grow when the enemy it was created to fight, the Soviet Union, had ceased to exist. And they asked what NATO expansion would do to counter new dangers, such as terrorism and proliferation.
"This purely mechanical expansion does not let us face the current threats," Putin said, "and cannot allow us to prevent such things as the terrorist attacks in Madrid or restore stability in Afghanistan."
Thomas E. Graham, who served as Bush's senior director for Russia on the National Security Council, said a larger effort should have been made to create a new post-Soviet, European security structure that replaced NATO and included Russia.
"What we should have been aiming for - and what we should be aiming for at this point," Graham said, "is a security structure that's based on three pillars: the United States, a more or less unified Europe, and Russia."
Graham said small, incremental attempts to test Russian intentions in the early 2000s in Afghanistan, for example, would have been low-risk ways to gauge Putin's sincerity. "We never tested Putin," Graham said. "Our policy never tested Putin to see whether he was really committed to a different type of relationship."
But Vice President Dick Cheney, Senator John McCain and other conservatives, as well as hawkish Democrats, remained suspicious of Russia and eager to expand NATO. They argued that Moscow should not be given veto power over which nations could join the alliance, and that no American president should rebuff demands from Eastern European nations to escape Russian dominance.
DEMOCRACY IN OUR TIME
Another core dispute between Bush and Putin related to democracy. What Bush and other American officials saw as democracy spreading across the former Soviet bloc, Putin saw as pro-American regime change.
The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, without U.N. authorization and over the objections of France, Germany and Russia, was a turning point for Putin. He said the war made a mockery of American claims of promoting democracy abroad and upholding international law.
Putin was also deeply skeptical of U.S. efforts to nurture democracy in the former Soviet bloc, where the State Department and American nonprofit groups provided training and funds to local civil-society groups. In public speeches, he accused the United States of meddling.
In late 2003, street protests in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, known as the Rose Revolution, led to the election of a pro-Western leader. Four months later, street protests in Ukraine that became known as the Orange Revolution resulted in a pro-Western president taking office there.
Putin saw both developments as American-backed plots and slaps in the face, so soon after his assistance in Afghanistan, according to senior U.S. officials.
In 2006, Bush and Putin's sparring over democracy intensified. In a press conference at the first G-8 summit hosted by Russia, the two presidents had a testy exchange. Bush said that the United States was promoting freedom in Iraq, which was engulfed in violence. Putin openly mocked him.
"We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq," Putin said, smiling as the audience erupted into laughter, "I will tell you quite honestly."
Bush tried to laugh off the remark. "Just wait," he replied, referring to Iraq.
A PITSTOP IN MOSCOW?
Graham said the Bush administration telegraphed in small but telling ways that other foreign countries, particularly Iraq, took precedence over the bilateral relationship with Moscow.
In 2006, for example, the White House asked the Kremlin for permission for Bush to make a refueling stop in Moscow on his way to an Asia-Pacific summit meeting. But it made clear that Bush was not looking to meet with Putin, whom he would see on the sidelines of the summit.
After Russian diplomats complained, Graham was sent to Moscow to determine if Putin really wanted a meeting and to make clear that if there was one, it would be substance-free.
In the end, the two presidents met and agreed to ask their underlings to work on a nonproliferation package.
"When the Russian team came to Washington in December 2006, in a fairly high-level ... group, we didn't have anything to offer," Graham said. "We hadn't had any time to think about it. We were still focused on Iraq."
Graham said that the Bush administration's approach slighted Moscow. "We missed some opportunities in the Bush administration's initial years to put this on a different track," Graham said. "And then later on, some of our actions, intentional or not, sent a clear message to Moscow that we didn't care."
THREE TRAIN WRECKS
Bush's relationship with Putin unraveled in 2008. In February, Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia with the support of the United States - a step that Russia, a longtime supporter of Serbia, had been trying to block diplomatically for more than a decade. In April, Bush won support at a NATO summit in Bucharest for the construction of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe.
Bush called on NATO to give Ukraine and Georgia a so-called Membership Action Plan, a formal process that would put each on a path toward eventually joining the alliance. France and Germany blocked him and warned that further NATO expansion would spur an aggressive Russian stance when Moscow regained power.
In the end, the alliance simply issued a statement saying the two countries "will become members of NATO." That compromise risked the worst of both worlds - antagonizing Moscow without giving Kiev and Tbilisi a roadmap to join NATO.
The senior U.S. official said these steps amounted to "three train wrecks" from Putin's point of view, exacerbating the Russian leader's sense of victimization. "Doing all three of those things in kind of close proximity - Kosovo independence, missile defense and the NATO expansion decisions - sort of fed his sense of people trying to take advantage of Russia," he said.
In August 2008, Putin struck back. After Georgia launched an offensive to regain control of the breakaway, pro-Russian region of South Ossetia, Putin launched a military operation that expanded Russian control of South Ossetia and a second breakaway area, Abkhazia.
The Bush administration, tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, publicly protested but declined to intervene militarily in Georgia. Putin emerged as the clear winner and achieved his goal of standing up to the West.
ONLY ONE MAJOR ISSUE
After his 2008 election victory, Barack Obama carried out a sweeping review of Russia policy. Its primary architect was Michael McFaul, a Stanford University professor and vocal proponent of greater democracy in Russia who took the National Security Council position previously held by Thomas Graham.
In a recent interview, McFaul said that when Obama's new national security team surveyed the administration's primary foreign policy objectives, they found that few involved Russia. Only one directly related to bilateral relations with Moscow: a new nuclear arms reduction treaty.
The result, McFaul said, was that relations with Moscow were seen as important in terms of achieving other foreign policy goals, and not as important in terms of Russia itself.
"So that was our approach," he said.
Obama's new Russia strategy was called "the reset." In July 2009, he traveled to Moscow to start implementing it.
In an interview with the Associated Press a few days before leaving Washington, Obama chided Putin, who had become Russia's prime minister in 2008 after reaching his two-term constitutional limit as president. Obama said the United States was developing a "very good relationship" with the man Putin had anointed as his successor, Dmitry Medvedev, and accused Putin of using "Cold War approaches" to relations with Washington.
"I think Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new," Obama said.
In Moscow, Obama spent five hours meeting with Medvedev and only one hour meeting with Putin, who was still widely seen as the country's real power. After their meeting, Putin said U.S.-Russian relations had gone through various stages.
"There were periods when our relations flourished quite a bit and there were also periods of, shall we say, grayish mood between our two countries and of stagnation," he said, as Obama sat a few feet away.
At first, the reset fared well. During Obama's visit, Moscow agreed to greatly expand Washington's ability to ship military supplies to Afghanistan via Russia. In April 2010, the United States and Russia signed a new START treaty, further reducing the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. Later that year, Russia supported sweeping new U.N. economic sanctions on Iran and blocked the sale of sophisticated, Russian-made S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems to Tehran.
Experts said the two-year honeymoon was the result of the Obama administration's engaging Russia on issues where the two countries shared interests, such as reducing nuclear arms, countering terrorism and nonproliferation. The same core issues that sparked tensions during the Bush administration - democracy and Russia's neighbors - largely went unaddressed.
A VAPORIZED RELATIONSHIP
In 2011, Putin accused Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of secretly organizing street demonstrations after disputed Russian parliamentary elections. Putin said Clinton had encouraged "mercenary" Kremlin foes. And he claimed that foreign governments had provided "hundreds of millions" of dollars to Russian opposition groups.
"She set the tone for some opposition activists, gave them a signal, they heard this signal and started active work," Putin said.
McFaul called that a gross exaggeration. He said the U.S. government and American non-profit groups in total have provided tens of millions of dollars in support to civil society groups in Russia and former Soviet bloc countries since 1989.
In 2012, Putin was elected to a third term as president and launched a sweeping crackdown on dissent and re-centralization of power. McFaul, then the U.S. ambassador in Moscow, publicly criticized the moves in speeches and Twitter posts.
In the interview, McFaul blamed Putin for the collapse in relations. McFaul said the Russian leader rebuffed repeated invitations to visit Washington when he was prime minister and declined to attend a G-8 meeting in Washington after he again became president. Echoing Bush-era officials, McFaul said it was politically impossible for an American president to trade Russian cooperation on Iran, for example, for U.S. silence on democracy in Russia and Moscow's pressuring of its neighbors.
"We're not going to do it if it means trading partnerships or interests with our partners or allies in the region," McFaul said. "And we're not going to do it if it means trading our speaking about democracy and human rights."
Andrew Weiss, a Russia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that clashes over democracy ended any hopes of U.S.-Russian rapprochement, as they had in the Bush administration.
"That fight basically vaporizes the relationship," said Weiss.
In 2013, U.S.-Russian relations plummeted. In June, Putin granted asylum to National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. Obama, in turn, canceled a planned summit meeting with Putin in Moscow that fall. It was the first time a U.S. summit with the Kremlin had been canceled in 50 years.
Last fall, demonstrators in Kiev began demanding that Ukraine move closer to the European Union. At the time, the Obama White House was deeply skeptical of Putin and paying little attention to the former Soviet bloc, according to Weiss. White House officials had come to see Russia as a foreign policy dead end, not a source of potential successes.
Deferring to European officials, the Obama administration backed a plan that would have moved Ukraine closer to the EU and away from a pro-Russian economic bloc created by Putin. Critics said it was a mistake to make Ukraine choose sides.
Jack F. Matlock, who served as U.S. ambassador to Moscow from 1987 to 1991, said that years of escalating protests by Putin made it clear he believed the West was surrounding him with hostile neighbors. And for centuries, Russian leaders have viewed a friendly Ukraine as vital to Moscow's defense.
"The real red line has always been Ukraine," Matlock said. "When you begin to poke them in the most sensitive area, unnecessarily, about their security, you are going to get a reaction that makes them a lot less cooperative."
A PLIANT RUSSIA?
American experts said it was vital for the U.S. to establish a new long-term strategy toward Russia that does not blame the current crisis solely on Putin. Matthew Rojansky, a Russia expert at the Wilson Center, argued that demonizing Putin reflected the continued failure of American officials to recognize Russia's power, interest and importance.
"Putin is a reflection of Russia," Rojansky said. "This weird notion that Putin will go away and there will suddenly be a pliant Russia is false."
A senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, called for a long-term strategy that exploits the multiple advantages the U.S. and Europe enjoy over Putin's Russia.
"I would much rather be playing our hand than his over the longer term," the official said. "Because he has a number of, I think, pretty serious strategic disadvantages - a one-dimensional economy, a political system and a political elite that's pretty rotten through corruption."
Matlock, the former U.S. ambassador, said it was vital for Washington and Moscow to end a destructive pattern of careless American action followed by Russian overreaction.
"So many of the problems in our relationship really relate, I would say, to what I'd call inconsiderate American actions," Matlock said. "Many of them were not meant to be damaging to Russia. … But the Russian interpretation often exaggerated the degree of hostility and overreacted."
whembly wrote: Are Russians still trying to annex Alaska?
Pro Tip: You think Americans in general are loaded with guns on the street? Lemme tell ya something... Alaskans are armed to the teeth.
*My pa lived there over 30 years... you should see their personal armoury .
Besides... Bullwinkle will trample anyone.
Oh, but the Russians have regretted selling Alaska often enough. Especially during the Cold War and when it turned out Alaska was full of valueable resources. Back in the 19th century, Alaska was just a cold piece of worthless, unprofitable land. Stupid Tsar thought he had made a good deal
edit: This video got over 4 million views in less than 4 days. Lol
right sector assaulted a checkpoint, shot several people, killing two and wounding others.
the checkpoint was a group of pro-russia protestors (who had no guns, just bats, to comply with the easter truce)
Right sector opened fire on the with a machine gun + assault rifles, and was eventually chased off when another group of pro russian protestors arrived with guns.
One of the right sector guys was captured, and confirmed to be part of the right sector paramilitary group.
from RT, story is also confirmed by BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27093347OFC BBC is tactfully not mentioning the evidence from the captured attacker proving he is a member of right sector, but we all have our "propaganda" goggle on when reading BOTH sides right? RIGHT?!?
"Five people have been killed in a gunfight in Slavyansk, a city in eastern Ukraine held by anti-government protesters. The fatalities include three protesters and two attackers, who are believed to be from the Right Sector paramilitary.
Read RT's live updates on Ukrainian turmoil
The deaths came after a night attack on a protester checkpoint on the outskirts of the city. Four cars drove by the checkpoint and opened fire at the local residents manning it, killing two people and seriously injuring several others.
“They approached with their high beam headlamps on. Our man went to them and asked not to blind us, show IDs and open the trunk for inspection. Then an assault rifle got stuck out of the window and he was gunned down,” an eyewitness, Vladimir, told RT.
He added some of the people trying to flee the attackers were shot in their backs. One gunshot victim died later in hospital from a head wound, local medics confirmed. Two others are undergoing treatment. "
easysauce wrote: right sector assaulted a checkpoint, shot several people, killing two and wounding others.
the checkpoint was a group of pro-russia protestors (who had no guns, just bats, to comply with the easter truce)
If they honestly didn't have firearms as part of a truce, this fething sucks.
Yes, the protesters were unarmed because of the truce. They had to get weapons from the city, after which they managed to chase the attackers away and kill two of them and capturing one.
The captive confirmed to be part of Pravy Sektor. Pravy Sektor has denied the attack, but the evidence found in the attacker's cars is rather condemning.
This is a serious blasphemy; they defiled the holy day of Easter. It really shows what kind of people now sit in Kiev.
I think what is more disturbing, not to undermine how bad this attack is.
But this means right sector is totally out of the control of the new Kiev regime.
They were told very clearly to not start shooting people, just as they were told to NOT loot the national armories.
Right sector has made some fairly violent promises in the last month or so, and this attack proves they were not empty threats.
Hopefully someone within the new kiev administration cleans up house before right sector's body count gets to the point where someone else has to intervene.
Unless of course, and this is the much worse option, right sector is still very much "under control", the whole point all along, get right sector to do the dirty work, so there is plausible dependability, and force russias hand to intervene if ethnic russians start being murdered in ukraine.
Well, Tymoshenko did say she wanted to "exterminate the Russians" or something to that effect.
Also, has anyone else noticed that all the gung-ho, pro-West war hawks posting in this thread seem to have gone quiet lately? I guess finding out that you're backing a motley bunch of violent Neo Nazi's will tend to curb your enthusiasm.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Well, Tymoshenko did say she wanted to "exterminate the Russians" or something to that effect.
Also, has anyone else noticed that all the gung-ho, pro-West war hawks posting in this thread seem to have gone quiet lately? I guess finding out that you're backing a motley bunch of violent Neo Nazi's will tend to curb your enthusiasm.
I'm beginning to think this was part of the Wests plan in the first place. Lets look at it, Ukraine was basically set up for massive sectarian violence once there was any real political instability. The country is basically divided ethnically and there are plenty of weapons to be had....instant powderkeg. Knowing this, the west destabilizes the country, hoping for the typical bloodshed so that they can send in Nato peacekeepers, thus insuring control of the country. I just don't think they ever counted on Russia's hard counter to their moves. Russian intervention has kept the area pretty peaceful, ruining the Wests excuse for sending troops in.
So, there appears to be confirmation that all those guys seizing Ukrainian government buildings are indeed Russian special operations soldiers and intelligence operatives working in sanitized kit. New York Times has the story. I've pasted it below, broken up into three spoiler sections (it's long).
Spoiler:
KIEV, Ukraine — For two weeks, the mysteriously well-armed, professional gunmen known as “green men” have seized Ukrainian government sites in town after town, igniting a brush fire of separatist unrest across eastern Ukraine. Strenuous denials from the Kremlin have closely followed each accusation by Ukrainian officials that the world was witnessing a stealthy invasion by Russian forces.
Now, photographs and descriptions from eastern Ukraine endorsed by the Obama administration on Sunday suggest that many of the green men are indeed Russian military and intelligence forces — equipped in the same fashion as Russian special operations troops involved in annexing the Crimea region in February. Some of the men photographed in Ukraine have been identified in other photos clearly taken among Russian troops in other settings.
And Ukraine’s state security service has identified one Russian reported to be active among the green men as Igor Ivanovich Strelkov, a Russian military intelligence operative in his mid- to late 50s. He is said to have a long résumé of undercover service with the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian general staff, most recently in Crimea in February and March and now in and around the eastern Ukrainian city of Slovyansk.
“There has been broad unity in the international community about the connection between Russia and some of the armed militants in eastern Ukraine, and the photos presented by the Ukrainians last week only further confirm this, which is why U.S. officials have continued to make that case,” Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said Sunday.
The question of Russia’s role in eastern Ukraine has a critical bearing on the agreement reached Thursday in Geneva among Russian, Ukrainian, American and European diplomats to ease the crisis. American officials have said that Russia would be held responsible for ensuring that the Ukrainian government buildings were vacated, and that it could face new sanctions if the terms were not met.
Spoiler:
The Kremlin insists that Russian forces are in no way involved, and that Mr. Strelkov does not even exist, at least not as a Russian operative sent to Ukraine with orders to stir up trouble. “It’s all nonsense,” President Vladimir V. Putin said Thursday during a four-hour question-and-answer session on Russian television. “There are no Russian units, special services or instructors in the east of Ukraine.” Pro-Russian activists who have seized government buildings in at least 10 towns across eastern Ukraine also deny getting help from professional Russian soldiers or intelligence agents.
But masking the identity of its forces, and clouding the possibilities for international denunciation, is a central part of the Russian strategy, developed over years of conflict in the former Soviet sphere, Ukrainian and American officials say.
John R. Schindler, a former National Security Agency counterintelligence officer who now teaches at the Naval War College, calls it “special war”: “an amalgam of espionage, subversion, even forms of terrorism to attain political ends without actually going to war in any conventional sense.”
And one country, Mr. Schindler noted in an article last year in which he coined the term, that particularly excels at special war is Russia, which carried out its first post-Soviet war to regain control of rebellious Chechnya back in 1994 by sending in a column of armored vehicles filled with Russian soldiers masquerading as pro-Moscow Chechens.
Russia’s flair for “maskirovka” — disguised warfare — has become even more evident under Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. officer whose closest advisers are mostly from that same Soviet intelligence agency.
For nearly two months now, the shaky new Ukrainian government has been left to battle phantoms, first in Crimea and now in eastern Ukraine, where previously fringe pro-Russian political activists have had their fortunes lifted by small but heavily armed groups of masked men.
In the eastern city of Slovyansk, under the control of pro-Russian insurgents for more than a week now, the green men have worked hard to blend in with locals but have occasionally let the mask slip, apparently to send a clear message that any push to regain control by Ukrainian forces would risk bringing down the wrath of the Russian military.
A gradation of forces control the city and other areas now in the hands of separatist rebels, ranging from clearly professional masked soldiers and unruly groups of local men in camouflage, rifles slung over their shoulders, to teenage boys in sweatpants carrying baseball bats or hunting knives. At most times, only the local toughs are visible on the streets.
But when a woman sidled up to one of the masked gunmen in the city’s central square last week and asked where he was from, she got an answer that summed up Russia’s bedeviling and constantly shifting disguises. The gunman initially said he was “from Russia,” but when pressed, said coyly that he was “from New Russia,” a long-forgotten czarist-era term revived last week by Mr. Putin to describe a large section of eastern and southern Ukraine.
Asked by the woman what would happen if the Ukrainian Army attacked, he replied, “We have to stand for only 24 hours, to tend the fire, and after that, a one million man army will be here.”
When a Ukrainian armored column approached the town last Wednesday and then swiftly surrendered, a group of disciplined green men suddenly appeared on the scene and stood guard. Over the course of several hours, several of them told bystanders in the sympathetic crowd that they were Russians. They allowed themselves to be photographed with local girls, and drove an armored personnel carrier in circles to please the crowd.
Spoiler:
“It’s hard to fathom that groups of armed men in masks suddenly sprang forward from the population in eastern Ukraine and systematically began to occupy government facilities,” Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, NATO’s top military commander, wrote in a blog post on the alliance’s website. “It’s hard to fathom because it’s simply not true. What is happening in eastern Ukraine is a military operation that is well planned and organized, and we assess that it is being carried out at the direction of Russia.”
His evidence, however, was mostly circumstantial: Pro-Russian gunmen “exhibit telltale military training and equipment”; they handle weapons like professional soldiers, not new recruits to a pickup “self-defense” force; they carry weapons and equipment that are primarily Russian Army issue, not gear “that civilians would be likely to be able to get their hands on in large numbers.” General Breedlove conceded that such points, taken alone, might not prove much, “but taken in the aggregate, the story is clear.”
Heightening skepticism of Russia’s denials is also the fact that Mr. Putin, after denying any Russian link to the masked gunmen who seized government buildings in Crimea and blockaded Ukrainian military bases there, last week changed his story and said, “Of course, Russian servicemen did back the Crimean self-defense forces.”
More direct evidence of a Russian hand in eastern Ukraine is contained in a dossier of photographs provided by Ukraine to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a Vienna-based organization now monitoring the situation in Donetsk and other parts of the country. It features pictures taken in eastern Ukraine of unidentified gunmen and an earlier photograph of what looks like the same men appearing in a group shot of a Russian military unit in Russia.
One set of photographs shows what appears to be the same gunman in pictures taken in the Crimean annexation and more recently in Slovyansk. Another features a portly bearded man photographed in Slovyansk on April 14, wearing a camouflage uniform without insignia, but six years earlier, had been photographed during Russia’s invasion of Georgia with a Russian special forces patch on his left arm.
Another character in Ukraine’s case against Russia is Mr. Strelkov, the alleged military intelligence officer who Kiev says took part in a furtive Russian operation to prepare for the annexation of Crimea and, more recently, in insurgent action in Slovyansk.
No photographs have yet emerged of Mr. Strelkov, but the Security Service of Ukraine, the successor organization to what used to be Ukraine’s local branch of the K.G.B., has released a sketch of what it says is his face.
The security agency, known by its Ukrainian abbreviation S.B.U., first identified him publicly early last week after releasing an audio recording of what it said was a recording of an intercepted communication between Russian operatives in eastern Ukraine and their controller back in Russia.
In the recording, a man nicknamed “Strelok” — who the Ukrainian agency says is Mr. Strelkov — and others can be heard discussing weapons, roadblocks and how to hold on to captured positions in and near Slovyansk with a superior in Russia.
The superior, clearly anxious to keep Russia’s role hidden, can be heard ordering his men on the ground in Ukraine not to identify themselves and to find someone with a Ukrainian accent who can give an interview to a Russian television channel. It was very important, he added, to say on air that all the pro-Russian insurgents want is “federalization,” or constitutional changes to give eastern Ukraine more autonomy.
Military analysts say the Russian tactics show a disturbing amount of finesse that speak to long-term planning.
“The Russians have used very specialized, very effective forces,” said Jacob W. Kipp, an expert on the Russian military and the former deputy director of the United States Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.
“They don’t assume that civilians are cluttering up the battlefield; they assume they are going to be there,” he said. “They are trained to operate in these kind of environments.”
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Well, Tymoshenko did say she wanted to "exterminate the Russians" or something to that effect.
Also, has anyone else noticed that all the gung-ho, pro-West war hawks posting in this thread seem to have gone quiet lately? I guess finding out that you're backing a motley bunch of violent Neo Nazi's will tend to curb your enthusiasm.
Yeah, several of them, and Western media in general are pretty transparent in their motivations.
"Send in NATO!"
"Enter Ukraine into the EU!"
"Station ballistic missiles in Ukraine!"
"Station NATO troops and tanks on the Russian border!"
"Isolate Russia!"
Its a dangerous, bloodthirsty attitude. Rubbing their hands with glee and anticipation at the prospect of war. This will be World War 2 all over again.
A once proud and powerful nation, defeated and impoverished through a long war? (Cold War) Check.
Subjected to further humiliation as slices (in Russia's case, entire countries) of its territory are sliced off and annexed by other countries. Check.
Isolated and surrounded by an alliance of hostile nations? Check.
A new charismatic leader takes power, and offers a brighter future? No more will the nation be bullied and humiliated. Check.
Said new leader re-arms his countries military, and exercises its military might by annexing territories lost to them in recent decades; and to ruthlessly protect its national interests? Check.
A once proud and powerful nation, defeated and impoverished through a long war? (Cold War) Check.
Subjected to further humiliation as slices (in Russia's case, entire countries) of its territory are sliced off and annexed by other countries. Check.
Isolated and surrounded by an alliance of hostile nations? Check.
A new charismatic leader takes power, and offers a brighter future? No more will the nation be bullied and humiliated. Check.
Said new leader re-arms his countries military, and exercises its military might by annexing territories lost to them in recent decades; and to ruthlessly protect its national interests? Check.
When's the movie release? I'm interested. Kick Starter?
Seaward wrote: So, there appears to be confirmation that all those guys seizing Ukrainian government buildings are indeed Russian special operations soldiers and intelligence operatives working in sanitized kit. New York Times has the story. I've pasted it below, broken up into three spoiler sections (it's long).
Spoiler:
KIEV, Ukraine — For two weeks, the mysteriously well-armed, professional gunmen known as “green men” have seized Ukrainian government sites in town after town, igniting a brush fire of separatist unrest across eastern Ukraine. Strenuous denials from the Kremlin have closely followed each accusation by Ukrainian officials that the world was witnessing a stealthy invasion by Russian forces.
Now, photographs and descriptions from eastern Ukraine endorsed by the Obama administration on Sunday suggest that many of the green men are indeed Russian military and intelligence forces — equipped in the same fashion as Russian special operations troops involved in annexing the Crimea region in February. Some of the men photographed in Ukraine have been identified in other photos clearly taken among Russian troops in other settings.
And Ukraine’s state security service has identified one Russian reported to be active among the green men as Igor Ivanovich Strelkov, a Russian military intelligence operative in his mid- to late 50s. He is said to have a long résumé of undercover service with the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian general staff, most recently in Crimea in February and March and now in and around the eastern Ukrainian city of Slovyansk.
“There has been broad unity in the international community about the connection between Russia and some of the armed militants in eastern Ukraine, and the photos presented by the Ukrainians last week only further confirm this, which is why U.S. officials have continued to make that case,” Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said Sunday.
The question of Russia’s role in eastern Ukraine has a critical bearing on the agreement reached Thursday in Geneva among Russian, Ukrainian, American and European diplomats to ease the crisis. American officials have said that Russia would be held responsible for ensuring that the Ukrainian government buildings were vacated, and that it could face new sanctions if the terms were not met.
Spoiler:
The Kremlin insists that Russian forces are in no way involved, and that Mr. Strelkov does not even exist, at least not as a Russian operative sent to Ukraine with orders to stir up trouble. “It’s all nonsense,” President Vladimir V. Putin said Thursday during a four-hour question-and-answer session on Russian television. “There are no Russian units, special services or instructors in the east of Ukraine.” Pro-Russian activists who have seized government buildings in at least 10 towns across eastern Ukraine also deny getting help from professional Russian soldiers or intelligence agents.
But masking the identity of its forces, and clouding the possibilities for international denunciation, is a central part of the Russian strategy, developed over years of conflict in the former Soviet sphere, Ukrainian and American officials say.
John R. Schindler, a former National Security Agency counterintelligence officer who now teaches at the Naval War College, calls it “special war”: “an amalgam of espionage, subversion, even forms of terrorism to attain political ends without actually going to war in any conventional sense.”
And one country, Mr. Schindler noted in an article last year in which he coined the term, that particularly excels at special war is Russia, which carried out its first post-Soviet war to regain control of rebellious Chechnya back in 1994 by sending in a column of armored vehicles filled with Russian soldiers masquerading as pro-Moscow Chechens.
Russia’s flair for “maskirovka” — disguised warfare — has become even more evident under Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. officer whose closest advisers are mostly from that same Soviet intelligence agency.
For nearly two months now, the shaky new Ukrainian government has been left to battle phantoms, first in Crimea and now in eastern Ukraine, where previously fringe pro-Russian political activists have had their fortunes lifted by small but heavily armed groups of masked men.
In the eastern city of Slovyansk, under the control of pro-Russian insurgents for more than a week now, the green men have worked hard to blend in with locals but have occasionally let the mask slip, apparently to send a clear message that any push to regain control by Ukrainian forces would risk bringing down the wrath of the Russian military.
A gradation of forces control the city and other areas now in the hands of separatist rebels, ranging from clearly professional masked soldiers and unruly groups of local men in camouflage, rifles slung over their shoulders, to teenage boys in sweatpants carrying baseball bats or hunting knives. At most times, only the local toughs are visible on the streets.
But when a woman sidled up to one of the masked gunmen in the city’s central square last week and asked where he was from, she got an answer that summed up Russia’s bedeviling and constantly shifting disguises. The gunman initially said he was “from Russia,” but when pressed, said coyly that he was “from New Russia,” a long-forgotten czarist-era term revived last week by Mr. Putin to describe a large section of eastern and southern Ukraine.
Asked by the woman what would happen if the Ukrainian Army attacked, he replied, “We have to stand for only 24 hours, to tend the fire, and after that, a one million man army will be here.”
When a Ukrainian armored column approached the town last Wednesday and then swiftly surrendered, a group of disciplined green men suddenly appeared on the scene and stood guard. Over the course of several hours, several of them told bystanders in the sympathetic crowd that they were Russians. They allowed themselves to be photographed with local girls, and drove an armored personnel carrier in circles to please the crowd.
Spoiler:
“It’s hard to fathom that groups of armed men in masks suddenly sprang forward from the population in eastern Ukraine and systematically began to occupy government facilities,” Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, NATO’s top military commander, wrote in a blog post on the alliance’s website. “It’s hard to fathom because it’s simply not true. What is happening in eastern Ukraine is a military operation that is well planned and organized, and we assess that it is being carried out at the direction of Russia.”
His evidence, however, was mostly circumstantial: Pro-Russian gunmen “exhibit telltale military training and equipment”; they handle weapons like professional soldiers, not new recruits to a pickup “self-defense” force; they carry weapons and equipment that are primarily Russian Army issue, not gear “that civilians would be likely to be able to get their hands on in large numbers.” General Breedlove conceded that such points, taken alone, might not prove much, “but taken in the aggregate, the story is clear.”
Heightening skepticism of Russia’s denials is also the fact that Mr. Putin, after denying any Russian link to the masked gunmen who seized government buildings in Crimea and blockaded Ukrainian military bases there, last week changed his story and said, “Of course, Russian servicemen did back the Crimean self-defense forces.”
More direct evidence of a Russian hand in eastern Ukraine is contained in a dossier of photographs provided by Ukraine to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a Vienna-based organization now monitoring the situation in Donetsk and other parts of the country. It features pictures taken in eastern Ukraine of unidentified gunmen and an earlier photograph of what looks like the same men appearing in a group shot of a Russian military unit in Russia.
One set of photographs shows what appears to be the same gunman in pictures taken in the Crimean annexation and more recently in Slovyansk. Another features a portly bearded man photographed in Slovyansk on April 14, wearing a camouflage uniform without insignia, but six years earlier, had been photographed during Russia’s invasion of Georgia with a Russian special forces patch on his left arm.
Another character in Ukraine’s case against Russia is Mr. Strelkov, the alleged military intelligence officer who Kiev says took part in a furtive Russian operation to prepare for the annexation of Crimea and, more recently, in insurgent action in Slovyansk.
No photographs have yet emerged of Mr. Strelkov, but the Security Service of Ukraine, the successor organization to what used to be Ukraine’s local branch of the K.G.B., has released a sketch of what it says is his face.
The security agency, known by its Ukrainian abbreviation S.B.U., first identified him publicly early last week after releasing an audio recording of what it said was a recording of an intercepted communication between Russian operatives in eastern Ukraine and their controller back in Russia.
In the recording, a man nicknamed “Strelok” — who the Ukrainian agency says is Mr. Strelkov — and others can be heard discussing weapons, roadblocks and how to hold on to captured positions in and near Slovyansk with a superior in Russia.
The superior, clearly anxious to keep Russia’s role hidden, can be heard ordering his men on the ground in Ukraine not to identify themselves and to find someone with a Ukrainian accent who can give an interview to a Russian television channel. It was very important, he added, to say on air that all the pro-Russian insurgents want is “federalization,” or constitutional changes to give eastern Ukraine more autonomy.
Military analysts say the Russian tactics show a disturbing amount of finesse that speak to long-term planning.
“The Russians have used very specialized, very effective forces,” said Jacob W. Kipp, an expert on the Russian military and the former deputy director of the United States Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.
“They don’t assume that civilians are cluttering up the battlefield; they assume they are going to be there,” he said. “They are trained to operate in these kind of environments.”
Many of the guys there are from the Crimean Self Defense forces, which explains their equipment, as they were equipped by Russia during the crisis on Crimea.
Of course there is Russian special operatives active in the area, but probably not anywhere near the level Kiev and the US claim.
The above piece is so full of propaganda it is sickening. It is completely ignoring the fact that this whole uprising was sparked by the local population, not by Russian soldiers. Just look at the amount of people on the streets showing their support for the armed men and the anti-maidan movement. "previously fringe pro-Russian political activists"? That is just a blatant lie, pro-Russian sentiments have been very strong ever since 1991, and especially since the Orange Revolution.
"Pro-Russian gunmen “exhibit telltale military training and equipment”; they handle weapons like professional soldiers, not new recruits to a pickup “self-defense” force;" And that is bs as well. Some of them are definitely military, but that does not mean they have to be Russian soldiers. The Crimean Self Defense force was made mostly of defected Ukrainian soldiers. Most of the Ukrainian soldiers in the East and Crimea have defected, has everyone forgotten about that? Many of these soldiers now form those armed gunmen.
It is also ignoring the fact that most of those soldiers do not seem all that skilfull at all. Many of them are clearly civilians with bats, hunting rifles or whatever weapon they can find.
If anything, the Russians operate in a coordinating role. They do not make up the bulk of the gunmen or protesters.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Well, Tymoshenko did say she wanted to "exterminate the Russians" or something to that effect.
Also, has anyone else noticed that all the gung-ho, pro-West war hawks posting in this thread seem to have gone quiet lately? I guess finding out that you're backing a motley bunch of violent Neo Nazi's will tend to curb your enthusiasm.
Nah... I'm still for ramping up NATO activities in the region...
*shrug*
Not much else to add really... the whole situation is FUBAR'ed, no matter which angle you look at...
Seaward wrote: So, there appears to be confirmation that all those guys seizing Ukrainian government buildings are indeed Russian special operations soldiers and intelligence operatives working in sanitized kit. New York Times has the story. I've pasted it below, broken up into three spoiler sections (it's long).
Spoiler:
KIEV, Ukraine — For two weeks, the mysteriously well-armed, professional gunmen known as “green men” have seized Ukrainian government sites in town after town, igniting a brush fire of separatist unrest across eastern Ukraine. Strenuous denials from the Kremlin have closely followed each accusation by Ukrainian officials that the world was witnessing a stealthy invasion by Russian forces.
Now, photographs and descriptions from eastern Ukraine endorsed by the Obama administration on Sunday suggest that many of the green men are indeed Russian military and intelligence forces — equipped in the same fashion as Russian special operations troops involved in annexing the Crimea region in February. Some of the men photographed in Ukraine have been identified in other photos clearly taken among Russian troops in other settings.
And Ukraine’s state security service has identified one Russian reported to be active among the green men as Igor Ivanovich Strelkov, a Russian military intelligence operative in his mid- to late 50s. He is said to have a long résumé of undercover service with the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian general staff, most recently in Crimea in February and March and now in and around the eastern Ukrainian city of Slovyansk.
“There has been broad unity in the international community about the connection between Russia and some of the armed militants in eastern Ukraine, and the photos presented by the Ukrainians last week only further confirm this, which is why U.S. officials have continued to make that case,” Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said Sunday.
The question of Russia’s role in eastern Ukraine has a critical bearing on the agreement reached Thursday in Geneva among Russian, Ukrainian, American and European diplomats to ease the crisis. American officials have said that Russia would be held responsible for ensuring that the Ukrainian government buildings were vacated, and that it could face new sanctions if the terms were not met.
Spoiler:
The Kremlin insists that Russian forces are in no way involved, and that Mr. Strelkov does not even exist, at least not as a Russian operative sent to Ukraine with orders to stir up trouble. “It’s all nonsense,” President Vladimir V. Putin said Thursday during a four-hour question-and-answer session on Russian television. “There are no Russian units, special services or instructors in the east of Ukraine.” Pro-Russian activists who have seized government buildings in at least 10 towns across eastern Ukraine also deny getting help from professional Russian soldiers or intelligence agents.
But masking the identity of its forces, and clouding the possibilities for international denunciation, is a central part of the Russian strategy, developed over years of conflict in the former Soviet sphere, Ukrainian and American officials say.
John R. Schindler, a former National Security Agency counterintelligence officer who now teaches at the Naval War College, calls it “special war”: “an amalgam of espionage, subversion, even forms of terrorism to attain political ends without actually going to war in any conventional sense.”
And one country, Mr. Schindler noted in an article last year in which he coined the term, that particularly excels at special war is Russia, which carried out its first post-Soviet war to regain control of rebellious Chechnya back in 1994 by sending in a column of armored vehicles filled with Russian soldiers masquerading as pro-Moscow Chechens.
Russia’s flair for “maskirovka” — disguised warfare — has become even more evident under Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. officer whose closest advisers are mostly from that same Soviet intelligence agency.
For nearly two months now, the shaky new Ukrainian government has been left to battle phantoms, first in Crimea and now in eastern Ukraine, where previously fringe pro-Russian political activists have had their fortunes lifted by small but heavily armed groups of masked men.
In the eastern city of Slovyansk, under the control of pro-Russian insurgents for more than a week now, the green men have worked hard to blend in with locals but have occasionally let the mask slip, apparently to send a clear message that any push to regain control by Ukrainian forces would risk bringing down the wrath of the Russian military.
A gradation of forces control the city and other areas now in the hands of separatist rebels, ranging from clearly professional masked soldiers and unruly groups of local men in camouflage, rifles slung over their shoulders, to teenage boys in sweatpants carrying baseball bats or hunting knives. At most times, only the local toughs are visible on the streets.
But when a woman sidled up to one of the masked gunmen in the city’s central square last week and asked where he was from, she got an answer that summed up Russia’s bedeviling and constantly shifting disguises. The gunman initially said he was “from Russia,” but when pressed, said coyly that he was “from New Russia,” a long-forgotten czarist-era term revived last week by Mr. Putin to describe a large section of eastern and southern Ukraine.
Asked by the woman what would happen if the Ukrainian Army attacked, he replied, “We have to stand for only 24 hours, to tend the fire, and after that, a one million man army will be here.”
When a Ukrainian armored column approached the town last Wednesday and then swiftly surrendered, a group of disciplined green men suddenly appeared on the scene and stood guard. Over the course of several hours, several of them told bystanders in the sympathetic crowd that they were Russians. They allowed themselves to be photographed with local girls, and drove an armored personnel carrier in circles to please the crowd.
Spoiler:
“It’s hard to fathom that groups of armed men in masks suddenly sprang forward from the population in eastern Ukraine and systematically began to occupy government facilities,” Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, NATO’s top military commander, wrote in a blog post on the alliance’s website. “It’s hard to fathom because it’s simply not true. What is happening in eastern Ukraine is a military operation that is well planned and organized, and we assess that it is being carried out at the direction of Russia.”
His evidence, however, was mostly circumstantial: Pro-Russian gunmen “exhibit telltale military training and equipment”; they handle weapons like professional soldiers, not new recruits to a pickup “self-defense” force; they carry weapons and equipment that are primarily Russian Army issue, not gear “that civilians would be likely to be able to get their hands on in large numbers.” General Breedlove conceded that such points, taken alone, might not prove much, “but taken in the aggregate, the story is clear.”
Heightening skepticism of Russia’s denials is also the fact that Mr. Putin, after denying any Russian link to the masked gunmen who seized government buildings in Crimea and blockaded Ukrainian military bases there, last week changed his story and said, “Of course, Russian servicemen did back the Crimean self-defense forces.”
More direct evidence of a Russian hand in eastern Ukraine is contained in a dossier of photographs provided by Ukraine to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a Vienna-based organization now monitoring the situation in Donetsk and other parts of the country. It features pictures taken in eastern Ukraine of unidentified gunmen and an earlier photograph of what looks like the same men appearing in a group shot of a Russian military unit in Russia.
One set of photographs shows what appears to be the same gunman in pictures taken in the Crimean annexation and more recently in Slovyansk. Another features a portly bearded man photographed in Slovyansk on April 14, wearing a camouflage uniform without insignia, but six years earlier, had been photographed during Russia’s invasion of Georgia with a Russian special forces patch on his left arm.
Another character in Ukraine’s case against Russia is Mr. Strelkov, the alleged military intelligence officer who Kiev says took part in a furtive Russian operation to prepare for the annexation of Crimea and, more recently, in insurgent action in Slovyansk.
No photographs have yet emerged of Mr. Strelkov, but the Security Service of Ukraine, the successor organization to what used to be Ukraine’s local branch of the K.G.B., has released a sketch of what it says is his face.
The security agency, known by its Ukrainian abbreviation S.B.U., first identified him publicly early last week after releasing an audio recording of what it said was a recording of an intercepted communication between Russian operatives in eastern Ukraine and their controller back in Russia.
In the recording, a man nicknamed “Strelok” — who the Ukrainian agency says is Mr. Strelkov — and others can be heard discussing weapons, roadblocks and how to hold on to captured positions in and near Slovyansk with a superior in Russia.
The superior, clearly anxious to keep Russia’s role hidden, can be heard ordering his men on the ground in Ukraine not to identify themselves and to find someone with a Ukrainian accent who can give an interview to a Russian television channel. It was very important, he added, to say on air that all the pro-Russian insurgents want is “federalization,” or constitutional changes to give eastern Ukraine more autonomy.
Military analysts say the Russian tactics show a disturbing amount of finesse that speak to long-term planning.
“The Russians have used very specialized, very effective forces,” said Jacob W. Kipp, an expert on the Russian military and the former deputy director of the United States Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.
“They don’t assume that civilians are cluttering up the battlefield; they assume they are going to be there,” he said. “They are trained to operate in these kind of environments.”
This is not shocking stuff at all, there is no proof to it, but I would be surprised if this wasn't the case. It doesn't change anything in my mind, we know Western institutions and operatives are formentied to uprising in the first place, so again its pretty hipocritical for the West to be calling Russia out on this.
Andrew1975 wrote: This is not shocking stuff at all, there is no proof to it, but I would be surprised if this wasn't the case. It doesn't change anything in my mind, we know Western institutions and operatives are formentied to uprising in the first place, so again its pretty hipocritical for the West to be calling Russia out on this.
Point me to some ACE or SOG guys who took Ukrainian government buildings, and I'll agree with you.
Seaward wrote: So, there appears to be confirmation that all those guys seizing Ukrainian government buildings are indeed Russian special operations soldiers and intelligence operatives working in sanitized kit. New York Times has the story. I've pasted it below, broken up into three spoiler sections (it's long).
Spoiler:
KIEV, Ukraine — For two weeks, the mysteriously well-armed, professional gunmen known as “green men” have seized Ukrainian government sites in town after town, igniting a brush fire of separatist unrest across eastern Ukraine. Strenuous denials from the Kremlin have closely followed each accusation by Ukrainian officials that the world was witnessing a stealthy invasion by Russian forces.
Now, photographs and descriptions from eastern Ukraine endorsed by the Obama administration on Sunday suggest that many of the green men are indeed Russian military and intelligence forces — equipped in the same fashion as Russian special operations troops involved in annexing the Crimea region in February. Some of the men photographed in Ukraine have been identified in other photos clearly taken among Russian troops in other settings.
And Ukraine’s state security service has identified one Russian reported to be active among the green men as Igor Ivanovich Strelkov, a Russian military intelligence operative in his mid- to late 50s. He is said to have a long résumé of undercover service with the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian general staff, most recently in Crimea in February and March and now in and around the eastern Ukrainian city of Slovyansk.
“There has been broad unity in the international community about the connection between Russia and some of the armed militants in eastern Ukraine, and the photos presented by the Ukrainians last week only further confirm this, which is why U.S. officials have continued to make that case,” Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said Sunday.
The question of Russia’s role in eastern Ukraine has a critical bearing on the agreement reached Thursday in Geneva among Russian, Ukrainian, American and European diplomats to ease the crisis. American officials have said that Russia would be held responsible for ensuring that the Ukrainian government buildings were vacated, and that it could face new sanctions if the terms were not met.
Spoiler:
The Kremlin insists that Russian forces are in no way involved, and that Mr. Strelkov does not even exist, at least not as a Russian operative sent to Ukraine with orders to stir up trouble. “It’s all nonsense,” President Vladimir V. Putin said Thursday during a four-hour question-and-answer session on Russian television. “There are no Russian units, special services or instructors in the east of Ukraine.” Pro-Russian activists who have seized government buildings in at least 10 towns across eastern Ukraine also deny getting help from professional Russian soldiers or intelligence agents.
But masking the identity of its forces, and clouding the possibilities for international denunciation, is a central part of the Russian strategy, developed over years of conflict in the former Soviet sphere, Ukrainian and American officials say.
John R. Schindler, a former National Security Agency counterintelligence officer who now teaches at the Naval War College, calls it “special war”: “an amalgam of espionage, subversion, even forms of terrorism to attain political ends without actually going to war in any conventional sense.”
And one country, Mr. Schindler noted in an article last year in which he coined the term, that particularly excels at special war is Russia, which carried out its first post-Soviet war to regain control of rebellious Chechnya back in 1994 by sending in a column of armored vehicles filled with Russian soldiers masquerading as pro-Moscow Chechens.
Russia’s flair for “maskirovka” — disguised warfare — has become even more evident under Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. officer whose closest advisers are mostly from that same Soviet intelligence agency.
For nearly two months now, the shaky new Ukrainian government has been left to battle phantoms, first in Crimea and now in eastern Ukraine, where previously fringe pro-Russian political activists have had their fortunes lifted by small but heavily armed groups of masked men.
In the eastern city of Slovyansk, under the control of pro-Russian insurgents for more than a week now, the green men have worked hard to blend in with locals but have occasionally let the mask slip, apparently to send a clear message that any push to regain control by Ukrainian forces would risk bringing down the wrath of the Russian military.
A gradation of forces control the city and other areas now in the hands of separatist rebels, ranging from clearly professional masked soldiers and unruly groups of local men in camouflage, rifles slung over their shoulders, to teenage boys in sweatpants carrying baseball bats or hunting knives. At most times, only the local toughs are visible on the streets.
But when a woman sidled up to one of the masked gunmen in the city’s central square last week and asked where he was from, she got an answer that summed up Russia’s bedeviling and constantly shifting disguises. The gunman initially said he was “from Russia,” but when pressed, said coyly that he was “from New Russia,” a long-forgotten czarist-era term revived last week by Mr. Putin to describe a large section of eastern and southern Ukraine.
Asked by the woman what would happen if the Ukrainian Army attacked, he replied, “We have to stand for only 24 hours, to tend the fire, and after that, a one million man army will be here.”
When a Ukrainian armored column approached the town last Wednesday and then swiftly surrendered, a group of disciplined green men suddenly appeared on the scene and stood guard. Over the course of several hours, several of them told bystanders in the sympathetic crowd that they were Russians. They allowed themselves to be photographed with local girls, and drove an armored personnel carrier in circles to please the crowd.
Spoiler:
“It’s hard to fathom that groups of armed men in masks suddenly sprang forward from the population in eastern Ukraine and systematically began to occupy government facilities,” Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, NATO’s top military commander, wrote in a blog post on the alliance’s website. “It’s hard to fathom because it’s simply not true. What is happening in eastern Ukraine is a military operation that is well planned and organized, and we assess that it is being carried out at the direction of Russia.”
His evidence, however, was mostly circumstantial: Pro-Russian gunmen “exhibit telltale military training and equipment”; they handle weapons like professional soldiers, not new recruits to a pickup “self-defense” force; they carry weapons and equipment that are primarily Russian Army issue, not gear “that civilians would be likely to be able to get their hands on in large numbers.” General Breedlove conceded that such points, taken alone, might not prove much, “but taken in the aggregate, the story is clear.”
Heightening skepticism of Russia’s denials is also the fact that Mr. Putin, after denying any Russian link to the masked gunmen who seized government buildings in Crimea and blockaded Ukrainian military bases there, last week changed his story and said, “Of course, Russian servicemen did back the Crimean self-defense forces.”
More direct evidence of a Russian hand in eastern Ukraine is contained in a dossier of photographs provided by Ukraine to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a Vienna-based organization now monitoring the situation in Donetsk and other parts of the country. It features pictures taken in eastern Ukraine of unidentified gunmen and an earlier photograph of what looks like the same men appearing in a group shot of a Russian military unit in Russia.
One set of photographs shows what appears to be the same gunman in pictures taken in the Crimean annexation and more recently in Slovyansk. Another features a portly bearded man photographed in Slovyansk on April 14, wearing a camouflage uniform without insignia, but six years earlier, had been photographed during Russia’s invasion of Georgia with a Russian special forces patch on his left arm.
Another character in Ukraine’s case against Russia is Mr. Strelkov, the alleged military intelligence officer who Kiev says took part in a furtive Russian operation to prepare for the annexation of Crimea and, more recently, in insurgent action in Slovyansk.
No photographs have yet emerged of Mr. Strelkov, but the Security Service of Ukraine, the successor organization to what used to be Ukraine’s local branch of the K.G.B., has released a sketch of what it says is his face.
The security agency, known by its Ukrainian abbreviation S.B.U., first identified him publicly early last week after releasing an audio recording of what it said was a recording of an intercepted communication between Russian operatives in eastern Ukraine and their controller back in Russia.
In the recording, a man nicknamed “Strelok” — who the Ukrainian agency says is Mr. Strelkov — and others can be heard discussing weapons, roadblocks and how to hold on to captured positions in and near Slovyansk with a superior in Russia.
The superior, clearly anxious to keep Russia’s role hidden, can be heard ordering his men on the ground in Ukraine not to identify themselves and to find someone with a Ukrainian accent who can give an interview to a Russian television channel. It was very important, he added, to say on air that all the pro-Russian insurgents want is “federalization,” or constitutional changes to give eastern Ukraine more autonomy.
Military analysts say the Russian tactics show a disturbing amount of finesse that speak to long-term planning.
“The Russians have used very specialized, very effective forces,” said Jacob W. Kipp, an expert on the Russian military and the former deputy director of the United States Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.
“They don’t assume that civilians are cluttering up the battlefield; they assume they are going to be there,” he said. “They are trained to operate in these kind of environments.”
This is not shocking stuff at all, there is no proof to it, but I would be surprised if this wasn't the case. It doesn't change anything in my mind, we know Western institutions and operatives are formentied to uprising in the first place, so again its pretty hipocritical for the West to be calling Russia out on this.
You know... I tire if that argument.
EVERYONE is hyprocritical... but that should never stop us from doing what we think it's right. So the real question should be: What is the right thing to do in this case?
EVERYONE is hyprocritical... but that should never stop us from doing what we think it's right. So the real question should be: What is the right thing to do in this case?
The right thing would have been to wait and try to influence the elections that were only a few months away when the uprising started, not use influence to forment a revolution. That cat is out of the bag now though.
Point me to some ACE or SOG guys who took Ukrainian government buildings, and I'll agree with you.
His evidence, however, was mostly circumstantial:
Note there is no real proof
However, I have no doubt in my mind though that Russia has advisers in those security forces. I again don't see anything wrong with it.
As for ACE and SOG guys, I can't do that...yet. But I can give you a list of Western backed "Foundations" that supported the Maiden movement. There was clearly Western operatives setting up the uprising, I don't know that they had actual special forces guys in disguise, and I kind of doubt it, but they were clearly the puppet masters of the initial uprising.
EVERYONE is hyprocritical... but that should never stop us from doing what we think it's right. So the real question should be: What is the right thing to do in this case?
The right thing would have been to wait and try to influence the elections that were only a few months away when the uprising started, not use influence to forment a revolution. That cat is out of the bag now though.
How do you know that 'THE WEST' formented this revolution? Did anyone fessed up?
EVERYONE is hyprocritical... but that should never stop us from doing what we think it's right. So the real question should be: What is the right thing to do in this case?
The right thing would have been to wait and try to influence the elections that were only a few months away when the uprising started, not use influence to forment a revolution. That cat is out of the bag now though.
How do you know that 'THE WEST' formented this revolution? Did anyone fessed up?
According to The Guardian, the foreign donors included the U.S. State Department and USAID along with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, the NGO Freedom House and George Soros's Open Society Institute. The National Endowment for Democracy, a foundation supported by the U.S. government, has supported non-governmental democracy-building efforts in Ukraine since 1988. Writings on nonviolent struggle by Gene Sharp contributed in forming the strategic basis of the student campaigns.
When we see these groups throwing massive amounts of money and support into Ukraine along with the EU push, we can see a direct influence. Its easy enough to put 2 and 2 together.
Lots of shadow games going on from both sides, but its all still pretty transparent.
EVERYONE is hyprocritical... but that should never stop us from doing what we think it's right. So the real question should be: What is the right thing to do in this case?
The right thing would have been to wait and try to influence the elections that were only a few months away when the uprising started, not use influence to forment a revolution. That cat is out of the bag now though.
How do you know that 'THE WEST' formented this revolution? Did anyone fessed up?
According to The Guardian, the foreign donors included the U.S. State Department and USAID along with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, the NGO Freedom House and George Soros's Open Society Institute. The National Endowment for Democracy, a foundation supported by the U.S. government, has supported non-governmental democracy-building efforts in Ukraine since 1988. Writings on nonviolent struggle by Gene Sharp contributed in forming the strategic basis of the student campaigns.
When we see these groups throwing massive amounts of money and support into Ukraine along with the EU push, we can see a direct influence. Its easy enough to put 2 and 2 together.
Lots of shadow games going on from both sides, but its all still pretty transparent.
So... it's promoting "our brand of democracy" is what you take issue here?
I just a lot of 'Proxy War' activities here... very reminisce of the Cold War.
So... it's promoting "our brand of democracy" is what you take issue here?
I just a lot of 'Proxy War' activities here... very reminisce of the Cold War.
No, I'm saying that they used rather banal promoting institutions to do more than that. We know the West has used these kind of organizations as a tool to create revolutions clandestinely in the past. These are after all the same groups that were behind the Orange revolution.
If I can fess up that the Eastern resistance is being guided and advised by Russian Special forces agents (no proof, mid you, but it just makes sense in the context, I could be wrong, but I doubt it). You have to be able to see that pattern of Western involvement in the initial uprising and see that it was more that just hippie groups promoting democracy.
Like you said, very much cold war espionage going on here.
So... it's promoting "our brand of democracy" is what you take issue here?
I just a lot of 'Proxy War' activities here... very reminisce of the Cold War.
No, I'm saying that they used rather banal promoting institutions to do more than that. We know the West has used these kind of organizations as a tool to create revolutions clandestinely in the past. These are after all the same groups that were behind the Orange revolution.
If I can fess up that the Eastern resistance is being guided and advised by Russian Special forces agents (no proof, mid you, but it just makes sense in the context, I could be wrong, but I doubt it). You have to be able to see that pattern of Western involvement in the initial uprising and see that it was more that just hippie groups promoting democracy.
Like you said, very much cold war espionage going on here.
Okay... let's go with that premise.
I'll be honest, that's the only thing that makes sense to me too... thanks for the clarification from your stance.
Having said that... I wouldn't have "let" Russia take Crimea without some sort of strong response. I don't know what would be a better response than having NATO countries ramp up their activities some how. No matter who started what, we needed to "respond" to Russia's actions. The chess pieces are moving... doesn't matter who moved the first pawn.
I don't follow you there. Russia did not take Crimea, it was given to them and they accepted. Russia did not invade Ukraine, the President of Ukraine called them in as part of a support agreement that has been in place since Ukraine gave up its Nukes. The Wests problem is that they instantly recognized a new regime, that has no real political legitimacy.
Russia Responded to Western aggression, in its own back yard. The West needs to respect Russia's sphere of influence and stay out unless we actually see Russia Rolling countries unprovoked. Its like we have nothing better to do than bait the bear.
Let look at what happens without Russian involvement, East and West Ukraine eventually degrade from sectarian violence, to complete civil war. This is not far fetched as we have seen since the "Cease fire", Russia relaxed its stance and got Eastern Ukrainians to disarm, leading to Eastern Ukraine sectarian Raids. Who wants that? Well the West might because it gives them an excuse to put boots on the ground.
Andrew1975 wrote: I don't follow you there. Russia did not take Crimea, it was given to them and they accepted. Russia did not invade Ukraine, the President of Ukraine called them in as part of a support agreement that has been in place since Ukraine gave up its Nukes. The Wests problem is that they instantly recognized a new regime, that has no real political legitimacy.
For someone who argued that "very much cold war espionage going on here...." you seem to discount the possibility of Russian involvment of Crimea. I don't hold much credence of that referendum with the overt Russian military pressure. But, that's just me.
Russia Responded to Western aggression, in its own back yard. The West needs to respect Russia's sphere of influence and stay out unless we actually see Russia Rolling countries unprovoked. Its like we have nothing better to do than bait the bear.
Do you think Russia would be doing this if the west's foriegn policy wasn't as week?
Let look at what happens without Russian involvement, East and West Ukraine eventually degrade from sectarian violence, to complete civil war. This is not far fetched as we have seen since the "Cease fire", Russia relaxed its stance and got Eastern Ukrainians to disarm, leading to Eastern Ukraine sectarian Raids. Who wants that? Well the West might because it gives them an excuse to put boots on the ground.
O.o
So... it's okay for major powers to annex (by whichever means) neighboring countries for the fear of unrest/civil wars?
Canada lookout! Since Quebec wants to be it's own country we obviously need to step in lest it turn into civil war. Now your maple reserves are ours!!!!
For someone who argued that "very much cold war espionage going on here...." you seem to discount the possibility of Russian involvment of Crimea. I don't hold much credence of that referendum with the overt Russian military pressure. But, that's just me.
No not at all, I'm sure there was Russian influence there, its a majority Ethnic Russian population, with actual Russian bases on it. Do I think it took much, not really, in fact my guess is that they asked Russia if they would back the play, and Russia seeing an opportunity took it.Not sure how familiar you are with Ukraine, but Eastern Ukraine is full of ethnic Russians. The thing is once the West destabilizes the country, its all up in the air. Just because the west recognizes the new government, doesn't mean everyone else has to, and its pretty clear the new government it not too popular with everyone, in fact it only seams popular in Kiev. Even the Ukrainian military is on the fence as to whose orders to follow, many have just gone into defend Ukraine mode, not so much defend the Ukrainian government. In fact it seams that except for radical elements of either side, most of Ukraine just shrugged it shoulders and let out a giant ...MEH....when the revolution (if that's what we can call it) happened.
Do you think Russia would be doing this if the west's foriegn policy wasn't as week?
Oh I don't think its weak, I think it's stupid. CANVAS an NGO is going around all over the world fomenting these revolutions whenever they see an opportunity. There doesn't really seam to be a plan except to create chaos wherever they can, and they are accomplishing their goal, so I wouldn't call them weak.
I just don't really get what you achieve by pissing everyone off. Just a few years ago we had Russia cooperating with the US. That relationship, which could have been beneficial, is now in the crapper, for what?
So... it's okay for major powers to annex (by whichever means) neighboring countries for the fear of unrest/civil wars?
Meh, I never really agreed with the annexation of Crimea. If anything Russia should have just recognized them as an autonomous state. I saw it more as a middle finger to the West, showing what happens when you try to mess with Russia in its own back yard. As a statement I agree with it, as an actual action.....not so much, but we have seen little to no resistance to it, so if the people of a an autonomous state in country in absolute political Chaos what to leave because they see the new regime as illegitimate, I don't really have a problem with it.
I mean if the government somehow lost control of D.C., I'm pretty sure we would see the independent republic of Texas, if Texas didn't like who was running the show, hell we almost saw it when Obama was elected.
Look, I'm not a US and West basher, I just don't understand what the hell we are doing, or why. I also really hate when we look stupid, and lets face it Putin is making the west look pretty impudent and impotent.
All I can say is that Russia is taking plays out of the US book. See Grenada and Panama. Now I don't really have a giant problem with Grenada and Panama mind you. This was the real cold war and the US back yard. However.
1. Our claims to Grenada and Panama were far less legitimate than Russia's to Ukraine.
2. We had to fight and kill many people to take Grenada and Panama, which shows how much support there really was. Russia has met little to no resistance in Ukraine, which shows me how much support there really is for that movement.
3. Again in the context of the cold war Grenada and Panama made sense, this was the peak of the cold war. There was no love lost between the US and the Soviet Union. However, now, the cold war is over.....( maybe was over, or maybe Russia just hoped it was over). We are dealing with a New Russia, one that had been cooperative and supportive, one that had shown that it was willing to play ball, if the West would just reciprocate. Unfortunately the west has repeatedly treated Russia like the odd man out and shown that it is not really willing to give up its cold war ideology. In that context, every move Russia has made in Ukraine can be completely understood.
Ukraine crisis: What the 'Russian soldier' photos say Three photos provided by Ukrainian government appear to show the same soldier in operations in Georgia in 2008 and in Kramatorsk and Sloviansk in Ukraine in 2014 These photos purport to show the same bearded Russian soldier (circled) in operations in Georgia in 2008 and Kramatorsk and Sloviansk in Ukraine in 2014
Photos released by the Ukrainian government as "proof" of Russian soldiers on the ground in Donetsk leave many questions to be answered.
With thousands of Russian soldiers massed on Ukraine's frontiers, any evidence that they are actually over the border, as was the case in Crimea in March, is being taken very seriously.
What do the photos show?
Heavily armed gunmen in combat uniform, many of them masked.
Four photos provided by Ukrainian government appear to show similarly equipped and armed fighters in the Ukrainian towns of both Kramatorsk and Sloviansk Both masked and unmasked gunmen feature in the photos
The low-quality, annotated images were handed to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe on 16 April, as evidence that Russian "sabotage-reconnaissance groups" had been working with separatists in the Donetsk towns of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk.
According to a New York Times article, the photos and their descriptions were "endorsed by the Obama administration". Distributing the images, the US state department said they confirmed the "connection between Russia and some of the armed militants in eastern Ukraine". (Great, the US sponsors Ukrainian Nazis. Thanks, Obama! - Just for the Dakka Bingo. )
However, the BBC has been unable to verify the pictures and there was no immediate response from the Russian government.
How damning are they?
The Ukrainian press release says the photos show the same heavily bearded gunman taking part in militant operations in Kramatorsk and Sloviansk this year, and in an operation in Georgia in 2008, when Russia fought a brief war with that former Soviet republic.
This would be damning evidence indeed but in the 2014 photos, the man's greying beard appears to be black while in Georgia six years ago, the slimmer-looking man shown has a reddish beard. (Just to play devil's advocate, he might have dyed it. Unlikely, but I know someone will suggest it. )
Is this really the same gunman? (Seriously? They have a gun and similar clothes. Even the equipment is different. )
The Ukrainian government highlights a Russian special forces badge on the sleeve of the gunman in Georgia but such badges can be bought on the internet for less than $5 (£2.90).
Another set of photos purports to show the same masked gunman in both Crimea earlier and in the Donetsk region this month. However, while a similar combat uniform is worn in both photos, the masks are different, as is the way the pistol is worn on his belt.
Apart from the photo said to have been taken in Georgia, all of the images seem to be recent and there is nothing to suggest any of them were taken outside Ukraine.
line break
Do they prove anything?
What comes across from the photos is that at least one unit of heavily armed, well-equipped, pro-Russian paramilitaries has been operating in the Donetsk region.
But it cannot be said for sure that they are actual Russian special forces, as the Ukrainians argue. At the same time, the idea that they might be a local militia from Donetsk is belied by their apparent military professionalism.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week there were "no Russian units, special services or instructors in the east of Ukraine" but such denials of military involvement ring hollow for many after Russia's covert actions in Crimea, especially after he subsequently admitted troops had operated there.
Without using photos, Gen Philip Breedlove, Nato's commander in Europe, argued convincingly last week that they must be "Russian forces".
That said, theoretically, the paramilitaries in the photos could be ex-servicemen from Russia or elsewhere. Military veterans of the Soviet war in Afghanistan have been active on both the nationalist side in Ukraine and in patriotic groups in Russia.
Will more evidence emerge?
There are several clear photos of three of the gunmen's faces so their identity may be established eventually. However, the fact that they all have beards may complicate matters.
An article about covert warfare on the US website Defense One argues that iris scanning is a good way to identify masked men but admits the limitations to this approach in Donetsk. "Ukraine isn't Facebook," it notes.
Meanwhile pro-Ukrainian bloggers share photos of militants in the east, both masked and unmasked, in the hope that someone may be able to recognise them.
East Ukraine map
Again, its just part of the game. I really have no doubt that there are at least covert Russian advisers in these units. Much like how the US had covert advisers in Afghanistan vs Soviet Union. Is Russia Stupid enough to get caught with them is the question. To be honest, I really don't care. Why? Because I'm just as sure that western agents are responsible for kicking off this whole fiasco in the first place. I would also be surprised it the were not Western covert advisers on the ground for the Western interests either, now they may be more in offices instead of in units, ( a little harder to hide an American in a Ukrainian Unit, then a Russian in an mostly Russian speaking Crimean defense unit) they might technically be Blackwater mercenaries or whatever their name is today, but it makes little difference.
*Minor note, have you ever seen so many people wearing ski masks and balaclavas? Both sides are doing it, its pretty shady.
NATO was not supposed to expand east after the reunification of Germany. Russia has no reason to trust western intentions as they have broken almost every promise made to Russia and continue to back them into a corner, and not very transparently mind you.
Oh and by the way. Thanks Germany for training the Russian Special forces! Apparently someone did not get the memo.
It takes a special kind to defend the armed invasion and annexation of part(s) of an independent nation as being a plot by anyone else other than Russia... Truly they are just blameless victims in all of this western plot for world domination...
Funny how the people that defend this kind of behaviour are always comfortably living in those same western nations that they seem to despise so strongly.
PhantomViper wrote: It takes a special kind to defend the armed invasion and annexation of part(s) of an independent nation as being a plot by anyone else other than Russia... Truly they are just blameless victims in all of this western plot for world domination...
Funny how the people that defend this kind of behaviour are always comfortably living in those same western nations that they seem to despise so strongly.
It takes a special kind to defend fostering a revolution in an independent nation, that has been relatively quite, just to fulfill your own short sighted global political agenda, that really isn't even relevant anymore.
Again, don't start none, won't be none.
I'm sorry, but because I live in the US, I believe that actually gives me the right to be critical of our foreign policy. My government is actively destabilizing sovereign countries, leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent people. I suppose I'm supposed to be proud of this?
By the way......you live in the west too, so your slip is showing.
BBC wrote:Ukraine's acting president has relaunched military operations against pro-Russian militants in the east after two men, one a local politician, were found "tortured to death".
Oleksandr Turchynov said the politician, named as Vladimir Rybak, was found near rebel-held Sloviansk.
"The terrorists who effectively took the whole Donetsk region hostage have now gone too far," he said.
The move came as US Vice-President Joe Biden was visiting Ukraine.
After meeting Ukrainian leaders in Kiev, Mr Biden called on Russia to "stop talking and start acting" to defuse the Ukraine crisis.
The US and the West accuse Russia of using undercover military to back separatists in eastern Ukraine, where public buildings are occupied in at least nine cities and towns. Russian denies this.
Announcing the decision to resume the military operation - suspended over the Easter period - Mr Turchynov said in a statement: "I call on the security bodies to resume and carry out successful anti-terrorist measures aimed at defending Ukrainian citizens living in the east of Ukraine against terrorists."
Mr Rybak, whose body was found on Tuesday, was described as a local councillor for the Fatherland party in the nearby town of Horlivka. The other man killed has not yet been publicly identified.
"These crimes are being committed with the full support and connivance of the Russian Federation," Mr Turchynov said.
In another matter, just to play the devil's advocate, one could argue that it'd be better if the neo-nazis came to power in Ukraine than Putin, because the neo-nazis are much weaker than Putin. It's easier to contain Ukraine than it is to contain Russia, and the Ukranians are fethed either way now, sadly.
What I don't get is how the Ukranian nazis can be so deluded. How on earth can they possibly believe they stand a chance against Russia? It's kinda like Georgia all over again; sure, Russia's the aggressor, but why on earth are the Georgians/Ukrainians goading them on?
PhantomViper wrote: It takes a special kind to defend the armed invasion and annexation of part(s) of an independent nation as being a plot by anyone else other than Russia... Truly they are just blameless victims in all of this western plot for world domination...
Funny how the people that defend this kind of behaviour are always comfortably living in those same western nations that they seem to despise so strongly.
I don't despise my country. I despise my government. Thats a huge fething difference.
What I don't get is how the Ukrainian Nazis can be so deluded. How on earth can they possibly believe they stand a chance against Russia? It's kinda like Georgia all over again; sure, Russia's the aggressor, but why on earth are the Georgians/Ukrainians goading them on?
Russia may be the "aggressor", but The West" (meaning, EU and the USA) are the instigators. They encouraged the revolution, publicly approved of the actions of the new coalition, and instantly recognized the new Ukrainian regime despite it being unelected.
The current Kiev regime believes that NATO will intervene on their behalf. That encourages a certain degree of recklessness.
EDIT:
In fact, no. THE WEST is the aggressor, not Russia. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia was promised that "NATO would not expand an inch eastwards". In the two decades since then, NATO has expanded almost right up to its borders. And the EU is catching up fast too. What Russia fears most is encirclement - as it has done for centuries. Several centuries of repeated invasions from European powers combined with indefensible borders has made Russia wary of future invasion.
And the West has done exactly that - encircled Russia.
The Soviet Union may have collapsed 23 years ago but The West kept on fighting the Cold War.
The Soviet Union may have collapsed 23 years ago but The West kept on fighting the Cold War.
It reminds me of a poker game I was playing once. I eliminated one of my opponents, he sat out for awhile and then bought back in later.
See the cold war never ended, Russia just couldn't afford to play for awhile.
I don't despise my country. I despise my government. Thats a huge fething difference.
I don't even despise my country or government. Certain aspects of it I just think are pretty stupid.
Starting a revolution in Russia's backyard and then crying when Russia steals a page from our playbook, is just the epitome of stupidity and hypocrisy.
Especially when if the support for change was really there all we had to do was support and wait for the upcoming elections, they were only a few months away, could have avoided a lot of violence and it would have been totally valid.
In fact, no. THE WEST is the aggressor, not Russia. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia was promised that "NATO would not expand an inch eastwards". In the two decades since then, NATO has expanded almost right up to its borders. And the EU is catching up fast too. What Russia fears most is encirclement - as it has done for centuries. Several centuries of repeated invasions from European powers combined with indefensible borders has made Russia wary of future invasion.
The West is not synonymous with NATO. Further, arguing that a nation that invades another sovereign nation and annexes part of that second nation's territory isn't an aggressor is insane. Sorry if that sounds rude, but it is utterly crazy. What happens in Ukraine, while in the interest of Russia, is not for Russia to decide. Before you start going on about Western influences, remember that Russia's been fething about with Ukraine for years. Some of the complaints are probably legit (unpaid gas bills etc.), but there's a bunch of BS where Russia's been trying to strongarm Ukraine into doing what it wants.
That is not to say that "the West" is completely innocent, of course it's not all Russia's fault, but trying to somehow paint "the West" as the aggressors when Russia's the part that's invaded another nation is bonkers.
Right...well I think the idea that encircling Russia with a hostile military alliance and fostering a violent revolution by fascist groups that overthrows a key ally of Russia is not aggression ... is also bonkers.
If anything, Russia and the West are both aggressors, and Ukraine is caught in the middle. What we're seeing is a tug of war over a valuable economic and strategic region. Both sides have an agenda, and both sides are using dirty tricks. Neither side cares about the best interests of Ukraine.
The thing is though, all the deals with covert people on both sides working in Ukraine is speculation. Plausible speculation, yes, but still speculation, whereas we know that Russia took part of another nation at gunpoint. Equally blaming "the West" for being aggressive in such a situation is rather unfair. Until we have confirmation of the West's involvment in the riots (which might never appear, seeing as it could potentially not be true), putting equal blame on "the West" isn't actually based on anything other than conjecture.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The thing is though, all the deals with covert people on both sides working in Ukraine is speculation. Plausible speculation, yes, but still speculation, whereas we know that Russia took part of another nation at gunpoint. Equally blaming "the West" for being aggressive in such a situation is rather unfair. Until we have confirmation of the West's involvment in the riots (which might never appear, seeing as it could potentially not be true), putting equal blame on "the West" isn't actually based on anything other than conjecture.
Its not really speculation that the west was behind the uprising. We have lists of all the Western special interests groups in Ukraine, we can see what the track record is when these special interest groups start poring funds into countries.
Look where Ukraine is What the hell is the doing West all the way over there? Oh and again, when you are invited its not invading. Its like saying the U.S. invaded England in WWII. Oh and I certainly don't see them taking anything at gunpoint, its been pretty peaceful.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Right...well I think the idea that encircling Russia with a hostile military alliance and fostering a violent revolution by fascist groups that overthrows a key ally of Russia is not aggression ... is also bonkers.
Silliness. NATO is a defensive pact - it only triggers if one of it's nations is directly attacked. If the US or Germany or some other member wanted to assault Russia, then NATO membership would be utterly irrelevant to ensuring any support or co-operation from the Ukraine.
The reason why NATO is slowly drawing further east is because nations to the east of NATO's previous boundaries are finding better economic opportunities and better treatment from looking West rather than East, and this is leading to interference and threats from Russia.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Right...well I think the idea that encircling Russia with a hostile military alliance and fostering a violent revolution by fascist groups that overthrows a key ally of Russia is not aggression ... is also bonkers.
Silliness. NATO is a defensive pact - it only triggers if one of it's nations is directly attacked. If the US or Germany or some other member wanted to assault Russia, then NATO membership would be utterly irrelevant to ensuring any support or co-operation from the Ukraine.
The reason why NATO is slowly drawing further east is because nations to the east of NATO's previous boundaries are finding better economic opportunities and better treatment from looking West rather than East, and this is leading to interference and threats from Russia.
The reality is that the West, NATO, even the EU is more than a defensive pact, or an Economic union. Its a Click that still sees Russia and the East as something to plunder at the most and to treat as an outsider at the least. Russia deserves a seat at the table and the West continues to peck at its boarders. There are people that want to see the collapse of Europe and America, Russia just wants the East, seam it would be better to make pacts with the devil you know.
I think its highly debatable that Ukraine would be better off aligned with the West then with Russia. Ukraine is not an economic powerhouse, and relies.....much like Europe on Russian energy. Seeing how stable the EU has been lately, I'm beginning to wonder if they are starting to fear Russia's rising economic power, trying to topple and isolate it when its just getting on its feet.
Andrew1975 wrote: Its a Click that still sees Russia and the East as something to plunder at the most and to treat as an outsider at the least. Russia deserves a seat at the table and the West continues to peck at its boarders.
The 'worst' that you suggest there is fanciful silliness, and really can't be stated in sensible conversation. No-one is looking to plunder Russia.
And no-one is pecking at Russia's borders. The Ukraine is not their territory, as much as they'd like to think they get to decide the future of smaller countries on their boundaries that isn't how the world works. If countries at the borders of Russia are inclined to look at East and not West, then Russia has to face up to the fact that other countries, of their own free will, would prefer closer ties with countries that aren't Russia.
The claim that Russia deserves a seat at 'the table' is also very silly. They are one of the five permanent members of the UN, something that Brazil, Japan and Germany aren't granted, despite each having bigger GDPs than Russia. Russia is in fact given political power far in excess of their real world political relevance, just out of historical inertia. In fact, one of the major reasons Russia is having to resort to crude, direct force by deploying troops as they are is because they simply don't have the soft power lure that they like to think they have.
I think its highly debatable that Ukraine would be better off aligned with the West then with Russia. Ukraine is not an economic powerhouse, and relies.....much like Europe on Russian energy. Seeing how stable the EU has been lately, I'm beginning to wonder if they are starting to fear Russia's rising economic power, trying to topple and isolate it when its just getting on its feet.
You're confusing some really fanciful economic headlines with actual economic realities. The total GDP of Russia about 2 trillion. The EU clocks in at 17 trillion.
And you might point out that that won't last forever because the EU has been economically gakky lately... but Russia has had economics hardships that have mirrored Europe's. It's just they weren't made headlines because Russia is just nowhere near as big of a deal in the world economy.
The idea of Russia rivaling the EU is just a non-starter.
The idea of Russia rivaling the EU is just a non-starter.
Russia on its own perhaps. The economic union that Putin is trying to construct, possibly not. If he manages to reassemble the fragments of the Soviet Union (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, etc) into an even remotely cohesive unit, it would have considerable economic clout in a self-contained sort of way.
Frankly, in geopolitics these days, the recent trend of bigger states dissolving into smaller fragmentary ones seems to be coming to a close and reversing gear somewhat. I would not be surprised to see the EEC and EU developing into fresh superpowers over the next fifty odd years. It's far from inevitable, but not unlikely. A lot would depend on who takes over the reins when Putin corks it.
On a sidenote, one fact that many Western observers tend to forget about Russia is that they have an economically rapacious and numerically superior Southern neighbour who has been beefing up their military muscle considerably of late. Not all of Putin's actions are necessarily taken as a counterbalancing measure to solely Europe/America.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The thing is though, all the deals with covert people on both sides working in Ukraine is speculation. Plausible speculation, yes, but still speculation, whereas we know that Russia took part of another nation at gunpoint. Equally blaming "the West" for being aggressive in such a situation is rather unfair. Until we have confirmation of the West's involvment in the riots (which might never appear, seeing as it could potentially not be true), putting equal blame on "the West" isn't actually based on anything other than conjecture.
Its not really speculation that the west was behind the uprising. We have lists of all the Western special interests groups in Ukraine, we can see what the track record is when these special interest groups start poring funds into countries.
If it's not speculation I'm going to have to ask you to provide solid evidence.
Look where Ukraine is What the hell is the doing West all the way over there? Oh and again, when you are invited its not invading. Its like saying the U.S. invaded England in WWII. Oh and I certainly don't see them taking anything at gunpoint, its been pretty peaceful.
Yes, rolling in the Army and then holding a rushed referendum to annex Crimea is perfectly peaceful and in no way taking anything at gunpoint.
The Ukraine is as far to the east as Greece and (parts of) Finland. They're a neighboring country of Poland and very close to the Baltic nations. It's not just Russia's back yard.
The idea of Russia rivaling the EU is just a non-starter.
Russia on its own perhaps. The economic union that Putin is trying to construct, possibly not. If he manages to reassemble the fragments of the Soviet Union (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, etc) into an even remotely cohesive unit, it would have considerable economic clout in a self-contained sort of way.
Ah yes, the economic powerhouses of Central Asia. The world will surely tremble at their awesome economic clout.
U.S. Army paratroopers are arriving in Poland to begin a series of military exercises in four countries across Eastern Europe to bolster allies in the wake of Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula last month.
Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said Tuesday that the exercises will last about a month, and initially involve about 600 troops.
An Army company of about 150 soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team based in Vicenza, Italy, will start the exercises Wednesday in Poland. Additional Army companies will head to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and are expected to arrive by Monday for similar land-based exercises in those countries.
Under the current plan, U.S. troops would rotate in and out of the four countries for additional exercises on a recurring basis.
"We're looking at trying to keep this rotational presence persistent throughout the rest of this year," Kirby told reporters, adding that over time the exercises could expand to other countries.
The exercises are part of an effort announced last week by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel aimed at reassuring NATO allies of America's commitment to the region's defense.
Kirby said the U.S. will likely plan other exercises and will continue to work through NATO on joint measures that could be scheduled in the future.
"It's a very tangible representation of our commitment to our security obligations in Europe, and the message is to the people of those countries and to the alliance that we do take it seriously. And we encourage our NATO partners to likewise look for opportunities of their own to do this same kind of thing for one another," said Kirby. "And I think if there's a message to Moscow, it is the same exact message — that we take our obligations very, very seriously on the continent of Europe."
Armed pro-Russia groups have occupied areas in eastern Ukraine and have refused to leave until the country's acting government resigns. There was a burst of violence Sunday, with three people killed during a shootout at a checkpoint manned by pro-Russian troops. The U.S. has asserted that some of the troops are Russian special operations forces, and officials are pressing Russian to abide by an international accord aimed at stemming the crisis in Ukraine.
Ah yes, the economic powerhouses of Central Asia. The world will surely tremble at their awesome economic clout.
Sarcasm ill becomes you. Note the phrase 'self-contained'. Whilst not major exporters/importers of Western goods compared to say, China, they have a respectable chunk of the world population and a more than respectable share of natural resources.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Right...well I think the idea that encircling Russia with a hostile military alliance and fostering a violent revolution by fascist groups that overthrows a key ally of Russia is not aggression ... is also bonkers.
Silliness. NATO is a defensive pact - it only triggers if one of it's nations is directly attacked. If the US or Germany or some other member wanted to assault Russia, then NATO membership would be utterly irrelevant to ensuring any support or co-operation from the Ukraine.
The reason why NATO is slowly drawing further east is because nations to the east of NATO's previous boundaries are finding better economic opportunities and better treatment from looking West rather than East, and this is leading to interference and threats from Russia.
NATO is a defensive pact. Sure. "Defensive" in the same defensive way Russia took over Crimea.
Ah yes, the economic powerhouses of Central Asia. The world will surely tremble at their awesome economic clout.
Sarcasm ill becomes you. Note the phrase 'self-contained'. Whilst not major exporters/importers of Western goods compared to say, China, they have a respectable chunk of the world population and a more than respectable share of natural resources.
In the (very) long time, potentially, but most of the nations ending with -stan are sparesly populated and would require significant infrastructure construction to access the raw materials, and even then the combined population of Kazakhstan, Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Russia is only about 200 million, whereas the EU has a population of over 500 million.
The idea of Russia rivaling the EU is just a non-starter.
Economically? yes.
But military? A few thousand Russian nukes and most senior policy makers in the West beg to differ.
Ketara wrote: On a sidenote, one fact that many Western observers tend to forget about Russia is that they have an economically rapacious and numerically superior Southern neighbour who has been beefing up their military muscle considerably of late. Not all of Putin's actions are necessarily taken as a counterbalancing measure to solely Europe/America.
Ah yes, the economic powerhouses of Central Asia. The world will surely tremble at their awesome economic clout.
Sarcasm ill becomes you. Note the phrase 'self-contained'. Whilst not major exporters/importers of Western goods compared to say, China, they have a respectable chunk of the world population and a more than respectable share of natural resources.
In the (very) long time, potentially, but most of the nations ending with -stan are sparesly populated and would require significant infrastructure construction to access the raw materials, and even then the combined population of Kazakhstan, Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Russia is only about 200 million, whereas the EU has a population of over 500 million.
You'll note that I mentioned the timeframe of 'fifty years' as well.
Whilst the EU does have, and will continue to have far more industrialised economic clout globally, the ever increasing demand for resources will put any successful version of the EEC in a good place economically as time progresses, and will possibly allow it to punch above its weight. It's all very well and good to have the greater numbers of factories and population, but if you have no natural resources to pump into both of those things, you're forced to dicker accordingly with those who do. That or invade them.
There's also the fact that Russia itself is industrialised and high tech enough so as to not quite be in the same position as China with regards to needing to import Western high tech goods and services. I'm not saying that they're self-sufficient or an economic island, far from it, but they're better positioned to attempt to promote domestic production and consumption, and less vulnerable to the Western markets.
I think Russia has little to fear from China.
China and Russia have too much in common nowadays. They are natural allies.
I do not see China invading Russia any time soon. However, anyone with any notion of global history can tell you what usually happens when one nation has many things another nation wants, and is considerably militarily weaker.
Putin keeps a wary eye on the Chinese, because a) China and Russia have had something of a turbulent history over the last hundred years, b) the Chinese population and industry outstrips his own considerably, and c)the Chinese have vastly ramped up their military spending of late.
Seaward wrote: A whole company? Wow. The administration doesn't feth around, does it?
Anything more and we'll be accused of escalating the situation. After all, we wouldn't want to upset thousands of Russian soldiers just conducting exercises on the border with Ukraine
Seaward wrote: A whole company? Wow. The administration doesn't feth around, does it?
Anything more and we'll be accused of escalating the situation. After all, we wouldn't want to upset thousands of Russian soldiers just conducting exercises on the border with Ukraine
Wait, couldn't we argue that the troops would have been invited and as such totally OK?
Just to get that right - if any given country wants a piece of another country, it just sends its troops in it, removes the signs representing them as a part of the country, creates an atmosphere of fear and control, force military controlled votes to be absorbed by the home country and then rightfully keep it?
I was thinking, us Swedes could totally give everyone in Russia a Swedish citizenship and then claim that all of Russia should totally be Swedish becuase there's a lot of people with Swedish citizenship living there and because we sailed around in rivers in the 800's, right?
Sigvatr wrote: Just to get that right - if any given country wants a piece of another country, it just sends its troops in it, removes the signs representing them as a part of the country, creates an atmosphere of fear and control, force military controlled votes to be absorbed by the home country and then rightfully keep it?
That's awesome!
No, apparently you just need to start a revolution and immediately recognize them as a legitimate government.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We're actually disagreeing, it's just a plot to make us look as though we're not.
Cool, I must have missed that memo
Sigvatr wrote: Just to get that right - if any given country wants a piece of another country, it just sends its troops in it, removes the signs representing them as a part of the country, creates an atmosphere of fear and control, force military controlled votes to be absorbed by the home country and then rightfully keep it?
That's awesome!
So close. You're missing one vital component - you claim the right to invade based on some people in your soon-to-be-new-territory having once lived in your country.
Sigvatr wrote: Just to get that right - if any given country wants a piece of another country, it just sends its troops in it, removes the signs representing them as a part of the country, creates an atmosphere of fear and control, force military controlled votes to be absorbed by the home country and then rightfully keep it?
That's awesome!
No, apparently you just need to start a revolution and immediately recognize them as a legitimate government.
As a legitimate interim government. There's a referendum coming, remember? You know, a referendum that's been allowed time to be planned as opposed to a 3-day rushed referendum under gunpoint.
Ah yes, the legitimate interim government, not recognised by around a third of the country, and whose first actions were to attempt to outlaw Russian as an official language. Brilliant.
-Shrike- wrote: Ah yes, the legitimate interim government, not recognised by around a third of the country, and whose first actions were to attempt to outlaw Russian as an official language. Brilliant.
As opposed to an interim government backed up by foreign troops who secedes from a nation after a rushed "referendum"? It's not brilliant, but it sure as hell beats the Russian equivalent.
When ~65% of that region is ethnic Russian, what the bloody hell were you expecting to happen? The interim "government" had tried to ban Russian as an official language, it was quite clear that they were not exactly welcome in the eyes of Kiev.
-Shrike- wrote: When ~65% of that region is ethnic Russian, what the bloody hell were you expecting to happen? The interim "government" had tried to ban Russian as an official language, it was quite clear that they were not exactly welcome in the eyes of Kiev.
They also backed down from the banning, no? As in, stepped back when they were called out on it?
Yes, hence my use of past tense. The fact that they dropped it wouldn't have helped public opinion (in predominantly Russian speaking areas). Once it was clear what their views were, even if they decide not to continue acting on them, that won't make the Russian speakers feel any more welcome.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I was thinking, us Swedes could totally give everyone in Russia a Swedish citizenship and then claim that all of Russia should totally be Swedish becuase there's a lot of people with Swedish citizenship living there and because we sailed around in rivers in the 800's, right?
Well, Russia was founded by the Swedes, and you could even argue that all Russians are Swedish...
So what is Sweden waiting for? Protect ethnic Swedes! Get 'invited' again and ALL HAIL THE GREAT NORTHERN EMPIRE! Vikings are mandatory Don't know if the Russians would be so willing though
Automatically Appended Next Post:
loki old fart wrote: Historically Crimea was never part of the Ukraine. Giving it to them when the USSR broke up was a bad idea.
Well, can't really blame Khrushchev for it. Back when he made the decision to give Crimea to Ukraine, it was still all Soviet Union, and it didn't look like the USSR was ever going down.
When the USSR did break up, Crimea tried to get back to Russia, but failed.
They tried again in 1994.
Crimea returning to Russia really was going to happen sooner or later. It was a bad decision of Khrushchev, but condemning with hindsight is easy of course.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I was thinking, us Swedes could totally give everyone in Russia a Swedish citizenship and then claim that all of Russia should totally be Swedish becuase there's a lot of people with Swedish citizenship living there and because we sailed around in rivers in the 800's, right?
Well, Russia was founded by the Swedes, and you could even argue that all Russians are Swedish...
So what is Sweden waiting for? Protect ethnic Swedes! Get 'invited' again and ALL HAIL THE GREAT NORTHERN EMPIRE! Vikings are mandatory Don't know if the Russians would be so willing though
Automatically Appended Next Post:
loki old fart wrote: Historically Crimea was never part of the Ukraine. Giving it to them when the USSR broke up was a bad idea.
Well, can't really blame Khrushchev for it. Back when he made the decision to give Crimea to Ukraine, it was still all Soviet Union, and it didn't look like the USSR was ever going down.
When the USSR did break up, Crimea tried to get back to Russia, but failed.
They tried again in 1994.
Crimea returning to Russia really was going to happen sooner or later. It was a bad decision of Khrushchev, but condemning with hindsight is easy of course.
But it makes it easier to understand them wanting to be part of Russia again.
edit for spelling
And no-one is pecking at Russia's borders. The Ukraine is not their territory, as much as they'd like to think they get to decide the future of smaller countries on their boundaries that isn't how the world works. If countries at the borders of Russia are inclined to look at East and not West, then Russia has to face up to the fact that other countries, of their own free will, would prefer closer ties with countries that aren't Russia.
Ukarian may not be Russian territory, it is however a former soviet republic which clearly puts it in Russia's sphere of influence. We have seen in the past how happy the west is when the Soviet Union used to try to influence territories that would be considered under the sphere of influence of the west. To Russia's credit, the West's response was usually much much bloodier.
If Ukraine wanted to come to the West of their own free will, that would be one thing. They could have voted on it in the elections that were only a few months away. That's not what happened though. We have seen the elections in Ukraine swing back and forth from east to west, so I don't really want to hear about rigged elections. What we have here is the west seeing that elections probably wouldn't go their was so they staged a revolution. We can see by how much popular support the revolution had that this was not the will of the people, it was the will of a small group of people that were funded and trained by the West for just this situation.
They are one of the five permanent members of the UN, something that Brazil, Japan and Germany aren't granted, despite each having bigger GDPs than Russia.
Right, and how did Russia get that seat. Oh yeah, they paid for it in blood during WWII.
In fact, one of the major reasons Russia is having to resort to crude, direct force by deploying troops as they are is because they simply don't have the soft power lure that they like to think they have.
Right, because the West is know for its soft touch. Need I list the amount of crude direct force the West uses, or can we just move on.
In fact if the West had the soft touch, they wouldn't have needed to cause a revolution in a sovereign country to grasp control of it.
You're confusing some really fanciful economic headlines with actual economic realities. The total GDP of Russia about 2 trillion. The EU clocks in at 17 trillion.
Yes and the majority of that GDP comes from a couple of powerhouses, who by the way rely on Russian energy. If you are not one of those powerhouses, the EU isn't that bright....Hello Greece, Hello Italy.
The idea of Russia rivaling the EU is just a non-starter.
Russia lags behind in a lot of ways, infrastructure being one of its biggest problems. However the amount of natural resources that it controls are vast, and exactly what the market is looking for now. When combined with the trade union that they are working on could very well Rival the EU, if the West doesn't keep messing with them.
Ketara wrote: Russia on its own perhaps. The economic union that Putin is trying to construct, possibly not. If he manages to reassemble the fragments of the Soviet Union (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, etc) into an even remotely cohesive unit, it would have considerable economic clout in a self-contained sort of way.
Yeah, no. Add in those countries and we go from $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion. A Spain-Mexico alliance would be a greater player on the world stage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Economically? yes.
But military? A few thousand Russian nukes and most senior policy makers in the West beg to differ.
Having the means to blow up the whole damn planet needs to be respected, obviously, and its why Russia can consider itself free from invasion. But that's massively different thing to military power, which requires the ability to exert conventional force over an area without having to resort to the ultimate solution. ANd in that regard Russia is behind Germany, France and the UK just on their own, let alone if they were acting in a unified manner.
Uh, those sorts of treaties and missions are common place, and similar treaties exist between the USA and Russia, and even stronger treaties existed between China and Russia before they had their last war.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: You'll note that I mentioned the timeframe of 'fifty years' as well.
Whilst the EU does have, and will continue to have far more industrialised economic clout globally, the ever increasing demand for resources will put any successful version of the EEC in a good place economically as time progresses, and will possibly allow it to punch above its weight. It's all very well and good to have the greater numbers of factories and population, but if you have no natural resources to pump into both of those things, you're forced to dicker accordingly with those who do. That or invade them.
Sometimes, maybe. It's just as common for the seller to be the weaker member of the relationship, as economic stability can often depend on on-going resource sales, especially when little other export industries exist in the country. Look at the history of 20th century of Africa, and you won't observe much in the way of African nations dictating terms to the developed countries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: When ~65% of that region is ethnic Russian, what the bloody hell were you expecting to happen?
What anyone was expecting is irrelevant.
What would have been proper would have been for Russians living in that region to form a formal secessionist party and attempt to petition government for a referendum on separating from the Ukraine (and even then it would be their own choice if they wanted to join Russia or form their own country). If, and only if, that effort was supressed by the government in Kiev could Russia, acting through the UN, attempt to force Kiev in to allowing proper and fair legal process to take place. If, and only if, other countries unfairly blocked that action through the UN could Russia just drive tanks in to the Crimea.
Skipping all those steps and just straight up rolling tanks in at the first sign of unrest is extraordinary, and I am amazed that so many people choose to pretend that isn't true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote: Ukarian may not be Russian territory, it is however a former soviet republic which clearly puts it in Russia's sphere of influence.
'Sphere of influence' is a nice way of saying big countries get to dick around with little countries. Which is an unfortunate reality of the world in some circumstances, but far from being an actual, acceptable state of affairs.
We have seen in the past how happy the west is when the Soviet Union used to try to influence territories that would be considered under the sphere of influence of the west. To Russia's credit, the West's response was usually much much bloodier.
'But they did it too it's not fair' is not actually an established principal of international law.
If Ukraine wanted to come to the West of their own free will, that would be one thing. They could have voted on it in the elections that were only a few months away. That's not what happened though. We have seen the elections in Ukraine swing back and forth from east to west, so I don't really want to hear about rigged elections. What we have here is the west seeing that elections probably wouldn't go their was so they staged a revolution. We can see by how much popular support the revolution had that this was not the will of the people, it was the will of a small group of people that were funded and trained by the West for just this situation.
You appear to be assuming that the small numbers in Kiev who formed a long lasting protest were the only complainants against the former government, that they alone made the former government collapse. THat's more than a little silly, to be honest.
A sensible argument would be that the outrage against the former government was due more to corruption and mismanagement, and doesn't automatically mean that the pro-Russian sentiment of the former government was
Right, and how did Russia get that seat. Oh yeah, they paid for it in blood during WWII.
Everyone paid in blood, Russia got that seat because it had the most powerful military in the world in 1945. This, of course, isn't 1945 any more, and Russia has that seat because the UN was never written up to revise the permanent security council members.
Which means Russia retains a level of political power above and beyond its real world political power... which brings me back to my original point, that your complaint that Russia was ignored in world events was comical.
Right, because the West is know for its soft touch. Need I list the amount of crude direct force the West uses, or can we just move on.
Yeah, there's been plenty of crude, incredibly violent and generally unnecessary uses of force by the West. But such uses of force have been largely irrelevant to the rise in power of the West (and in many cases counter-productive). Instead, I'll ask you to simply recognise the basic reality that as the 20th century wore on Asia, Africa and South America all looked first and foremost to the West not only for trade but also as a model for how to run their own countries, because very fething obviously those were the countries who figured out how to get rich and outside of some strange exceptions that's what most every country wants.
Russia don't have that, because its systems and institutions suck.
Yes and the majority of that GDP comes from a couple of powerhouses, who by the way rely on Russian energy. If you are not one of those powerhouses, the EU isn't that bright....Hello Greece, Hello Italy.
Mwahahaha. Again you're paying attention to media headlines, and showing no knowledge of actual world realities. The average citizen in Russia lives on 14,000 USD a year... which is below the average income in Greece of 22,000 USD. In Italy your living standard is more than double that of the Russian, at $33,000 per year.
Even with the economic meltdown in those countries, the material life of the average Greek or Italian is far better than the average Russian. Because, seriously, Russian systems and institutions suck.
Russia lags behind in a lot of ways, infrastructure being one of its biggest problems. However the amount of natural resources that it controls are vast, and exactly what the market is looking for now. When combined with the trade union that they are working on could very well Rival the EU, if the West doesn't keep messing with them.
Resources are always being chased. They were much hyped as commodities went silly even past the GFC thanks to some fairly strange Chinese policy and the standard infrastructure overhang, but even if they had remained at those silly highs, it doesn't make them capable of over-coming vast and deep reaching economic and political issues such as those plaguing Russia.
5 die in clashes between the Ukrainian army and Pro-Russian forces.
What could be interesting to see would be how much this has to do with Snowden. Its possible he showed the Russians that the West had plans for Ukraine, it would show how Russia was so ready for what was going on.
Sigvatr wrote: Snowden pretty much lost all of his credibility when he publicly turned into a puppet for Putin. He should have never done that.
Being a puppet of Putin probably was a condition for his stay in Russia, so he didn't had much choice.
He had the choice of not fleeing to Russia in the first place and facing prosecution/trial in the US.
All that his puppet show with Putin did was lend credence to some of the allegations that his "leaks" were not done solely on the idea of conscience but rather because of him being paid to serve as a spy.
Sigvatr wrote: Snowden pretty much lost all of his credibility when he publicly turned into a puppet for Putin. He should have never done that.
Being a puppet of Putin probably was a condition for his stay in Russia, so he didn't had much choice.
You are right, I agree with you. It still was a sad moment to see him coming up, suddenly speaking in favor of Putin, even afterwards, losing his entire credibility in return.
The thing with Snowden is that he chose to betray his country and then ran from it to avoid being prosecuted for his crimes. If he really stood up for what he speaks, he would have stayed in the US and faced prosecution.
Ketara wrote: Russia on its own perhaps. The economic union that Putin is trying to construct, possibly not. If he manages to reassemble the fragments of the Soviet Union (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, etc) into an even remotely cohesive unit, it would have considerable economic clout in a self-contained sort of way.
Yeah, no. Add in those countries and we go from $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion. A Spain-Mexico alliance would be a greater player on the world stage.
Iron_Captain wrote: Economically? yes. But military? A few thousand Russian nukes and most senior policy makers in the West beg to differ.
Having the means to blow up the whole damn planet needs to be respected, obviously, and its why Russia can consider itself free from invasion. But that's massively different thing to military power, which requires the ability to exert conventional force over an area without having to resort to the ultimate solution. ANd in that regard Russia is behind Germany, France and the UK just on their own, let alone if they were acting in a unified manner.
That is nonsense as well, and the previous General-Secretary of NATO said so. His literal words were that Europe was a military dwarf compared to Russia. Unified (which Europe isn't), they hold up quite nicely to Russia, but on their own? The UK has 407 MBTs. Russia has 15,500 Germany has 710 military aircraft. Russia has 3,082 France has 228,656 active military personnel and 195,770 active reserves. Russia has 766,000 and 2,485,000 Individually, no European nation comes even close to Russia, and that is even without taking into consideration natural resources and landmass.
Uh, those sorts of treaties and missions are common place, and similar treaties exist between the USA and Russia, and even stronger treaties existed between China and Russia before they had their last war.
They do? Could you please show me those treaties? AFAIK Russia and the US have never conducted military excercises together. Neither have the US and China. Military excersises are a strong symbol of alliance.
Ketara wrote: You'll note that I mentioned the timeframe of 'fifty years' as well.
Whilst the EU does have, and will continue to have far more industrialised economic clout globally, the ever increasing demand for resources will put any successful version of the EEC in a good place economically as time progresses, and will possibly allow it to punch above its weight. It's all very well and good to have the greater numbers of factories and population, but if you have no natural resources to pump into both of those things, you're forced to dicker accordingly with those who do. That or invade them.
Sometimes, maybe. It's just as common for the seller to be the weaker member of the relationship, as economic stability can often depend on on-going resource sales, especially when little other export industries exist in the country. Look at the history of 20th century of Africa, and you won't observe much in the way of African nations dictating terms to the developed countries.
Comparing Russia to Africa is like comparing apples to oranges.
-Shrike- wrote: When ~65% of that region is ethnic Russian, what the bloody hell were you expecting to happen?
What anyone was expecting is irrelevant.
What would have been proper would have been for Russians living in that region to form a formal secessionist party and attempt to petition government for a referendum on separating from the Ukraine (and even then it would be their own choice if they wanted to join Russia or form their own country). If, and only if, that effort was supressed by the government in Kiev could Russia, acting through the UN, attempt to force Kiev in to allowing proper and fair legal process to take place. If, and only if, other countries unfairly blocked that action through the UN could Russia just drive tanks in to the Crimea.
Skipping all those steps and just straight up rolling tanks in at the first sign of unrest is extraordinary, and I am amazed that so many people choose to pretend that isn't true.
The Crimeans tried thay way already. Twice. It didn't work before, it would not have worked this time. Doing it again would have been nothing but a useless waste of time.
Andrew1975 wrote: Ukarian may not be Russian territory, it is however a former soviet republic which clearly puts it in Russia's sphere of influence.
'Sphere of influence' is a nice way of saying big countries get to dick around with little countries. Which is an unfortunate reality of the world in some circumstances, but far from being an actual, acceptable state of affairs.
That is the way it has always been and how it will always be. I'd say it is the actual acceptable state of affairs. Nations have no friends, only interests.
Andrew1975 wrote: We have seen in the past how happy the west is when the Soviet Union used to try to influence territories that would be considered under the sphere of influence of the west. To Russia's credit, the West's response was usually much much bloodier.
'But they did it too it's not fair' is not actually an established principal of international law.
Andrew1975 wrote: Right, and how did Russia get that seat. Oh yeah, they paid for it in blood during WWII.
Everyone paid in blood, Russia got that seat because it had the most powerful military in the world in 1945. This, of course, isn't 1945 any more, and Russia has that seat because the UN was never written up to revise the permanent security council members. Which means Russia retains a level of political power above and beyond its real world political power... which brings me back to my original point, that your complaint that Russia was ignored in world events was comical.
And that is so for a good reason. The security council is meant to be permanent. And Russia is still a major world power. If anything, France and the UK should give up their seats first. Your notion that Russia has political power above its real world political power is quite laughable. All of Russia's political power is real world political power. In what other world is Russia supposed to have more political power according to you? Afaik, there is only one world, and it is the real world.
Andrew1975 wrote: Right, because the West is know for its soft touch. Need I list the amount of crude direct force the West uses, or can we just move on.
Yeah, there's been plenty of crude, incredibly violent and generally unnecessary uses of force by the West. But such uses of force have been largely irrelevant to the rise in power of the West (and in many cases counter-productive). Instead, I'll ask you to simply recognise the basic reality that as the 20th century wore on Asia, Africa and South America all looked first and foremost to the West not only for trade but also as a model for how to run their own countries, because very fething obviously those were the countries who figured out how to get rich and outside of some strange exceptions that's what most every country wants.
Russia don't have that, because its systems and institutions suck.
The rise of powerof the West is a complex historical process that has been going on since the Middle Ages. Russia has for a large part shared and contibuted in this process, but due to its more turbulent and troubled recent history, it still lags behind somewhat. And seeing the current state of Africa and many parts as Asia, I wouldn't say they look to the West in how to run their country, and many attempts to export a 'Western style' to those countries have failed horribly. The Western system is not inherently better, its system and institutions still suck. The economical dominance of the West is not only due to its 'system' it is a very complex historical process that requires more than just a style of government.
Andrew1975 wrote: Yes and the majority of that GDP comes from a couple of powerhouses, who by the way rely on Russian energy. If you are not one of those powerhouses, the EU isn't that bright....Hello Greece, Hello Italy.
Mwahahaha. Again you're paying attention to media headlines, and showing no knowledge of actual world realities. The average citizen in Russia lives on 14,000 USD a year... which is below the average income in Greece of 22,000 USD. In Italy your living standard is more than double that of the Russian, at $33,000 per year.
Even with the economic meltdown in those countries, the material life of the average Greek or Italian is far better than the average Russian. Because, seriously, Russian systems and institutions suck.
Yelling at every opportunity that "Russian systems and institutions suck" only makes you look like you don't have any actual arguments. The standard of living for the average Russian is comparable to that of the average Italian. Salaries in Italy are higher than they are in Russia, but this is necessary because life in Italy is a lot more expansive than it is in Russia. In Russia you can get the same stuff as in Italy, but for half the price. And Greece has a lower standard of living. Salaries are higher there, but so is unemployment. High salaries do not matter much when you do not have a job. 23.1% of the Greek population lives below the poverty line, compared to 13.1% of the Russian population in 2010.
Andrew1975 wrote: Russia lags behind in a lot of ways, infrastructure being one of its biggest problems. However the amount of natural resources that it controls are vast, and exactly what the market is looking for now. When combined with the trade union that they are working on could very well Rival the EU, if the West doesn't keep messing with them.
Resources are always being chased. They were much hyped as commodities went silly even past the GFC thanks to some fairly strange Chinese policy and the standard infrastructure overhang, but even if they had remained at those silly highs, it doesn't make them capable of over-coming vast and deep reaching economic and political issues such as those plaguing Russia.
Wait and see. The West is on its decline. China has the future, and Russia is hitching a ride.
Tyran wrote: Yeah staying on the US, how that ended for the other whistleblowers?
The ones who were legitimately whistleblowers? Depends on the circumstances of the trial.
The ones who claimed they were whistleblowers but were selling/leaking information with no thoughts as to the consequence? Not well--which is as should be expected.
Being a whistleblower actually has a measure of responsibility with it.
Tyran wrote: Yeah staying on the US, how that ended for the other whistleblowers?
The ones who were legitimately whistleblowers? Depends on the circumstances of the trial.
The ones who claimed they were whistleblowers but were selling/leaking information with no thoughts as to the consequence? Not well--which is as should be expected.
Being a whistleblower actually has a measure of responsibility with it.
Ans Snowden is a bit of a gakker in any case.
"The US is ignoring civil liberties, better go to Russia!"
They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.
Germany and the west are struggling to recover from economic chaos, thanks to the banks.
America and Europe are living off debt. If Russia turns the gas off, they're sunk.
Europe will do nothing. If you think Russia is overreacting, it's no different than America with Cuba.
Sebster wrote:Yeah, no. Add in those countries and we go from $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion. A Spain-Mexico alliance would be a greater player on the world stage.
Only 2.5 trillion. Wow. I spend that every time I do my weekly shop, right?
On a more serious note, sure, it doesn't quite draw up to the US. Or the EU. Or China or Japan. But it's still just a teensy bit above pocket change, no? Or indeed, the rest of the world past the ones I just specified.
There's also the fact that I was looking a spot further down the line (fifty years was specified, for the third time). Not to mention the fact that looking purely at GDP isn't always the best way to gauge economics. And the fact that I also qualified with the phrase, 'self contained sort of way'.
Sometimes, maybe. It's just as common for the seller to be the weaker member of the relationship, as economic stability can often depend on on-going resource sales, especially when little other export industries exist in the country. Look at the history of 20th century of Africa, and you won't observe much in the way of African nations dictating terms to the developed countries.
That was a terrible analogy sebster, and not the sort of quality post I've come to expect from you. You and I can both point out eighty five highly self-evident reasons as to why that analogy is highly flawed and would not apply in the scenario under discussion. I rate both of our intelligence (and indeed, most of Dakka's) highly enough to not even bother listing them.
Iron_Captain wrote:That is nonsense as well, and the previous General-Secretary of NATO said so. His literal words were that Europe was a military dwarf compared to Russia. Unified (which Europe isn't), they hold up quite nicely to Russia, but on their own?
The UK has 407 MBTs. Russia has 15,500
Germany has 710 military aircraft. Russia has 3,082
France has 228,656 active military personnel and 195,770 active reserves. Russia has 766,000 and 2,485,000
Individually, no European nation comes even close to Russia, and that is even without taking into consideration natural resources and landmass.
The General Secretary of NATO has an agenda, and that is to get as much money pumped into various defence budgets as possible. The best tried and tested way to do that is by overhyping potential threats. Pointing at troop numbers is a bad way of estimating capabilities, otherwise North Korea would rate as one of the most powerful nations on the planet. I would suggest taking a glance at defence expenditure and then overall GDP of each nation before making any generalised statements about their ability to take Russia on.
sebster wrote:Everyone paid in blood, Russia got that seat because it had the most powerful military in the world in 1945. This, of course, isn't 1945 any more, and Russia has that seat because the UN was never written up to revise the permanent security council members.
Which means Russia retains a level of political power above and beyond its real world political power... which brings me back to my original point, that your complaint that Russia was ignored in world events was comical.
Iron_Captain wrote:And that is so for a good reason. The security council is meant to be permanent.
And Russia is still a major world power. If anything, France and the UK should give up their seats first.
Your notion that Russia has political power above its real world political power is quite laughable. All of Russia's political power is real world political power. In what other world is Russia supposed to have more political power according to you? Afaik, there is only one world, and it is the real world.
I'm split on this one. On one fork, sebster is accurate in that in terms of global economy and comparative military strength, the Russians are not as relevant/powerful as they once were. On the flip side, they still have the ability to blow up the world twice over, which to me, makes them reasonably relevant.
loki old fart wrote:They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.
Source? Because that sounds like one of the most ridiculous analysis I've ever heard of. The Russians would most likely be able to roll through most of Eastern Europe, but to make an educated guess, I would pin their offensive as halting somewhere in the middle of Germany at the absolute furthest.
Not to mention that the concept of them somehow crossing the Channel is patently ludicrous to begin with. Even if they somehow managed to land a force on our shores, they'd be cut off from supply by the combined NATO fleets before they could say 'Sdacha Angliyskiy!'
loki old fart wrote:They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.
Source? Because that sounds like one of the most ridiculous analysis I've ever heard of. The Russians would most likely be able to roll through most of Eastern Europe, but to make an educated guess, I would pin their offensive as halting somewhere in the middle of Germany at the absolute furthest.
Not to mention that the concept of them somehow crossing the Channel is patently ludicrous to begin with. Even if they somehow managed to land a force on our shores, they'd be cut off from supply by the combined NATO fleets before they could say 'Sdacha Angliyskiy!'
It was a NATO wargame some years ago. to old for me to find the source. Scared the feth out of me. nato came to the conclusion to stop the Russians long enough for the Americans to get more troops to Europe, they would have to use tactical nukes to slow them down.
The thought of using nukes on German soil didn't go down to well.
loki old fart wrote:They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.
Source? Because that sounds like one of the most ridiculous analysis I've ever heard of. The Russians would most likely be able to roll through most of Eastern Europe, but to make an educated guess, I would pin their offensive as halting somewhere in the middle of Germany at the absolute furthest.
Not to mention that the concept of them somehow crossing the Channel is patently ludicrous to begin with. Even if they somehow managed to land a force on our shores, they'd be cut off from supply by the combined NATO fleets before they could say 'Sdacha Angliyskiy!'
It was a NATO wargame some years ago. to old for me to find the source. Scared the feth out of me. nato came to the conclusion to stop the Russians long enough for the Americans to get more troops to Europe, they would have to use tactical nukes to slow them down.
The thought of using nukes on German soil didn't go down to well.
In the fifties, that might have been remotely accurate. Please accept my most genuine reassurances that it is the case no longer, and indeed, has not been for quite some time.
loki old fart wrote:They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.
loki old fart wrote:They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.
Source? Because that sounds like one of the most ridiculous analysis I've ever heard of. The Russians would most likely be able to roll through most of Eastern Europe, but to make an educated guess, I would pin their offensive as halting somewhere in the middle of Germany at the absolute furthest.
Not to mention that the concept of them somehow crossing the Channel is patently ludicrous to begin with. Even if they somehow managed to land a force on our shores, they'd be cut off from supply by the combined NATO fleets before they could say 'Sdacha Angliyskiy!'
It was a NATO wargame some years ago. to old for me to find the source. Scared the feth out of me. nato came to the conclusion to stop the Russians long enough for the Americans to get more troops to Europe, they would have to use tactical nukes to slow them down.
The thought of using nukes on German soil didn't go down to well.
In the fifties, that might have been remotely accurate. Please accept my most genuine reassurances that it is the case no longer, and indeed, has not been for quite some time.
Yeah well I'm old but not that old. They were using jaguars and mrca's as interdiction aircraft. so it's around the 1980-1990s
loki old fart wrote:They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.
The General Secretary of NATO has an agenda, and that is to get as much money pumped into various defence budgets as possible. The best tried and tested way to do that is by overhyping potential threats. Pointing at troop numbers is a bad way of estimating capabilities, otherwise North Korea would rate as one of the most powerful nations on the planet. I would suggest taking a glance at defence expenditure and then overall GDP of each nation before making any generalised statements about their ability to take Russia on.
You are right, but I did so. Troop numbers are not everything, and that is why North Korea is not the strongest nation. I looked at this list, which takes into consideration an large amount of different factors for each nation. Notice how North Korea is only on place 35, while Russia is on place 2, even above China. Russia has larger defense expenditure than any individual European nation, a large indigenous defense industry (critical in prolonged warfare) that most European nations lack and much less debts than most European nations (though I highly doubt money would be very important in a WW2-style total war. After all, many soldiers in WW2 were never paid.) In any case, numbers are not everything, but when you have numbers like 400 tanks vs 150000, there is little doubt. I highly doubt Russia would be able to knock on the door of Buckingham Palace in 21 days, but when they strike first and catch the EU before it can organise, mobilise its troops and set up a system of conscription, I have no doubt they can at least reach Berlin and maybe even the Channel. An invasion of Britain would be hard though, annoying island weirdos they are Russia lacks the naval power.
loki old fart wrote:They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.
Source? Because that sounds like one of the most ridiculous analysis I've ever heard of. The Russians would most likely be able to roll through most of Eastern Europe, but to make an educated guess, I would pin their offensive as halting somewhere in the middle of Germany at the absolute furthest.
Not to mention that the concept of them somehow crossing the Channel is patently ludicrous to begin with. Even if they somehow managed to land a force on our shores, they'd be cut off from supply by the combined NATO fleets before they could say 'Sdacha Angliyskiy!'
It was a NATO wargame some years ago. to old for me to find the source. Scared the feth out of me. nato came to the conclusion to stop the Russians long enough for the Americans to get more troops to Europe, they would have to use tactical nukes to slow them down.
The thought of using nukes on German soil didn't go down to well.
Dude thats been NATO policy and doctrine for decades.
Dutch fighter jets were also dispatched on Wednesday when the two Russian planes entered their airspace.
A pair of Dutch F-16 jets intercepted the Tu-95s at about 4pm after they strayed half a mile into the country's territory.
The incidents come amid heightened international tensions over the situation in Ukraine, following the annexation of Crimea by Russia last month.
It also follows the arrival of a Russian warship, the Vice Admiral Kulakov, in waters off the coast of Britain.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the vessel was met by the Royal Navy destroyer HMS Dragon, which is "keeping an eye" on the ship's movement.
Sky's Defence Correspondent Alistair Bunkall said foreign planes often fly close to UK airspace, with eight similar incidents reported in 2013.
as to above, it is kind of interesting that flybys are routinely done by and to every nation with jets and such, same with ships.
" "These sorts of events happen quite regularly and that maybe surprising for some people.
"It's all about testing defences and seeing exactly what your 'enemy' is capable of."
The two Russian planes were escorted by the Typhoon, as well as military aircraft from the Netherlands and Denmark, until they flew off towards Scandinavia.
The aircraft - turboprop-powered bombers which also conduct airborne surveillance - have been in service for more than 50 years.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "The Russian military aircraft remained in international airspace at all times and they are perfectly entitled to do so.
"Russian military flights have never entered UK sovereign airspace without authorisation.""
I am a bit more concerned with the lack of the kievs willingness to disarm its paramilitary groups in accordance with the accord (which is in shambles since right sector shot people)
Now we have regular people against tanks, artillery, radical paramilitary groups with military grade weapons and so on.
Once kiev starts racking up the body count, its really just going to get worse.
spoiler for possible bad language
Spoiler:
Kiev has some serious logistcal problems, and is losing control of its armed forces, let alone its paramilitary groups like right sector.
It makes you wonder, if all these people saying "they're going to start a war because the economies screwed" have a point.
I usually ignore them, but now I"m not so sure. If it does kick off, I'll never get a new ork codex
Iron_Captain wrote: You are right, but I did so.
Troop numbers are not everything, and that is why North Korea is not the strongest nation. I looked at this list, which takes into consideration an large amount of different factors for each nation. Notice how North Korea is only on place 35, while Russia is on place 2, even above China. Russia has larger defense expenditure than any individual European nation, a large indigenous defense industry (critical in prolonged warfare) that most European nations lack and much less debts than most European nations (though I highly doubt money would be very important in a WW2-style total war. After all, many soldiers in WW2 were never paid.)
In any case, numbers are not everything, but when you have numbers like 400 tanks vs 150000, there is little doubt.
There are many other factors not so easily broken down in websites like those you gave. For example, there's no examination of industry. If you have a tractor factory industry that can be easily converted into tank factories, you're in a far better position to prep for a major war than a primarily commercial based economy. You have also have to account for intangibles, such as social cohesion (so a country like Germany would probably fight on after the loss of one or two important cities or important figures, whereas the average Afgan wouldn't give a damn about dying for King and country).
On top of that, you also have to consider the basic logistics of a war. Russia may well decide to invade Europe, but smashing armies in the field is the easy part. You need troops to garrison newly taken territory and supply convoys. The more territory you take, the harder this becomes. You have to account for partisan attacks, regrouping enemy units, and maintaining enough troops along the coast to repel any seaborne landing. Not to mention keeping enough soldiers remaining in the home country to deter any opportunistic invasion by other countries uninvolved thus far.
In short, you might have 700,000 men up against smaller numbers, but by the time you hit Germany, you'll have probably lost at least a quarter in casualties and wounded, you'll have another quarter in active garrison duty, and you'll need another quarter hanging back at home and hugging the coast. That doesn't leave many men to invade and pacify a country like Germany. Now you might argue that you could drum up the reserves or conscript to pull in the necessary manpower, but that's only half the problem.
The other half is that by now, Germany will have seen you coming for the last fortnight at least. Which means that the industry will be being geared up and switching into wartime production, the British and French forces will be advancing to meet Russia through Germany, and the US will be repositioning half a dozen carrier fleets off the coast and starting to ship men over. Not to mention that the aerial war will be pretty fierce by this stage of the game.
Now you might argue that Russian material superiority would be enough to carry the day, but again, things are not so simple. As things stand, Putin's military reforms are still in the works. Barely anything of the newer tank and aircraft models have been deployed. What IS in the field is primarily Soviet era technology. And Western forces will rip the bulk of it to shreds. You might have a crapload of old tanks, but if they can't protect themselves from newer handheld infantry rockets, they're not worth much. You might have 1,500 aircraft to fight 400, but if 1,300 of them have serious difficulty engaging with and targeting Western aircraft, the superiority in numbers is not so handy.
I am exaggerating those numbers somewhat, but it should hopefully illustrate the point; namely that whilst Russia has a crapload of material, most of it is heavily dated. The newer stuff is more up to scratch and able to go toe to toe with Western equipment, but the vast bulk of it isn't in the same category.
As such, my educated guess would be that if Russia tried to roll forward now, they'd get to mid-Germany at best before being halted, then thrown back, and then utterly ruined one step at a time. Russia is powerful, but it is simply no match for the combined armies and economic muscle of NATO. Not even close.
none of that will happen though, mutually assured destruction is thankfully still a thing.
Unless the states actually got their anti ballistic missile stuff working after they unilaterally withdrew from that very sensible and peace fostering agreement.
There is no doubt that Russia would lose, but lets be honest everyone loses in these situations. Everybody knows this, and yet we all continue to dick with each other. The west is definitely the aggressors here, and after sitting back too long, maybe Russia is over reacting, but I still can't really blame them, they have watched as Europe rolls up to its boarders, and the process hasn't really been organic.
easysauce wrote: none of that will happen though, mutually assured destruction is thankfully still a thing.
Unless the states actually got their anti ballistic missile stuff working after they unilaterally withdrew from that very sensible and peace fostering agreement.
Indeed, let us thank nuclear missiles for securing peace, and let us pray that it will remain that way and that wars will be confined to our tabletops and computers.
Blessed be our glorious nuclear missiles, that they may ensure peace in the name of Jesus Christ Son of God, amen.
Spoiler:
Seriously, the Orthodox church is rather fond of weapons. So much for being 'a religion of peace'
loki old fart wrote: I can't see how 408 challenger 2s sitting at their base in England (mothballed last time I heard) is much of a deterrent.
We have a massive naval shipping capacity for our armed forces. Larger than anyone but the Americans. I think we could move our tanks over to Germany within a few weeks, along with the rest of our forces, without any major issues. Especially since we wouldn't have to be too concerned about logistics (the Germans would be more than happy to stockpile fuel, rations, and parts for our incipient arrival).
UK.....you have some.interesting Vehicles...of assorted types....in.certain preposition storage areas in American sector of Germany....incase you make use of Gawfenwer(sp) MPRC/base/camp
Paper exercises are fun....training exercises are fun with other nations vehicles..Movement Coordinators have to deal with wide range of countries unit movements...
Edit
Movement Teams have to stay on top of all forms, capabilities, Customs, Transport, and whatever to make international moves
easysauce wrote: well the US gets to unilaterally declare russia behind it,
You don't know what you're talking about, do you?
The US didn't "unilaterally declare Russia behind it". The Ukraine declared that Russia was behind it first--and that has been verified to a pretty exacting degree. Even before that though it was pretty blatantly obvious that it was Russia backing these "green men" that have been acting as linebreakers essentially, since they did something similar in Georgia and Chechnya.
so why cant russia do the same in reverse?
They can claim it all they want. It doesn't mean it's true. Until we start getting photos of CIA operatives wearing clean uniforms participating in the fighting though, this isn't the same thing.
In reality, its pretty obvious who is backing what...
I mean the US didnt send all these military assets, the CIA head or mr kerry to ukraine because they are NOT supporting them.
Same with russia, they used assets already in place in crimea (although NEITHER side has confirmed active combat assets, just advisers)
Both sides have overtly supported... well their side.
Sure they have, but at this point there is evidence that only one side is covertly supplying soldiers to prop up their side.
easysauce wrote: well the US gets to unilaterally declare russia behind it,
You don't know what you're talking about, do you?
The US didn't "unilaterally declare Russia behind it". The Ukraine declared that Russia was behind it first--and that has been verified to a pretty exacting degree. Even before that though it was pretty blatantly obvious that it was Russia backing these "green men" that have been acting as linebreakers essentially, since they did something similar in Georgia and Chechnya.
so why cant russia do the same in reverse?
They can claim it all they want. It doesn't mean it's true. Until we start getting photos of CIA operatives wearing clean uniforms participating in the fighting though, this isn't the same thing.
In reality, its pretty obvious who is backing what...
I mean the US didnt send all these military assets, the CIA head or mr kerry to ukraine because they are NOT supporting them.
Same with russia, they used assets already in place in crimea (although NEITHER side has confirmed active combat assets, just advisers)
Both sides have overtly supported... well their side.
Sure they have, but at this point there is evidence that only one side is covertly supplying soldiers to prop up their side.
I agree...
But what do you think the US/NATO should do? This isn't a black & white situation...right?
easysauce wrote: well the US gets to unilaterally declare russia behind it,
You don't know what you're talking about, do you?
The US didn't "unilaterally declare Russia behind it". The Ukraine declared that Russia was behind it first--and that has been verified to a pretty exacting degree. Even before that though it was pretty blatantly obvious that it was Russia backing these "green men" that have been acting as linebreakers essentially, since they did something similar in Georgia and Chechnya.
so why cant russia do the same in reverse?
They can claim it all they want. It doesn't mean it's true. Until we start getting photos of CIA operatives wearing clean uniforms participating in the fighting though, this isn't the same thing.
In reality, its pretty obvious who is backing what...
I mean the US didnt send all these military assets, the CIA head or mr kerry to ukraine because they are NOT supporting them.
Same with russia, they used assets already in place in crimea (although NEITHER side has confirmed active combat assets, just advisers)
Both sides have overtly supported... well their side.
Sure they have, but at this point there is evidence that only one side is covertly supplying soldiers to prop up their side.
russia started it?
citation needed please.
also, citation on russian troops in active combat role please, as only the troops that were already in crimea were actually there...
or are you still under the impression that the ukraine report of such is true? because its a total load of BS and any reputable paper has already issued retractions on it.
easysauce wrote: well the US gets to unilaterally declare russia behind it,
You don't know what you're talking about, do you?
The US didn't "unilaterally declare Russia behind it". The Ukraine declared that Russia was behind it first--and that has been verified to a pretty exacting degree. Even before that though it was pretty blatantly obvious that it was Russia backing these "green men" that have been acting as linebreakers essentially, since they did something similar in Georgia and Chechnya.
so why cant russia do the same in reverse?
They can claim it all they want. It doesn't mean it's true. Until we start getting photos of CIA operatives wearing clean uniforms participating in the fighting though, this isn't the same thing.
In reality, its pretty obvious who is backing what...
I mean the US didnt send all these military assets, the CIA head or mr kerry to ukraine because they are NOT supporting them.
Same with russia, they used assets already in place in crimea (although NEITHER side has confirmed active combat assets, just advisers)
Both sides have overtly supported... well their side.
Sure they have, but at this point there is evidence that only one side is covertly supplying soldiers to prop up their side.
russia started it?
citation needed please.
also, citation on russian troops in active combat role please, as only the troops that were already in crimea were actually there...
or are you still under the impression that the ukraine report of such is true? because its a total load of BS and any reputable paper has already issued retractions on it.
Didn't Russia send unmarked troops/vehicles to that base through Ukraine into Crimea?
-Shrike- wrote: Continue exerting political influence over the new government?
yeah.. it would be nice if the west actually pressured the kiev regime to hold up its side of the agreement, disband its paramilitary groups and give up any seized buildings (which includes the ones rightsector has been outside "protecting")
but that time has come and gone, kiev and pro russia parties in the ukraine came to the truce deal, and right sector promptly shot some pro russians, breaking the truce, and completly destroying any trust that the pro russian people had that the kiev regime will deal with them fairly.
The west could have easily pressured kiev , or at least condemned the attacks, but no, its more of the same, they in fact just claim it was random criminals shooting the pro russians.
Didn't Russia send unmarked troops/vehicles to that base through Ukraine into Crimea?
They maintain a garrison there 100% of the time, hence why all the cries of "OMGURD RUSSIA HAS INVADED CRIMEA" are just silly, as they have ~10k troops and support elements there legally almost all the time.
thats why they had advisors already in place to organise the crimean troops (not russian, crimean, yes, russians advised them, just as the US advised maiden groups)
at this point, Kiev has ther body count, is aligned with factions that have already made attempts at sabatoging gas lines, and have aligned with groups like right sector that have shot and killed civilians on several occasions, the easter weekend truce breaking shooting being the most recent, and the one that destroyed whatever credibility (in the pro russian civvies minds) that the kiev regeime had.
While the west's media calling right sectors shooting "a random clash between criminal elements" is just insulting, and will simply polarise the area even further.
now we have reports of ukrainian troops, not just the paramilitary guys in right sector, raiding homes in the country for food because kiev is too disorganized to feed them.
I mean, how can we defend kiev, when its a violent revolution that threw out an elected leader, and now has tacitly supported the murder of cililians, and the theft of their property by their military?
Why is russia the bad guy for not killing/stealing, but kiev gets a total blanket free pass for killing/stealing?
He use the troops at Sevestapol to secure the airport there and another at a major highway junction about 50+ miles away Then he locked in the Ukrainian armor units that would pose a threat to his life line to his Sevestapol Naval Base
On phone, so can't copypaste. Pro-Russian militia have seized observers from the OSCE. Considering Russia was aboard with sending them, the militia in question now is in the position of having flipped the bird to pretty much everyone involved, including Russia.
As an ex soldier I'm going to say something that won't be very popular, sod Ukraine, tactically I can see why Russia would not want to be surrounded by a potential enemy (eu) that's creepin up closer and closer through assimilation of the previous eastern Block countries. The reason I say sod them, I'm selfish, I do not want to kill our Russian cousins and they don't want to kill us, sadly these useless dicks called politicians don't seem to care.
A question I keep asking and not seeing an answer to is this, what does Ukraine want? If its joining Russia, then do it, if only half the nation wants it, split the nation up, compromise to a point, if the e.u and the Russians keep pushing things towards aggression then all you nerds and geeks (Me too) will get drafted to fight, how many of you internet tough guys think you could handle real combat?
WarOne wrote: Ukraine wants to Westernize and Russianize all at the same time.
The compromise solution would be to align with your neighbors and let the process occur slowly over time.
The problem being the East holds most of the country's ressources and thus the West does not want to lose it. Then again, there isn't even a majority for joining Stalin Putin in the east.
Kanluwen wrote: He had the choice of not fleeing to Russia in the first place and facing prosecution/trial in the US.
Except the legal penalties the federal government were ridiculously over the top. There's nothing about revealing your government's wrong doing that requires you to be an idiot and hang around to suffer whatever heavy punishment your government is attempting.
All that his puppet show with Putin did was lend credence to some of the allegations that his "leaks" were not done solely on the idea of conscience but rather because of him being paid to serve as a spy.
Kanluwen wrote: He had the choice of not fleeing to Russia in the first place and facing prosecution/trial in the US.
Except the legal penalties the federal government were ridiculously over the top.
There is a word missing somewhere in there that adds some more context to your statement.
There's nothing about revealing your government's wrong doing that requires you to be an idiot and hang around to suffer whatever heavy punishment your government is attempting.
Sure there's nothing about having to stick around and face punishment but given how Snowden has been portrayed as a martyr fleeing so "you know the truth"...it kind of ruins any credibility he had.
All we really have seen is that he fled to a country that was at best interested in humiliating the United States. It taints whatever he says when he does things like that puppet theater with Putin. It's totally believable that the Russians aren't spying on their own citizens /winkwink.
Except the legal penalties the federal government were ridiculously over the top. There's nothing about revealing your government's wrong doing that requires you to be an idiot and hang around to suffer whatever heavy punishment your government is attempting.
.
I've run into this one a few times in discussion. Some people seem to think (quite bizarely, in my view), that you have to martyr yourself to be a true whistleblower. That if you don't hang around and take whatever discrimination/punishment is the penalty, you must somehow have some sort of ulterior motive, or be less brave than those who ARE dumb enough to hang around where they can get arrested/smeared/charged/sued for it.
Except the legal penalties the federal government were ridiculously over the top. There's nothing about revealing your government's wrong doing that requires you to be an idiot and hang around to suffer whatever heavy punishment your government is attempting.
.
I've run into this one a few times in discussion. Some people seem to think (quite bizarely, in my view), that you have to martyr yourself to be a true whistleblower.
When you talk to a reporter before you speak to your supervisors, there's an issue.
When you are consistently portrayed by that reporter as a martyr, it's not unrealistic to believe that you should actually have sacked up and faced the music.
That if you don't hang around and take whatever discrimination/punishment is the penalty, you must somehow have some sort of ulterior motive, or be less brave than those who ARE dumb enough to hang around where they can get arrested/smeared/charged/sued for it.
It's amazing how whistleblowing is pretty much the only crime where one can get away with doing it as a way of carrying out a grudge and to be celebrated as a "hero" for it.
Edit note:
I should add that I do not conclusively believe that Snowden did this solely as a way of carrying out a grudge, nor do I conclusively believe that he was a spy.
However I think that just painting him as a hero fighting against big government and inappropriate violations of civil rights is just as crazy as the people who are convinced that he is a spy. I think that it is rather telling that he fled before the information about his identity went public and that he was originally doing so on the condition of anonymity. I also think it rather telling that purportedly he was being considered for termination before he "took his stance".
On phone, so can't copypaste. Pro-Russian militia have seized observers from the OSCE. Considering Russia was aboard with sending them, the militia in question now is in the position of having flipped the bird to pretty much everyone involved, including Russia.
ok so the kiev regime is making stuff up again hey?
one, they are NOT osce observers
" A group of German negotiators have already arrived in eastern Ukraine for talks to set free the detained military observers, Itar-Tass quoted Germany’s Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA) news agency as saying.
The detained team is "not OSCE monitors" but was sent by OSCE member states in accordance with the 2011 Vienna Document on military transparency, the organization explained on Friday. The current Germany-led group arrived to Ukraine on April 21 by Kiev's request. "
yes some people were detained, but no they are not who you claim they are...
just like the russians flying into ukraine airspace that made front page news, whilst the retraction is buried, this is a load of BS.
same with the kiev boys claiming russian military was in active combat roles that was retracted.
you would think someone would actually FACT CHECK things instead of putting it on page 1, only to follow with a retraction on pg 99 later that no one sees....
oh wait, maybe thats the freaking point.
Its still 100% on the word of the kiev regime that this has happened in the way they are claiming.
And so far, the kiev regime has been caught lying through its teeth enough times that I dunno, maybe take it with a grain of salf and actually admit to yourself that you need to read BOTH SIDES with your propaganda goggles on.
That a Spanish/Mexico alliance could happen? Of course it's silliness, the point wasn't to give you a plausible alliance, but to help you understand the economic clout of Russia and the handful of minor nations you mentioned.
Anyhow, as it seems you're a very literal person I will explain it very directly - Russia's economy is not that large, while the other nations you mentioned are frankly pitiful. The idea that they could rival the EU for economic strength is comical, the product of fantasy and ignorance.
That is nonsense as well, and the previous General-Secretary of NATO said so. His literal words were that Europe was a military dwarf compared to Russia.
Such comments were made throughout the Cold War as well. There are some pretty obvious political reasons to overstate the capabilities of your enemy, and it's also just plain good military practice (you never want to make the mistake of underestimating the enemy). Doesn't actually make it true.
The UK has 407 MBTs. Russia has 15,500
Germany has 710 military aircraft. Russia has 3,082
France has 228,656 active military personnel and 195,770 active reserves. Russia has 766,000 and 2,485,000
If we were fighting a quantity war then you'd have a point. But that age passed quite some decades ago.
Go ask Iraq how well their numerically superior tank force did for them in the first gulf war.
Individually, no European nation comes even close to Russia, and that is even without taking into consideration natural resources and landmass.
This isn't Risk, mate. You don't get an army for every three territories you control.
They do? Could you please show me those treaties?
There's an Investment and Reciprocal Trade Treaty between the US and Russia. Its opened up trade of about 35 billion between the two countries, and a massive flow of investment capital in to Russia.
Military excersises are a strong symbol of alliance.
I wonder if Stalin was sitting in his bunker in those early days of Barbarossa saying 'but German troops trained here, it was such a strong symbol of alliance. This invasion cannot be happening.'
If you don't get the point - symbols mean nothing when political interests diverge. This doesn't mean China and Russia are destined for yet another war, but it does mean that any insistance that it won't happen because there are strong symbols if laughable.
Comparing Russia to Africa is like comparing apples to oranges.
Comparing exporters of natural resources is valid given the context.
And hey, if you really want we can just compare to, say... Russia, who have always had strong resources, but spent much of their history in a weak geo-political position, because they were economically dependant on the continued sale of those resources.
The Crimeans tried thay way already. Twice. It didn't work before, it would not have worked this time. Doing it again would have been nothing but a useless waste of time.
Oh well, better just roll in the tanks. Hate to waste time dicking around with measured, non-provacative efforts.
That is the way it has always been and how it will always be. I'd say it is the actual acceptable state of affairs. Nations have no friends, only interests.
And the interest of all nations includes the preservation of international law. Even nations who don't like specific instances where they are restrained by that law... leading to them inventing justifications for their land grabs, and people like you believing those nonsense justifications.
But it is a moral justification.
Um, no, 'they did it too' isn't a moral judgement. I can't believe you actually claimed it was, That's incredible.
And that is so for a good reason. The security council is meant to be permanent.
Well, the permanent security council members are meant to be permanent, that's probably why they put 'permanent' in their title. The other countries that are given two year terms aren't permanent.
But yes, Russia has permanent status and so their status is permanent. Which would be relevant if anyone was talking about taking it off them. Instead, what we are talking about is your complaint that Russia isn't given the poltical voice it is due, and it's permament security council status makes that claim very stupid.
And Russia is still a major world power. If anything, France and the UK should give up their seats first.
First up, look at the numbers please, this thing where you keep insisting Russia is a major power isn't getting any less wrong.
Second up, no-one is giving up their permament security council position. Permanent... yeah? We all understand that... means that status isn't going away?
Your notion that Russia has political power above its real world political power is quite laughable. All of Russia's political power is real world political power. In what other world is Russia supposed to have more political power according to you? Afaik, there is only one world, and it is the real world.
Well now you're just being incoherent. You claimed Russia wasn't given the political power it ought to have. Now when it's pointed out that they have a major political standing beyond the basics of the country, you start saying everyone has exactly what political power they're supposed to have. Well, fine then, that's your own problem answered, and you can withdraw that complaint.
The rise of powerof the West is a complex historical process that has been going on since the Middle Ages. Russia has for a large part shared and contibuted in this process, but due to its more turbulent and troubled recent history, it still lags behind somewhat.
Someone should write a history of Russia in the 20th Century and call 'A somwhat troubled history'. That would be some dark comedy right there.
And trying to portray the modernisation of the 20th century as part of a greater trend of rising power stretching back to the middle ages is being deliberately dense. Assembly lines, electrification, mass infrastructure, computerisation and all that weren't just natural steps all that inherently flowed on from enclosure.
And seeing the current state of Africa and many parts as Asia, I wouldn't say they look to the West in how to run their country, and many attempts to export a 'Western style' to those countries have failed horribly.
Actually, the best example of the failure directly importing political systems is... Russia, where it led to the kleptocracy that runs the country today.
The Western system is not inherently better, its system and institutions still suck.
Western systems aren't inherently perfect, but it's pretty damn obvious that their systems are vastly superior to those in Russia.
The economical dominance of the West is not only due to its 'system' it is a very complex historical process that requires more than just a style of government.
'Economic' dominance... 'economical' means something else entirely.
And the style of government matters a hell of a lot. Effective, non-corrupt institutions are absolutely essential to maintaining a modern economy, and Russia is mile off the mark.
Yelling at every opportunity that "Russian systems and institutions suck" only makes you look like you don't have any actual arguments.
It's a very important reality, and one that you're really not getting.
The standard of living for the average Russian is comparable to that of the average Italian. Salaries in Italy are higher than they are in Russia, but this is necessary because life in Italy is a lot more expansive than it is in Russia. In Russia you can get the same stuff as in Italy, but for half the price.
Go read how purchasing power parity works. Then look up PPP figures per capita for Italy and Russia. Learn that the average Italian has 30,000 US per year, and the average Russian has 18,000. Making your claim above wrong, 100% completely false. Because you don't know what you're talking about.
So please stop talking and start learning.
And Greece has a lower standard of living. Salaries are higher there, but so is unemployment.
Picking out stats in the middle of depression (especially unemployment) is very silly. In looking at overall national power, you look at long term figures, such as 30 year unemployment figures, and gdp per capita.
Wait and see.
The West is on its decline. China has the future, and Russia is hitching a ride.
Uh huh. China. Real estate bubble China, which is struggling to find some way to develop internal markets through their own middle class, without pissing off the connected elites, and who are therefore just piling investment project on top of investment project to keep the whole thing running because economic slow down is not an option. That China?
Except the legal penalties the federal government were ridiculously over the top. There's nothing about revealing your government's wrong doing that requires you to be an idiot and hang around to suffer whatever heavy punishment your government is attempting.
.
I've run into this one a few times in discussion. Some people seem to think (quite bizarely, in my view), that you have to martyr yourself to be a true whistleblower.
When you talk to a reporter before you speak to your supervisors, there's an issue.
that is so stupid... you tell your supervisor you are going to whistle blow on something THAT BIG... that they are well aware of, and POOF... no whistle blower.
your advice is basically "If people in high power positions abusing their own powers? tell them what they are doing is wrong! they simply dont know it yet, and will immediately change they way they do things and totally leave you in piece Have absolute trust in the people who are doing things that make them untrustworthy."
Except the legal penalties the federal government were ridiculously over the top. There's nothing about revealing your government's wrong doing that requires you to be an idiot and hang around to suffer whatever heavy punishment your government is attempting.
.
I've run into this one a few times in discussion. Some people seem to think (quite bizarely, in my view), that you have to martyr yourself to be a true whistleblower.
When you talk to a reporter before you speak to your supervisors, there's an issue.
that is so stupid... you tell your supervisor you are going to whistle blow on something THAT BIG... that they are well aware of, and POOF... no whistle blower.
And now you've gone into another one of the stupid things that was being claimed when Snowden went on the run, claiming that "he was in fear of his life".
What in the world would make you think that he would be dead? Was Bradley Manning "dead in mysterious circumstances" before he went to trial?
your advice is basically "If people in high power positions abusing their own powers? tell them what they are doing is wrong! they simply dont know it yet, and will immediately change they way they do things and totally leave you in piece Have absolute trust in the people who are doing things that make them untrustworthy."
My "advice" is that there are protections in place for whistleblowers. The problem is that sometimes people do not follow the proper procedures...which is what you see in a lot of these "whistleblower charged because they were a whistleblower" case.
Ketara wrote: Only 2.5 trillion. Wow. I spend that every time I do my weekly shop, right?
I'm guessing you buy organic
On a more serious note, sure, it doesn't quite draw up to the US. Or the EU. Or China or Japan. But it's still just a teensy bit above pocket change, no? Or indeed, the rest of the world past the ones I just specified.
Yeah, it puts Russia down underneath all those countries, and a very long way below some of them. Which is the point - at this point Russia is an also ran.
There's also the fact that I was looking a spot further down the line (fifty years was specified, for the third time).
One of the big lessons of economic history is that people have typically looked at natural resources to decide who will be the next big economy. As we moved in to the 20th century people were certain that Argentina and South Africa would be the next powers to come up and rival the US in that tier of nations behind the old powers of Europe. In the wake of WWII the world was destined to be dominated by Russia and the US, while Europe and Japan would just fade away. Instead by the mid-70s Europe was almost completely recovered from the devestation of the war, and Japan had become an economic powerhouse, and all with very poor natural resources.
Those analysis were completely wrong, because resource wealth is actually a really crappy predictor of future economic strength. What matters are strong institutions, an educated workforce and innovative business sector.
Not to mention the fact that looking purely at GDP isn't always the best way to gauge economics.
Sometimes other things matter more, but you need a really good reason, especially when the GDP difference is different by multiples of five or more.
That was a terrible analogy sebster, and not the sort of quality post I've come to expect from you. You and I can both point out eighty five highly self-evident reasons as to why that analogy is highly flawed and would not apply in the scenario under discussion. I rate both of our intelligence (and indeed, most of Dakka's) highly enough to not even bother listing them.
Meh. Africa was a loose example, but it wasn't intended as evidence, just as an example to illustrate the principal. And that principal, once again, is that if the seller's economic stability is dependent on on-going sales to roughly the same extent that the buyer needs the resource, then that resource isn't really a position of power. Ask yourself if the ban on Iranian oil is hurting the Europeans and US as much as its hurting Iran.
The General Secretary of NATO has an agenda, and that is to get as much money pumped into various defence budgets as possible. The best tried and tested way to do that is by overhyping potential threats. Pointing at troop numbers is a bad way of estimating capabilities, otherwise North Korea would rate as one of the most powerful nations on the planet. I would suggest taking a glance at defence expenditure and then overall GDP of each nation before making any generalised statements about their ability to take Russia on.
Absolutely.
I'm split on this one. On one fork, sebster is accurate in that in terms of global economy and comparative military strength, the Russians are not as relevant/powerful as they once were. On the flip side, they still have the ability to blow up the world twice over, which to me, makes them reasonably relevant.
Note I said that exact same thing myself - it makes Russia invasion proof and that gives them more freedom in their actions that would otherwise be the case. But at some point it just comes down to the capabilities of your armed forces.
Source? Because that sounds like one of the most ridiculous analysis I've ever heard of. The Russians would most likely be able to roll through most of Eastern Europe, but to make an educated guess, I would pin their offensive as halting somewhere in the middle of Germany at the absolute furthest.
It's the claim that they'd do it in 21 days that makes it comedy. Facing no opposition, with a civilian population trying to help you and it'd be an amazing achievement to move an army from Russia to London in 21 days.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia has larger defense expenditure than any individual European nation,
Just looking at defence spending puts Saudi Arabia in fourth place, and any argument that they are the fourth most powerful army in the world is comical. It is important to recognise that militaries are built for political reasons beyond just effectiveness in war. And in Russia there are constant reports of conscript units being diverted from training to work as unpaid labour lining the pockets of generals... so a straight look at their total spending is almost as misleading as the Saudis.
What matters is a look at the quality and effectiveness of the military systems, and the quality of the weapons platforms available.
I highly doubt Russia would be able to knock on the door of Buckingham Palace in 21 days, but when they strike first and catch the EU before it can organise, mobilise its troops and set up a system of conscription, I have no doubt they can at least reach Berlin and maybe even the Channel.
Well, yeah, if we just assume that Russia can mobilise its vast army (and apparently conscript and train new soldiers...) before the west can mobilise it's much smaller forces, then Russia should do quite well. But similarly, if the superior European airforces can undertake multiple successful precision strikes on Russian key military assets before the Russians mobilise, then they'll do very well.
But just assuming that would happen is inane.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: There is a word missing somewhere in there that adds some more context to your statement.
'were chasing' The penalties the federal government were chasing were ridiculously excessive.
Sure there's nothing about having to stick around and face punishment but given how Snowden has been portrayed as a martyr fleeing so "you know the truth"...it kind of ruins any credibility he had.
That the stuff he put out is now accepted tells us everything we need to know about his credibility.
All we really have seen is that he fled to a country that was at best interested in humiliating the United States. It taints whatever he says when he does things like that puppet theater with Putin. It's totally believable that the Russians aren't spying on their own citizens /winkwink.
His flight to Russia is a red herring. He could have fled to North Korea and become the government's national executor by mortar fire for all it mattered, what he revealed about US operations was both true and in the national public interest to be revealed. Nothing changes that basic reality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: I've run into this one a few times in discussion. Some people seem to think (quite bizarely, in my view), that you have to martyr yourself to be a true whistleblower. That if you don't hang around and take whatever discrimination/punishment is the penalty, you must somehow have some sort of ulterior motive, or be less brave than those who ARE dumb enough to hang around where they can get arrested/smeared/charged/sued for it.
Yes, exactly - well put. There is nothing that says you must 'nobly' stand there and suffer the full punishment of government. No-one would think anything of a person who revealed Russian spying operations then fleeing to the US to escape punishment, but swap that around and suddenly unwillingness to go to jail makes you a traitor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: When you talk to a reporter before you speak to your supervisors, there's an issue.
When a person comes across an illegal operation that's spread across an entire organisation, the idea that they should first hold some meetings to ask kindly if the whole organisation could please kindly stop committing mass illegal acts is farcical.
Wednesday 21st May - have requested meeting with Director General of NSA and all senior staff to ask them to stop illegal surveillance operation. They have not returned call. If they don't return the call then I ask no more than four more times before I undertake a sensible means of resolving this issue.
It's amazing how whistleblowing is pretty much the only crime where one can get away with doing it as a way of carrying out a grudge and to be celebrated as a "hero" for it.
Whistleblowing isn't a crime, by definition.
And when you do something out of personal conviction and with no personal gain, that's what heroism is.
[quote[I think that it is rather telling that he fled before the information about his identity went public and that he was originally doing so on the condition of anonymity.
It is completely irrelevant. 'Noble' personal sacrifice that serves no purpose is the stuff of teenage fantasy and penny dreadfuls.
You mean the dozens of times people claimed something without proof actually constitutes ...proof?
Well we clearly disagree on that. You say they havn't provided "proof". I say they have. They've been providing "evidence" to support the argument. Whether or not that evidence amounts to proof is a matter of debate - not that you care as you're just rejecting out of hand everything that contradicts your opinion.
They've shown how Western groups, think tanks, lobbyists etc with close links to and funding from Western Governments (e.g. the USA) have provided support, funding and advice for the various groups involved in the Kiev uprising.
They've also shown how the USA and Russia were cooperating on things like disarmament and non-proliferation etc, until the USA unilaterally withdrew in favour of putting more missiles / anti-ballistic missile systems etc in eastern Europe (Bush?).
They've shown how in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union and the birth of the new Russian state, the West promised Russia that NATO "would not advance an inch eastwards)...a promise which was clearly broken.
They've shown how the new Kiev government with riddled with Neo Nazi figures in influential positions. They've shown how the Kiev aligned Nazi paramilitary groups broke the ceasefire by attacking checkpoints operated by pro-Russian militias. How the Kiev government tried to outlaw Russian as an official language.
When people here say that "The West is the aggressor, not Russia" they're not just talking about the Kiev crisis, they're talking also about the wider geo political context of the last 3 decades...unlike you who appears to think that everything in Ukraine is happening in a self contained vacuum, with Russia's behaviour and response being totally unconnected to the actions and policies of Western governments and institutions (USA, NATO, EU) over the last 3 decades.
Kanluwen wrote: There is a word missing somewhere in there that adds some more context to your statement.
'were chasing' The penalties the federal government were chasing were ridiculously excessive.
I thought it was something to that effect, but didn't want to put words in your mouth.
You are absolutely correct that the penalties the federal government were chasing were ridiculously excessive. They were trying to be spiteful.
Sure there's nothing about having to stick around and face punishment but given how Snowden has been portrayed as a martyr fleeing so "you know the truth"...it kind of ruins any credibility he had.
That the stuff he put out is now accepted tells us everything we need to know about his credibility.
And yet there he was asking softball questions to Putin, president of a country that has civil rights violations that make the NSA look like Care Bears in comparison, in a video call.
All we really have seen is that he fled to a country that was at best interested in humiliating the United States. It taints whatever he says when he does things like that puppet theater with Putin. It's totally believable that the Russians aren't spying on their own citizens /winkwink.
His flight to Russia is a red herring. He could have fled to North Korea and become the government's national executor by mortar fire for all it mattered, what he revealed about US operations was both true and in the national public interest to be revealed. Nothing changes that basic reality.
It might be a red herring, but again it's one that plays against him and can very easily play against the cause that he supported. Out of any of the countries in the world that he could have potentially found shelter in--he went to Russia, a country with what is best described an "antagonistic relationship" with the United States.
Ketara wrote: I've run into this one a few times in discussion. Some people seem to think (quite bizarely, in my view), that you have to martyr yourself to be a true whistleblower. That if you don't hang around and take whatever discrimination/punishment is the penalty, you must somehow have some sort of ulterior motive, or be less brave than those who ARE dumb enough to hang around where they can get arrested/smeared/charged/sued for it.
Yes, exactly - well put. There is nothing that says you must 'nobly' stand there and suffer the full punishment of government. No-one would think anything of a person who revealed Russian spying operations then fleeing to the US to escape punishment, but swap that around and suddenly unwillingness to go to jail makes you a traitor.
Of course no one would think anything of that--the United States does not exactly have a notable history of doing things like murdering informants/whistleblowers.
I won't say that it has never, ever, ever happened nor that it won't happen but I cannot think of any immediately notable cases.
Kanluwen wrote: When you talk to a reporter before you speak to your supervisors, there's an issue.
When a person comes across an illegal operation that's spread across an entire organisation, the idea that they should first hold some meetings to ask kindly if the whole organisation could please kindly stop committing mass illegal acts is farcical.
Wednesday 21st May - have requested meeting with Director General of NSA and all senior staff to ask them to stop illegal surveillance operation. They have not returned call. If they don't return the call then I ask no more than four more times before I undertake a sensible means of resolving this issue.
Mock all you want, but that is the kind of thing which gives whistleblowers the edge when trials are undergoing.
It's amazing how whistleblowing is pretty much the only crime where one can get away with doing it as a way of carrying out a grudge and to be celebrated as a "hero" for it.
Whistleblowing isn't a crime, by definition.
I should have phrased it better, but whistleblowing while not a crime does sometimes include criminal activities. Whistleblower laws allow for a whistleblower to steal documentation and/or breach contracts, illegally record individuals without disclosing that you are recording them, etc if they feel that the activity they are lawfully employed in performing is illegal.
And when you do something out of personal conviction and with no personal gain, that's what heroism is.
The problem is that when you do that something "out of personal conviction" and then flee to a country with known violations of the exact same things that you just claimed to champion, it makes you look like a hypocritical idiot.
I think that it is rather telling that he fled before the information about his identity went public and that he was originally doing so on the condition of anonymity.
It is completely irrelevant. 'Noble' personal sacrifice that serves no purpose is the stuff of teenage fantasy and penny dreadfuls.
"Noble personal sacrifice" is also the kind of stuff which gets the ACLU defending you and wrapping you up as a champion of the Constitution rather than people being able to insinuate that you're a traitor.
And now you've gone into another one of the stupid things that was being claimed when Snowden went on the run, claiming that "he was in fear of his life".
What in the world would make you think that he would be dead? Was Bradley Manning "dead in mysterious circumstances" before he went to trial?
Well, American news networks and politicians were labeling him a "traitor to his country" (IMO, traitor to the government is more accurate) and were, with straight faces, openly discussing and calling for the death penalty.
When people are calling for your head, I'd say thats good cause to be fearful.
That the stuff he put out is now accepted tells us everything we need to know about his credibility.
And yet there he was asking softball questions to Putin, president of a country that has civil rights violations that make the NSA look like Care Bears in comparison, in a video call.
What did you expect him to do? Piss off his host and risk provoking them into deporting him back to the USA? The guys treading on thin face.
It might be a red herring, but again it's one that plays against him and can very easily play against the cause that he supported. Out of any of the countries in the world that he could have potentially found shelter in--he went to Russia, a country with what is best described an "antagonistic relationship" with the United States.
Russia wasn't his first choice. IIRC, he actually did try to claim asylum etc in several other countries, but only Russia would take him in. So its a little disingenuous to criticise him for going to Russia "out of any of the countries in the world".
And now you've gone into another one of the stupid things that was being claimed when Snowden went on the run, claiming that "he was in fear of his life".
What in the world would make you think that he would be dead? Was Bradley Manning "dead in mysterious circumstances" before he went to trial?
Well, American news networks and politicians were labeling him a "traitor to his country" (IMO, traitor to the government is more accurate) and were, with straight faces, openly discussing and calling for the death penalty.
When people are calling for your head, I'd say thats good cause to be fearful.
Same was said about Manning--he isn't dead.
And Fox was really the only news network "calling for the death penalty".
That the stuff he put out is now accepted tells us everything we need to know about his credibility.
And yet there he was asking softball questions to Putin, president of a country that has civil rights violations that make the NSA look like Care Bears in comparison, in a video call.
What did you expect him to do? Piss off his host and risk provoking them into deporting him back to the USA? The guys treading on thin face.
It might be a red herring, but again it's one that plays against him and can very easily play against the cause that he supported. Out of any of the countries in the world that he could have potentially found shelter in--he went to Russia, a country with what is best described an "antagonistic relationship" with the United States.
Russia wasn't his first choice. IIRC, he actually did try to claim asylum etc in several other countries, but only Russia would take him in. So its a little disingenuous to criticise him for going to Russia "out of any of the countries in the world".
Right, because the situation was pretty fluid at the time. Whistleblowers have been protected by other nations before in situations like this--but given that it followed so closely on the heels of the Bradley Manning trial and given that he went to the media anonymously it was a problem.
Kanluwen wrote: Right, because the situation was pretty fluid at the time. Whistleblowers have been protected by other nations before in situations like this--but given that it followed so closely on the heels of the Bradley Manning trial and given that he went to the media anonymously it was a problem.
Without the full story, at that. Just an indiscreet data dump of everything he could grab when he conned coworkers into giving up their passwords.
sebster wrote:One of the big lessons of economic history is that people have typically looked at natural resources to decide who will be the next big economy. As we moved in to the 20th century people were certain that Argentina and South Africa would be the next powers to come up and rival the US in that tier of nations behind the old powers of Europe. In the wake of WWII the world was destined to be dominated by Russia and the US, while Europe and Japan would just fade away. Instead by the mid-70s Europe was almost completely recovered from the devestation of the war, and Japan had become an economic powerhouse, and all with very poor natural resources.
Those analysis were completely wrong, because resource wealth is actually a really crappy predictor of future economic strength. What matters are strong institutions, an educated workforce and innovative business sector..
...Meh. Africa was a loose example, but it wasn't intended as evidence, just as an example to illustrate the principal. And that principal, once again, is that if the seller's economic stability is dependent on on-going sales to roughly the same extent that the buyer needs the resource, then that resource isn't really a position of power. Ask yourself if the ban on Iranian oil is hurting the Europeans and US as much as its hurting Iran.
I believe that principle to be inaccurate in this particular scenario. Why? Because there are many factors which have led to Africa or Iran staying poor or having less than perfect capability to exploit their resources that simply do not apply to Russia. Let's break it down a little.
Africa does not have the technology necessary to industrially exploit their resources, and they do not have a sufficiently educated populace available to produce that technology. Russia does.
Iran is geographically minor, and does not have the influence or capability to circumvent American trade blocks with other nations. Russia does. (I mean, can you imagine America ordering China to cease trading with Russia? They'd be lucky just to get laughed out of the room politely).
Africa does not have the cultural social cohesion or state structures in place to have the will to develop it's resources for the good of the State. Russia does.
Iran cannot domestically consume the natural resources that they have (oil isn't drinkable, alas). Russia, conversely, is pretty damn big, and in union with the rest of the EEC, is more or less capable of consuming those resources domestically without needing to trade them abroad for cash quite so badly. Hence the qualification 'in a self-contained sort of way'.
I don't see Russia wielding the same economic brickbat as China or Japan, because their economy is not built in the same way, and their domestic needs are quite different. Russia doesn't quite need foreign trade or investment in the same way that Japan or the UK do. If the Soviet Union hadn't been trying to outspend the USA, their economy would never have crashed the way it did.
No, if the EEC turns into something, it won't be a economic world trade superpower in the same way as the USA, but more of an internally self-sufficient tradezone that is not dependent on foreign trade outside it for survival. Because that tradezone will already contain most of the natural resources it needs, along with sufficiently developed agricultural and industrial sectors to exploit them. And that in itself would be something fairly unique in today's globalised economic trade system.
Kanny wrote:It might be a red herring, but again it's one that plays against him and can very easily play against the cause that he supported. Out of any of the countries in the world that he could have potentially found shelter in--he went to Russia, a country with what is best described an "antagonistic relationship" with the United States.
In all fairness, the USA left him nowhere else to go. He tried to seek sanctuary in Hong Kong at first, but then it turned out that he wasn't safe from extradition. So then he wrote to just about every European country, and they all turned him down flat rather than hack off the Americans. It was only after he'd exhausted all the democratic nice countries as potential safe havens that he was realised he was basically stuck between letting the US government lock him up for the rest of his life, or spending the rest of the aforementioned life under the thumb of a dictatorship somewhere.
He just realised that he'd rather have the ability to go out shopping and chill online in Communist Russia, rather than be sat in solitary confinement in an American jailcell for fifty years, y'know? Probably an easy choice to make in terms of how you want your future to look.
Kanluwen wrote: And yet there he was asking softball questions to Putin, president of a country that has civil rights violations that make the NSA look like Care Bears in comparison, in a video call.
Personally that tells me he flipped a switch from wanting to fight the system, to wanting to save his own skin. Which makes him a lot like that guy who stands up and punches the bully, and then when he sees the bullies three friends turn around he runs like hell. Which is comical, but doesn't make that original action any less principled.
I mean, the question to be asked, I think, is whether this guys actions have personally benefitted him in any way. Is his life easier, full of more material rewards and less stress than it was if he hadn't exposed the government?
It might be a red herring, but again it's one that plays against him and can very easily play against the cause that he supported. Out of any of the countries in the world that he could have potentially found shelter in--he went to Russia, a country with what is best described an "antagonistic relationship" with the United States.
When you want to go to a country without an extradition agreement with the US, you're pretty much stuck with countries that have an antagonistic relationship with the US.
Of course no one would think anything of that--the United States does not exactly have a notable history of doing things like murdering informants/whistleblowers.
Sure, and I'm not looking to equate the US and Russia here (funnily enough I'm arguing against other people doing that very thing in the other 'still talking about the Ukraine' part of this thread).
But the point is that, whether it's a legal punishment or some guys dragging you in to a car and disappearing you, people look to avoid that punishment.
Mock all you want, but that is the kind of thing which gives whistleblowers the edge when trials are undergoing.
Sure, but the practicality of that really depends on the case in question. It's really wasn't a practical course of action in this case.
"Noble personal sacrifice" is also the kind of stuff which gets the ACLU defending you and wrapping you up as a champion of the Constitution rather than people being able to insinuate that you're a traitor.
The traitor stuff really is silly though. Is anyone honestly trying to claim that some nation or organisation paid him to do this? Or that he has some personal loyalty to the US or some other country?
Kanluwen wrote: And yet there he was asking softball questions to Putin, president of a country that has civil rights violations that make the NSA look like Care Bears in comparison, in a video call.
Personally that tells me he flipped a switch from wanting to fight the system, to wanting to save his own skin. Which makes him a lot like that guy who stands up and punches the bully, and then when he sees the bullies three friends turn around he runs like hell. Which is comical, but doesn't make that original action any less principled.
Well part of the reason I bring that bit up is the simple fact that Snowden alleged to Greenwald that he "feared for his life" and that was part of why he fled.
So he "feared for his life" when standing up to the US but did it anyways...but then he runs to Russia and starts being a show dog for a government that has a history of civil rights violations that make most of the stuff that has happened in the US look like pancakes.
I mean, the question to be asked, I think, is whether this guys actions have personally benefitted him in any way. Is his life easier, full of more material rewards and less stress than it was if he hadn't exposed the government?
Purportedly the Russian government is taking very good care of him, so I'd say yeah.
It might be a red herring, but again it's one that plays against him and can very easily play against the cause that he supported. Out of any of the countries in the world that he could have potentially found shelter in--he went to Russia, a country with what is best described an "antagonistic relationship" with the United States.
When you want to go to a country without an extradition agreement with the US, you're pretty much stuck with countries that have an antagonistic relationship with the US.
Fair enough point, but there are countries which even with extradition agreements do not necessarily just roll over and extradite because the US says to.
Of course no one would think anything of that--the United States does not exactly have a notable history of doing things like murdering informants/whistleblowers.
Sure, and I'm not looking to equate the US and Russia here (funnily enough I'm arguing against other people doing that very thing in the other 'still talking about the Ukraine' part of this thread).
But the point is that, whether it's a legal punishment or some guys dragging you in to a car and disappearing you, people look to avoid that punishment.
Sure they do, but the point is again that he has been wrapped up in this mantle of martyrdom by his supporters and equated to civil rights activists who took a moral stand or Daniel Ellsberg(who did face trial and had the charges dismissed...and that was at the height of the Cold War).
Mock all you want, but that is the kind of thing which gives whistleblowers the edge when trials are undergoing.
Sure, but the practicality of that really depends on the case in question. It's really wasn't a practical course of action in this case.
Maybe not but again, it is a case of "following the proper protocol". It might not be "practical" but given the amount of time he spent working for the government, it's ridiculous to think that he was under such a "moral outrage" that it necessitated his immediate action.
"Noble personal sacrifice" is also the kind of stuff which gets the ACLU defending you and wrapping you up as a champion of the Constitution rather than people being able to insinuate that you're a traitor.
The traitor stuff really is silly though. Is anyone honestly trying to claim that some nation or organisation paid him to do this? Or that he has some personal loyalty to the US or some other country?
Espionage does not necessarily require you to be paid at the time of your gathering classified information, etc.
Ketara wrote: I believe that principle to be inaccurate in this particular scenario. Why? Because there are many factors which have led to Africa or Iran staying poor or having less than perfect capability to exploit their resources that simply do not apply to Russia. Let's break it down a little.
Your list of factors simply aren't the factors that matter.
Technology is just a non-factor. Technology crosses borders at will. The inability of Africa and South America to turn their resources in to local wealth has nothing to do with being unable to access technology.
Size is similarly irrelevant when it comes to prosperity. It matters in political clout, but that's not what we're talking about here. When the US began its march to prosperity it had a very small population. Similarly my own country and much of Europe manages a very high standard of living despite having small populations. But if you look at the largest populations in the world, only the US has a first world standard of living. China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Brazil, Bangladesh... none of them have seen their size magically turn in to prosperity.
Cultural and social cohesion get debated by economists, but only as a marginal factor.
You are right that state structures and institutions are important, but miles off the mark in claiming Russia's will develop their natural assets for the good of the State. Russia systems and institutions are hopelessly corrupt and woefully ineffective and inefficient. They call it a kleptocracy for a very good reason.
If the Soviet Union hadn't been trying to outspend the USA, their economy would never have crashed the way it did.
A total myth, debunked for more than a decade now. Soviet military spending didn't increase to match Reagan's increases, and was actually pretty consistently around 4-5% of GDP throughout the 70s and 80s, which is a pretty standard level of spending. No, their economy collapsed because it was built around systems that placed a tremendous drag on the economy, and when the political will to maintain those systems no longer existed then they fell away incredibly quickly, leading to a crash.
The issue now, is that the systems Russia put in their place aren't that much better.
No, if the EEC turns into something, it won't be a economic world trade superpower in the same way as the USA, but more of an internally self-sufficient tradezone that is not dependent on foreign trade outside it for survival.
Because that tradezone will already contain most of the natural resources it needs, along with sufficiently developed agricultural and industrial sectors to exploit them. And that in itself would be something fairly unique in today's globalised economic trade system.
Trade isn't about not having everything you need. It's about who has the most optimal conditions in which to do it, and then doing more of that while other places make stuff they have the optimal conditions for, and then we trade. Seriously, just go off now and read about comparative advantage.
I mean, for your future prediction to make any damn sense, it would have happened to us here in Australia generations ago. We have all the resources we need to make what we want, and grow our own food. And yet we are one of the most aggressive free trade nations in the world... because what maximises our living conditions is to make more food than we need, and extract more resources than we need, and sell those to other countries, and then buy manufactured goods from those countries. The same will be true of Russia.
