Putin may not be particularly fearful of American economic/diplomatic/military might, but he does deeply care about those two naval ports. Tartus definitely could have been put in jeopardy if our response to Syria hadn't essentially been, "If you like your red line, you can keep your red line." A strong hand with Tartus would have given Putin a lot more to think about if it looked like we were considering doing the same with Sevastopol. Instead, he knows the absolute most Obama will do is get up there in front of cameras and essentially lie for a while about our commitment to whatever before striking his tent and going home and telling us all we misunderstood him.
I'm still not following. What are you saying America should have done about Tartus? Blockaded it? Boarded Russian ships? Lodged a few cruise missiles in the place? I mean, what action could Obama have taken to put the Russian presence in Tartus 'in jeopardy' that wouldn't essentially be an act of war?
Ketara wrote: I'm still not following. What are you saying America should have done about Tartus? Blockaded it? Boarded Russian ships? Lodged a few cruise missiles in the place? I mean, what action could Obama have taken to put the Russian presence in Tartus 'in jeopardy' that wouldn't essentially be an act of war?
Pledge air support to the rebels in return for their agreement to not renew the lease once they took power, off the top of my head.
Ketara wrote: I'm still not following. What are you saying America should have done about Tartus? Blockaded it? Boarded Russian ships? Lodged a few cruise missiles in the place? I mean, what action could Obama have taken to put the Russian presence in Tartus 'in jeopardy' that wouldn't essentially be an act of war?
Pledge air support to the rebels in return for their agreement to not renew the lease once they took power, off the top of my head.
How well has US supporting rebels in the past went?
But that kind of thing wouldn't have been done openly. It would have been a secret bargain struck, and if Moscow learnt of it, the first thing they'd do is summon the US ambassador, and then tell the world of the perfidious Americans. It wouldn't have looked politically or diplomatically good for you guys however it was spun. It would look like a continuation of cold war politics through American meddling in an issue which had absolutely nothing to do with the US.
Not to mention considering that the 'rebels' consist of Islamic groups the US has spent the last decade trying to stamp out, helping them out would have been political suicide at home.
Sorry, I'm just not seeing any viable options for Obama here.
Ketara wrote: But that kind of thing wouldn't have been done openly. It would have been a secret bargain struck, and if Moscow learnt of it, the first thing they'd do is summon the US ambassador, and then tell the world of the perfidious Americans. It wouldn't have looked politically or diplomatically good for you guys however it was spun. It would look like a continuation of cold war politics through American meddling in an issue which had absolutely nothing to do with the US.
Wait, you think we've never done anything like that before and gotten away with it?
I'm saying that it would have absolutely no bearing on this situation, and would have screwed Obama politically either way.
At least this way, the US haven't armed Osama Bin Laden Mark II.
EDIT
Also, the point you made wasn't to 'get away with it'. It would, according to you, have made the Russians more nervous and less willing to hack off the Americans in this Ukrainian instance. But as I outlined above, it either would have been kept a secret and they wouldn't have known, or it would have pissed them off even more, armed a bunch of Islamacists, and still not had any effect on their policy on this particular scenario in the Ukraine.
In other words, you can't just lump this at Obama's door. Not in a justifiable way, anyway.
Russia's President Vladimir Putin has asked his upper house of parliament to approve the deployment of Russian troops in Ukraine, the Kremlin says.
It follows discussions by the lower and upper house on ways to "stabilise" the situation in Ukraine's Crimea region, where many ethnic Russians live.
Earlier, the Ukrainian defence minister said Moscow had already deployed some 6,000 extra troops to Crimea.
Kiev has accused Moscow of deliberately trying to provoke a confrontation.
President Putin submitted the request "in connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine and the threat to the lives of Russian citizens", the Kremlin said.
He asked the upper house - which constitutionally must approve such a motion - for Russian armed forces to be used "until the normalisation of the political situation in that country".
Earlier, the newly-elected pro-Moscow leader of Crimea, Sergiy Aksyonov, appealed to Mr Putin for help to ensure peace on the peninsula - a request which the Kremlin said it would "not leave unnoticed".
'Provocation'
The request follow days of military activity in Crimea during which unidentified armed men moved in to take over the regional parliament, state television and telecommunications hubs.
Soldiers from Russia's Black Sea Fleet, which is based in Crimea, are reported to be guarding some administrative buildings and military bases.
Amid the closure of airspace over Crimea's regional capital Simferopol on Friday evening, there were unconfirmed reports that Russian planes were flying in thousands of troops.
Ukrainian Defence Minister Ihor Tenyukh said on Saturday there are now an extra 6,000 Russian troops in Crimea, alongside an additional 30 armoured vehicles.
Under the agreement governing the presence of the fleet in Crimea, the Russians must co-ordinate all troop movements outside the fleet's base with the Ukrainian authorities beforehand.
Events in Crimea have angered the new interim government in Kiev and alarmed Western leaders.
Ukraine's acting President Oleksander Turchynov accused Russia of trying to provoke Kiev into "armed conflict", but said they would not react.
US President Barack Obama has warned of the "costs" of any Russian intervention in the Ukraine.
Ketara wrote: I'm saying that it would have absolutely no bearing on this situation, and would have screwed Obama politically either way.
At least this way, the US haven't armed Osama Bin Laden Mark II.
I doubt very much it would have screwed him. Russia claims we made that theoretical deal, we claim we didn't. If you think that causes some massive drop in standing with our allies (who'd be perfectly well aware of it themselves, as they usually are when we mess around with Russia), I dunno what to tell you.
And arming Osama Bin Laden Mark II wouldn't have been much of a concern earlier on. The revolution didn't start radicalized, it became radicalized when the radicals proved to be the only ones willing to fight alongside the rebels.
Also, the point you made wasn't to 'get away with it'. It would, according to you, have made the Russians more nervous and less willing to hack off the Americans in this Ukrainian instance. But as I outlined above, it either would have been kept a secret and they wouldn't have known, or it would have pissed them off even more, armed a bunch of Islamacists, and still not had any effect on their policy on this particular scenario in the Ukraine.
I'm a little confused as to why we'd be concerned about pissing off the Russians when the alternative is, as we've seen, them pissing us off instead.
In other words, you can't just lump this at Obama's door. Not in a justifiable way, anyway.
Russia's President Vladimir Putin has asked his upper house of parliament to approve the deployment of Russian troops in Ukraine, the Kremlin says.
It follows discussions by the lower and upper house on ways to "stabilise" the situation in Ukraine's Crimea region, where many ethnic Russians live.
Earlier, the Ukrainian defence minister said Moscow had already deployed some 6,000 extra troops to Crimea.
Kiev has accused Moscow of deliberately trying to provoke a confrontation.
President Putin submitted the request "in connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine and the threat to the lives of Russian citizens", the Kremlin said.
He asked the upper house - which constitutionally must approve such a motion - for Russian armed forces to be used "until the normalisation of the political situation in that country".
Earlier, the newly-elected pro-Moscow leader of Crimea, Sergiy Aksyonov, appealed to Mr Putin for help to ensure peace on the peninsula - a request which the Kremlin said it would "not leave unnoticed".
'Provocation'
The request follow days of military activity in Crimea during which unidentified armed men moved in to take over the regional parliament, state television and telecommunications hubs.
Soldiers from Russia's Black Sea Fleet, which is based in Crimea, are reported to be guarding some administrative buildings and military bases.
Amid the closure of airspace over Crimea's regional capital Simferopol on Friday evening, there were unconfirmed reports that Russian planes were flying in thousands of troops.
Ukrainian Defence Minister Ihor Tenyukh said on Saturday there are now an extra 6,000 Russian troops in Crimea, alongside an additional 30 armoured vehicles.
Under the agreement governing the presence of the fleet in Crimea, the Russians must co-ordinate all troop movements outside the fleet's base with the Ukrainian authorities beforehand.
Events in Crimea have angered the new interim government in Kiev and alarmed Western leaders.
Ukraine's acting President Oleksander Turchynov accused Russia of trying to provoke Kiev into "armed conflict", but said they would not react.
US President Barack Obama has warned of the "costs" of any Russian intervention in the Ukraine.
The interim Ukrainian government needs hard cash - it would take America seconds to throw them 2-3 billion bucks.
Turkey. Not the stuff you eat at thanksgiving, but the country that happens to be a NATO member, ally, and have a coastline directly opposite the Crimea.
I'm sure somebody in the Pentagon could suddenly remember that's it's long overdue for some joint US-Turkish military exercises on the black sea as part of NATO training commitments!
I'm pretty sure the US navy has a large fleet nearby in the Mediterranean.
Everybody would know it's a bullgak excuse but it's the perfect cover and it would bolster the EU and the pro-western Ukrainian government.
I doubt very much it would have screwed him. Russia claims we made that theoretical deal, we claim we didn't. If you think that causes some massive drop in standing with our allies (who'd be perfectly well aware of it themselves, as they usually are when we mess around with Russia), I dunno what to tell you.
No. I repeat, either the Russians wouldn't have known if it was a secret, and if it wasn't, it damages America's international image.
And arming Osama Bin Laden Mark II wouldn't have been much of a concern earlier on. The revolution didn't start radicalized, it became radicalized when the radicals proved to be the only ones willing to fight alongside the rebels.
Come on. I can see the headlines now. 'OBAMA ARMS AL QAEDA'. Which would technically be true. I mean, are you seriously advocating that as a measure to counteract the Russians? I mean, its not like there was any particular need for it at that point.
I'm a little confused as to why we'd be concerned about pissing off the Russians when the alternative is, as we've seen, them pissing us off instead.
They're not pissing you off. They're playing the nation states game, and you're just not invited. Because it has nothing to do with you.
It's something of a uniquely American trait right now that Americans generally think that every single international situation calls for a US response, and that the US needs to have a 'side', and that if the American President doesn't take some sort of a stand, or it shows him off as being weak.
Here in the UK these days, our Foreign Secretary says whatever he feels he needs to say on the situation to put things to our advantage, and then we get on with doing business. We don't need to 'draw lines in the sand' over what Russia does in it's backyard, and call the Prime Minister 'weak' for not throwing his weight around in some way. We just accept that we have limited military/economic/diplomatic power, this isn't one we're going to win, and we're better off committing our limited resources/influence somewhere else that's actually relevant to our interests.
I think it's something to do with being the main world power, because the British did used to be quite similar back in the 1800's. They felt like they need to have a finger in absolutely every pie, simply on the principle that the pie was there. But we never quite took it to the extent that the USA does today. Having said that though, I suppose we never quite had the power that USA has today. /endhistoricalmusings
The interim Ukrainian government needs hard cash - it would take America seconds to throw them 2-3 billion bucks.
Turkey. Not the stuff you eat at thanksgiving, but the country that happens to be a NATO member, ally, and have a coastline directly opposite the Crimea.
I'm sure somebody in the Pentagon could suddenly remember that's it's long overdue for some joint US-Turkish military exercises on the black sea as part of NATO training commitments!
I'm pretty sure the US navy has a large fleet nearby in the Mediterranean.
Everybody would know it's a bullgak excuse but it's the perfect cover and it would bolster the EU and the pro-western Ukrainian government.
Do I have to think of everything for Obama!
The question though, would be 'Why?'
The interim Government is a bunch of unelected thugs, and half of them are as corrupt as Yanukovych. America has no trade interests there, and it's nowhere near America geographically. What point is there in causing strife with Russia, when there's nothing to gain and plenty to lose? Other than just doing it 'to show Russia who's boss'. Which has never really worked particularly well.
Obama could, if he wanted, work with other nations to put economic pressure on Russia to stop with the invasion stuff or be prepared to suffer unnecessary hardship should they continue. Obama doesn't even need to go through the UN to do this.
Ketara wrote: No. I repeat, either the Russians wouldn't have known if it was a secret, and if it wasn't, it damages America's international image.
And I repeat: no, it doesn't. Who do you think would care, exactly? Russia openly backed the regime. If America were to openly back the rebels at Russia's expense, who would give a gak other than Russia?
Come on. I can see the headlines now. 'OBAMA ARMS AL QAEDA'. Which would technically be true. I mean, are you seriously advocating that as a measure to counteract the Russians? I mean, its not like there was any particular need for it at that point.
If you're unaware of when Islamic militants got involved in the Syrian revolution, I doubt we're going to come to terms on much else. Either way, I wasn't advocating arming them - which we did anyway, and nobody's complained about.
They're not pissing you off. They're playing the nation states game, and you're just not invited. Because it has nothing to do with you.
An aggressive, expansionist Russia has quite a lot to do with us, if only because we have allies in Europe that are incapable of fending for themselves against it and will inevitably turn to us to handle it if it gets bad.
It's something of a uniquely American trait right now that Americans generally think that every single international situation calls for a US response, and that the US needs to have a 'side', and that if the American President doesn't take some sort of a stand, or it shows him off as being weak.
And sometimes that happens to be true.
The interim Government is a bunch of unelected thugs, and half of them are as corrupt as Yanukovych. America has no trade interests there, and it's nowhere near America geographically. What point is there in causing strife with Russia, when there's nothing to gain and plenty to lose? Other than just doing it 'to show Russia who's boss'. Which has never really worked particularly well.
Worked out pretty well during the Cold War.
And Russia is tied to Syria. Russia is tied to Iran. Russia's needed for movement in both cases. It's preferable to negotiate with someone while the memory of their most recent smackdown at your hands is fresh, rather than while they have a string of recent victories to look back on, as is the case now. It would, in general, help reverse Obama's image as someone who says a lot of gak and never, ever backs it up, as well. Nobody worries about going up against the guy who's all talk.
The move also appears to formalize what Ukrainian officials described as an ongoing deployment of Russian troops in the strategic region of Crimea. His motion loosely refers to the "territory of Ukraine" rather than specifically to Crimea, raising the possibility that Moscow could use military force in other Russian-speaking provinces in eastern and southern Ukraine where many oppose the new authorities in Kiev.
Pretty much guessed it. Its a huge Naval Base there.
Does that mean if i got the whole of Croydon to speak Russian the Russian army would support a secession?
This idea of Russian helping out Russian speaking people is a snazzy idea...
#FreeRepublicofCroydon #FRC2014 #HelpusRussia #YOLOSWAG #Justblaze #Putinissexy
Germany tried that once...it worked....if Russia stops there then we're good. Ukraine troops in the region are not crazy enough to take on Russian military units. Who knows Crimea more likely welcome them back.
Steady jobs
Steady paycheck
Flow of Rubles into the economy
Crimea comes out ahead
Russia adds a satellite to its border including permanent control of its Naval Station there
I wasn't going to say it but I did think that...
The whole Germany tried it thing...
There's no real way to know that is what is going to happen... that said if Ukraine wanted to be rid of Crimea they could just sell it to Russia.
And I repeat: no, it doesn't. Who do you think would care, exactly? Russia openly backed the regime. If America were to openly back the rebels at Russia's expense, who would give a gak other than Russia?
So what you're saying is that openly proclaiming that you intend to arm one side of a Syrian civil war/provide them with direct air support to oust the Russians wouldn't bother anyone at all?
I dunno. It would dent America's image in my eyes, and I doubt I'd be alone in that. Going deliberately out of your way to antagonise another power through the use of proxies, and openly declaring it...well, essentially that's basically initiating Cold War Mk 2 there isn't it? Considering Russia wasn't doing anything to you at that time, that's basically America provoking massive violence and international discord for no immediately good reason other than 'to show those Russkis their place'.
Actions like those do have repercussions. They might not be immediate, but it would harden global perceptions even further against what is seen as 'American interference'.
An aggressive, expansionist Russia has quite a lot to do with us, if only because we have allies in Europe that are incapable of fending for themselves against it and will inevitably turn to us to handle it if it gets bad.
It's not being particularly aggressive or expansionist, when you get down to it. It's just taking advantage of an opportunity that presented itself in a piece of what used to be their country. It's not like the tanks are rolling into Finland. The UK/US invasion of Afghanistan was infinitely more aggressive than this, and I'm pretty sure we're morally alright with that one.
Yeah, but its really not here. Ukraine has nothing to do with you guys. You have no interests there, no assets there, no troops there, no anything really. If it was Turkey, or France, or Japan, I'd agree. Or heck, even Taiwan. But the Ukraine? It's just like Georgia all over again. Nothing to do with America.
The only reason the Americans feel they should be involved is because of fifty years of social conditioning to thwart those evil Russian plans wherever they may be.
Worked out pretty well during the Cold War.
It also brought us to the brink of nuclear armageddon several times. Forgive me if I have a different perspective.
And Russia is tied to Syria. Russia is tied to Iran. Russia's needed for movement in both cases. It's preferable to negotiate with someone while the memory of their most recent smackdown at your hands is fresh, rather than while they have a string of recent victories to look back on, as is the case now.
It also breeds resentment and a determination to overturn the status quo.
The problem with issuing ultimatums to a nuclear power is that when they break them, you have a choice. Nuclear war, or live and let live. The trick is not to issue ultimatums in the first place unless you're prepared to risk global oblivion,
Ketara wrote: No. I repeat, either the Russians wouldn't have known if it was a secret, and if it wasn't, it damages America's international image.
And I repeat: no, it doesn't.
Yes it would. Here in the Netherlands, anti-US sentiment is already pretty high because of dickish moves like that, you would just be making things worse for yourself. The majority of the world already hates the US, you don't want to lose the few allies you have left. Russia may be obsessed with its 'great power status', but so is the US. Seriously, come back to reality, the US can't really afford to piss off the rest of the world any more.
Ketara wrote: Come on. I can see the headlines now. 'OBAMA ARMS AL QAEDA'. Which would technically be true. I mean, are you seriously advocating that as a measure to counteract the Russians? I mean, its not like there was any particular need for it at that point.
If you're unaware of when Islamic militants got involved in the Syrian revolution, I doubt we're going to come to terms on much else.
The protests in Syria had islamists in it since the beginning. Islamists have been pissed at the secular Assad regime for years before the start of the protests, radical groups were involved since the beginning. And besides that, it does not really matter when they joined in. If America had supplied weapons, those would have found their way to Al Qaeda anyways. There is a Dutch saying that goes: 'Even a donkey does not bump into the same rock twice'. You really don't want to be more stupid than a donkey. The US has armed middle-eastern rebels to fight Russia or Russian influence before. As you probably know, the plan backfired, the rebels turned their weapons on the US and it ended up costing thousands of American lives. You really don't want that to happen again.
Ketara wrote: They're not pissing you off. They're playing the nation states game, and you're just not invited. Because it has nothing to do with you.
An aggressive, expansionist Russia has quite a lot to do with us, if only because we have allies in Europe that are incapable of fending for themselves against it and will inevitably turn to us to handle it if it gets bad.
Your allies in Europe are not particularly fond of you and we are fine without you. So thanks for helping us out after World War 2, but we'd like to be good friends with Russia instead of having the US lead us into a new Cold War. And thanks to the EU, we really don't need the Americans for anything anymore.
Ketara wrote: It's something of a uniquely American trait right now that Americans generally think that every single international situation calls for a US response, and that the US needs to have a 'side', and that if the American President doesn't take some sort of a stand, or it shows him off as being weak.
And sometimes that happens to be true.
Again, the only ones that think like that are the Americans. And really, you are wrong. Everything you do just makes things worse, the situation will settle down without you.
Ketara wrote: The interim Government is a bunch of unelected thugs, and half of them are as corrupt as Yanukovych. America has no trade interests there, and it's nowhere near America geographically. What point is there in causing strife with Russia, when there's nothing to gain and plenty to lose? Other than just doing it 'to show Russia who's boss'. Which has never really worked particularly well.
Worked out pretty well during the Cold War.
Not really, actually. It has cost you a lot of money and lifes, and what have you gained?
Seaward wrote: And Russia is tied to Syria. Russia is tied to Iran. Russia's needed for movement in both cases. It's preferable to negotiate with someone while the memory of their most recent smackdown at your hands is fresh, rather than while they have a string of recent victories to look back on, as is the case now.
Russia is not known for being easy to negotiate with, they are already famous for being a stubborn people and they have got a huge stockpile of nukes and tanks to back their statements with, and nothing is going to change that. You make it sound like the US and Russia are at war or something like that. No matter what happens, the US will never be able to throw Russia around.
Awesome. So Russia has authorized an unwanted incursion into a sovereign state that is currently undergoing internal upheaval.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: Yeah, but its really not here. Ukraine has nothing to do with you guys. You have no interests there, no assets there, no troops there, no anything really. If it was Turkey, or France, or Japan, I'd agree. Or heck, even Taiwan. But the Ukraine? It's just like Georgia all over again. Nothing to do with America.
The only reason the Americans feel they should be involved is because of fifty years of social conditioning to thwart those evil Russian plans wherever they may be.
You're absolutely right. Well, apart from that memorandum from 1994 that was referred to earlier. The one that states that the US and Russia will uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The memorandum that Russia seems to be fragrantly ignoring.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Awesome. So Russia has authorized an unwanted incursion into a sovereign state that is currently undergoing internal upheaval.
The problem here is that Russia does not really view Ukraine as a sovereign state, and certainly not since its legitimate leaders have been overthrown in an extremist coup and there are ethnic Russians that need to be protected.
You're absolutely right. Well, apart from that memorandum from 1994 that was referred to earlier. The one that states that the US and Russia will uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The memorandum that Russia seems to be fragrantly ignoring.
Last time I checked the elected President had been ousted by a mob. A mob that booted all the members of Pariliament they didn't like, and seized control.
Technically, restoring the status quo could be seen as them meeting their obligations under that treaty. At the very least, its something that could take two lawyers a very long time to wrangle out the exact definitions/obligations of.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Awesome. So Russia has authorized an unwanted incursion into a sovereign state that is currently undergoing internal upheaval.
The problem here is that Russia does not really view Ukraine as a sovereign state, and certainly not since its legitimate leaders have been overthrown in an extremist coup and there are ethnic Russians that need to be protected.
Regardless who leads the Ukraine it is a sovereign nation, with clear international borders. Simply because you do not like the current regime does not mean that you get to ignore international law at will. Sending a military force into another country without an invitation is a clear act of aggression. It has yet to be determined that there is indeed a threat to anyone in the Crimea from the new regime. To date it is only the ethnic Russians and the Russians themselves who have put on a show of force. Perhaps others need to be protected from them.
The world not acting the way Liberals think it should?
Putin will take that country in the 5 days..
Then he will look around for the next one and China will be watching. So will North Korea....
This is what you get when you cut your real armed forces to give to welfare recipients whose only purpose in life is to feth, smoke and vote democrat...
You create a glass canon army of snake eaters instead of armored forces and people notice....
Welcome to the real world when countries get taken over and people die due to poor choices based on how people would like the world to be instead of as it is.
Ketara wrote: Last time I checked the elected President had been ousted by a mob. A mob that booted all the members of Pariliament they didn't like, and seized control.
Technically, restoring the status quo could be seen as them meeting their obligations under that treaty. At the very least, its something that could take two lawyers a very long time to wrangle out the exact definitions/obligations of.
So taking over a part of a country unilaterally, and under protest from the country being occupied, is preserving the integrity of the nation state? Preserving the integrity of the Ukraine would have involved offers to mediate between the rival groups, leading an international force to restore peace, sending in medical teams to treat the wounded. Russia has done none of those things.
To pretend that a military incursion against a sovereign nation to shore up Russian interests in the region is an attempt to preserve the territorial integrity of the Ukraine is absolutely farcical, and I sincerely hope that you have not typed the above with a straight face.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: Why is everyone so surprised? The world not acting the way Liberals think it should? Putin will take that country in the 5 days.. Then he will look around for the next one and China will be watching. So will North Korea.... This is what you get when you cut your real armed forces to give to welfare recipients whose only purpose in life is to feth, smoke and vote democrat... You create a glass canon army of snake eaters instead of armored forces and people notice.... Welcome to the real world when countries get taken over and people die due to poor choices based on how people would like the world to be instead of as it is.
I don't think the events in the Ukraine have anything to do with democrats and the reduction of US forces. The US army is still more than large enough after those reductions.
Ketara wrote: Last time I checked the elected President had been ousted by a mob. A mob that booted all the members of Pariliament they didn't like, and seized control.
Technically, restoring the status quo could be seen as them meeting their obligations under that treaty. At the very least, its something that could take two lawyers a very long time to wrangle out the exact definitions/obligations of.
So taking over a part of a country unilaterally, and under protest from the country being occupied, is preserving the integrity of the nation state? Preserving the integrity of the Ukraine would have involved offers to mediate between the rival groups, leading an international force to restore peace, sending in medical teams to treat the wounded. Russia has done none of those things. To pretend that a military incursion against a sovereign nation to shore up Russian interests in the region is an attempt to preserve the territorial integrity of the Ukraine is absolutely farcical, and I sincerely hope that you have not typed the above with a straight face.
For the Russians, protection of ethnic Russians in their former territory that is now taken over by hostile forces takes priority over everything else. That is how most Russians feel about it. And do not forget that the local authorities in the Ukraine actually asked the Russians to come over. Also, in the eyes of most Russians, the Ukraine still belongs to Mother Russia.
Regardless who leads the Ukraine it is a sovereign nation, with clear international borders. Simply because you do not like the current regime does not mean that you get to ignore international law at will. Sending a military force into another country without an invitation is a clear act of aggression. It has yet to be determined that there is indeed a threat to anyone in the Crimea from the new regime. To date it is only the ethnic Russians and the Russians themselves who have put on a show of force. Perhaps others need to be protected from them.
If a bunch of protestors seized the White House, chased the President out, assaulted all the members of Congress/Senate they didn't like, freed a number of corrupt ex-politicians to join them, and declared themselves the Government, would you regard them as the 'current regime'?
So taking over a part of a country unilaterally, and under protest from the country being occupied,
No. Under protest from a revolutionary group which ejected the previous administration through force and has yet to hold elections or indeed prove their democratic legitimacy in any way.
is preserving the integrity of the nation state?
Putting the President back in power and suppressing dissidents would be preserving it. Not in a way you would personally like though, probably.
Preserving the integrity of the Ukraine would have involved offers to mediate between the rival groups, leading an international force to restore peace,
Why does it need to be international? They can argue they're just sending in the force to make sure everything stays the way it should be.
To pretend that a military incursion against a sovereign nation to shore up Russian interests in the region is an attempt to preserve the territorial integrity of the Ukraine is absolutely farcical, and I sincerely hope that you have not typed the above with a straight face.
Half and half. No, I don't think that's the Russian intention, but yes, I do regard it as technically being within the treaty they signed if interpreted an entirely legitimate way.
Regardless who leads the Ukraine it is a sovereign nation, with clear international borders. Simply because you do not like the current regime does not mean that you get to ignore international law at will. Sending a military force into another country without an invitation is a clear act of aggression. It has yet to be determined that there is indeed a threat to anyone in the Crimea from the new regime. To date it is only the ethnic Russians and the Russians themselves who have put on a show of force. Perhaps others need to be protected from them.
If a bunch of protestors seized the White House, chased the President out, assaulted all the members of Congress/Senate they didn't like, freed a number of corrupt ex-politicians to join them, and declared themselves the Government, would you regard them as the 'current regime'?
I'll let you look up the word 'regime' and see what it actually means.
Regardless, would you think it permissible that Mexico or Canada invade US territory, and seize strategic assets, under the pretext that they are protecting their ethnic citizens in spite of no threat against them?
Regardless who leads the Ukraine it is a sovereign nation, with clear international borders. Simply because you do not like the current regime does not mean that you get to ignore international law at will. Sending a military force into another country without an invitation is a clear act of aggression. It has yet to be determined that there is indeed a threat to anyone in the Crimea from the new regime. To date it is only the ethnic Russians and the Russians themselves who have put on a show of force. Perhaps others need to be protected from them.
If a bunch of protestors seized the White House, chased the President out, assaulted all the members of Congress/Senate they didn't like, freed a number of corrupt ex-politicians to join them, and declared themselves the Government, would you regard them as the 'current regime'?
I'll let you look up the word 'regime' and see what it actually means.
Regardless, would you think it permissible that Mexico or Canada invade US territory, and seize strategic assets, under the pretext that they are protecting their ethnic citizens in spite of no threat against them?
Are they doing it after the above situation I outlined? If so, then maybe. I wouldn't have a problem with Canada seizing chunks over the border if a bunch of nutters tried to seize power in the US.
Regardless who leads the Ukraine it is a sovereign nation, with clear international borders. Simply because you do not like the current regime does not mean that you get to ignore international law at will. Sending a military force into another country without an invitation is a clear act of aggression. It has yet to be determined that there is indeed a threat to anyone in the Crimea from the new regime. To date it is only the ethnic Russians and the Russians themselves who have put on a show of force. Perhaps others need to be protected from them.
If a bunch of protestors seized the White House, chased the President out, assaulted all the members of Congress/Senate they didn't like, freed a number of corrupt ex-politicians to join them, and declared themselves the Government, would you regard them as the 'current regime'?
I'll let you look up the word 'regime' and see what it actually means. Regardless, would you think it permissible that Mexico or Canada invade US territory, and seize strategic assets, under the pretext that they are protecting their ethnic citizens in spite of no threat against them?
If the population of those areas somehow were asking for Mexican/Canadian help, and Mexico/Canada somehow had a military capable of defeating the US one then yes.
Ok. So we have established that you have no problem with unilateral invasions of other countries undergoing political strife, in violation of treaty agreements and ignoring international law and borders. Even those countries in which previously peaceful protesters have been assaulted by organs of the State, and been subjected to live ammunition.
Tyran wrote: If the population of those areas somehow were asking for Mexican/Canadian help, and Mexico/Canada somehow had a military capable of defeating the US one?
It is essentially Texas again, but inverted.
But those populations cannot lawfully petition for outside parties to invade. Nor can they legally give permission for a foreign country to deploy troops inside internationally recognized borders. What you are proposing completely undermines any idea of national sovereignty. Especially when it has not been demonstrated that there is any legitimate threat to people in the areas affected. Again I would say that in the Crimea the only show of force has been from the ethnic Russians, and the Russians themselves. The protesters in Kiev have not made any push towards this region.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Ok. So we have established that you have no problem with unilateral invasions of other countries undergoing political strife, in violation of treaty agreements and ignoring international law and borders. Even those countries in which previously peaceful protesters have been assaulted by organs of the State, and been subjected to live ammunition.
And we've established that you have no problem with coup members breaking criminals out of jail, assaulting elected representatives of the people, claiming governance of the country, and requesting international support for a non-democratic violent regime change. See? I can play with words too.
If it was a case of the Russian tanks rolling into Finland totally unprovoked, I'd be right with you. But here? It's like Syria all over again. No 'good' side to support.
But that won't happen will it. Remember the pundits before Desert Storm? All the talk of months of conflict, the US airpower greased the pride of Iraq without breaking a sweat.
Same as Desert Storm, Air Superiority. The ex-soviet army is a backwards and antiquated rabble.
And the US isn't by it's self, there are a number of extremely advanced armies sitting in Western Europe and a fair number of less advanced armies sat nearer to Russia with a vested interest in not going back to being puppets of an evil empire.
If we do as we're just done and threaten Putin with the horror of not attending a summit in protest... well I don't think he's going to sweat that.
He will start thinking more seriously if we start flyovers and openly stating support for a free Ukraine.
Breotan wrote: Obama could, if he wanted, work with other nations to put economic pressure on Russia to stop with the invasion stuff or be prepared to suffer unnecessary hardship should they continue. Obama doesn't even need to go through the UN to do this.
Same as Desert Storm, Air Superiority. The ex-soviet army is a backwards and antiquated rabble.
Not so much. Putin's spent a lot of time and money reorganising, retraining, and re-equipping the Russian military over the last decade or so. Twenty years ago, you'd have been right, but things have changed somewhat.
Sign The Ukraine into NATO immediately and then see how hungry Putin is.
I think he'd back off a country mile. He's all about pushing into conflicted or tiny nations, like the steamrollering he gave in Georgia, but that steamroller was only impressive because it had no opponents, the Georgians just pulled out, largely, and even with little to no opposition, the Georgian militias shot down several Russian aircraft.
Who would sign the agreement? The problem is that the people sitting in Kiev aren't an elected government, half of their own country doesn't listen to them, and the other half has Russians hanging around in it.
There's a very large power vacuum in the Ukraine at the moment. The generals are all sitting to one side in their own districts and seeing what will happen, the Kiev lot are making edicts that nobody is listening to, and the previous administration has fled or had the crap kicked out of them.
Same as Desert Storm, Air Superiority. The ex-soviet army is a backwards and antiquated rabble.
Not so much. Putin's spent a lot of time and money reorganising, retraining, and re-equipping the Russian military over the last decade or so. Twenty years ago, you'd have been right, but things have changed somewhat.
Twenty years ago the entire nation was teetering on total collapse and the possibility of military insurrections. I know he's been throwing cash at it for a while, but most everything I've read suggests that it's still a corruption riddled, morale lacking and highly disorganized force. NATO forces, removing the use of nukes, which I don't think would be seen deployed over a foreign soil grab, would kick the seven shades out of the Russian Army. Especially given NATO love of taking apart lines of communication and infrastructure first.
As to massed armour, mentioned by that amusing poster earlier, again, air superiority totally neutralizes that and we'd be seeing roads full of dead tanks soon enough, gutted by depleted uranium rounds and such.
Russia is a tough cookie when you hold it up to it's former conquests, it really doesn't rank up when you put it against the technological superiority of the West.
It ranks beneath the US in terms of technological superiority, certainly. Then again, who doesn't?
It outstrips China on the other side of the fork however, and matches a good number of sophisticated European nations. I'd say we in the UK are ahead of them, as are certain aspects of the French military, but other than those exceptions, they maintain a decent parity, and are doing their best to catch up fast. I estimate another ten years, and they'll be level with the French/UK.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Russia is a tough cookie when you hold it up to it's former conquests, it really doesn't rank up when you put it against the technological superiority of the West.
And the fact that we train to survive and fight in cold winters, unlike the armies of Napoleon and Hitler. The Germans in WWII also seemed to lack air support. I expect that won't be an issue if we were to fight Russia.
Same as Desert Storm, Air Superiority. The ex-soviet army is a backwards and antiquated rabble.
Not so much. Putin's spent a lot of time and money reorganising, retraining, and re-equipping the Russian military over the last decade or so. Twenty years ago, you'd have been right, but things have changed somewhat.
Twenty years ago the entire nation was teetering on total collapse and the possibility of military insurrections. I know he's been throwing cash at it for a while, but most everything I've read suggests that it's still a corruption riddled, morale lacking and highly disorganized force. NATO forces, removing the use of nukes, which I don't think would be seen deployed over a foreign soil grab, would kick the seven shades out of the Russian Army. Especially given NATO love of taking apart lines of communication and infrastructure first.
As to massed armour, mentioned by that amusing poster earlier, again, air superiority totally neutralizes that and we'd be seeing roads full of dead tanks soon enough, gutted by depleted uranium rounds and such.
Russia is a tough cookie when you hold it up to it's former conquests, it really doesn't rank up when you put it against the technological superiority of the West.
For one thing; the US would be on its own, Europe does not have the desire nor the capabillities to threaten Russia. Secondly, the technological superiority of the West does not come into question here. We are not talking about some 3rd world country using outdated Soviet equipment, this is Russia itself we are talking about. The latest Russian technology is as advanced, if not more so than any Western tech. The only thing the US has above Russia is larger numbers. The US has more soldiers, more aircraft and more ships than Russia. Russia has a lot more tanks, and those are still the deciding factor in a war. Aircraft have a good supporting role, but they do not win wars on their own. America could never bring its entire airforce to Russia, while Russia has its entire airforce available. Coupled with the fact that Russia has the most advanced anti-aircraft measures in the world, I would say that America would have a hard time wresting air superiority. Especially considering Russia could sink any American ship close to Russian shores with its massive array of anti-ship missiles and submarine fleet. The 1st rule on the 1st page of the Book of War states: 'Do not march on Moscow.' Underestimating Russia and attacking it on its own soil has been the last mistake of everyone to ever attempt that. Fighting Russia on its own territory is madness. There are few peoples that are so stubborn and fanatical in the defense of their 'Sacred Motherland' as the Russians are. Russia's military has really made vast changes the last decade. I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Trust me, the US is not capable of militarily defeating Russia on its own territory. Anyone who thinks so is a madman and should join the likes of Napoleon and Hitler.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Russia is a tough cookie when you hold it up to it's former conquests, it really doesn't rank up when you put it against the technological superiority of the West.
And the fact that we train to survive and fight in cold winters, unlike the armies of Napoleon and Hitler. The Germans in WWII also seemed to lack air support. I expect that won't be an issue if we were to fight Russia.
Sure, please tell me how you are going to magically teleport your entire airforce to Europe while being harrassed by the Russian Airforce, Air defenses and Navy. You will need to establish a beachhead to begin with, do not expect any European nations to help out. We know where wars against Russia always end, and we have no desire to be dragged into WW3 by the US. Also, German soldiers in WW2 were trained in winter combat as much as their Russian adversaries. They also had plenty of air support. Also, the average US conscript is not trained in winter warfare, the professional US army is way too small to even scratch Russia after it mobilises its army.
Tyran wrote: If the population of those areas somehow were asking for Mexican/Canadian help, and Mexico/Canada somehow had a military capable of defeating the US one?
It is essentially Texas again, but inverted.
But those populations cannot lawfully petition for outside parties to invade. Nor can they legally give permission for a foreign country to deploy troops inside internationally recognized borders. What you are proposing completely undermines any idea of national sovereignty. Especially when it has not been demonstrated that there is any legitimate threat to people in the areas affected. Again I would say that in the Crimea the only show of force has been from the ethnic Russians, and the Russians themselves. The protesters in Kiev have not made any push towards this region.
The law in this situation doesn't matter, Crimea doesn't recognize the new government. What can Ukraine do in this situation? invade Crimea? lol no because then it would be a repeat of Georgia. In this moment the ones that will decide the future of Crimea is the Crimeans, and if the new administration in Kiev is unable to improve the way they are perceived in Crimea then the country is going to tear itself apart. Russia needs the support of Crimea and the declarations of the new government only push Crimea more in Russia's arms.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for Russia vs the West.
The West would win in a proxy war, but an invasion of the Russian mainland would be hilarious stupid.
It doesn't matter as the West isn't going to fight for Ukraine.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: Why is everyone so surprised?
The world not acting the way Liberals think it should?
Putin will take that country in the 5 days..
Then he will look around for the next one and China will be watching. So will North Korea....
This is what you get when you cut your real armed forces to give to welfare recipients whose only purpose in life is to feth, smoke and vote democrat...
You create a glass canon army of snake eaters instead of armored forces and people notice....
Welcome to the real world when countries get taken over and people die due to poor choices based on how people would like the world to be instead of as it is.
I don't think the events in the Ukraine have anything to do with democrats and the reduction of US forces.
The US army is still more than large enough after those reductions.
Ketara wrote: Last time I checked the elected President had been ousted by a mob. A mob that booted all the members of Pariliament they didn't like, and seized control.
Technically, restoring the status quo could be seen as them meeting their obligations under that treaty. At the very least, its something that could take two lawyers a very long time to wrangle out the exact definitions/obligations of.
So taking over a part of a country unilaterally, and under protest from the country being occupied, is preserving the integrity of the nation state? Preserving the integrity of the Ukraine would have involved offers to mediate between the rival groups, leading an international force to restore peace, sending in medical teams to treat the wounded. Russia has done none of those things.
To pretend that a military incursion against a sovereign nation to shore up Russian interests in the region is an attempt to preserve the territorial integrity of the Ukraine is absolutely farcical, and I sincerely hope that you have not typed the above with a straight face.
For the Russians, protection of ethnic Russians in their former territory that is now taken over by hostile forces takes priority over everything else. That is how most Russians feel about it. And do not forget that the local authorities in the Ukraine actually asked the Russians to come over.
Also, in the eyes of most Russians, the Ukraine still belongs to Mother Russia.
As we know from history, the U.S. has no moral high horse in a situation like this, and it seems like no one has learned a damn thing in the thousands of years these kind of situations occur.
Think we need to back out of the "US vs Russia". We all know its not going to happen and if it were to happen Putin Armored/Infantry column will be going through Poland. Which I might add whose units have more combat experience then Russia. It'll come down to Quality vs Quantity. Putin not that greedy. He acquires Crimea...why do I keep having Conan come to mind....justification being the huge Sevastapol(SP) Naval Base there. That slab of land is easily defended with basically two land routes over two Penninsula.
For one thing; the US would be on its own, Europe does not have the desire nor the capabillities to threaten Russia.
I hate to stop you dead there, but if the combined forces of all the European nations mobilised to crush Russia, it would be crushed. France and Britain combined have as many people as Russia alone.
Secondly, the technological superiority of the West does not come into question here. We are not talking about some 3rd world country using outdated Soviet equipment, this is Russia itself we are talking about. The latest Russian technology is as advanced, if not more so than any Western tech.
Not quite. As I said earlier, we do still have something of a march on Russia. They've come along very nicely of late, but the fifteen year stopgap in R&D is still holding them back, as is the fact that the West shares technological secrets somewhat. If Britain makes a discovery, the Americans tend to be kitted out with it shortly afterwards, and vice versa. Russia has to develop everything itself.
When Russia has a 5th Gen fighter in the field, or access to the new stealth plating for ships, maybe then.
The only thing the US has above Russia is larger numbers.
And technology. And a larger economy.
Russia has a lot more tanks, and those are still the deciding factor in a war.
No. Tanks have not been a deciding factor in war for about sixty years. Too many hand-propelled weapons, mines, aircraft, and drones. There's even been talk of late of scrapping tanks altogether. Whilst I believe they still have a role, we're a long way from Liddell-Hart and Guderian's wet dreams.
America could never bring its entire airforce to Russia, while Russia has its entire airforce available.
Between the Wasps and the Nimitz's, America can haul at least a quarter as many aircraft as Russia has available to it. Add in German airbases, and other places in Europe, and America could match it numerically without too much effort. When you realise that a good half of the Russian airforce is more then a little technically inferior, you realise that they wouldn't even need a parity of force.
Coupled with the fact that Russia has the most advanced anti-aircraft measures in the world,
Source?
I would say that America would have a hard time wresting air superiority. Especially considering Russia could sink any American ship close to Russian shores with its massive array of anti-ship missiles and submarine fleet.
No.
The 1st rule on the 1st page of the Book of War states: 'Do not march on Moscow.'
Who marches these days? We drive. Or fly. Or take the train.
Not to mention that the days of dirt track roads are long gone. There won't be another mudbath to hold back the tide.
Underestimating Russia and attacking it on its own soil has been the last mistake of everyone to ever attempt that. Fighting Russia on its own territory is madness. There are few peoples that are so stubborn and fanatical in the defense of their 'Sacred Motherland' as the Russians are.
Russia's military has really made vast changes the last decade. I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Trust me, the US is not capable of militarily defeating Russia on its own territory.
Anyone who thinks so is a madman and should join the likes of Napoleon and Hitler.
Napoleon took Moscow. He just didn't know what to do afterwards, and didn't have air supply.
Jihadin wrote: US and EU I'm sure after Iraq and Afghanistan are not willing to exchange lead with Russia. Putin knows that.
It depends. Not over something like this, certainly. If he started pulling a Hitler, and pushed the tanks into members of the EU, we probably would. Which is kind of what all this is about, keeping the Ukraine out of our sphere of influence, so we don't get involved further down the line.
Tyran wrote: The West isn't going to invade Russia because nukes.
Now lets go back to Ukraine and Crimea, which I doubt the West would risk a war for it.
*snaps fingers*
Give the man a prize. Or an exalt at least. He sees to the crux of it.
Same as Desert Storm, Air Superiority. The ex-soviet army is a backwards and antiquated rabble.
Not so much. Putin's spent a lot of time and money reorganising, retraining, and re-equipping the Russian military over the last decade or so. Twenty years ago, you'd have been right, but things have changed somewhat.
Twenty years ago the entire nation was teetering on total collapse and the possibility of military insurrections. I know he's been throwing cash at it for a while, but most everything I've read suggests that it's still a corruption riddled, morale lacking and highly disorganized force. NATO forces, removing the use of nukes, which I don't think would be seen deployed over a foreign soil grab, would kick the seven shades out of the Russian Army. Especially given NATO love of taking apart lines of communication and infrastructure first.
As to massed armour, mentioned by that amusing poster earlier, again, air superiority totally neutralizes that and we'd be seeing roads full of dead tanks soon enough, gutted by depleted uranium rounds and such.
Russia is a tough cookie when you hold it up to it's former conquests, it really doesn't rank up when you put it against the technological superiority of the West.
For one thing; the US would be on its own, Europe does not have the desire nor the capabillities to threaten Russia.
Secondly, the technological superiority of the West does not come into question here. We are not talking about some 3rd world country using outdated Soviet equipment, this is Russia itself we are talking about. The latest Russian technology is as advanced, if not more so than any Western tech. The only thing the US has above Russia is larger numbers. The US has more soldiers, more aircraft and more ships than Russia.
Russia has a lot more tanks, and those are still the deciding factor in a war. Aircraft have a good supporting role, but they do not win wars on their own. America could never bring its entire airforce to Russia, while Russia has its entire airforce available. Coupled with the fact that Russia has the most advanced anti-aircraft measures in the world, I would say that America would have a hard time wresting air superiority. Especially considering Russia could sink any American ship close to Russian shores with its massive array of anti-ship missiles and submarine fleet.
The 1st rule on the 1st page of the Book of War states: 'Do not march on Moscow.' Underestimating Russia and attacking it on its own soil has been the last mistake of everyone to ever attempt that. Fighting Russia on its own territory is madness. There are few peoples that are so stubborn and fanatical in the defense of their 'Sacred Motherland' as the Russians are.
Russia's military has really made vast changes the last decade. I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Trust me, the US is not capable of militarily defeating Russia on its own territory.
Anyone who thinks so is a madman and should join the likes of Napoleon and Hitler.
Noone was talking about invading Russia, we were discussing combating an invading Russian force in Ukraine.
"Tanks are the deciding factor in a war'... You need to take a closer look at all wars since the 50s...
'The latest Russian technology is more advanced than Western tech'.... this is fascinating, what are you basing this on?
'The US would be on its own, Europe does not have the desire nor the capabillities to threaten Russia.'... NATO is NATO, treaties have been signed and, again, the West is a fairly unified unit when it comes to the US getting into it with another power, especially one that's invading from the East.
"Coupled with the fact that Russia has the most advanced anti-aircraft measures in the world, I would say that America would have a hard time wresting air superiority. "... America's air superiority isn't just number one, it's number one by a vast degree, it would own the skies in short order.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Russia is a tough cookie when you hold it up to it's former conquests, it really doesn't rank up when you put it against the technological superiority of the West.
And the fact that we train to survive and fight in cold winters, unlike the armies of Napoleon and Hitler. The Germans in WWII also seemed to lack air support. I expect that won't be an issue if we were to fight Russia.
Sure, please tell me how you are going to magically teleport your entire airforce to Europe while being harrassed by the Russian Airforce, Air defenses and Navy. You will need to establish a beachhead to begin with, do not expect any European nations to help out. We know where wars against Russia always end, and we have no desire to be dragged into WW3 by the US.
Also, German soldiers in WW2 were trained in winter combat as much as their Russian adversaries. They also had plenty of air support. Also, the average US conscript is not trained in winter warfare, the professional US army is way too small to even scratch Russia after it mobilises its army.
A sizeable amount of the US airforce is already stationed in Europe... and in bases in the Middle East, both in strike range, along with significant ground forces... and the airforces and armies of her fairly sophisticated allies.
Your suggestion that no European nation would lend aid is nonsense, they already do and you can bet a number more would be eager to lend assistance to the US in the face of a new, conquering Russia at their borders.
So, US, UK, France, Germany, the Scandinavians, former Eastern Block nations, assorted others... I think Russia would find it's self seriously out competed in very short order.
Because these forces would not be invading or attacking, they would be holding and defending a nation. International support would largely be behind the West and denouncing the Russians as aggressors.
Ketara wrote: And we've established that you have no problem with coup members breaking criminals out of jail, assaulting elected representatives of the people, claiming governance of the country, and requesting international support for a non-democratic violent regime change. See? I can play with words too.
If it was a case of the Russian tanks rolling into Finland totally unprovoked, I'd be right with you. But here? It's like Syria all over again. No 'good' side to support.
You could. If you could find any statement from myself that supports that position. I'll wait and give you some time to find it. No hurry.
Russian upper house approves use of military force in Ukraine
Simferopol, Ukraine (CNN) -- Russia's upper house of Parliament voted unanimously Saturday to approve sending Russian military forces into Ukraine, amid mounting tensions in the country's Crimea region and in defiance of warnings from Western powers.
The vote followed a request from President Vladimir Putin for approval to send troops into Crimea to normalize the political situation there.
Putin cited the "extraordinary situation in Ukraine" in making his request, adding that the lives of Russian citizens and military personnel based in the southern Crimea region had been threatened.
Ukraine's new government condemned the move.
"We perceive Russia's actions as direct aggression towards the sovereignty of Ukraine," said acting President Oleksandr Turchynov on the Twitter account of his Fatherland party.
The fledgling government in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, is seeking to prevent tensions in Crimea, which has a majority-Russian population, from escalating into a full-blown bid for separation.
Opposition leader Vitali Klitschko said Saturday in a posting on his party's website that he planned to ask Turchynov to call for Parliament to meet in emergency session to vote to invalidate the Black Sea Fleet Naval Base agreement.
Russian troops said to attempt coast guard takeover
Amid the uncertainty, about 300 gunmen wearing Russian special forces uniforms attempted to take over the Sevastopol unit of the Ukrainian Coast Guard, a senior official with the Ukrainian Border Service said Saturday.
The gunmen were positioned outside the Ukrainian Coast Guard building, with local residents standing between the two groups, said Col. Sergii Astakhov, assistant to the chief of the Ukrainian Border Service.
The residents were reportedly trying to negotiate and asking the gunmen not to attack, Astakhov said.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Coast Guard had moved its ships to a position away from the coast where they were approached by three motorboats and a cruiser from the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Astakhov said.
The Russian upper house vote came on the day that the newly installed, pro-Russian leader of Crimea, Sergey Aksyonov, asked Putin for help in maintaining peace on the Black Sea peninsula -- where Russia's fleet is based at Sevastopol.
Security forces "are unable to efficiently control the situation in the republic," he said in comments broadcast on Russian state channel Russia 24. Aksyonov was installed as the region's premier after armed men took over the Crimean Parliament building on Thursday.
Aksyonov said Saturday that a referendum on greater Crimean autonomy, originally set for May 25, would be moved to March 30.
Ukrainian government officials suspect Moscow of fomenting separatist tensions in the autonomous region -- and they accused Russia of having already sent troops into its territory.
Yatsenyuk: Russian actions are provocation
Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, speaking Saturday at a Cabinet meeting, called the Russian presence in Crimea "nothing but a provocation."
But, he said, it failed.
"Ukraine will not be provoked, we will not use force, we demand that the government of the Russian Federation immediately withdraw its troops and return to their home bases," he said.
Acting President Turchynov insisted Friday that Ukraine would defend its sovereignty and that "any attempts of intrusion or annexation will have very serious consequences."
Airspace reopened
Ukraine on Friday accused Russian Black Sea forces of trying to seize two airports in Crimea but said Ukrainian security forces had prevented them from taking control.
Groups of armed men, dressed in uniforms without identifying insignia, patrolled the airports in the regional capital, Simferopol, and the nearby port city of Sevastopol.
The armed men remained at the airports Saturday and Yevgey Plaksin, director of the airport in the regional capital, Simferopol, said Crimean airspace would remain closed until evening.
But by 6:30 p.m. Saturday, the airspace had reopened, and airport services were working, Plaksin said.
Unidentified, balaclava-clad armed men took up positions outside the Crimean Parliament building on Saturday, as a small pro-Russian demonstration was held, and controlled who could enter. A roadblock was also reported on the route into the city.
Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaliy Churkin, said Friday that the reports of Russian troops taking charge of positions on the ground were rumors and noted that rumors "are always not true."
"We are acting within the framework of our agreement," he said.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said that maneuvers of armored vehicles from the Russian Black Sea fleet in Crimea were needed for security and were in line with bilateral agreements.
Russia has been conducting a military exercise near its border with Ukraine -- snap drills that Moscow announced Wednesday.
Obama: Warning to Russia
The United States urged Russia on Friday to pull back from the Crimea or face consequences.
"We are now deeply concerned by reports of military movements taken by the Russian Federation inside Ukraine," U.S. President Barack Obama said in televised comments from the White House.
"It would be a clear violation of Russia's commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty and borders of Ukraine and of international laws."
Obama said any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be "deeply destabilizing, and he warned "the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine."
His message was heard in Moscow, where the head of Russia's upper house of Parliament said Saturday that she planned to ask Putin to recall Russia's ambassador to the United States. Valentina Matvienko, chairwoman of the Federal Council, cited "the recent statements by the U.S. President threatening Russia."
The message also reached Congress, where the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee called for an immediate response to Russia's move.
"Every moment that the United States and our allies fail to respond sends the signal to President Putin that he can be even more ambitious and aggressive in his military intervention in Ukraine," Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said in a statement.
He called on Obama to "make clear what costs Russia will face for its aggression and to impose those consequences without further delay."
On Saturday, a U.S. official told CNN's Barbara Starr that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel had spoken with his Russian counterpart about the crisis.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said Saturday that he had asked Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for a de-escalation of the situation in Crimea and asked that Russia respect Ukraine's sovereignty and independence.
He called the vote by Russia's Parliament "a potentially grave threat to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine and said the British Foreign Office had summoned Russia's ambassador to Britain.
He said he planned to visit Ukraine on Sunday to meet with government leaders there and to offer "the UK's support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine."
Other world leaders joined an international outcry, with EU High Representative Catherine Ashton deploring Russia's "unwarranted escalation of tensions."
"Russian military intervention in Ukraine is clearly against international law and principles of European security," tweeted Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.
The U.N. Security Council met Saturday afternoon -- for the second consecutive day -- to discuss the situation.
A statement from the spokesperson for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he would speak "shortly" with Putin and called "for an immediate restoration of calm and direct dialogue."
Ukrainian leaders and commentators have compared events in Crimea to what happened in Georgia in 2008. Then, cross-border tensions with Russia exploded into a five-day conflict that saw Russian tanks and troops pour into the breakaway territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as well as Georgian cities. Russia and Georgia each blamed the other for starting the conflict.
Former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili told CNN he had warned in 2008 that Ukraine would be next. "Putin is following his blueprint all the way through," he said.
That comparison was noted by Yulia Tymoshenko, who opposed ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. "They want a war like the one which happened in Abkhazia and Ossetia," she said in a statement on her Fatherland party website.
Ukraine, a nation of 45 million people sandwiched between Europe and Russia's southwestern border, has been plunged into chaos since the ouster a week ago of Yanukovych following bloody street protests.
Yanukovych resurfaced Friday in the southwestern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don, where he told reporters that he had not been overthrown and vowed to fight on for Ukraine's future, but gave little indication that he had the support to do so.
Financial woes
Ukraine's new government faces challenges that go beyond Crimea -- the country is an economic basket case.
A $15 billion loan offer from Russia, extended in November after Yanukovych dropped the EU deal, is on hold.
Russia also promised to slash natural gas prices. However, Russian energy giant Gazprom said Saturday that Ukraine is $1.55 billion in arrears on payments for natural gas deliveries, which may force the firm to cancel the discount it agreed to last year, Russian state-run RIA Novosti news agency said.
Gazprom spokesman Sergei Kupriyanov said that Russia has issued a $3 billion line of credit to Ukraine to help it cover its gas debts -- but that payment obligations must be respected.
Ukrainian authorities have said they will need $35 billion in foreign funds by the end of 2015.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: The law in this situation doesn't matter, Crimea doesn't recognize the new government. What can Ukraine do in this situation? invade Crimea? lol no because then it would be a repeat of Georgia. In this moment the ones that will decide the future of Crimea is the Crimeans, and if the new administration in Kiev is unable to improve the way they are perceived in Crimea then the country is going to tear itself apart. Russia needs the support of Crimea and the declarations of the new government only push Crimea more in Russia's arms.
The law does absolutely matter. Just because the government has been ousted does not mean that the nation state has ceased to exist. Ukraine still has international borders that must be respected. The events in Kiev do not give thos in Crimea the legal standing to invite in a foreign military presence, especially when there is no threat to people in that region.
If Crimea wants to secede then they should do so via whatever mechanisms exist within Ukraine's constitution, or international law. That does not include asking a foreign country to invade.
For one thing; the US would be on its own, Europe does not have the desire nor the capabillities to threaten Russia.
I hate to stop you dead there, but if the combined forces of all the European nations mobilised to crush Russia, it would be crushed. France and Britain combined have as many people as Russia alone.
Secondly, the technological superiority of the West does not come into question here. We are not talking about some 3rd world country using outdated Soviet equipment, this is Russia itself we are talking about. The latest Russian technology is as advanced, if not more so than any Western tech.
Not quite. As I said earlier, we do still have something of a march on Russia. They've come along very nicely of late, but the fifteen year stopgap in R&D is still holding them back, as is the fact that the West shares technological secrets somewhat. If Britain makes a discovery, the Americans tend to be kitted out with it shortly afterwards, and vice versa. Russia has to develop everything itself.
When Russia has a 5th Gen fighter in the field, or access to the new stealth plating for ships, maybe then.
The only thing the US has above Russia is larger numbers.
And technology. And a larger economy.
Russia has a lot more tanks, and those are still the deciding factor in a war.
No. Tanks have not been a deciding factor in war for about sixty years. Too many hand-propelled weapons, mines, aircraft, and drones. There's even been talk of late of scrapping tanks altogether. Whilst I believe they still have a role, we're a long way from Liddell-Hart and Guderian's wet dreams.
America could never bring its entire airforce to Russia, while Russia has its entire airforce available.
Between the Wasps and the Nimitz's, America can haul at least a quarter as many aircraft as Russia has available to it. Add in German airbases, and other places in Europe, and America could match it numerically without too much effort. When you realise that a good half of the Russian airforce is more then a little technically inferior, you realise that they wouldn't even need a parity of force.
Coupled with the fact that Russia has the most advanced anti-aircraft measures in the world,
Source?
I would say that America would have a hard time wresting air superiority. Especially considering Russia could sink any American ship close to Russian shores with its massive array of anti-ship missiles and submarine fleet.
No.
The 1st rule on the 1st page of the Book of War states: 'Do not march on Moscow.'
Who marches these days? We drive. Or fly. Or take the train.
Not to mention that the days of dirt track roads are long gone. There won't be another mudbath to hold back the tide.
Underestimating Russia and attacking it on its own soil has been the last mistake of everyone to ever attempt that. Fighting Russia on its own territory is madness. There are few peoples that are so stubborn and fanatical in the defense of their 'Sacred Motherland' as the Russians are.
Russia's military has really made vast changes the last decade. I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Trust me, the US is not capable of militarily defeating Russia on its own territory.
Anyone who thinks so is a madman and should join the likes of Napoleon and Hitler.
Napoleon took Moscow. He just didn't know what to do afterwards, and didn't have air supply.
I think we should not let this devolve into a Russia vs US debate, as those are impossible to resolve, since tactics and strategy and unpredictable circumstances play a far more deciding role in war than numbers or technology, but I do want to make one last post on this.
Your ignorance of Russia is plainly obvious. During the '90s, technical innovation in Russia did not suddenly grind to a halt. It almost did, but research in the areas of artillery and rocket science, where Russia has always had the lead, and which are paramount to Russian military doctrine, continued.
Fact is that Russian air defenses are just as sophisticated and cheaper to manufacture than Western ones. I don't have all the facts ready, but a simple trip on the Internet should yield plenty of results.
Russia has also succeeded in building missiles that can easily evade any currently existing missile defense system, something the West is yet to accomplish.
In all other areas the West is ahead, but missile technology does happen to be quite important in modern warfare.
Besides, Russia is excellent at espionage. Any technological advance by the West is almost immediatly picked up by Russia (and vice versa). Russia does not have to invent anything itself.
If all the nations of Europe were to unite, they could beat Russia, at least if they would mobilise their entire populations. wouldn't be dependent on Russian gas, wouldn't run the risk of being wiped of the Earth's surface by Russian missiles and actually had the will to fight Russia.
Tanks are far from invincible and more vulnerable than in the past. On the open field they are still the most dominant factor however.
American aircraft carriers would be the first targets for the Russian missiles and submarines, it would be suicide to take those into range. Aircraft carriers are powerful, but very, very vulnerable. This isn't WW2 anymore, aircraft carriers can be destroyed by land- or ship based missiles from hundreds or even thousands of kilometers away.
The days of dirt tracks are long gone? Maybe, but those of freezing winters aren't.
Napoleon only took Moscow because it was part of the Russian strategy. They burned it on purpose so Napoleons soldiers would starve to death.
Warfare has changed since WW2, but large scale, conventional warfare between modern armies hasn't happened since and armies will still need to eat. Russia is too large. Supply lines will become overstretched, cut off by partisans and the assault will grind to a halt in winter. That happened to Napolean, that happened to Hitler, that happened to any invader in modern Russian history. It will happen again, history has a nasty way of repeating itself.
Apart from all these considerations there is also the fact that Russia has a military alliance with China, which is also very eager to engage the West and overtake it as #1 Superpower in the world.
Same as Desert Storm, Air Superiority. The ex-soviet army is a backwards and antiquated rabble.
Not so much. Putin's spent a lot of time and money reorganising, retraining, and re-equipping the Russian military over the last decade or so. Twenty years ago, you'd have been right, but things have changed somewhat.
Twenty years ago the entire nation was teetering on total collapse and the possibility of military insurrections. I know he's been throwing cash at it for a while, but most everything I've read suggests that it's still a corruption riddled, morale lacking and highly disorganized force. NATO forces, removing the use of nukes, which I don't think would be seen deployed over a foreign soil grab, would kick the seven shades out of the Russian Army. Especially given NATO love of taking apart lines of communication and infrastructure first.
As to massed armour, mentioned by that amusing poster earlier, again, air superiority totally neutralizes that and we'd be seeing roads full of dead tanks soon enough, gutted by depleted uranium rounds and such.
Russia is a tough cookie when you hold it up to it's former conquests, it really doesn't rank up when you put it against the technological superiority of the West.
For one thing; the US would be on its own, Europe does not have the desire nor the capabillities to threaten Russia.
Secondly, the technological superiority of the West does not come into question here. We are not talking about some 3rd world country using outdated Soviet equipment, this is Russia itself we are talking about. The latest Russian technology is as advanced, if not more so than any Western tech. The only thing the US has above Russia is larger numbers. The US has more soldiers, more aircraft and more ships than Russia.
Russia has a lot more tanks, and those are still the deciding factor in a war. Aircraft have a good supporting role, but they do not win wars on their own. America could never bring its entire airforce to Russia, while Russia has its entire airforce available. Coupled with the fact that Russia has the most advanced anti-aircraft measures in the world, I would say that America would have a hard time wresting air superiority. Especially considering Russia could sink any American ship close to Russian shores with its massive array of anti-ship missiles and submarine fleet.
The 1st rule on the 1st page of the Book of War states: 'Do not march on Moscow.' Underestimating Russia and attacking it on its own soil has been the last mistake of everyone to ever attempt that. Fighting Russia on its own territory is madness. There are few peoples that are so stubborn and fanatical in the defense of their 'Sacred Motherland' as the Russians are.
Russia's military has really made vast changes the last decade. I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Trust me, the US is not capable of militarily defeating Russia on its own territory.
Anyone who thinks so is a madman and should join the likes of Napoleon and Hitler.
Noone was talking about invading Russia, we were discussing combating an invading Russian force in Ukraine.
"Tanks are the deciding factor in a war'... You need to take a closer look at all wars since the 50s...
'The latest Russian technology is more advanced than Western tech'.... this is fascinating, what are you basing this on?
'The US would be on its own, Europe does not have the desire nor the capabillities to threaten Russia.'... NATO is NATO, treaties have been signed and, again, the West is a fairly unified unit when it comes to the US getting into it with another power, especially one that's invading from the East.
"Coupled with the fact that Russia has the most advanced anti-aircraft measures in the world, I would say that America would have a hard time wresting air superiority. "... America's air superiority isn't just number one, it's number one by a vast degree, it would own the skies in short order.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Russia is a tough cookie when you hold it up to it's former conquests, it really doesn't rank up when you put it against the technological superiority of the West.
And the fact that we train to survive and fight in cold winters, unlike the armies of Napoleon and Hitler. The Germans in WWII also seemed to lack air support. I expect that won't be an issue if we were to fight Russia.
Sure, please tell me how you are going to magically teleport your entire airforce to Europe while being harrassed by the Russian Airforce, Air defenses and Navy. You will need to establish a beachhead to begin with, do not expect any European nations to help out. We know where wars against Russia always end, and we have no desire to be dragged into WW3 by the US.
Also, German soldiers in WW2 were trained in winter combat as much as their Russian adversaries. They also had plenty of air support. Also, the average US conscript is not trained in winter warfare, the professional US army is way too small to even scratch Russia after it mobilises its army.
A sizeable amount of the US airforce is already stationed in Europe... and in bases in the Middle East, both in strike range, along with significant ground forces... and the airforces and armies of her fairly sophisticated allies.
Your suggestion that no European nation would lend aid is nonsense, they already do and you can bet a number more would be eager to lend assistance to the US in the face of a new, conquering Russia at their borders.
So, US, UK, France, Germany, the Scandinavians, former Eastern Block nations, assorted others... I think Russia would find it's self seriously out competed in very short order.
Because these forces would not be invading or attacking, they would be holding and defending a nation. International support would largely be behind the West and denouncing the Russians as aggressors.
Really. Europeans (or at least the Dutch, Germans and Scandinavians) have no desire to be at war with Russia. It would damage their own interests and put their people in danger. Not to mention we have no big love for the US, the US has not much credit left here.
NATO is NATO, a fractious antiquated and untested alliance of nations with sometimes wildly conflicting interests since the end of WW2.
Russia would be outcompeted, but the West would not be capable of actually invading and occupying Russia itself for a number of very obvious issues that can't possibly be ignored. Russia has the power to wipe the entire West from the face of the Earth in a matter of minutes, and trust me, Russians are crazy enough to lauch those nukes if they are losing. Most Russians would prefer to destroy the world rather than bow their heads to a hated and foreign oppressor.
Also, if we bring allies into the game we have to bring the CSTO, SCO and China in here as well.
Apart from all these considerations there is also the fact that Russia has a military alliance with China, which is also very eager to engage the West and overtake it as #1 Superpower in the world.
Bollocks.
China wants trade and economic prosperity to continue.
It would be in no way interested in a military fall out with it's colossal customer, the US. It would not value an alliance with Russia in any way over a potential economic disaster and might even view Russia's falling out with the US and the West as the opportunity to grab some Russian soil...
Apart from all these considerations there is also the fact that Russia has a military alliance with China, which is also very eager to engage the West and overtake it as #1 Superpower in the world.
Bollocks.
China wants trade and economic prosperity to continue.
It would be in no way interested in a military fall out with it's colossal customer, the US. It would not value an alliance with Russia in any way over a potential economic disaster and might even view Russia's falling out with the US and the West as the opportunity to grab some Russian soil...
That is a non-argument, the same could be said for the European NATO states.
The alliance has already been signed several years ago, and China would have much, very much to gain from winning a war against the US. It would establish China as the number #1 superpower and they do not need to fear economical consequences, as they could put their entire population to work in the defense industry and army.
Maybe Ukraine could make things very easy for Russia. If Russia unilaterally ignores the 1994 treaty, then perhaps the next Ukrainian government could scrap any deal with the Russian's concerning their military installations on Ukrainian soil, and demand that they leave.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: That is a non-argument, the same could be said for the European NATO states.
The alliance has already been signed several years ago, and China would have much, very much to gain from winning a war against the US. It would establish China as the number #1 superpower and they do not need to fear economical consequences, as they could put their entire population to work in the defense industry and army.
Yes, I'm sure China would be thrilled to go to war with one of the countries that owe them the most money.
Apart from all these considerations there is also the fact that Russia has a military alliance with China, which is also very eager to engage the West and overtake it as #1 Superpower in the world.
Bollocks.
China wants trade and economic prosperity to continue.
It would be in no way interested in a military fall out with it's colossal customer, the US. It would not value an alliance with Russia in any way over a potential economic disaster and might even view Russia's falling out with the US and the West as the opportunity to grab some Russian soil...
That is a non-argument, the same could be said for the European NATO states.
The alliance has already been signed several years ago, and China would have much, very much to gain from winning a war against the US. It would establish China as the number #1 superpower and they do not need to fear economical consequences, as they could put their entire population to work in the defense industry and army.
Bollocks again, China wins nothing by losing its number one customer. Trade between the US and China helps keep the CCP in power and maintains stability. They lose that and if China suffers any damage in a war, all hell will break loose and that is the last thing the CCP wants. But the point is moot because the US has not talked about or (at least I doubt) would want to invade Russia.
And to use your example with NATO, just because there is a treaty does not mean China would join Russia in a shooting war with the US.
Well...I welcome Russia advancement into the void being left as the US slowly removes itself from the world "playing field". Quite a few of you cannot understand why we have such a huge Military where the money funding it can be spent else where. Some view of us in interfering in areas where we should not have, etc etc etc.US interest for US interest only.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Maybe Ukraine could make things very easy for Russia. If Russia unilaterally ignores the 1994 treaty, then perhaps the next Ukrainian government could scrap any deal with the Russian's concerning their military installations on Ukrainian soil, and demand that they leave.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: That is a non-argument, the same could be said for the European NATO states.
The alliance has already been signed several years ago, and China would have much, very much to gain from winning a war against the US. It would establish China as the number #1 superpower and they do not need to fear economical consequences, as they could put their entire population to work in the defense industry and army.
Yes, I'm sure China would be thrilled to go to war with one of the countries that owe them the most money.
If those installations are still on Ukrainian soil by then, that is. Besides, how does a tiny dwarf demand something from a giant?
And yes, China would be thrilled to do so if they stood a chance of winning. Winning wars is a very profitable business you know. You can demand huge repayments for 'damage done' and stuff like that. There is really nothing more that China wants than to become the absolute number 1 and to turn the US into some compliant vassal state. Not being properly recognised as a world superpower is somewhat of a national trauma for the Chinese.
Why wouldn't China want to defeat the US? It would dramatically enhance their prestige, give them an enormous economical boost and give them practical hegemony over the entire world.
The only thing stopping them is the fact that China is not yet strong enough to invade and defeat the US. But combined with Russia, who knows?
In any case, I think the discussion is pointless as Russia, China and the US are extremely unlikely to declare war on each other anyways. The US has little to gain in such wars but much too lose, and Russia and China are content with the current situation.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the Prime Minister Ukraine’s self-imposed government, had earlier asked his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan not to let the frigate through the Bosporus strait, according to the Kiev Times. The ship captain and the head of Ukraine’s contingent in the operation, Rear Admiral Andrey Tarasov disobeyed orders from Kiev.
Putin Russian Navy +1 ship. Wonder how many are going to follow. Since the Ukraine government is soup sandwich how is the military being paid and supplied? In Crimea......
All this military penis comparing is great (and hilarious) and all, but I doubt it will end up as a full scale war. If it did, that would definitely be bloody terrible for all involved.
I hope all the various leaders involved are pragmatic enough to understand that.
Though I could see Russia absorbing Crimea. In that case, I am sceptical that foreign leaders will do much of anything, unless Ukraine descends into a bloody civil war.
Though I could see Russia absorbing Crimea. In that case, I am sceptical that foreign leaders will do much of anything, unless Ukraine descends into a bloody civil war.
I see that happening. UN will try to implement a Peace Keeping Force solution but being on Russia own door step I see them coming in on the Eastern half of Ukraine gaining its heavy metal industries.
Iron_Captain wrote: If those installations are still on Ukrainian soil by then, that is. Besides, how does a tiny dwarf demand something from a giant?
The same way every other country does. Or are you saying that the Ukraine should bow before a bully.
Iron_Captain wrote: And yes, China would be thrilled to do so if they stood a chance of winning. Winning wars is a very profitable business you know. You can demand huge repayments for 'damage done' and stuff like that. There is really nothing more that China wants than to become the absolute number 1 and to turn the US into some compliant vassal state. Not being properly recognised as a world superpower is somewhat of a national trauma for the Chinese.
Why wouldn't China want to defeat the US? It would dramatically enhance their prestige, give them an enormous economical boost and give them practical hegemony over the entire world.
The only thing stopping them is the fact that China is not yet strong enough to invade and defeat the US. But combined with Russia, who knows?
In any case, I think the discussion is pointless as Russia, China and the US are extremely unlikely to declare war on each other anyways. The US has little to gain in such wars but much too lose, and Russia and China are content with the current situation.
So China wants to be absolute number one, big dog in the world.... but you can currently only see them achieving this with the support of Russia. And even if they go to war with someone who already owes them trillions you think that somehow after an expensive military adventure that country will be able to pony up massive amounts of money in an economy that produces very little manufactured goods.
A White House statement on President Barack Obama's conversation with Russian President Vldaimir Putin:
President Obama spoke for 90 minutes this afternoon with President Putin of Russia about the situation in Ukraine. President Obama expressed his deep concern over Russia’s clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law, including Russia’s obligations under the UN Charter, and of its 1997 military basing agreement with Ukraine, and which is inconsistent with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and the Helsinki Final Act. The United States condemns Russia’s military intervention into Ukrainian territory.
The United States calls on Russia to de-escalate tensions by withdrawing its forces back to bases in Crimea and to refrain from any interference elsewhere in Ukraine. We have consistently said that we recognize Russia’s deep historic and cultural ties to Ukraine and the need to protect the rights of ethnic Russian and minority populations within Ukraine. The Ukrainian government has made clear its commitment to protect the rights of all Ukrainians and to abide by Ukraine’s international commitments, and we will continue to urge them to do so.
President Obama told President Putin that, if Russia has concerns about the treatment of ethnic Russian and minority populations in Ukraine, the appropriate way to address them is peacefully through direct engagement with the government of Ukraine and through the dispatch of international observers under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As a member of both organizations, Russia would be able to participate. President Obama urged an immediate effort to initiate a dialogue between Russia and the Ukrainian government, with international facilitation, as appropriate. The United States is prepared to participate.
President Obama made clear that Russia’s continued violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would negatively impact Russia’s standing in the international community. In the coming hours and days, the United States will urgently consult with allies and partners in the UN Security Council, the North Atlantic Council, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and with the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum. The United States will suspend upcoming participation in preparatory meetings for the G-8. Going forward, Russia’s continued violation of international law will lead to greater political and economic isolation.
The people of Ukraine have the right to determine their own future. President Obama has directed his Administration to continue working urgently with international partners to provide support for the Ukrainian government, including urgent technical and financial assistance. Going forward, we will continue consulting closely with allies and partners, the Ukrainian government and the International Monetary Fund, to provide the new government with significant assistance to secure financial stability, to support needed reforms, to allow Ukraine to conduct successful elections, and to support Ukraine as it pursues a democratic future.
Jihadin wrote: Wait...who was legally elected to lead the country? Ysomethingorotherrussianname in Russia?
No one yet, the rebels installed their government and eastern Ukraine doesn't recognize it. One could argue that Yanu is still the president, but nobody likes him, not even Putin.
Jihadin wrote: Wait...who was legally elected to lead the country? Ysomethingorotherrussianname in Russia?
Yanukovich was legally elected as leader to the country, whereas the current leaders are not, which is the reason Russia denounces the current leadership of the Ukraine as illegitimate.
So if the legitimate President ask for help from Putin...UN, EU, and Obama does not have a leg to stand on. Even Twelve pack say Putin take half of Ukraine at most.
Jihadin wrote: So if the legitimate President ask for help from Putin...UN, EU, and Obama does not have a leg to stand on. Even Twelve pack say Putin take half of Ukraine at most.
The "legitimate President" is in exile, having fled.
The UN, EU, and US are recognizing the "illegitimate" government as legitimate.
Yet Putin hasn't. So like Ywhatchamacallit ask for help and he's is the duly elected President elected by the people then we're having an issue of "Double Standards". Putin wins regardless
Just to clarify D-USA....Russia moved into Crimea. As I mention before on this. Russia moved on to both airports close to their Naval Base. Secured a Comm Center. Hence securing logistical line. China has not moved into Tibet. Same as China has not moved against Taiwan.
Edit
Woops. Mixed it up with Nepal. My fault. Still though since we're reaching back again in history for a debate. Tibet...1949...none of us was alive at the time. Why do I care? Why should I care? Tibet been in China control for 65 years. Not a thing we can do about it can we.
Jihadin wrote: So if the legitimate President ask for help from Putin...UN, EU, and Obama does not have a leg to stand on. Even Twelve pack say Putin take half of Ukraine at most.
The "legitimate President" is in exile, having fled.
The UN, EU, and US are recognizing the "illegitimate" government as legitimate.
This sounds like the plot of Game of Thrones. Except we're being led by the Tully woman.
Jihadin wrote: So if the legitimate President ask for help from Putin...UN, EU, and Obama does not have a leg to stand on. Even Twelve pack say Putin take half of Ukraine at most.
The "legitimate President" is in exile, having fled.
The UN, EU, and US are recognizing the "illegitimate" government as legitimate.
This sounds like the plot of Game of Thrones. Except we're being led by the Tully woman.
So when does Putin ride in on a white horse and fornicate with his sister?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: But that won't happen will it. Remember the pundits before Desert Storm? All the talk of months of conflict, the US airpower greased the pride of Iraq without breaking a sweat.
Same as Desert Storm, Air Superiority. The ex-soviet army is a backwards and antiquated rabble.
We could beat Russia in a conventional war. We could beat Russia in an air war. That said, I would not take Russian air defense capability lightly.
The law does absolutely matter. Just because the government has been ousted does not mean that the nation state has ceased to exist.
The nation persists, but the nation-state does not. Indeed, as I noted a few pages ago, Russia's move into Crimea is likely based on a lack of confidence that the present "government" will honor the Russian lease in Sevastopol.
Ukraine still has international borders that must be respected.
The US doesn't respect international borders, so why should Russia? Hell, their claim to Crimea is way stronger than the US claim to establish no-fly zones in Iraq, or carry out drone strikes in Pakistan.
Three-Four years out of date but pretty the Bear claw is stuck in
In the political field, Russia is the undisputable winner. Sevastopol, which has been home to the Russian Black Sea fleet since it was set up by Catherine II the Great at the end of the 18th century, will continue to be so until 2042. Consequently, given the fact that NATO’s charter prevents country members from having foreign military bases on their territory, Ukraine will not become a member of the Western military alliance until the lease expires or is subverted.
Goes "get em NATO quick" option
Ukraine has been in a dire economic situation since the world financial crisis hit the former Soviet republic in the fourth quarter of 2008. This accord will enable Kiev to save about US$2.8 billion this year alone, and US$4billion annually from 2011 throughout 2020 (or nearly US$40 billion over the period), in exchange for extending the Russian Black Sea fleet’s lease in Sevastopol until 2042 [2]. This means that Russia will give a 30% discount on Ukraine’s gas imports, or approximately US$100 per 1000 cubic meters. The rebate will apply for 30 billion cubic meters sold this year and 40 billion cubic meters annually from 2011 to 2019, according to Gazprom, the Russian national energy company. Ukraine also agreed to increase its gas imports by 10% this year, from 33.75 to 36.5 billion cubic meters.
Oil........always about the oil.....
Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, the Russian fleet in Sevastopol is almost obsolete and not combat ready, as the ships and infrastructure, which date back to the Soviet times, have not been modernized. “The base is not worth even US$0.5 billion”, argued Ariel Cohen, a leading expert at the Heritage Foundation. This is likely why the Russian government is insistent on pur¬chasing the French Mistral-class amphibious assault ship ; if everything goes according to schedule, Moscow and Paris will strike a deal by the end of 2010 [5]. At the same time, though, Russia has been building a new naval base in Novorossiysk (in Krasnodar Krai on the Russian Black Sea coast) since 2003. That year, acting President Vladimir Putin signed a presidential decree setting up the base and allocating about US$480 million for its construction between 2003 and 2012, which is no token investment. The construction of the other facilities and infrastructure (aviation, logistics, and coastal troops) are also underway and should be finished by 2020. In the meantime, the Russian military victory against Georgia in early August 2008, and the recognition of the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Os¬setia by Moscow at the end of the same month, enabled Russia to build up its military presence ever since. Russia is now building a naval base in Gudauta on the Abkhazian coast, where 1500 soldiers are already stationed, and whose number may be increased up to 4000 when the entire infrastructure is completed.
That's a pretty penny...
Oh Come on Grey Temp....its a MAJESTIC WHITE STALLION.....
I think we should not let this devolve into a Russia vs US debate, as those are impossible to resolve, since tactics and strategy and unpredictable circumstances play a far more deciding role in war than numbers or technology, but I do want to make one last post on this.
Your ignorance of Russia is plainly obvious. During the '90s, technical innovation in Russia did not suddenly grind to a halt. It almost did, but research in the areas of artillery and rocket science, where Russia has always had the lead, and which are paramount to Russian military doctrine, continued.
Fact is that Russian air defenses are just as sophisticated and cheaper to manufacture than Western ones. I don't have all the facts ready, but a simple trip on the Internet should yield plenty of results.
Russia has also succeeded in building missiles that can easily evade any currently existing missile defense system, something the West is yet to accomplish.
In all other areas the West is ahead, but missile technology does happen to be quite important in modern warfare.
Besides, Russia is excellent at espionage. Any technological advance by the West is almost immediatly picked up by Russia (and vice versa). Russia does not have to invent anything itself.
If all the nations of Europe were to unite, they could beat Russia, at least if they would mobilise their entire populations. wouldn't be dependent on Russian gas, wouldn't run the risk of being wiped of the Earth's surface by Russian missiles and actually had the will to fight Russia.
Tanks are far from invincible and more vulnerable than in the past. On the open field they are still the most dominant factor however.
American aircraft carriers would be the first targets for the Russian missiles and submarines, it would be suicide to take those into range. Aircraft carriers are powerful, but very, very vulnerable. This isn't WW2 anymore, aircraft carriers can be destroyed by land- or ship based missiles from hundreds or even thousands of kilometers away.
The days of dirt tracks are long gone? Maybe, but those of freezing winters aren't.
Napoleon only took Moscow because it was part of the Russian strategy. They burned it on purpose so Napoleons soldiers would starve to death.
Warfare has changed since WW2, but large scale, conventional warfare between modern armies hasn't happened since and armies will still need to eat. Russia is too large. Supply lines will become overstretched, cut off by partisans and the assault will grind to a halt in winter. That happened to Napolean, that happened to Hitler, that happened to any invader in modern Russian history. It will happen again, history has a nasty way of repeating itself.
Apart from all these considerations there is also the fact that Russia has a military alliance with China, which is also very eager to engage the West and overtake it as #1 Superpower in the world.
Neighbour, I agree. That's leave it there. Simply because this isn't the right thread for that debate. I do have something along the lines of professional accreditation in this field, and am able to substantiate more or less everything I say. But that turns my play into work, no?
Back on topic.
Da Boss wrote:Though I could see Russia absorbing Crimea.
One of the latest updates:-
The Russian leader held detailed phone discussions on “various aspects of the extraordinary situation in Ukraine" with US President Barack Obama, the Kremlin press service reported.
Putin stressed that in the case of further spread of violence in the eastern regions of Ukraine and Crimea, Russia reserves the right to protect their interests and the Russian speaking population.
Putin's not just aiming for the Crimea. He's laying the groundwork to absorb/set up a new puppet state for the entire part of the Ukraine which has a strong Russian ethnicity. If I could just draw your attention back to this chart here:-
Jihadin wrote:So who's actually legally in charge of Ukraine?
The people in Kiev say they are, but in reality, they seem to control diddly squat and weren't elected by anyone. They keep saying, 'Don't make us use the Army!' and hoping that alone makes the Russians back off, because they know they don't have control of it. The ex-President also says he should be in charge legally, but he's nothing more than a Russian catspaw now.
Russia’s Federation Council has unanimously approved President Vladimir Putin’s request to use Russian military forces in Ukraine. The move is aimed to settle the turmoil in the split country.
Hold one. I'm under the impression its Russian Marines from Sevastapol Naval Station being used. Took control of both airports and a comm center. One airport is near Sevastopol Naval Station itself and the other airport located near the intersection of two major highways of M17and M18 located at Simferpol. Pretty much keeping a logistical lifeline from both Airport to the Naval Station by Air. Under 50 miles. If so then that's pretty much it. Unless they roll across the Russian border into Crimea and literally drive down M17.
How I know? I can read a map from a military perspective
The newly-elected pro-Moscow leader of Crimea, Sergiy Aksyonov, earlier said he had appealed to Mr Putin for help to ensure peace on the peninsula - a request which the Kremlin said it would "not leave unnoticed".
The interim government in Kiev does not recognise Mr Aksyonov and his government, and signed a decree on Saturday that their election at an emergency session of the regional parliament this week was illegal.
This genuinely made me laugh. The unelected interim government in Kiev says that decisions made by the elected leader of autonomous Crimea are illegal.
Anyway, to answer the question, the New York Times headline this morning is, "Kremlin Deploys Military To Seize Crimea - Rebuff To Obama," so at least some conservative* media outlets believe the president's worth involving in the discussion.
Seaward wrote: Anyway, to answer the question, the New York Times headline this morning is, "Kremlin Deploys Military To Seize Crimea - Rebuff To Obama," so at least some conservative* media outlets believe the president's worth involving in the discussion.
You meant to use the word "importance" not the word "worth".
dogma wrote: So, to be clear, what is your argument regarding the situation in the Ukraine?
That we've prevented ourselves from being in a position to influence events there by making consistent blunders in our dealings with Russia since Obama took office. As the president has greatly diminished foreign policy credibility, Putin can safely ignore anything we say or even do.
That we've prevented ourselves from being in a position to influence events there by making consistent blunders in our dealings with Russia since Obama took office. As the president has greatly diminished foreign policy credibility, Putin can safely ignore anything we say or even do.
Why should the US want to influence events in the Ukraine?
Also, how can Putin ignore what the US does? And when did Russia become more important than China?
dogma wrote: Why should the US want to influence events in the Ukraine?
This has been annoying me for a while now, so I'll use your post to say it: it's not "the Ukraine." It's Ukraine. No 'the'.
And we want to influence events in Ukraine for many reasons. The biggest is quite simply that Russia plays in the same sandbox we do. Iran and Syria remain major world concerns, unless something changed in the past five minutes that I'm unaware of, and we want as much leverage with their biggest backer as possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Also, how can Putin ignore what the US does?
Because he knows we're going to take symbolic actions at best (and that only if people actually press Obama to keep his word), not go for anything actually effective.
And when did Russia become more important than China?
And we want to influence events in Ukraine for many reasons. The biggest is quite simply that Russia plays in the same sandbox we do. Iran and Syria remain major world concerns, unless something changed in the past five minutes that I'm unaware of, and we want as much leverage with their biggest backer as possible.
Iran I can vaguely understand. Why Syria though? The USA has no more in the way of interest there then they do Ukraine. I mean, as far as I can tell, your logic is, 'We want to meddle in something the Russians are doing so that they never meddle in anything we do'. But usually, annoying someone internationally just inspires them into annoying you even more, tit for tat style. I mean, when was the last time America deliberately went out of their way to hack off the Russians, and as a result, the Russians gave concessions on other frontiers?
Ketara wrote: Iran I can vaguely understand. Why Syria though? The USA has no more in the way of interest there then they do Ukraine. I mean, as far as I can tell, your logic is, 'We want to meddle in something the Russians are doing so that they never meddle in anything we do'. But usually, annoying someone internationally just inspires them into annoying you even more, tit for tat style. I mean, when was the last time America deliberately went out of their way to hack off the Russians, and as a result, the Russians gave concessions on other frontiers?
We literally already had this conversation, a few pages ago. I'm not doing it again.
Ketara wrote: Iran I can vaguely understand. Why Syria though? The USA has no more in the way of interest there then they do Ukraine. I mean, as far as I can tell, your logic is, 'We want to meddle in something the Russians are doing so that they never meddle in anything we do'. But usually, annoying someone internationally just inspires them into annoying you even more, tit for tat style. I mean, when was the last time America deliberately went out of their way to hack off the Russians, and as a result, the Russians gave concessions on other frontiers?
We literally already had this conversation, a few pages ago. I'm not doing it again.
But you didn't give me an answer a few pages ago. I keep trying to pin you down to an answer, but you just keep replying, 'Because they're Russians and we should want to intimidate them generally to gain concessions in other places'. And then refusing to expand on precisely what these concessions in other places are, or why you should want them in the first place. And those are something on the order of key details which would give that viewpoint weight.
But you just don't seem to be able to tell me what they are. You either can't or won't, give me answers for:-
1) What interests the Americans have that the Russians are stepping on, which you want to gain concessions over,
2) What those concessions could be, or
3) Why you think that trying to intimidate the Russians would logically lead to the Russians giving way instead of hardening their own position further.
1) What interests the Americans have that the Russians are stepping on, which you want to gain concessions over,
2) What those concessions could be, or
3) Why you think that trying to intimidate the Russians would logically lead to the Russians giving way instead of hardening their own position further.
1)Controlling the world - it's better to have one domineering world power than multiple world powers competing for the title. Europe was nice enough to prove this point for us by hosting two massively destructive wars because they couldn't agree on who was on top.
2) Stay in your borders and stop acting like a dick.
3)because of that time their stupid Union cracked like a poorly built workers barracks and they fell apart for the better part of two decades.
Ketara wrote: ....Seaward, I'm genuinely hoping your answers are better composed/reasoned than those.
To be fair those are purposefully humorous because I default to comedy instead of trying to point out to people why I find their opinions hilarious and naive; because trying to change the opinion of someone on the internet is an exercise in futility.
To be fair those are purposefully humorous because I default to comedy instead of trying to point out to people why I find their opinions hilarious and naive; because trying to change the opinion of someone on the internet is an exercise in futility.
So.,...a form of trolling in other words? With such profound witticisms, no doubt your talent will allow you to make your fortune in stand up comedy in no time.
Ukraine declares general mobilization after Russia approves use of military force in Crimea
02.03.2014 | Source: Pravda.Ru
Ukraine declares general mobilization after Russia approves use of military force in Crimea. 52266.jpeg
Russia's Federation Council has approved the address from the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin about the deployment of limited military contingent on the territory of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea.
On Saturday, March 1, the Prime Minister of the autonomous republic, Sergei Aksyonov asked Russia for assistance.
Meanwhile, Ukraine has declared general mobilization. Secretary of the National Security and Defense of Ukraine, Andrey Paruby, reported that mobilization would be conducted across the whole country. All people liable for military service will receive draft notices and will have to come to local military committees on March 2.
On Saturday, March 1, the National Security Council of Ukraine ordered to bring the troops in full combat readiness. The Ukrainian authorities emphasize that they are against the use of force in resolving the conflict.
Ketara wrote: But you didn't give me an answer a few pages ago.
Ah, but I did. I pointed out initially that Sevastopol - and Tartus before it - are excellent leverage points. Making Russian life harder with regard to either if they don't play ball on Iran (or making it easier if they do) is, in a word, leverage.
Are they enough alone to do the job? Doubtful. Which is why you need a credible, multi-layered approach. If Putin believed we would actually do something with regard to Ukraine, that alone is itself leverage - taking the possibility that we would off the table and tacitly allowing Russia free reign in Crimea in return for more cooperation with Iran would be a theoretical option, for example. But because we've metaphorically quit the field and let Putin claim victory every time we've clashed before under Obama's watch, that's not really something we can deal based on, because Putin knows we're full of gak whenever we talk about red lines or unacceptable scenarios.
Say what you want about George W Bush (and I was one of his biggest critics) but the guy would have done something by now.
I don't want war, and this crisis will need to be solved by diplomacy, but Obama and the EU are flunking this. Putin's deployment of troops strengthens his hand and makes negotiating more difficult, unless the West matches the number of Russian troops on a tit-for-tat basis.
That's what the great diplomats/politicians of the past would have done.
Jihadin wrote: Hold one. I'm under the impression its Russian Marines from Sevastapol Naval Station being used. Took control of both airports and a comm center. One airport is near Sevastopol Naval Station itself and the other airport located near the intersection of two major highways of M17and M18 located at Simferpol. Pretty much keeping a logistical lifeline from both Airport to the Naval Station by Air. Under 50 miles. If so then that's pretty much it. Unless they roll across the Russian border into Crimea and literally drive down M17.
How I know? I can read a map from a military perspective
Judging from the pictures, all Russian soldiers so far are indeed Sevastopol's naval infantry, but there are also reports that Russia has flown in several thousand soldiers from Russia itself.
This is one of they main reasons why Russian soldiers guard the Crimea: http://rt.com/op-edge/ukraine-existential-threat-russia-413/ It is not just all politics and power play, the ethnic Russians on the Crimea are genuinely afraid of the new government in Kiev.
I've heard several reports already that Ukraine is mobilising its armies and calling up reservists, if that is true it could turn ugly... At any rate, the Ukrainian military is a total mess: http://rt.com/news/ukraine-military-russia-resign-437/
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Say what you want about George W Bush (and I was one of his biggest critics) but the guy would have done something by now.
I don't want war, and this crisis will need to be solved by diplomacy, but Obama and the EU are flunking this. Putin's deployment of troops strengthens his hand and makes negotiating more difficult, unless the West matches the number of Russian troops on a tit-for-tat basis.
That's what the great diplomats/politicians of the past would have done.
You mean like how George Bush did pretty much nothing about the Georgia situation when Russia decided they wanted a piece of them?
Let's be fair here, Salad. Georgia (unlike Ukraine) wasn't exactly the innocent victim they tried to portray themselves as. But, yes, Russia crossed their boarder and invaded and yes, Bush essentially did nothing.
The only thing to do right now for the West is to wait and see. It would be like Canada experience troubles, the US intervenes to protect English speaking citizens, and Russia criticizing the US for invading Canada. Realistically, Russia couldn't do a darn thing.
The newly-elected pro-Moscow leader of Crimea, Sergiy Aksyonov, earlier said he had appealed to Mr Putin for help to ensure peace on the peninsula - a request which the Kremlin said it would "not leave unnoticed".
The interim government in Kiev does not recognise Mr Aksyonov and his government, and signed a decree on Saturday that their election at an emergency session of the regional parliament this week was illegal.
This genuinely made me laugh. The unelected interim government in Kiev says that decisions made by the elected leader of autonomous Crimea are illegal.
Does the leader of the Crimea have the legal authorization to request outside assistance from other nations? If not then it is illegal.
The newly-elected pro-Moscow leader of Crimea, Sergiy Aksyonov, earlier said he had appealed to Mr Putin for help to ensure peace on the peninsula - a request which the Kremlin said it would "not leave unnoticed".
The interim government in Kiev does not recognise Mr Aksyonov and his government, and signed a decree on Saturday that their election at an emergency session of the regional parliament this week was illegal.
This genuinely made me laugh. The unelected interim government in Kiev says that decisions made by the elected leader of autonomous Crimea are illegal.
Does the leader of the Crimea have the legal authorization to request outside assistance from other nations? If not then it is illegal.
Through the Ukrainian Constitution, the sovereignty of the Crimea is through the Ukraine; in effect, the Crimea has no authority in foreign affairs outside what is allowed by the Ukraine.
And we want to influence events in Ukraine for many reasons. The biggest is quite simply that Russia plays in the same sandbox we do. Iran and Syria remain major world concerns, unless something changed in the past five minutes that I'm unaware of, and we want as much leverage with their biggest backer as possible.
How do events in the Ukraine relate to Russian influence in Iran and Syria?
Because he knows we're going to take symbolic actions at best (and that only if people actually press Obama to keep his word), not go for anything actually effective.
Ok, that covers the "...anything we say..." part of your comment, but not the "...or even do." part, which was my point of contention.
And when did Russia become more important than China?
When did I say it had?
You didn't I was conflating your argument with that of another poster, my mistake.
Ketara wrote: But usually, annoying someone internationally just inspires them into annoying you even more, tit for tat style.
Its almost like there was a period of history in which this behavior dominated global politics.
Mobilizing Ukraine Reserve forces is mistake number one. I saw the words "Draft notices" are heading out. Issue is a questionable military. Depending who dumb enough to issue a "aggressive" order to the units facing Russian units. Also where the units are from...
1. Orders to engage more likely be disobeyed
2. Tree's are marked as targets and engaged well away from Russia units (That way over the net they're being "productive")
3. Units go in unloaded and "assist/standby Russian units to say "Mission Accomplish.
4. Some idiot trigger happy ans starts shooting at the Russian unit. Russian has it well documented they were engaged first. Idiot along with his unit is "opted out"
5. Someone in Crimea calls for a new "Crimea Government" Former Ukraine units from Crimea sides with it.
6. Domino effect occurs and Southern and eastern Ukraine might break away and go Russian.
The newly-elected pro-Moscow leader of Crimea, Sergiy Aksyonov, earlier said he had appealed to Mr Putin for help to ensure peace on the peninsula - a request which the Kremlin said it would "not leave unnoticed".
The interim government in Kiev does not recognise Mr Aksyonov and his government, and signed a decree on Saturday that their election at an emergency session of the regional parliament this week was illegal.
This genuinely made me laugh. The unelected interim government in Kiev says that decisions made by the elected leader of autonomous Crimea are illegal.
Does the leader of the Crimea have the legal authorization to request outside assistance from other nations? If not then it is illegal.
Crimea is an autonomous republic and has its own constitution. Also which is more legal, the democratically elected government of Crimea or the government established by a bunch of revels in Kiev? The rebels may have won in Kiev, but they never won in Eastern Ukraine.
Ah, but I did. I pointed out initially that Sevastopol - and Tartus before it - are excellent leverage points. Making Russian life harder with regard to either if they don't play ball on Iran (or making it easier if they do) is, in a word, leverage.
If Russia continued to work with Iran how would force the issue over Sevastopol? Force the Ukraine to abrogate the Russian (essentially indefinite) lease? Invade?
Sevastopol is, for all intents and purposes, Russian territory in a region dominated by ethnic Russians. It is not a useful leverage point for the US.
Tyran wrote: Crimea is an autonomous republic and has its own constitution.
Also which is more legal, the democratically elected government of Crimea or the government established by a bunch of revels in Kiev? The rebels may have won in Kiev, but they never won in Eastern Ukraine.
Which, as shown above, does not include the right to invite another country's military in. So the local government in the Crimea inviting the Russians in is ultra vires
IIRC they consider themselves an autonomous republic, they have their own constitution and its official name is Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Yeah they are part of Ukraine, but at the same time they are an autonomous republic, I'm not sure how that works.
Tyran wrote: Crimea is an autonomous republic and has its own constitution. Also which is more legal, the democratically elected government of Crimea or the government established by a bunch of revels in Kiev? The rebels may have won in Kiev, but they never won in Eastern Ukraine.
Which, as shown above, does not include the right to invite another country's military in. So the local government in the Crimea inviting the Russians in is ultra vires
In this moment the local government in the Crimea is the only government in Crimea, Kiev in this moment doesn't holds any jurisdiction over Crimea, and neither over a considerable part of Eastern Ukraine that has refused to recognize the new government.
Tyran wrote: In this moment the local government in the Crimea is the only government in Crimea, Kiev in this moment doesn't holds any jurisdiction over Crimea, and neither over a considerable part of Eastern Ukraine that has refused to recognize the new government.
And that fact still does not give them the legal authority to invite in, or request, military assistance from another country. The local government in Crimea does not hold such authority, regardless of who is in power in Kiev.
Didn't the Crimean government only receive 4% of the vote during their election? I don't think anyone should be respecting the views of a Russian puppet in terms of what the people of that region want. =P
The newly appointed head of Ukraine's navy has sworn allegiance to the Crimea region, in the presence of its unrecognised pro-Russian leader.
Rear Admiral Denis Berezovsky was only made head of the navy on Saturday, as the government in Kiev reacted to the threat of Russian invasion.
Russia's troops have been consolidating their hold on Crimea, which is home to its Black Sea Fleet.
The US has warned Moscow may be ejected from the G8 for its actions.
US President Barack Obama called Russian troop deployments a "violation of Ukrainian sovereignty".
'Brink of disaster'
Ukraine has ordered a full military mobilisation in response to Russia's build-up of its forces on the Crimean peninsula. Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has warned the country is "on the brink of disaster".
In Crimea, Ukrainian soldiers faced off with Russian soldiers surrounding their bases on Sunday while the Russian army was said to be digging trenches on the border with mainland Ukraine.
The UK has joined the US, France and Canada in suspending preparations for a summit of the G8 in Russia in June. Nato, of which Ukraine is not a member, is conducting emergency talks.
Admiral Berezovsky appeared in Sevastopol before cameras alongside Sergiy Aksyonov, the pro-Russian politician elected by Crimea's regional parliament as local prime minister.
Mr Aksyonov announced he had given orders to Ukrainian naval forces on the peninsula to disregard any orders from the "self-proclaimed" authorities in Kiev.
Sunday, he said, would go down in history as the birthday of the "navy of the autonomous republic of Crimea".
The admiral then pledged to "strictly obey the orders of the supreme commander of the autonomous republic of Crimea" and "defend the lives and freedom" of Crimea's people.
Interesting bit - looking at the past few comments.
The admiral then pledged to "strictly obey the orders of the supreme commander of the autonomous republic of Crimea" and "defend the lives and freedom" of Crimea's people
Has the Autonomous Republic of Crimea sought international recognition?
IF that is the majority wish then the EU and america shouldn't have a problem.
And that fact still does not give them the legal authority to invite in, or request, military assistance from another country. The local government in Crimea does not hold such authority, regardless of who is in power in Kiev.
How do events in the Ukraine relate to Russian influence in Iran and Syria?
Because, believe it or not, we don't keep separate ledgers in international relations. Numerous, disparate issues can affect the outcome of seemingly unrelated crises.
With Iran, for example, Russia has something we want: cooperation on the nuke program. If we had influence in Ukraine, we could potentially have something the Russians want. That's grounds for a trade.
Ok, that covers the "...anything we say..." part of your comment, but not the "...or even do." part, which was my point of contention.
Russia knows we've severely limited our options as to what we'll do to functionally "nothing." Therefore, they can afford to ignore it.
Its almost like there was a period of history in which this behavior dominated global politics.
Indeed. And one country emerged from it as the world's sole superpower, the other suffered a disastrous collapse of economic, political, and diplomatic influence. It's almost enough to make you think that simply wishing it away should have a back-up plan that's actually actionable for when linking hands and singing fails.
So if Crimea forms its own little country I wonder if the Obama and EU will recognize the new government? Ukraine Coast Guard is now consider questionable on their "Loyalty" in Crimea...
The infantry base that's under lockdown is south of Simferopol sitting on M18 Highway. Like twenty miles from Simferopol. Even money its a Mech Infantry unit. Anyone found out what the other two bases are? Seems the Russian Marines are expanding their "Foot Print" to ensure protection of the logistical line.
Edit
Mind you...its an invasion of a say...a Brigade of Russian Marines (MEU comparable being they have their vehicles and stuff) from the Naval Base. I'm guessing maybe two Brigades either more Marines or Airborne forces flown in with equipment and vehicles.
Yes it is. The usage of the Ukraine goes back centuries and is grammatically correct since ukraine is an Old East Slavic word meaning march (as in borderland) and march can be referred to both with and without article (e.g. Welsh Marches or the Welsh Marches).
The recent increase in usage of Ukraine without article is more of a political thing.
How do events in the Ukraine relate to Russian influence in Iran and Syria?
Because, believe it or not, we don't keep separate ledgers in international relations. Numerous, disparate issues can affect the outcome of seemingly unrelated crises.
With Iran, for example, Russia has something we want: cooperation on the nuke program. If we had influence in Ukraine, we could potentially have something the Russians want. That's grounds for a trade.
Can you clarify this? What kind of influence should the US have in the Ukraine to be able to trade it for Russian cooperation in Iran's nuclear program issue?
Its almost like there was a period of history in which this behavior dominated global politics.
Indeed. And one country emerged from it as the world's sole superpower, the other suffered a disastrous collapse of economic, political, and diplomatic influence. It's almost enough to make you think that simply wishing it away should have a back-up plan that's actually actionable for when linking hands and singing fails.
Tyran wrote: In this moment the local government in the Crimea is the only government in Crimea, Kiev in this moment doesn't holds any jurisdiction over Crimea, and neither over a considerable part of Eastern Ukraine that has refused to recognize the new government.
And that fact still does not give them the legal authority to invite in, or request, military assistance from another country. The local government in Crimea does not hold such authority, regardless of who is in power in Kiev.
It does. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea (and the city of Sevastopol) does not recognise the government in Kiev. This means that they are the highest possible authority in charge of their territory and therefore they need to take care of their own defense and foreign relations until the crisis is resolved. Nobody else can take care of those matters at the moment as the Ukrainian government does not have any jurisdiction over Crimea anymore, and so the Crimean authorities need to take decisions themselves.
Russia = Georgia
Russia = Crimea
US = Iraq
US = Afghanistan
Edit
Clarifying for Iron_Captain
Edit 2
Has the "new" government officials come out saying that the prior arrangements with Sevastopol Naval Base is still legitimate or is Russia stand to lose the base?
If the new government acknowledge he will still have control of the Naval Base then the situation should defused itself and a new spin on "protecting" Russian interest is in play with a JTF (Joint Task Force) can enter play.
So far all Putin is doing is protecting his country "interest" in Crimea.
So far if the information giving so far. It seems the remainder of the Russian Marine Brigade is now together and in force.
Templer...wait...you took Bryan Adams back...um um...thinking thinking...googling....Pamela Anderson....wait...nvm...We kept her because she proved pythons do grow wild in the US...bah.....I be back
Kiev, Ukraine (CNN) -- As Ukraine's new leaders accused Russia of declaring war, Russia's Prime Minister warned Sunday that blood could be spilled amid growing instability in the neighboring nation.
Kiev mobilized troops and called up military reservists in a rapidly escalating crisis that has raised fears of a conflict. And world leaders pushed for a diplomatic solution.
In a post on his official Facebook page, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev called the recent ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych a "seizure of power."
"Such a state of order will be extremely unstable," Medvedev said. "It will end with the new revolution. With new blood."
Officials said signs of Russian military intervention in Ukraine's Crimean peninsula were clear.
Russian generals led their troops to three bases in the region Sunday, demanding Ukrainian forces surrender and hand over their weapons, Vladislav Seleznyov, spokesman for the Crimean Media Center of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry, told CNN.
By late Sunday, Russian forces had "complete operational control of the Crimean Peninsula," a senior U.S. administration official said. The United States estimates there are 6,000 Russian ground and naval forces in the region, the official said.
"There is no question that they are in an occupation position -- flying in reinforcements and settling in," another senior administration official said.
Speaking by phone, Seleznyov said Russian troops had blocked access to bases but added, "There is no open confrontation between Russian and Ukrainian military forces in Crimea" and said Ukrainian troops continue to protect and serve Ukraine.
"This is a red alert. This is not a threat. This is actually a declaration of war to my country," Ukrainian interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said.
Speaking in a televised address from the parliament building in the capital, Kiev, he called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to "pull back his military and stick to the international obligations."
"We are on the brink of the disaster."
A strange scene, somewhat polite standoff in Crimea
A sense of escalating crisis in Crimea -- an autonomous region of eastern Ukraine with strong loyalty to neighboring Russia -- swirled, with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry condemning what he called Russia's "incredible act of aggression."
Speaking on the CBS program "Face The Nation," Kerry -- who is set to arrive in Kiev on Tuesday -- said several foreign powers are looking at economic consequences if Russia does not withdraw its forces.
"All of them, every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia with respect to this invasion," he said. "They're prepared to put sanctions in place, they're prepared to isolate Russia economically."
Kerry rebukes Russia's 'incredible act of aggression'
But Ukraine's ambassador to the United Nations said his country needs more than diplomatic assistance.
"We are to demonstrate that we have our own capacity to protect ourselves ... and we are preparing to defend ourselves," Yuriy Sergeyev said on CNN's "State of the Union." "And nationally, if aggravation is going in that way, when the Russian troops ... are enlarging their quantity with every coming hour ... we will ask for military support and other kinds of support."
Pushing diplomatic possibilities
In Brussels, Belgium, NATO ambassadors held an emergency meeting on Ukraine.
"What Russia is doing now in Ukraine violates the principles of the U.N. charter," NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters. He later added that Russia's actions constituted a violation of international law.
He called upon Russia to honor its international commitments, to send it military forces back to Russian bases, and to refrain from any further interference in Ukraine.
Rasmussen also urged both sides to reach a peaceful resolution through diplomatic talks and suggested that international observers from the United Nations should be sent to Ukraine.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's office said Putin had accepted a proposal to establish a "fact-finding mission" to Ukraine, possibly under the leadership of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and to start a political dialogue.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon dispatched a special envoy to Ukraine Sunday evening, a spokesman for his office said.
Ukraine, a nation of 45 million people sandwiched between Europe and Russia's southwestern border, has been plunged into chaos since the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych on February 22 following bloody street protests that left dozens dead and hundreds wounded.
Anti-government protests started in late November when Yanukovych spurned a deal with the EU, favoring closer ties with Moscow instead.
Ukraine has faced a deepening split, with those in the west generally supporting the interim government and its European Union tilt, while many in the east prefer a Ukraine where Russia casts a long shadow.
Nowhere is that feeling more intense than in Crimea, the last big bastion of opposition to the new political leadership. Ukraine suspects Russia of fomenting tension in the autonomous region that might escalate into a bid for separation by its Russian majority.
Ukrainian leaders and commentators have compared events in Crimea to what happened in Georgia in 2008. Then, cross-border tensions with Russia exploded into a five-day conflict that saw Russian tanks and troops pour into the breakaway territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as well as Georgian cities. Russia and Georgia each blamed the other for starting the conflict.
At Ukraine's Perevalnoye base, some 20 kilometers (12 miles) from Crimea's regional capital of Simferopol, a CNN team saw more than 100 troops -- not Ukrainian and dressed in green with no identifiable insignia -- deployed around its perimeter, as well as a dozen or so vehicles.
Some 15 Ukrainian soldiers were on guard while civilians, both pro-Russia and pro-Ukraine protesters, stood on each side of the road.
A 66-year-old man named Nikolai Petukhov marched up to the entrance of the military facility carrying a Russian flag. He told CNN that he hoped Putin would facilitate democratic elections in Ukraine.
When asked whether he thinks Crimea should be part of Russia or Ukraine, he said, "If you look at it logically, it should be part of Russia."
It is not an unpopular feeling there, as 58% of the 2,033,000 residents of Crimea identified themselves as Russian in a 2001 census.
In Simferopol, men dressed in both civilian clothes and camouflage gear and wearing red armbands were seen on the streets.
By Sunday night, electricity had been cut off at the headquarters of the Ukrainian Navy in Crimea, and officials feared there could soon be an attack, Seleznyov said.
CNN has not independently verified that claim, and Russian officials could not be immediately reached to respond.
Military maneuvering
Word of the power outage came hours after the newly named head of Ukraine's navy disavowed Ukraine's new leaders and declared his loyalty to the pro-Russian, autonomous Crimea government.
Rear Adm. Denis Berezovsky, who was appointed Saturday by interim Ukrainian President Oleksandr Turchynov, said from Sevastopol on the Black Sea that he will not submit to any orders from Kiev.
He was quickly suspended and replaced by another rear admiral, the Defense Ministry in Kiev said in a written statement.
These scenes come one day after Putin obtained permission from his parliament to use military force to protect Russian citizens in Ukraine, spurning Western pleas not to intervene.
Putin cited in his request a threat posed to Russian citizens and military personnel based in southern Crimea.
Ukrainian officials have vehemently denied Putin's claim.
Western governments worried
The crisis set off alarm bells in the West.
In discussions over the weekend with Putin, U.S. President Barack Obama "made clear that Russia's continued violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would negatively impact Russia's standing in the international community," according to a statement released by the White House.
According to the Kremlin, Putin told Obama that Russia reserves the right to defend its interests in the Crimea region and the Russian-speaking people who live there.
Obama met Sunday with his national security team and called U.S. allies afterward, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said he spoke with Obama on Sunday night.
"We agreed Russia's actions are unacceptable and there must be significant costs if they don't change course," Cameron posted on his verified Twitter account.
Cameron also planned to talk with Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
Britain's Foreign Minister William Hague on Sunday arrived in Kiev where he will meet with Ukraine leaders.
Canada recalled its ambassador to Moscow, while the United States and Britain announced they will suspend participation in preparatory meetings this week ahead of the G8 summit that will bring world leaders together in June in Sochi, Russia. France said it made the same decision.
Russian generals led their troops to three bases in the region Sunday, demanding Ukrainian forces surrender and hand over their weapons, Vladislav Seleznyov, spokesman for the Crimean Media Center of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry, told CNN.
Three General Officers in charge of what...couple Russian Marine Brigades?
By late Sunday, Russian forces had "complete operational control of the Crimean Peninsula," a senior U.S. administration official said. The United States estimates there are 6,000 Russian ground and naval forces in the region, the official said.
Sounds like two Brigades. As earlier I mention where..
Speaking in a televised address from the parliament building in the capital, Kiev, he called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to "pull back his military and stick to the international obligations."
Think Putin more concern of his Naval Base if the new government do not acknowledge the prior agreements concerning that Naval Base
To tell the truth, the Russians have a far more legitimate reason to go into Crimea than we have in past military adventures going into other countries.
I'm saddened to see people on both sides getting hurt and fearful of worse to come.
Realistically, I expect the Crimean to end up aligned (or part of) Russia.
The EU and US won't be able to stop it and we likely just end up politically embarrassed. Economic and political sanctions will hurt Russia but the EU (and Ukraine) need open trade with Russia. It's worth pointing out that Russia also needs trade with the West, but the stakes in the Crimea are too high for Russia to back down. The same is not true for the US and the EU.
It's also worth pointing out that the US wants Russian cooperation to retrograde our equipment from Afghanistan as the military presence there ends. We don't want to be totally dependent on the Pakistanis for that movement.
The only questions in my mind are how much of the Ukraine ends up outside of Russian control and whether the EU/US can help that remnant stay financially solvent.
I can see where your coming from DJ. I'm reaching in the past for this since non of us was alive at the time.....Gitmo Naval Station.. Country change government and...well...hey its the largest minefield in the world and we keep certain type of prisoners there....
Jihadin wrote: I can see where your coming from DJ. I'm reaching in the past for this since non of us was alive at the time.....Gitmo Naval Station.. Country change government and...well...hey its the largest minefield in the world and we keep certain type of prisoners there....
Gitmo was claimed in an open and declared state of warfare. After Cuba became a sovereign nation we signed a lease to the land. It's hardly comparable.
In 1903, Cuba signed a treaty that leased Guantanamo Bay to the United States for use as a Naval Station, with the understanding that this would reduce the military footprint of the U.S. on the island. Since the Cuban Revolution, the government of Cuba has not accepted the rent checks for the base.
aannndddddd
edit 1
woops
forgot to throw this in
The speaker of Crimea's legislature, Vladimir Konstantinov, was quoted as saying local authorities do not recognize the new government in Kiev. He said a planned referendum on March 30 would ask voters about the region's future status.
Leo Barraclough wrote:Russia’s Channel One Cancels Live Oscar Coverage
Channel extends coverage of Vladimir Putin's intervention in Ukraine
LONDON — Russia’s state-controlled network Channel One has cancelled its live coverage of the Oscars in order to cover the crisis in Ukraine.
The channel was due to show the awards between 4 a.m. and 9 a.m. Moscow time on Monday, AFP reported Sunday.
In a statement, Channel One said: “Due to the large amount of news concerning the situation in Crimea and the Ukraine, and the audience’s rising interest in news programs, Channel One considers it impossible to air the Oscars ceremony for five hours, particularly in the morning.”
It added that the awards would be aired at midnight on Monday instead.
Yury Gladilshchikov, a film critic for Moskovskiye Novosti newspaper, who had been invited to be a commentator for the Oscar ceremony, said he was told late Sunday that live coverage had been cancelled.
“They are gathering politicians for the morning programming,” Gladilshchikov said on Facebook.
Russian media has demonstrated unwavering support for Vladimir Putin’s intervention in Ukraine.
“Our propaganda on state channels is really running wild,” commented former economy minister Andrei Nechayev on Twitter.
Channel One is 51% owned by the state, and 49% by private shareholders. The Russian broadcasting scene is dominated by channels that are either run directly by the Kremlin or owned by companies with close links to the government, such as Gazprom.
Best user comment: "Who cares? I’m not watching either. The Walking Dead is on tonight!"
In 1903, Cuba signed a treaty that leased Guantanamo Bay to the United States for use as a Naval Station, with the understanding that this would reduce the military footprint of the U.S. on the island. Since the Cuban Revolution, the government of Cuba has not accepted the rent checks for the base.
aannndddddd
edit 1
woops
forgot to throw this in
The speaker of Crimea's legislature, Vladimir Konstantinov, was quoted as saying local authorities do not recognize the new government in Kiev. He said a planned referendum on March 30 would ask voters about the region's future status.
Foxnews
Crimea is going Russia
The agreement was that both parties had to agree to termination of the lease. So even if Cuba objects, we have to agree to the terms. And there was nothing in the original treaty that limited what could occur there. US has total autonomy of the leased area to use as Naval and coaling purposes.
After the Platt Amendment was annulled in 1934, a new lease was negotiated between the Roosevelt administration and a Cuban government that included Fulgencio Batista as one of three signatories. Batista emerged as the strong man on the island over the next twenty-five years.
When the Revolution triumphed in 1959, the new Cuban government requested that Guantánamo be returned to Cuba. Instead of returning it, the U.S. banned its soldiers stationed at the bay from entering Cuban territory.
We can resupply GITMO from the sea. Its not an issue for us. Wait one While I find the end point for myself...give me a moment I have to go onto Port Website
Edit
Going with two Brigade seen so far that's operational.
Seems right with 6K troops being reported. If fully mobilized with all vehicles...not going to include the MBT their assigned because they have not come off the base. I'm sure they're combat operational
Not going with the Naval Fleet/Black Sea Fleet since thats a Monster onto itself but factor in that one.
Three sources gave three numbers of personnel so added and divide by three I get 26K peeps in there.
Adding what I think is a Aviation Battalion of helo's (on base and ship aircrafts)
Food
Fuel
Mind you this is a ball park figure and since their operating at almost combat tempo.
18K lbs a day for food
900K gallon a day to keep all aircraft/vehiclesAFV/Troop trucks/MBT running in a 24 hour cycle
22K lbs Ammo initial (distribute out already and since its grunts X3 in storage:maybe more:going with two brigades) Think there are two more Brigades in there.
now factor in what the Black Sea Fleet needs. I am not Navy but none of the ships are nuclear I believe. So fuel from them more likely going over to fuel ships till the pipe line is more secure.
50 miles of highway M18 to secure: rolling convoy's
Continue security of both airports
Continue security of the power distro center
Heightened security in the Naval Base.
This is Russian I am guessing on and its a "guess" comparing it a US Brigade operating in a combat theater.
Anyone have reports of AN124 or AN125 flying in and out of the airports?
Putin needs those airfields and ship supply to continue to hold Sevastopol Naval Station.
Uh... VP Biden is on his way to Kiev... then what?
Oh... also this via twittah:
#BreakingNews #US Navy USS George Bush nuclear aircraft carrier declares high alert in the #Mediterranean. #Syria #Ukraine #Russia
3:08 PM - 1 Mar 2014
whembly wrote: Uh... VP Biden is on his way to Kiev... then what?
Oh... also this via twittah:
#BreakingNews #US Navy USS George Bush nuclear aircraft carrier declares high alert in the #Mediterranean. #Syria #Ukraine #Russia
3:08 PM - 1 Mar 2014
Never mind that, here's an article written by a man's man, with hair on his chest!
Sadly, a lot of us in the States see it like that, too.
In the Netherlands too. I was on a Dutch forum yesterday and there were lots of comments like: Hail Putin, our savior! I hope Russia invade the Netherlands as well. Yay Russia! Putin knows what to do, I wish we had a leader like him. Russia is so much better than the EU! At least Putin keeps his word, unlike the EU! Good job Putin! At least he doesn't go for all that endless lying political mumblejumble like the EU!
It is probably because Putin is against the EU, and a large, very vocal part of the Dutch population is against the EU as well. Therefore, the enemy of my enemy is my friend logic is applied. Again, Dutch people are just plain weird. And of course the fact that Putin is in fact the most badass world leader in modern times also plays a part.
The BBC had a former US ambassador to Ukraine on earlier. He pointed out that if the Russians were moving into Crimea for the sake of its majority Russian population, and the West allows him to take it, it sets a precedent for the Federation to just willy nilly walk into other countries and take those parts where ethnic Russians live. Hey Mexico if this holds up maybe you want to go and take a third of the US back?
Let's see if NATO can have the balls to do something about this other than to throw political sanctions about. I mean if we keep allowing Putin's government to abuse the former Soviet satellites like this its just giving him the confidence to do it again and again. Presumably the Russians won't have the tact to outright annex an entire country, Poland style, but still, historian's will probably be shaking their heads at us over this x years down the line. =/
Ah, also; Russians how old is your equipment? Are those AK-74Ms (whatever happened to the Ak-100 series?) and BMP-1s? Damn, I suppose that old Soviet gear still holds up...
Wyrmalla wrote: The BBC had a former US ambassador to Ukraine on earlier. He pointed out that if the Russians were moving into Crimea for the sake of its majority Russian population, and the West allows him to take it, it sets a precedent for the Federation to just willy nilly walk into other countries and take those parts where ethnic Russians live. Hey Mexico if this holds up maybe you want to go and take a third of the US back?
Let's see if NATO can have the balls to do something about this other than to throw political sanctions about. I mean if we keep allowing Putin's government to abuse the former Soviet satellites like this its just giving him the confidence to do it again and again. Presumably the Russians won't have the tact to outright annex an entire country, Poland style, but still, historian's will probably be shaking their heads at us over this x years down the line. =/
Ah, also; Russians how old is your equipment? Are those AK-74Ms (whatever happened to the Ak-100 series?) and BMP-1s? Damn, I suppose that old Soviet gear still holds up...
To play devil's advocate: so what?
When you say NATO should do something, you know thats a quick slip slide into "fusion bombs off the port bow captain."
Most of you youngins don't remember the joy of the Cold War. No thanks. We don't need that gak again.
Wyrmalla wrote: Ah, also; Russians how old is your equipment? Are those AK-74Ms (whatever happened to the Ak-100 series?) and BMP-1s? Damn, I suppose that old Soviet gear still holds up...
The uniforms are a mix. Some units are wearing the modern 2010 uniform (i don't see any of the latest 2012 uniforms yet) but older '90s and even some soviet stuff is also still in issue. The guns are modernised versions of the AK-74M (which is actually modern compared to the US' M16 and M4) The AK-100 series is still being developed and made, but they are issued to special units only as they are too expensive to equip the entire Russian army with them. The BMP-1 has mostly been replaced by the BMP-2 which is the most used armoured vehicle but the advanced BMP-3 can also be seen.
But yes, that old Soviet stuff surely was built to last
This actually reminds me of my last game of Empire Total War when I took took over the entire America's with the US. American Frigates and Long Riflemen are OP!
Actually I was thinking the St.Petersburg has some lovely architecture, and the way Russian authors speak about its European anyway apparently. So whilst they're eyes are off to Ukraine, the Estonians and a crack unit of Finnish tourists carrying massive cameras to incapacitate the local law enforcement snatch it. Just chalk it up to performing drills Russian style.
Ah, no I know that the BMP-1's been replaced (mostly), I just thought I seen one cruising about in a shot. Hmph, I was expecting a bit of gun porn, but the Russian army's really let me down so far (I wanna see a Groza by the end of this at least).
Wyrmalla wrote: Hey Mexico if this holds up maybe you want to go and take a third of the US back?
Considering that you stole that territory in the first place... but you can keep the crazy rednecks .
Stole?
We beat you fair and square.
You stole it fair and square, just like Russia is doing to Ukraine.
You attacked US troops then got your asses handed to you. Then we invaded. Moral of the story, don't attack US troops in mainland North America. You'll lose. I'm just sad we didn't annex the whole country. All that tequila, liquid gold, liquid gold. Plus Pyramids! WE could have had pyramids, and not the corny Vegas kind, but the cool gigantic stone kind to rival the Egyptians. With pyramids and tequila we could have countered the Haggis launchers, and then UK would have been ours too! Tequila and haggis, Hitler would have just kept painting bad portraits and not started all that gak. We could have drunkified Godzilla and he would have eaten the Japanese carriers before they launched. So really WWII is all Mexico's fault. We demand tequila reparations post haste.
"Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States."
It is curious the similarities with the American-Mexican war, a land grab started because a part of a weaker country secedes because internal conflict in the capital (and because Texas loves slavery) and then asks a stronger neighbor help.
whembly wrote: Uh... VP Biden is on his way to Kiev... then what?
Oh... also this via twittah:
#BreakingNews #US Navy USS George Bush nuclear aircraft carrier declares high alert in the #Mediterranean. #Syria #Ukraine #Russia
3:08 PM - 1 Mar 2014
Well, that makes sense. Biden is the administration's foreign policy muscle.
I wonder if they told him there was a crisis before they put him on the plane.
whembly wrote: Uh... VP Biden is on his way to Kiev... then what?
Oh... also this via twittah:
#BreakingNews #US Navy USS George Bush nuclear aircraft carrier declares high alert in the #Mediterranean. #Syria #Ukraine #Russia
3:08 PM - 1 Mar 2014
Well, that makes sense. Biden is the administration's foreign policy muscle.
I wonder if they told him there was a crisis before they put him on the plane.
News tomorrow: Mushroom clouds were sighted in the Crimea....
Tyran wrote: It is curious the similarities with the American-Mexican war, a land grab started because a part of a weaker country secedes because internal conflict in the capital (and because Texas loves slavery) and then asks a stronger neighbor help.
Except Texas actually seceded from Mexico. They had their own war of independence, Remember the Alamo, etc...
So Texas was its own sovereign nation for a few years. The US then annexed it(bloodlessly) and Mexico didn't like it.
You comparing one process that took several years with something that has happened over a few days. Way different timeline and causes.
Tyran wrote: It is curious the similarities with the American-Mexican war, a land grab started because a part of a weaker country secedes because internal conflict in the capital (and because Texas loves slavery) and then asks a stronger neighbor help.
Except Texas actually seceded from Mexico. They had their own war of independence, Remember the Alamo, etc...
So Texas was its own sovereign nation for a few years. The US then annexed it(bloodlessly) and Mexico didn't like it.
You comparing one process that took several years with something that has happened over a few days. Way different timeline and causes.
It seems Russia decided to skip the "war of independence" part. Maybe it is for the best as it avoids unnecessary deaths.
I'm sick of all the war birds I've been seeing lately. I think it's best to attempt to diffuse the situation before initiating the real "war to end all wars".
Iron_Captain wrote: It does. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea (and the city of Sevastopol) does not recognise the government in Kiev. This means that they are the highest possible authority in charge of their territory and therefore they need to take care of their own defense and foreign relations until the crisis is resolved. Nobody else can take care of those matters at the moment as the Ukrainian government does not have any jurisdiction over Crimea anymore, and so the Crimean authorities need to take decisions themselves.
It doesn't matter whether they recognise the government in Kiev or not. The Ukrainian Constitution means that they do not have the power to invite in a military force from another country. As it stands Crimea is still currently a part of Ukraine and is still bound by it's constitution
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: It seems Russia decided to skip the "war of independence" part. Maybe it is for the best as it avoids unnecessary deaths.
Do you know what really prevents unnecessary deaths? Not marching your military into foreign countries
It doesn't matter whether they recognise the government in Kiev or not. The Ukrainian Constitution means that they do not have the power to invite in a military force from another co
So what you're saying is that if a Government falls apart, and is for all intents and purposes non-existent, nobody who was ruled by that now defunct government is legally allowed to make a new one, even if they're doing it democratically?
By that logic, practically just about every country in existence is illegal if you trace it back far enough.
Many dakka members have probably been wondering at my absence these past few days . Well, I can reveal that I've been burning the midnight oil and drawing up battle plans! It's time to slay that Russian bear once and for all. Apologies to any Russian members of dakka!
Operation Market Dakka Storm
Objective: To invade the Russian Federation, defeat its military, force the Russians into unconditional surrender, and place Putin on trial in the Hague on whatever charge we make up!
Timescale: 6 weeks. Operation Market Dakka Storm will commence at 0400hrs April 3rd 2014 this will allow the build-up of NATO troops in neighbouring countries, and will allow the United States Air Force Time to gain air supremacy. Once operation commences, I predict that after some initial resistance, the Soviet, er, Russian military machine will crumble under the NATO onslaught, and NATO troops could be in Moscow by mid-May. Early NATO success could force a Russian surrender sooner, so we must be alive to any opportunities that may arise.
Market Dakka Storm consists of 3 parts:
Market
The US XVIII airborne corps (101st, 82nd, and the re-activated 17th) in conjunction with British 1st airborne division will be dropped into the heart of Russia to seize key bridges and/or vital river crossings. Special Forces will infiltrate behind the lines, attacking targets of opportunity (vodka factories, etc) to weaken Russian moral.
Dakka
A two pronged attack from North and South.
North - The US 10th Mountain division, Royal Marines, and the armies of Sweden, Finland, and Norway, will attack St Petersburg, Murmansk, seize the gulf of Finland (bottling up the Russian Baltic fleet) and tying down Russian forces in the north.
South - The I,II, and III, Marine Expeditionary forces, in conjunction with the Turkish Military (and supported by whatever US Navy Taskforce is nearby at the time! ) will attack the Crimea from Turkish Black Sea Bases, driving out Russian forces, linking up with the Ukrainian Military, and liberating the Crimea.
Storm: The best part. No more mucking around! We show those amateurs Hitler and Napoleon on how it's done!
The US Army V corps, III (I want it re-activated for historical reasons! ) and the British Royal Armoured Corps, will drive straight for Moscow, linking up with Airborne elements that have captured the bridges, and brining the campaign to a swift and speedy conclusion.
People might mutter things about post war reconstruction, but who cares about that!
All I need is Congress and the Pentagon to give the green light.
US posters will grumble about their taxes paying for this, and the fact that my foreign policy seems to consist of myself fighting to the last American Marine, but you guys are the global superpower. With great power comes great responsibility
Tyran wrote: It is curious the similarities with the American-Mexican war, a land grab started because a part of a weaker country secedes because internal conflict in the capital (and because Texas loves slavery) and then asks a stronger neighbor help.
Sorry we'd already kicked Mexico's ass by then, thank you very much.
whembly wrote: Uh... VP Biden is on his way to Kiev... then what?
Oh... also this via twittah:
#BreakingNews #US Navy USS George Bush nuclear aircraft carrier declares high alert in the #Mediterranean. #Syria #Ukraine #Russia
3:08 PM - 1 Mar 2014
Well, that makes sense. Biden is the administration's foreign policy muscle.
I wonder if they told him there was a crisis before they put him on the plane.
I wonder if they put gas in the plane.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Many dakka members have probably been wondering at my absence these past few days . Well, I can reveal that I've been burning the midnight oil and drawing up battle plans! It's time to slay that Russian bear once and for all. Apologies to any Russian members of dakka!
Operation Market Dakka Storm
Objective: To invade the Russian Federation, defeat its military, force the Russians into unconditional surrender, and place Putin on trial in the Hague on whatever charge we make up!
Timescale: 6 weeks. Operation Market Dakka Storm will commence at 0400hrs April 3rd 2014 this will allow the build-up of NATO troops in neighbouring countries, and will allow the United States Air Force Time to gain air supremacy. Once operation commences, I predict that after some initial resistance, the Soviet, er, Russian military machine will crumble under the NATO onslaught, and NATO troops could be in Moscow by mid-May. Early NATO success could force a Russian surrender sooner, so we must be alive to any opportunities that may arise.
Market Dakka Storm consists of 3 parts:
Market
The US XVIII airborne corps (101st, 82nd, and the re-activated 17th) in conjunction with British 1st airborne division will be dropped into the heart of Russia to seize key bridges and/or vital river crossings. Special Forces will infiltrate behind the lines, attacking targets of opportunity (vodka factories, etc) to weaken Russian moral.
Dakka
A two pronged attack from North and South.
North - The US 10th Mountain division, Royal Marines, and the armies of Sweden, Finland, and Norway, will attack St Petersburg, Murmansk, seize the gulf of Finland (bottling up the Russian Baltic fleet) and tying down Russian forces in the north.
South - The I,II, and III, Marine Expeditionary forces, in conjunction with the Turkish Military (and supported by whatever US Navy Taskforce is nearby at the time! ) will attack the Crimea from Turkish Black Sea Bases, driving out Russian forces, linking up with the Ukrainian Military, and liberating the Crimea.
Storm: The best part. No more mucking around! We show those amateurs Hitler and Napoleon on how it's done!
The US Army V corps, III (I want it re-activated for historical reasons! ) and the British Royal Armoured Corps, will drive straight for Moscow, linking up with Airborne elements that have captured the bridges, and brining the campaign to a swift and speedy conclusion.
People might mutter things about post war reconstruction, but who cares about that!
All I need is Congress and the Pentagon to give the green light.
US posters will grumble about their taxes paying for this, and the fact that my foreign policy seems to consist of myself fighting to the last American Marine, but you guys are the global superpower. With great power comes great responsibility
Any feedback on my plans would be appreciated!
Just one. You need Zombie Patton to lead the land forces, and Zombie Reagan to be in overall command.
"Drive me closer so I can shoot that Russian son of a with my revolver!" Zombie Patton, from atop his Leopard II.
Indeed. And one country emerged from it as the world's sole superpower, the other suffered a disastrous collapse of economic, political, and diplomatic influence. It's almost enough to make you think that simply wishing it away should have a back-up plan that's actually actionable for when linking hands and singing fails.
Ignoring the weird Cold War nonsense, what would you suggest that such a back-up plan should consist of?
Iron_Captain wrote: It does. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea (and the city of Sevastopol) does not recognise the government in Kiev. This means that they are the highest possible authority in charge of their territory and therefore they need to take care of their own defense and foreign relations until the crisis is resolved. Nobody else can take care of those matters at the moment as the Ukrainian government does not have any jurisdiction over Crimea anymore, and so the Crimean authorities need to take decisions themselves.
It doesn't matter whether they recognise the government in Kiev or not. The Ukrainian Constitution means that they do not have the power to invite in a military force from another country. As it stands Crimea is still currently a part of Ukraine and is still bound by it's constitution
No, the unelected Ukrainian parliament changed the constitution undemocratically, thereby making it invalid. They took away the equal rights of ethnic minorities in the Ukraine, which is why this whole crisis started in the first place.
Do you know what really prevents unnecessary deaths? Not marching your military into foreign countries
Never heard of a peacekeeping force?
The current and previous crisis in the Ukraine is something that is coming from the people. On both sides there are extremist radicals that need to be kept in check. As the Ukrainian government has been (partly) taken over by these radicals, the Ukrainian military and government could no longer be trusted to protect its people. That is why the ethnic Russians in Crimea asked Russia to send soldiers to protect them, so they may keep a referendum on independence from Ukraine without being harassed by the Ukrainian government and radicals, who do not want Crimea to secede, and trust me, the Ukrainians would be willing to use violence to keep Crimea part of Ukraine.
Obama regretting that Cold War statement when Romney viewed Putin as a Geo Political adversary.
So besides Russian fighters playing tag in airspace. Anymore/additional ground unit move out from Sevastopol Naval Base? Actual cross the border? Or still the two Brigades operating outside of the base?
Jihadin wrote: Obama regretting that Cold War statement when Romney viewed Putin as a Geo Political adversary.
So besides Russian fighters playing tag in airspace. Anymore/additional ground unit move out from Sevastopol Naval Base? Actual cross the border? Or still the two Brigades operating outside of the base?
I am not sure. Most Russian soldiers currently active on Crimea wear the uniforms of Sevastopol's naval infantry, but seeing the latest pictures, there is also an unfamiliar division of Motostrelki involved. Russia has definitely have moved in addtional troops.
Its still 6K troops. Saw somewhere of a Airborne unit was moved in Either/or looking at two brigades of troops securing the airfield at both Sevastopol and Simperopolever. Locking down the Ukraine unit on its base 15-20 miles south on M18 which seems to be an armored unit being the Ukraine moved a tank to the gate. Securing the highway of M17...Putin really playing his cards well. He is not losing that base. He's probably wondering when everyone else going to notice what he is doing because he hasn't expanded so far from the reports beyond securing the logistical and comm lines. Now to really get him in a jam Have the new Ukraine government announce it will honor the agreements concerning Sevastopol Naval Base So far it seems the new government not going to honor it.
Jihadin wrote: He is not losing that base. He's probably wondering when everyone else going to notice what he is doing because he hasn't expanded so far from the reports beyond securing the logistical and comm lines.
He knows that everyone important knows what he wants. The question is only whether or not anyone with the ability to obstruct him from getting it is willing to do so; my guess is no.
I'm sure the Ukrainian military command knows what he is doing. Same way I'm tracking it. Except they have more info to go off of. There still two Ukraine military bases under lockdown but no location giving I'm thinking they're located along M17 or north of Simferopol on M18. Saw somewhere about Ukrainian Marines hold up near the Russian border..like maybe ten miles off the border but they're holed up and not locked down as in waiting to see what's going to happen
The Budapest Memorandum, signed by Britain, Ukraine, the United States and Russia, agreed to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine's borders.
Now Ukraine have called on Britain to keep up its end of the bargain.
Article one of the agreement reads: "The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine ... to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine."
The call comes after the Russian government unanimously approved the deployment of Russian troops to the Crimea.
However, it couldn't have been better timed. So long as the British government 'estimate' that they'll be ready to deploy after, say, the 18th of September? And perhaps a sudden change of mind on Scottish independence from key people, and hey ho, waddayaknow? The treaty was signed by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Very sorry chaps, there's no such country any more. There's a United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but not of Great Britain since Scottland are independent.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Many dakka members have probably been wondering at my absence these past few days . Well, I can reveal that I've been burning the midnight oil and drawing up battle plans! It's time to slay that Russian bear once and for all. Apologies to any Russian members of dakka!
Operation Market Dakka Storm
Objective: To invade the Russian Federation, defeat its military, force the Russians into unconditional surrender, and place Putin on trial in the Hague on whatever charge we make up!
Timescale: 6 weeks. Operation Market Dakka Storm will commence at 0400hrs April 3rd 2014 this will allow the build-up of NATO troops in neighbouring countries, and will allow the United States Air Force Time to gain air supremacy. Once operation commences, I predict that after some initial resistance, the Soviet, er, Russian military machine will crumble under the NATO onslaught, and NATO troops could be in Moscow by mid-May. Early NATO success could force a Russian surrender sooner, so we must be alive to any opportunities that may arise.
Market Dakka Storm consists of 3 parts:
Market
The US XVIII airborne corps (101st, 82nd, and the re-activated 17th) in conjunction with British 1st airborne division will be dropped into the heart of Russia to seize key bridges and/or vital river crossings. Special Forces will infiltrate behind the lines, attacking targets of opportunity (vodka factories, etc) to weaken Russian moral.
Dakka
A two pronged attack from North and South.
North - The US 10th Mountain division, Royal Marines, and the armies of Sweden, Finland, and Norway, will attack St Petersburg, Murmansk, seize the gulf of Finland (bottling up the Russian Baltic fleet) and tying down Russian forces in the north.
South - The I,II, and III, Marine Expeditionary forces, in conjunction with the Turkish Military (and supported by whatever US Navy Taskforce is nearby at the time! ) will attack the Crimea from Turkish Black Sea Bases, driving out Russian forces, linking up with the Ukrainian Military, and liberating the Crimea.
Storm: The best part. No more mucking around! We show those amateurs Hitler and Napoleon on how it's done!
The US Army V corps, III (I want it re-activated for historical reasons! ) and the British Royal Armoured Corps, will drive straight for Moscow, linking up with Airborne elements that have captured the bridges, and brining the campaign to a swift and speedy conclusion.
People might mutter things about post war reconstruction, but who cares about that!
All I need is Congress and the Pentagon to give the green light.
US posters will grumble about their taxes paying for this, and the fact that my foreign policy seems to consist of myself fighting to the last American Marine, but you guys are the global superpower. With great power comes great responsibility
Any feedback on my plans would be appreciated!
But what about the radios, they worked well enough in the desert, but there is a great deal more trees in the Peninsula.
This plan just seems a bridge too far, don't you think?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Many dakka members have probably been wondering at my absence these past few days . Well, I can reveal that I've been burning the midnight oil and drawing up battle plans! It's time to slay that Russian bear once and for all. Apologies to any Russian members of dakka!
Operation Market Dakka Storm
Objective: To invade the Russian Federation, defeat its military, force the Russians into unconditional surrender, and place Putin on trial in the Hague on whatever charge we make up!
Timescale: 6 weeks. Operation Market Dakka Storm will commence at 0400hrs April 3rd 2014 this will allow the build-up of NATO troops in neighbouring countries, and will allow the United States Air Force Time to gain air supremacy. Once operation commences, I predict that after some initial resistance, the Soviet, er, Russian military machine will crumble under the NATO onslaught, and NATO troops could be in Moscow by mid-May. Early NATO success could force a Russian surrender sooner, so we must be alive to any opportunities that may arise.
Market Dakka Storm consists of 3 parts:
Market
The US XVIII airborne corps (101st, 82nd, and the re-activated 17th) in conjunction with British 1st airborne division will be dropped into the heart of Russia to seize key bridges and/or vital river crossings. Special Forces will infiltrate behind the lines, attacking targets of opportunity (vodka factories, etc) to weaken Russian moral.
Dakka
A two pronged attack from North and South.
North - The US 10th Mountain division, Royal Marines, and the armies of Sweden, Finland, and Norway, will attack St Petersburg, Murmansk, seize the gulf of Finland (bottling up the Russian Baltic fleet) and tying down Russian forces in the north.
South - The I,II, and III, Marine Expeditionary forces, in conjunction with the Turkish Military (and supported by whatever US Navy Taskforce is nearby at the time! ) will attack the Crimea from Turkish Black Sea Bases, driving out Russian forces, linking up with the Ukrainian Military, and liberating the Crimea.
Storm: The best part. No more mucking around! We show those amateurs Hitler and Napoleon on how it's done!
The US Army V corps, III (I want it re-activated for historical reasons! ) and the British Royal Armoured Corps, will drive straight for Moscow, linking up with Airborne elements that have captured the bridges, and brining the campaign to a swift and speedy conclusion.
People might mutter things about post war reconstruction, but who cares about that!
All I need is Congress and the Pentagon to give the green light.
US posters will grumble about their taxes paying for this, and the fact that my foreign policy seems to consist of myself fighting to the last American Marine, but you guys are the global superpower. With great power comes great responsibility
Any feedback on my plans would be appreciated!
But what about the radios, they worked well enough in the desert, but there is a great deal more trees in the Peninsula.
This plan just seems a bridge too far, don't you think?
This is a bold plan, and it's boldness that wins wars...that and superior military force, tactics, leadership, morale, innovation, will to win, etc etc
In the history of mankind has there ever been a greater opportunity to defeat Russia? I mean, to have France, USA, Britain, Germany! and Luxembourg all on the same side. Has there ever been a greater military alliance?
I can't believe America is stalling on this. The country that gave us Stonewall Jackson, Patton, MacArthur, Lighthorse Lee et al
Just say the word Congress, pass that act that will temporary promote me to General of the Armies, and I'll lead them in myself!
If anybody is wondering why I'm gripped with war fever of late...well...I've just started playing Total War Empire!
It seems Russia decided to skip the "war of independence" part. Maybe it is for the best as it avoids unnecessary deaths.
So you think that it's ok to give into the demands of force as long as it avoids unnecessary deaths?
If you don't have a chance in hell of resisting then yeah.
6,000 troops are in the country. Ukraine has 150,000 active Soldiers. They can resist. If things get worse, they can call for help. It would make it extremely easy for Russia to look like the unwelcome aggressor here, and the world would have no choice but to make some kind of response.
The Budapest Memorandum, signed by Britain, Ukraine, the United States and Russia, agreed to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine's borders.
Now Ukraine have called on Britain to keep up its end of the bargain.
Article one of the agreement reads: "The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine ... to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine."
The call comes after the Russian government unanimously approved the deployment of Russian troops to the Crimea.
However, it couldn't have been better timed. So long as the British government 'estimate' that they'll be ready to deploy after, say, the 18th of September? And perhaps a sudden change of mind on Scottish independence from key people, and hey ho, waddayaknow? The treaty was signed by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Very sorry chaps, there's no such country any more. There's a United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but not of Great Britain since Scottland are independent.
I'm in class right now. I turn to my friend, who's a reservist, and say "oh well Tony. By the way you're going to war". We've been working all year on a project too. Let's see if tensions can be staved off long enough for poor Tony to graduate and snag a promotion so if he does have fight he's not just a gunner in the artillery.
I'd like to hear Putin's responce to that treaty mind you.
It seems Russia decided to skip the "war of independence" part. Maybe it is for the best as it avoids unnecessary deaths.
So you think that it's ok to give into the demands of force as long as it avoids unnecessary deaths?
If you don't have a chance in hell of resisting then yeah.
6,000 troops are in the country. Ukraine has 150,000 active Soldiers. They can resist. If things get worse, they can call for help. It would make it extremely easy for Russia to look like the unwelcome aggressor here, and the world would have no choice but to make some kind of response.
Ukraine need the West to send help to stand a chance, and the West doesn't seems to want to start a war over Crimea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Defeating in open warfare no. Resisting, you bet they can. These guys invented partizan warfare...
Luckily Russia already has the support of the Crimeans and a part of Eastern Ukraine.
Meanwhile Ukraine is facing desertion, and this army didn't do a thing to help Yanu, I don't see them helping the new administration, or at least not the whole of it.
It seems Russia decided to skip the "war of independence" part. Maybe it is for the best as it avoids unnecessary deaths.
So you think that it's ok to give into the demands of force as long as it avoids unnecessary deaths?
If you don't have a chance in hell of resisting then yeah.
6,000 troops are in the country. Ukraine has 150,000 active Soldiers. They can resist. If things get worse, they can call for help. It would make it extremely easy for Russia to look like the unwelcome aggressor here, and the world would have no choice but to make some kind of response.
The problem is that a large part of the Ukrainian army is not loyal to the government in Kiev. Many units and officers have already defected or refused to follow orders, and more are sure to follow. It is also not just Russia that is involved here. The local population plays a major role, and if Kiev would start to take action against them, well that would be exactly what Russia needs to justify a full-scale invasion. The rest of the world simply can't really do much about it, as the former general-secretary of NATO just said on Dutch television. The EU can't take action against Russia because that would severely damage the European economy, and the US needs to remain on friendly terms with Russia because Russian cooperation is needed in dealing with Iran and Syria. (also, not to get back to the military dick measuring, but the general secretary of NATO himself just said that the EU is a military dwarf compared to Russia )
Ketara wrote: So what you're saying is that if a Government falls apart, and is for all intents and purposes non-existent, nobody who was ruled by that now defunct government is legally allowed to make a new one, even if they're doing it democratically?
By that logic, practically just about every country in existence is illegal if you trace it back far enough.
I am amazed that you managed to get that interpretation from what I said. Please allow me to try again - the Crimea is part of the Ukraine. As such it is bound by the country's constitution, and it also has certain legal powers. The Ukrainian constitution does not allow the Crimea to make international agreements, nor does it permit the local Crimean government to lawfully request foreign military assistance, or invite in a foreign military. Simply because there has been a change in the government caused by a mass protest in the capital of the country that does not mean that the Ukraine has ceased to exist as a sovereign state and that the constitution may be ignored. The revolt in Kiev caused the President to resign. It did not void the Ukraine as a country. It did not render null the constitution.
Furthermore, any country crossing the internationally recognised borders of another nation without the express permission from that country is a hostile act.
Iron_Captain wrote: No, the unelected Ukrainian parliament changed the constitution undemocratically, thereby making it invalid. They took away the equal rights of ethnic minorities in the Ukraine, which is why this whole crisis started in the first place.
I'd like to see a credible source for that claim please.
Furthermore, even in the event that was the case that still does not permit a local government (such as the one in the Crimea) from inviting in foreign troops. They do not, and never did, have the legal standing to do so. The only part of the constitution that could arguably be rendered invalid are those parts that were amended, not the entire document.
Iron_Captain wrote: Never heard of a peacekeeping force?
The current and previous crisis in the Ukraine is something that is coming from the people. On both sides there are extremist radicals that need to be kept in check. As the Ukrainian government has been (partly) taken over by these radicals, the Ukrainian military and government could no longer be trusted to protect its people. That is why the ethnic Russians in Crimea asked Russia to send soldiers to protect them, so they may keep a referendum on independence from Ukraine without being harassed by the Ukrainian government and radicals, who do not want Crimea to secede, and trust me, the Ukrainians would be willing to use violence to keep Crimea part of Ukraine.
I have. Peacekeeping forces are typically internationally recognised, have a clear legal mandate, very specific rules of engagement, and operate under the auspices of a multi-national body. Russia's actions are in stark contrast to the typical behaviour of a peacekeeping deployment. Furthermore, had Russia been acting in good faith then there would be no need to lie and say that they were holding war games as a cover to hide their mobilization.
Ever hear of the Geneva Convention? Especially the part about a country's military force having to wear an identifiable uniform, complete with unit designations and insignia?
You keep claiming that the people of the Crimea were under threat from Kiev, yet you have manged to provide nothing to substantiate this. Not a single shred of evidence. The only force that has been used has been from Russia by invading another country, and marching on Ukrainian military bases and demanding the surrender of firearms and other equipment. If the local government was concerned then it was possible that they could have asked for international observers from the UN to come and monitor the elections to ensure their fairness. That was not done. Instead they went beyond their lawful powers to invite in a foreign military.
And as far as "trust me, the Ukrainians would be willing to use violence to keep Crimea part of Ukraine", well it isn't as though the Russians don't have previous form in that area either.
Ketara wrote: So what you're saying is that if a Government falls apart, and is for all intents and purposes non-existent, nobody who was ruled by that now defunct government is legally allowed to make a new one, even if they're doing it democratically?
By that logic, practically just about every country in existence is illegal if you trace it back far enough.
I am amazed that you managed to get that interpretation from what I said. Please allow me to try again - the Crimea is part of the Ukraine. As such it is bound by the country's constitution, and it also has certain legal powers. The Ukrainian constitution does not allow the Crimea to make international agreements, nor does it permit the local Crimean government to lawfully request foreign military assistance, or invite in a foreign military. Simply because there has been a change in the government caused by a mass protest in the capital of the country that does not mean that the Ukraine has ceased to exist as a sovereign state and that the constitution may be ignored. The revolt in Kiev caused the President to resign. It did not void the Ukraine as a country. It did not render null the constitution.
Furthermore, any country crossing the internationally recognised borders of another nation without the express permission from that country is a hostile act.
Iron_Captain wrote: No, the unelected Ukrainian parliament changed the constitution undemocratically, thereby making it invalid. They took away the equal rights of ethnic minorities in the Ukraine, which is why this whole crisis started in the first place.
I'd like to see a credible source for that claim please.
Furthermore, even in the event that was the case that still does not permit a local government (such as the one in the Crimea) from inviting in foreign troops. They do not, and never did, have the legal standing to do so. The only part of the constitution that could arguably be rendered invalid are those parts that were amended, not the entire document.
It seems you fail to understand that the Crimean government no longer recognizes the Ukrainian constitution. They are trying to break away from the Ukraine, setting up their own armed forces and are openly rebelling against the Ukraine. I really don't think it matters anymore what the constitution says or not at this point. According to the Syrian constitution, the rebels there are also operating illegaly, yet no one in the West complained about that!
To see any sources, all you have to do is to follow the news, or speak to the people involved in it. It is all over the news, there is plenty of it in Russian media( http://rt.com/news/minority-language-law-ukraine-035/), but Western media has reported on it as well. The Crimean population is not revolting without reasons.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You keep claiming that the people of the Crimea were under threat from Kiev, yet you have manged to provide nothing to substantiate this. Not a single shred of evidence. The only force that has been used has been from Russia by invading another country, and marching on Ukrainian military bases and demanding the surrender of firearms and other equipment. If the local government was concerned then it was possible that they could have asked for international observers from the UN to come and monitor the elections to ensure their fairness. That was not done. Instead they went beyond their lawful powers to invite in a foreign military.
Again, you fail to see the reasons why the Crimean people are revolting. I have posted plenty of news reports on this already, maybe you should read them.
And really, don't start about 'lawful powers'. There is no law in Ukraine anymore since the opposition went beyond its lawful powers to stage a coup and depose the legal president. Until there have been new, fair elections, Yanukovich is still the only legal president of the Ukraine.
Iron_Captain wrote: It seems you fail to understand that the Crimean government no longer recognizes the Ukrainian constitution. They are trying to break away from the Ukraine, setting up their own armed forces and are openly rebelling against the Ukraine. I really don't think it matters anymore what the constitution says or not at this point. According to the Syrian constitution, the rebels there are also operating illegaly, yet no one in the West complained about that!
To see any sources, all you have to do is to follow the news, or speak to the people involved in it. It is all over the news, there is plenty of it in Russian media( http://rt.com/news/minority-language-law-ukraine-035/), but Western media has reported on it as well. The Crimean population is not revolting without reasons.
I'm sorry, that same Russian media that is ranked 148 out of 179 countries for freedom of the press?
So no one in the West complained about the rebels? Yeah, that is what is otherwise known as a factually incorrect statement. But, if you would like to insist upon forging a false comparison between unrest in a dictatorship known for it's brutality which takes on a religious dimension, and what happened in the Ukraine then any sensible discussion is going to prove difficult. Unless of course you just want to fall back on the narrative that Russia = good, West = bad.
And you fail to understand that even if they wish to break away that Russian involvement in the region (again, where no threat to people in Crimea has been shown) is an invasion of a sovereign country. There are already mechanisms in place for Crimea to attempt to sever themselves from the rest of the Ukraine. Military occupation by a foreign power is not a legitimate method.
Iron_Captain wrote: Again, you fail to see the reasons why the Crimean people are revolting. I have posted plenty of news reports on this already, maybe you should read them.
And really, don't start about 'lawful powers'. There is no law in Ukraine anymore since the opposition went beyond its lawful powers to stage a coup and depose the legal president. Until there have been new, fair elections, Yanukovich is still the only legal president of the Ukraine.
The rule of law still exists, whether domestic or international, and whether you like it or not. Even in the event that Yanukovich is the president guess what? That still did not give the Crimea the right to invite in a foreign military. Let there be elections held, let there be a referendum for the Crimea to decide which direction it goes. But not under foreign military occupation.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The rule of law still exists, whether domestic or international, and whether you like it or not. Even in the event that Yanukovich is the president guess what? That still did not give the Crimea the right to invite in a foreign military. Let there be elections held, let there be a referendum for the Crimea to decide which direction it goes. But not under foreign military occupation.
But according to the law, Yanukovich is still the president, and the "government" in Kiev is illegal. Why are you so hung up about this particular point of the law?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The rule of law still exists, whether domestic or international, and whether you like it or not. Even in the event that Yanukovich is the president guess what? That still did not give the Crimea the right to invite in a foreign military. Let there be elections held, let there be a referendum for the Crimea to decide which direction it goes. But not under foreign military occupation.
But according to the law, Yanukovich is still the president, and the "government" in Kiev is illegal. Why are you so hung up about this particular point of the law?
Which particular point? Regardless of who the current government is Russia cannot be invited in by Crimea. No matter how you cut it Russia has invaded a foreign country
Ketara wrote: So what you're saying is that if a Government falls apart, and is for all intents and purposes non-existent, nobody who was ruled by that now defunct government is legally allowed to make a new one, even if they're doing it democratically?
By that logic, practically just about every country in existence is illegal if you trace it back far enough.
I am amazed that you managed to get that interpretation from what I said. Please allow me to try again - the Crimea is part of the Ukraine.
Okay.
As such it is bound by the country's constitution, and it also has certain legal powers.
With you so far.
The Ukrainian constitution does not allow the Crimea to make international agreements, nor does it permit the local Crimean government to lawfully request foreign military assistance, or invite in a foreign military.
Yup, we're still in line with my initial interpretation of your statement above. You claim that the Crimean Government does not legally have the right to make agreements with anyone at any time, because that's not within the framework of the constitution. Fair enough, but then we must apply that logic consistently across the board. Let's see where it goes.
Simply because there has been a change in the government caused by a mass protest in the capital of the country that does not mean that the Ukraine has ceased to exist as a sovereign state and that the constitution may be ignored. The revolt in Kiev caused the President to resign. It did not void the Ukraine as a country. It did not render null the constitution.
See, now this is where you became inaccurate. There hasn't been a 'change in Government'. The previous Government has been overthrown. The President has not resigned. The President is still legally the President. But he's now a President in absentia, having fled in fear of his life. The President in question was democratically elected for a term of years. He has not been democratically un-elected in any way, shape or form within the framework of the Constitution. And likewise, the current administration in Kiev is not the Government within the Constitution either, having not been elected or brought to power in the process outlined within the Constitution.
In other words, the Government which was legally elected according to the constitution is fled, or dead for the majority part. The current Ukrainian administration is itself illegal under the constitution.
So to reiterate my initial point in chunks:-
'So what you're saying is if a Government falls apart and is for all intents and purposes non-existent',
This is established. The legitimate Ukrainian Government has fallen apart, and no replacement has occurred according to the Ukrainian Constitution. Likewise, any changes made by the new Ukrainian administration to amend the Constitution to legitimise themselves are automatically illegal under the Constitution, because they are not the democratically elected Ukrainian Government. Therefore they do not have the legal power to amend the Constitution, anymore so than the Crimean Government does, or to declare war, or to do many things.
nobody who was ruled by that now defunct government is legally allowed to make a new one, even if they're doing it democratically?
This was your initial point and is technically correct. The Crimean Government does not legally have the right to make their own independent administration, democratically elected or otherwise. Nobody under the previous Constitution has that right except the legitimate elected Government of Ukraine, who as we have already seen, are dead and fled.
But this logic also excludes the new Kiev administration from
a) Being the Ukrainian Government,
b) Modifying the Constitution to make themselves into the Ukrainian Government, or
c) having any legal authority or control over any kind of Crimean Government, be it the legal autonomous body, or the illegal independent variety.
So In whole, you are saying that:-
if a Government falls apart, and is for all intents and purposes non-existent, nobody who was ruled by that now defunct government is legally allowed to make a new one, even if they're doing it democratically?
I don't have a problem with the logic applied to declare the Crimean independent administration illegal, but it must then be correspondingly logically concluded using the exact same methods that neither the Kiev administration, or more or less any Government which had its roots in a coup or civil war is ever legal, and neither are it's descendants. Which is more or less every country in existence, because rarely are regime changes 'legal'.
Iron_Captain wrote: It seems you fail to understand that the Crimean government no longer recognizes the Ukrainian constitution. They are trying to break away from the Ukraine, setting up their own armed forces and are openly rebelling against the Ukraine. I really don't think it matters anymore what the constitution says or not at this point. According to the Syrian constitution, the rebels there are also operating illegaly, yet no one in the West complained about that!
To see any sources, all you have to do is to follow the news, or speak to the people involved in it. It is all over the news, there is plenty of it in Russian media( http://rt.com/news/minority-language-law-ukraine-035/), but Western media has reported on it as well. The Crimean population is not revolting without reasons.
I'm sorry, that same Russian media that is ranked 148 out of 179 countries for freedom of the press?
So that automatically makes everything they say invalid? Your reasoning seems very biased. Do you think the Western media is unbiased in this? You should read both before making up your opinion.
Iron_Captain wrote: Again, you fail to see the reasons why the Crimean people are revolting. I have posted plenty of news reports on this already, maybe you should read them.
And really, don't start about 'lawful powers'. There is no law in Ukraine anymore since the opposition went beyond its lawful powers to stage a coup and depose the legal president. Until there have been new, fair elections, Yanukovich is still the only legal president of the Ukraine.
The rule of law still exists, whether domestic or international, and whether you like it or not. Even in the event that Yanukovich is the president guess what? That still did not give the Crimea the right to invite in a foreign military. Let there be elections held, let there be a referendum for the Crimea to decide which direction it goes. But not under foreign military occupation.
There will be a referendum, and the only way that is possible is with Russian soldiers protecting the Crimea. Haven't you heard the government of Kiev? They have already stated multiple times that they will never allow Crimea to become independent. Do you really think they would've just let the Crimeans hold a referendum? Do you actually understand what kind of people are in power in Kiev now? Do you know anything about the centuries of history behind this conflict? Your statements really make it sound like you don't, and they do sound rather hypocritical coming from an American.
In the eyes of Russia and the majority of Crimeans, there is no Ukrainian government anymore.
So the Crimean government, which is at the moment the only legal government in the Crimea has called for Russian assistance to protect them from the radicals in Kiev, and they were in their full right to do so.
Again, there is no need for war or agressive actions here, the Russians are only deployed to give the Crimeans a chance to hold their referendum.
1. The Ukrainian parliament did not follow the constitutional procedure for impeachment of the president.
2. The interim government had announced an abolition of the existing minority language law. Fortunately, those plans are now scrapped, but the damage is already done in the eyes of the portion of the population that prefers to speak Russian.
These may seem like minor things but both are another splash of gasoline on this growing fire.
Putin's played a very canny game here. Crimea is his, to absorb or set up independently as a puppet satellite state as he likes. That's more or less a foregone conclusion now.
What's interesting, is that he's clearly waiting to see the international and Ukrainian response before taking it any further. He's taking extremely cautious steps, never moving until he's certain that it's the right one. He's already laid the groundwork to absorb Eastern Ukraine if he wants to. He's had the Russian Parliament make a blanket statement about his ability to interfere in Ukraine in general, and all of the comments about Russian intimidation/suppression have always included the phrase 'Eastern Ukraine' as well as Crimea.
He's clearly consolidating in Crimea, and waiting to see if the new Ukrainian administration can muster any kind of meaningful response. If so, he'll simply stay where he is, and be content with his gains.
From the BBC:-
Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev has signed off a project to build a bridge linking the Ukrainian town of Kerch in Crimea to Russia. The bridge would cross the Strait of Kerch, and give Russia's southern Krasnodar region a direct link to Crimea, bypassing the rest of Ukraine. Kiev says the Russian military is currently amassing armoured vehicles across the strait. The bridge has been under discussion for a decade, and was agreed by the deposed President, Viktor Yanukovych.
If, on the other hand, the Ukrainian Administration fails to be able to mobilise any kind of meaningful military response, he'll disperse fake rioters across Eastern Ukraine again, begin negotiations with the most Pro-Russian groups, and simply stroll across the border to occupy Donetsk and Kharkiv. And conveniently enough, the most industrial and productive part of Ukraine.
Bravo Mr Putin. Quite the master stroke. *claps slowly*
1. The Ukrainian parliament did not follow the constitutional procedure for impeachment of the president.
2. The interim government had announced an abolition of the existing minority language law. Fortunately, those plans are now scrapped, but the damage is already done in the eyes of the portion of the population that prefers to speak Russian.
These may seem like minor things but both are another splash of gasoline on this growing fire.
The current administration voted to impeach him, but not being the legally elected Government/Parliament of Ukraine, do not technically have that power any more than I do. To head off the protests, yes, some of the current Parliament were legally elected to the previous Parliament, but that doesn't give them the numbers or right to depose the President, anymore than taking thirty MP's here in the UK and having them vote gives them the legal right to remove the Prime Minister. A majority and due procedure is required under both constitutions.
And yes, the new Kiev administration did also announce the abolition of the use of Russian as an official language very quickly after rising to their current position.
1. The Ukrainian parliament did not follow the constitutional procedure for impeachment of the president.
2. The interim government had announced an abolition of the existing minority language law. Fortunately, those plans are now scrapped, but the damage is already done in the eyes of the portion of the population that prefers to speak Russian.
These may seem like minor things but both are another splash of gasoline on this growing fire.
To the best of my knowledge, both of these points are correct, which as you note, causes a slight problem. Especially No. 2, as that gave the impression of quelling the (ethnic) Russians who opposed the new regime.
Ketara wrote: See, now this is where you became inaccurate. There hasn't been a 'change in Government'. The previous Government has been overthrown. The President has not resigned. The President is still legally the President. But he's now a President in absentia, having fled in fear of his life. The President in question was democratically elected for a term of years. He has not been democratically un-elected in any way, shape or form within the framework of the Constitution. And likewise, the current administration in Kiev is not the Government within the Constitution either, having not been elected or brought to power in the process outlined within the Constitution.
In other words, the Government which was legally elected according to the constitution is fled, or dead for the majority part. The current Ukrainian administration is itself illegal under the constitution.
So to reiterate my initial point in chunks:-
'So what you're saying is if a Government falls apart and is for all intents and purposes non-existent',
This is established. The legitimate Ukrainian Government has fallen apart, and no replacement has occurred according to the Ukrainian Constitution. Likewise, any changes made by the new Ukrainian administration to amend the Constitution to legitimise themselves are automatically illegal under the Constitution, because they are not the democratically elected Ukrainian Government. Therefore they do not have the legal power to amend the Constitution, anymore so than the Crimean Government does, or to declare war, or to do many things.
So you're objecting to my phrasing "change in government"? Even though it does not speak to the legality or otherwise of those claiming to be in power in Kiev?
Ketara wrote: This was your initial point and is technically correct. The Crimean Government does not legally have the right to make their own independent administration, democratically elected or otherwise. Nobody under the previous Constitution has that right except the legitimate elected Government of Ukraine, who as we have already seen, are dead and fled.
But this logic also excludes the new Kiev administration from
a) Being the Ukrainian Government,
b) Modifying the Constitution to make themselves into the Ukrainian Government, or
c) having any legal authority or control over any kind of Crimean Government, be it the legal autonomous body, or the illegal independent variety.
I'll take things that I never claimed for $1000 Alex.
Ketara wrote: I don't have a problem with the logic applied to declare the Crimean independent administration illegal, but it must then be correspondingly logically concluded using the exact same methods that neither the Kiev administration, or more or less any Government which had its roots in a coup or civil war is ever legal, and neither are it's descendants. Which is more or less every country in existence, because rarely are regime changes 'legal'.
That is a wonderful leap of logic that in no way bears any relation to my argument.
Iron_Captain wrote: Again, there is no need for war or agressive actions here, the Russians are only deployed to give the Crimeans a chance to hold their referendum.
That'll be why Russia has told Ukraine forces in Crimea to surrender or face attack then. The Ukraine forces being the ones in their own country don't forget. Russia are clearly taking aggressive action here in someone else's country. Whether part of that country sympathises with Russia or not, the Ukrainian troops there are still on their own soil.
The ultimatum, from the commander of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet Alexander Vitko, has a base in Crimea where Russian forces are now in control.
According to the agency, it reads: “If they do not surrender before 5am (3am GMT) tomorrow, a real assault will be started against units and divisions of the armed forces across Crimea.”
That is a wonderful leap of logic that in no way bears any relation to my argument.
Then quite frankly, you need to lay out your 'argument' better. All I did was take your exact statements and logic with regards to the potential legality of an independent Crimean Government, and applied them across the spectrum.
If Russian military personnel or Crimean Russian speaking "militia" attack Ukranian military personnel, Putin loses his legal advantage and cover for this operation.
I really hope there is no escalation from rhetoric and chessboard moves towards bloodshed.
Iron_Captain wrote: So that automatically makes everything they say invalid? Your reasoning seems very biased. Do you think the Western media is unbiased in this? You should read both before making up your opinion.
Please point out where I claimed that Western media is unbiased, and that everything from the Russian media is "invalid". When you find that I actually didn't say those things maybe you can stop tilting at strawmen and address what I actually said
Iron_Captain wrote: There will be a referendum, and the only way that is possible is with Russian soldiers protecting the Crimea. Haven't you heard the government of Kiev? They have already stated multiple times that they will never allow Crimea to become independent. Do you really think they would've just let the Crimeans hold a referendum? Do you actually understand what kind of people are in power in Kiev now? Do you know anything about the centuries of history behind this conflict? Your statements really make it sound like you don't, and they do sound rather hypocritical coming from an American.
In the eyes of Russia and the majority of Crimeans, there is no Ukrainian government anymore.
So the Crimean government, which is at the moment the only legal government in the Crimea has called for Russian assistance to protect them from the radicals in Kiev, and they were in their full right to do so.
Again, there is no need for war or agressive actions here, the Russians are only deployed to give the Crimeans a chance to hold their referendum.
There is so much spin in that post I'm surprised that you are not dizzy By the way, I'm Irish, not American. I grew up in the North. I lived through the Troubles, I have see terrorism, and foreign soldiers on the streets of my country.
You keep claiming that the Russians are peacekeepers. I have already addressed this point in my last post. Simply because you choose to ignore it and not address it does not negate it. The Russians have absolutely no legitimate mandate to be in the Ukraine. They have no right to breach the Geneva Convention regarding clearly designated military personnel. Given their obvious bias and strategic interests in the region the Russians are perhaps the last military who should be deployed solo in this area for any supposed "peacekeeping" operation.
You keep claiming that the Crimea has the right to invite in the Russians. Again, I'll make this simple. They do not. Regardless who is in power in the Ukraine they are not able to invite in a foreign occupier.
Even in the event that there is no Ukrainian government guess what? The Crimea still cannot invite the Russians in.
You claim that there is no need for aggressive actions, it is too late. The second that Russian military boots entered another country that was an aggressive action. Invading another country is typically not a friendly gesture.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The rule of law still exists, whether domestic or international, and whether you like it or not. Even in the event that Yanukovich is the president guess what? That still did not give the Crimea the right to invite in a foreign military. Let there be elections held, let there be a referendum for the Crimea to decide which direction it goes. But not under foreign military occupation.
But according to the law, Yanukovich is still the president, and the "government" in Kiev is illegal. Why are you so hung up about this particular point of the law?
Wait, Wierd Al Yankovich is President. That makes so much sense...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JB wrote: If Russian military personnel or Crimean Russian speaking "militia" attack Ukranian military personnel, Putin loses his legal advantage and cover for this operation.
I really hope there is no escalation from rhetoric and chessboard moves towards bloodshed.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The Russians have absolutely no legitimate mandate to be in the Ukraine. They have no right to breach the Geneva Convention regarding clearly designated military personnel.
Actually, under the previous agreement with the Ukrainian Government with regards to their bases on the Black Sea, they are legally permitted to move military personnel around the Crimean region. They simply have to notify the legally elected Government of their actions, and give them the opportunity to deny them the right to do so.
Therefore technically, as long as they send Yanukovych a text message outlining what they're doing when they do it, they're actually within the letter of the law.
what russia is doing in crimea is no different then the states in iraq, afghanistan, or any of the multitudes of countries they have invaded/liberated/whatever you want to call it, over the past 60 years or so...
the only real difference is that crimea actually asked the ruskies to come over,
it is the height of hypocrisy to see the states condemning russia for putting boots on foreign soil for less then legitimate reasons.
not to mention, ukraine is basically being run by a group of rebels, of which ~ half are neo nazis, so for them to call crimea's call for russias help "illegitimate" is the kettle calling the pot black.
Ketara wrote: Then quite frankly, you need to lay out your 'argument' better. All I did was take your exact statements and logic with regards to the potential legality of an independent Crimean Government, and applied them across the spectrum.
I am responsible for what I say. You are responsible for what you understand. You took my statements on a very specific situation, and tried to extrapolate them on a much wider and unintended scale thus distorting what was being said.
I am responsible for what I say. You are responsible for what you understand. You took my statements on a very specific situation, and tried to extrapolate them on a much wider and unintended scale thus distorting what was being said.
I didn't try, I succeeded. If you state that 1+1=2, don't get upset when people then take that logic and say that if 1+1=2, then 2+2=4.
Regardless, my point was to illustrate how daft that set of logical principles must be. Using your logic, it can easily be asserted that the Crimean Government cannot do many things, in that you were correct. But that same logic leads to the point of absurdity when applied elsewhere and on a larger scale. Therefore it is clearly not a particularly good set of logical principles to apply to these sorts of situations.
Ketara wrote: Actually, under the previous agreement with the Ukrainian Government with regards to their bases on the Black Sea, they are legally permitted to move military personnel around the Crimean region. They simply have to notify the legally elected Government of their actions, and give them the opportunity to deny them the right to do so.
Therefore technically, as long as they send Yanukovych a text message outlining what they're doing when they do it, they're actually within the letter of the law.
Your only strategy here seems to be reducing everything to absurdity. If you are trying to make some correlation with the movement of military personnel around the Crimea (perfectly reasonable given the need to transfer troops between military bases) and an actual military invasion, and deployment of troops then your logic needs significant work.
It would be like claiming that the United States is at liberty to occupy Germany and Britain to facilitate the transfer of military personnel between their military installations in each country.
Ketara wrote: Actually, under the previous agreement with the Ukrainian Government with regards to their bases on the Black Sea, they are legally permitted to move military personnel around the Crimean region. They simply have to notify the legally elected Government of their actions, and give them the opportunity to deny them the right to do so.
Therefore technically, as long as they send Yanukovych a text message outlining what they're doing when they do it, they're actually within the letter of the law.
Your only strategy here seems to be reducing everything to absurdity. If you are trying to make some correlation with the movement of military personnel around the Crimea (perfectly reasonable given the need to transfer troops between military bases) and an actual military invasion, and deployment of troops then your logic needs significant work.
You might not like the logic, but feel free to disprove it. Considering that:-
a) Russian Personnel are permitted to transfer between institutions under an agreement with the Ukrainian Government with a specific clause on notifications, and
b) no time limit or route is included within that statement.
Russia can technically move as many troops around the streets of the Crimea as they like, where they like, when they like. All they need to do is tell Yanukovych each time, give him the opportunity to object, and cease troop movements if he does so.
The funny thing is that I'm professionally admiring Putin's actions here. I don't agree with what he's doing. I'm just correcting all the inaccurate statements being made.
Ketara wrote: I didn't try, I succeeded. If you state that 1+1=2, don't get upset when people then take that logic and say that is 1+1=2, then 2+2=4.
Regardless, my point was to illustrate how daft that set of logical principles must be. Using your logic, it can easily be asserted that the Crimean Government cannot do many things, in that you were correct. But that same logic leads to the point of absurdity when applied elsewhere and on a larger scale. Therefore it is clearly not a particularly good set of logical principles to apply to these sorts of situations.
Good thing that I was talking specifically about the situation in the Ukraine then, and not the wider scale.
So your contribution to this discussion is to acknowledge the point being made is accurate in the circumstances being discussed, then taking that point and stretching it long past what was clearly intended (which you yourself acknowledge). Logic would tell you that what you are doing is clearly running contrary to what was intended. Unless your intention is to distract from the discussion.
If that was the case then I think I can safely ignore anything else you have to say on the matter.
Ketara wrote: I didn't try, I succeeded. If you state that 1+1=2, don't get upset when people then take that logic and say that is 1+1=2, then 2+2=4.
Regardless, my point was to illustrate how daft that set of logical principles must be. Using your logic, it can easily be asserted that the Crimean Government cannot do many things, in that you were correct. But that same logic leads to the point of absurdity when applied elsewhere and on a larger scale. Therefore it is clearly not a particularly good set of logical principles to apply to these sorts of situations.
Good thing that I was talking specifically about the situation in the Ukraine then, and not the wider scale.
.
Indeed. And you'll note that except for one very small clause right at the end, I specifically only talked about the Ukraine. Feel free to disregard the comment about all Government's more or less in existence being illegal, that was simply applying the brush as broad as it goes. But the validity of my applying that same logic to the Kiev administration still stands, and is highly relevant.
I'll be quite blunt here, your efforts at being contrary for the sake of being contrary are growing pretty tiresome.
Ketara wrote: You might not like the logic, but feel free to disprove it. Considering that:-
a) Russian Personnel are permitted to transfer between institutions under an agreement with the Ukrainian Government with a specific clause on notifications, and
b) no time limit or route is included within that statement.
Russia can technically move as many troops around the streets of the Crimea as they like, where they like, when they like. All they need to do is tell Yanukovych each time, give him the opportunity to object, and cease troop movementsif he does so.
I'd say that this is farcical but that does not do it justice in any manner, especially not of your idea of logic is to willingly conflate legitimate movement of troops between military bases and marching troops across a border.
Could you please post the specific text of this status of force agreement that exists between the Ukraine and Russia?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: Indeed. And you'll note that except for one very small clause right at the end, I specifically only talked about the Ukraine. Feel free to disregard the comment about all Government's more or less in existence being illegal, that was simply applying the brush as broad as it goes. But the validity of my applying that same logic to the Kiev administration still stands, and is highly relevant.
You mean that one clause where you attempted to expand my specific comments to Ukraine across the globe?
I'll make this simple. Ignoring your stretching of the status of force agreement past breaking point does the Crimea (not Ukraine, I am being very specific here) have the legal right to invite in a foreign military power? Yes or no.
Iron_Captain wrote: Again, there is no need for war or agressive actions here, the Russians are only deployed to give the Crimeans a chance to hold their referendum.
That'll be why Russia has told Ukraine forces in Crimea to surrender or face attack then. The Ukraine forces being the ones in their own country don't forget. Russia are clearly taking aggressive action here in someone else's country. Whether part of that country sympathises with Russia or not, the Ukrainian troops there are still on their own soil.
what russia is doing in crimea is no different then the states in iraq, afghanistan, or any of the multitudes of countries they have invaded/liberated/whatever you want to call it, over the past 60 years or so...
the only real difference is that crimea actually asked the ruskies to come over,
it is the height of hypocrisy to see the states condemning russia for putting boots on foreign soil for less then legitimate reasons.
not to mention, ukraine is basically being run by a group of rebels, of which ~ half are neo nazis, so for them to call crimea's call for russias help "illegitimate" is the kettle calling the pot black.
Huh?
So... did Russia get UN approval yet?
BTW: UN authorized Iraq war. Afganistan war was due to 9/11.
That'll be why Russia has told Ukraine forces in Crimea to surrender or face attack then. The Ukraine forces being the ones in their own country don't forget. Russia are clearly taking aggressive action here in someone else's country. Whether part of that country sympathises with Russia or not, the Ukrainian troops there are still on their own soil.
Link please of the demand So far its nothing but casual stand off. Very strong opinion that the Russian Chain of Command and troops are under severe stern orders not to bolo up. You have 6K of Russian Marines and Paratroopers operation control of a 50 mile stretch of M17 from Simeferolsomething to Sevastapol.
edit
What other Russian Units have moved in across the border? Where were the beach invasion? The drop zones? Making it sound like an entire Corp of Russian military units has in Crimea
Could you please post the specific text of this status of force agreement that exists between the Ukraine and Russia?
I haven't read the specific text itself (couldn't find it online), but I've seen several summaries which all agreed on the more cogent points. If you want to investigate further, I believe the text itself is the 'Russia-Ukraine Military Base Agreement(1997).'
I'll make this simple. Ignoring your stretching of the status of force agreement past breaking point does the Crimea (not Ukraine, I am being very specific here) have the legal right to invite in a foreign military power? Yes or no.
Technically, no.
But that's kind of the point of everything I've posted so far. To make you realise, that actually we've reached the point where the listing/applying technicalities make the situation ridiculous. No, the Crimean Government does not technically have the power to invite in a foreign Government. But likewise, the Russian troop movements are not technically illegal provided a set of circumstances are met. The Kiev administration is also technically illegal.
In other words, what is technically or legally true is actually no longer relevant. Because applying those technicalities or legalities results into utter absurdities.
Also, this seems to be getting a little heated, so let me just say that whilst debating, I've been dealing with the statements, not you personally. If you don't want to discuss it anymore, I'll understand.
Both the UK and the USA have signed pacts where they pledge to defend the integrity of the Ukrainian territory in exchange for their nucular weapons. How are the USA and the UK planning to respond to this move? (Really curious here, our local "news" agencies aren't covering this angle and I'm laking the free time to investigate for myself).
PhantomViper wrote: Both the UK and the USA have signed pacts where they pledge to defend the integrity of the Ukrainian territory in exchange for their nucular weapons. How are the USA and the UK planning to respond to this move? (Really curious here, our local "news" agencies aren't covering this angle and I'm laking the free time to investigate for myself).
Don't worry, ours aren't either. I haven't even seen the pact mentioned in our media.
PhantomViper wrote: Both the UK and the USA have signed pacts where they pledge to defend the integrity of the Ukrainian territory in exchange for their nucular weapons. How are the USA and the UK planning to respond to this move?.
Judging by the news coverage, via a really big selfie.
Ketara wrote: I haven't read the specific text itself (couldn't find it online), but I've seen several summaries which all agreed on the more cogent points. If you want to investigate further, I believe the text itself is the 'Russia-Ukraine Military Base Agreement(1997).'
So no source, no link to any discussion, and I'm supposed to believe that this status of force agreement is so open ended. I hope you'll trust my obvious skepticism given your conduct thus far in stretching concepts well past their intended meaning for your own purposes.
But that's kind of the point of everything I've posted so far. To make you realise, that actually we've reached the point where the listing/applying technicalities make the situation ridiculous. No, the Crimean Government does not technically have the power to invite in a foreign Government. But likewise, the Russian troop movements are not technically illegal provided a set of circumstances are met. The Kiev administration is also technically illegal.
In other words, what is technically or legally true is actually no longer relevant. Because applying those technicalities or legalities results into utter absurdities.
Good. So we actually agree that Crimea had to standing to invite Russian forces into the country.
And stop conflating redeployment of troops between military bases and a military occupation. If it was a redeployment then Russian forces would move from one base to the nest, they would not be on the streets in the manner that they have been.
Ketara wrote: Also, this seems to be getting a little heated, so let me just say that whilst debating, I've been dealing with the statements, not you personally. If you don't want to discuss it anymore, I'll understand.
What makes you think that I would not want to continue a discussion with someone who willfully distorts arguments, stretches any point made past the point of credibility, and who actually agrees with the core of my argument yet insists on being contrary for the sake of being contrary?
So no source, no link to any discussion, and I'm supposed to believe that this status of force agreement is so open ended. I hope you'll trust my obvious skepticism given your conduct thus far in stretching concepts well past their intended meaning for your own purposes.
Feel free to try and find it for yourself...?
Regardless, I think you need to take a breather mate. You're getting waaay too personally involved in this now.
Good. So we actually agree that Crimea had to standing to invite Russian forces into the country.
And stop conflating redeployment of troops between military bases and a military occupation. If it was a redeployment then Russian forces would move from one base to the nest, they would not be on the streets in the manner that they have been.
No. I agree that yes, what you say can be regarded as technically and legally correct. But then many other absurdities also have to be regarded as technically and legally correct. Therefore I consistently regard the initial point over the Crimean Governments ability to invite in foreign troops as irrelevant and pointless in reality, in the exact same way that both you and I would regard the technicalities of the Russian troop movement agreement as being irrelevant and pointless to the situation on the ground.
If you wish to be inconsistent, and apply specific logic in only some applicable cases but not the others, then really I suppose that's your affair?
EDIT:-
What makes you think that I would not want to continue a discussion with someone who willfully distorts arguments, stretches any point made past the point of credibility, and who actually agrees with the core of my argument yet insists on being contrary for the sake of being contrary?
...no. I showed the inconsistencies in your statement by highlighting all the other absurdities it would logically lead on to. Which is what is commonly known in the trade as 'debating'.
PhantomViper wrote: Both the UK and the USA have signed pacts where they pledge to defend the integrity of the Ukrainian territory in exchange for their nucular weapons. How are the USA and the UK planning to respond to this move? (Really curious here, our local "news" agencies aren't covering this angle and I'm laking the free time to investigate for myself).
If history is any guide, we'll have Kerry make a Youtube video.
PhantomViper wrote: Both the UK and the USA have signed pacts where they pledge to defend the integrity of the Ukrainian territory in exchange for their nucular weapons. How are the USA and the UK planning to respond to this move? (Really curious here, our local "news" agencies aren't covering this angle and I'm laking the free time to investigate for myself).
If history is any guide, we'll have Kerry make a Youtube video.
You mean Kerry blame someone for making a Youtube video?
PhantomViper wrote: Both the UK and the USA have signed pacts where they pledge to defend the integrity of the Ukrainian territory in exchange for their nucular weapons. How are the USA and the UK planning to respond to this move? (Really curious here, our local "news" agencies aren't covering this angle and I'm laking the free time to investigate for myself).
Don't worry, ours aren't either. I haven't even seen the pact mentioned in our media.
No, it is true, but it happened in 1994. The West had pledged to maintain the territorial integrity of the Ukraine.
I beleive it is called the Budapest Memorandum or something? Not sure.
Just saying..How much of the Russian Black Sea Fleet is docked? How trigger happy are the Naval Commanders of the ship?
We already know Crimea going to go Russian. To me, Russia taking all precaution to hold "damage" down at all cost..this is Sevastopol Naval Station where half the of the base is split with Ukraine
PhantomViper wrote: Both the UK and the USA have signed pacts where they pledge to defend the integrity of the Ukrainian territory in exchange for their nucular weapons. How are the USA and the UK planning to respond to this move? (Really curious here, our local "news" agencies aren't covering this angle and I'm laking the free time to investigate for myself).
Don't worry, ours aren't either. I haven't even seen the pact mentioned in our media.
No, it is true, but it happened in 1994. The West had pledged to maintain the territorial integrity of the Ukraine.
I beleive it is called the Budapest Memorandum or something? Not sure.
That'll be why Russia has told Ukraine forces in Crimea to surrender or face attack then. The Ukraine forces being the ones in their own country don't forget. Russia are clearly taking aggressive action here in someone else's country. Whether part of that country sympathises with Russia or not, the Ukrainian troops there are still on their own soil.
Link please of the demand So far its nothing but casual stand off. Very strong opinion that the Russian Chain of Command and troops are under severe stern orders not to bolo up.
We all more or less pledged to maintain Ukraine's territorial independence in exchange for them disarming their nuclear capability.
I suppose what this really goes to show is that you can have all the Western friends you like, once you hand those nukes over, you're defenceless against the first larger country that wants to take a bite out of yours.
With regards to the bases, so long as they're not doing anything aggressive, Russia can just station a big group of Crimean self-defence guys around the bases, and leave them to it. They're most unlikely to come out and gun down their countrymen. So there's really no point in instigating a bloodbath for no good reason. It can only damage their cause at this stage.
djones520 wrote: It's possible i'm just looking in the wrong places though.
You're not. Virtually every reference I have seen to it in any web-based media outlet other than what you already cited has been an international one; the only exceptions are NRO referred to it twice and a throwaway line in a Washpo opinion piece that didn't expand on it in any way. It's a non-item, but more importantly, did you see what that one actress wore to the Oscars? Now that's a scandal.
western media certainly is "reporting" on lots of stuff, but the sources seem.. iffy,
"Media reports about an alleged Russian ultimatum made to the Ukrainian armed forces in Crimea are “total nonsense,” a spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry said.
He said that no ultimatum had been made to the Ukrainian forces, Interfax reports.
“We have become accustomed to the daily accusations by the Ukrainian media of carrying out some sort of military actions against our Ukrainian colleagues," Russian Black Sea Fleet representative said, adding that “those who want to pit us against each other in the Crimea won’t succeed.” " http://rt.com/news/russia-dismiss-ultimatum-ukraine-644/
so all the western papers are saying "russia has threatened military force"
while the eastern are saying the opposite.
somewhere in the middle, are people who realize that its literally now a fight between a brand new revolutionary government, with a large neo nazi following, vs people who want nothing to do with that, and see russia as legitimately protecting them.
And he didn't really say anything. Just the usual vague words. How typical...
The US used to have kick-ass Presidents... sadly, Obama isn't one of them... I would like to apologize to you, the Russian people, on behalf of my great nation, for the severe lack of badassery on the part of our President, but to be fair Putin sets the bar unbelievably high by doing things like piloting nuclear bombers and driving tanks. I must admit I am kind of jealous, though he is a bit too thugnificent and gangstalicious for my taste, also not a fan of his authoritarian leanings and his anti-gay/freedom agenda.
The Obama admin knows how to "nuance" things eh?
Says to something of the effect that Russian troops rolling into Ukraine an “uncontested arrival,” not an “invasion”…
*groan*
That treaty from 1994 kinda means both the US and the UK have to intervene... unless they don't an basically invalidate any other treaty they have ever made.
And therein lies the rub. We are, seemingly, treaty bound to defend Ukraine. The whole world is watching. We have similar treaties with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Arguably these treaties are part of the reason for the 'Pax Americana', as they have given the signatories cause to not arm themselves, and deterred would-be aggressors from doing the same (mostly). If the US fails to act here, then suddenly many (if not most/all) of those nations will no longer feel they are under the American umbrella, and they will start arming themselves. Likewise, would-be aggressors will feel less threatened by the risk of American intervention. I don't think I need to tell you what will happen if these states all begin military buildups, nor do I have to explain what a state like North Korea or Iran, whom we are barely keeping in check as it is, no longer feels as though the US is an existential threat to them... Gentlemen, this business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
Anyway, some good news for the Ukraine: Canada stands with them.
That awkward moment when Harper/Canada has bigger balls than Obama/America
Well, the bigger issue is that Crimea is largely sympathetic to the notion of Russian control. Kiev would likely do well to just let them have it, as they've had problems with political dissent on the peninsula for a long time. Pretty much since it was transferred to Ukrainian control in the 50's, and especially since the fall of the Soviet Union. This is demonstrated by the fact that it is an autonomous region under Ukrainian authority, rather than an explicit part of the Ukraine in the sense that the various provinces (extensions of Ukraine's unitary state) are.
I always figured that was more a result of Russian social/cultural beliefs about government structure than it was political. To illustrate, of the Russian Federations 83 federal subjects, there are 21 semi-autonomous republics, 4 autonomous territories (okrug), and 1 autonomous oblast.
What can you do? Send in the marines! Hell, it makes more sense invading a coastline with marines than landlocked Afghanistan!
That fights been brewing for a long time now...
Europe isn't about to cut off its power supplies just because Obama has a problem with Russia. Putin has no interest in photo opportunities with Obama, because he's never needed the Obama fairydust. And as he has the second most nukes in the world and the largest country in terms of landmass, military intimidation is not an option.
In other words, he's as far outside the sphere of American influence as it is possible to get. He is dependent on them for nothing whatsoever. It seems somewhat unfair to rag on Obama for 'being found wanting', when his options are essentially making tut tut noises, ignoring Putin, or declaring war. So basically, looking incompetent, looking weak, and committing suicide(of the political variety at a minimum).
I'd argue that during the Soviet years the Russians were even further out, yet Presidents then managed to keep them at least somewhat 'in line'. Look at Kennedy and the missile crisis. In any case, ever here of the Bosphorous? You know, its pretty much the one way in and out of the Black Sea for the Russian naval forces stationed at Sevastopol... I know US/Turkish relations aren't necessarily the best, but I'm sure Turkey could be persuaded to close the waterway to Russian military transit...
It's something of a uniquely American trait right now that Americans generally think that every single international situation calls for a US response, and that the US needs to have a 'side', and that if the American President doesn't take some sort of a stand, or it shows him off as being weak.
You mad, bro? I think you're totally just jealous.
Seaward wrote: The interim Government is a bunch of unelected thugs, and half of them are as corrupt as Yanukovych. America has no trade interests there, and it's nowhere near America geographically. What point is there in causing strife with Russia, when there's nothing to gain and plenty to lose? Other than just doing it 'to show Russia who's boss'. Which has never really worked particularly well.
Very narrow view, as I stated previously, this has a lot to do with the repercussions of failing to honor what is being called a 'defense pact'.
Your allies in Europe are not particularly fond of you and we are fine without you. So thanks for helping us out after World War 2, but we'd like to be good friends with Russia instead of having the US lead us into a new Cold War. And thanks to the EU, we really don't need the Americans for anything anymore.
I'll keep that in mind when it all falls apart for you... PS, brush up on your German and French.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The problem here is that Russia does not really view Ukraine as a sovereign state, and certainly not since its legitimate leaders have been overthrown in an extremist coup and there are ethnic Russians that need to be protected.
Well unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether or not Russia thinks Ukraine is a sovereign state or not, the fact of the matter is that it is.
The US army is still more than large enough after those reductions.
Large enough for what exactly?
For the Russians, protection of ethnic Russians in their former territory that is now taken over by hostile forces takes priority over everything else. That is how most Russians feel about it. And do not forget that the local authorities in the Ukraine actually asked the Russians to come over.
Also, in the eyes of most Russians, the Ukraine still belongs to Mother Russia.
So, by that logic, if the 'local authorities' in say... Kaliningrad were to ask the Germans to come over, you would be okay with it?
If a bunch of protestors seized the White House, chased the President out, assaulted all the members of Congress/Senate they didn't like, freed a number of corrupt ex-politicians to join them, and declared themselves the Government, would you regard them as the 'current regime'?
Current regime, yes. Legitimate government, no, but that doesn't mean I would want Canada, Mexico, or Cuba stepping in to something that is entirely a domestic matter.
If the population of those areas somehow were asking for Mexican/Canadian help, and Mexico/Canada somehow had a military capable of defeating the US one then yes.
It is essentially Texas again, but inverted.
So by that reasoning, it would be okay for the US to invade Mexico, considering there have been some requests by Mexican citizens for the US to intervene and aid them. While we're at it, how about Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Albania, and any of the other numerous nations that have pro-statehood political parties (however small and irrelevant they may be).
The US expend 7 times more in military than Russia. Your economy doesn't need a larger army.
Dollar value is not proportional to size/strength/capability. Russia is spending 1/7th the amount of money the US, but is in the process increasing the size of its air and naval forces with modern cutting edge technology, and modernizing its land forces with new anti-air systems, armored vehicles, artillery, etc. etc. Meanwhile, the US is spending 7 times more and receiving significantly less. The same analysis holds true with China. There is the argument that US tech is of better quality and higher capability, but this is largely a myth instigated during the 80s by imagery of rusting soviet naval vessels and aircraft and crumbling facilities, and propagated in the 90s by testing of export variants of Russian equipment (which was always known to be inferior to the actual Russian domestic variants, and even then the gap wasn't necessarily as big as we would have liked to have believed). Russia has spent the past decade modernizing, and while it may not always be on-par to ours, in some areas it exceeds our technology (helicopters and missiles especially), and in many cases its good enough. US equipment costs are horribly inflated and grossly overvalued, don't ever think that spending more means we're getting more proportionally.
But that won't happen will it. Remember the pundits before Desert Storm? All the talk of months of conflict, the US airpower greased the pride of Iraq without breaking a sweat.
Iraq and Russia are VERY different animals. Despite the fact that the equipment might look/sound the same, they aren't, and dont even get me started on the training/doctrine.
Same as Desert Storm, Air Superiority. The ex-soviet army is a backwards and antiquated rabble.
10 years ago, I would agree. Also, air superiority would be difficult to achieve with Russia's new S-400 AA systems coming online in greater numbers. We (at present) don't really have an answer to them, except possibly the F-22 which has no real means of performing the SEAD role. Growlers could (theoretically) get it done, but the Russians claim that their systems are like quadruple redundant against jamming...
And the US isn't by it's self, there are a number of extremely advanced armies sitting in Western Europe and a fair number of less advanced armies sat nearer to Russia with a vested interest in not going back to being puppets of an evil empire.
I wouldnt count on them for much, politically there isn't much support, and practically, while they are advanced and well trained, they have a focus on humanitarian/peacekeeping operations, not warfighting, its a very different animal.
Twenty years ago the entire nation was teetering on total collapse and the possibility of military insurrections. I know he's been throwing cash at it for a while, but most everything I've read suggests that it's still a corruption riddled, morale lacking and highly disorganized force
I would disagree. What I would say is that its variable. The modernization has come in 'waves', with the most visible and prestigious units getting all the shiny toys, etc. first, and the backwater/rear-elechon/second-line/reserve units not getting much til later. While that gap still exists now, the 'gap' has become much smaller, and the opposition forces US/western troops would be most likely to encounter would be the ones that have been modernized.
As to massed armour, mentioned by that amusing poster earlier, again, air superiority totally neutralizes that and we'd be seeing roads full of dead tanks soon enough, gutted by depleted uranium rounds and such.
Interestingly, the most recent budget proposal would scrap the entire A-10 fleet. So much for that.
Russia is a tough cookie when you hold it up to it's former conquests, it really doesn't rank up when you put it against the technological superiority of the West.
Myth.
It ranks beneath the US in terms of technological superiority, certainly. Then again, who doesn't?
It outstrips China on the other side of the fork however, and matches a good number of sophisticated European nations. I'd say we in the UK are ahead of them, as are certain aspects of the French military, but other than those exceptions, they maintain a decent parity, and are doing their best to catch up fast. I estimate another ten years, and they'll be level with the French/UK.
I'd place them on par or ahead of any country in Europe (depending on what specific area we're discussing) technologically, and behind only in training/doctrine. Their missile tech is superior, the French and Germans might have a leg up in (diesel-electric) submarine design, but there are inherent advantages to nuclear propulsion, Russian torpedo tech I think is superior (though I'm not well versed in it), aircraft design I'd say its close. The current generation of Russian fighters I'd say are slightly inferior to things such as the Eurofighter, Rafale, etc. but thats made up for by missile tech, I think the next generation of Russian aircraft will be a step up. Helicopter design is another close one, I think I have to give the edge to the Russians since their platforms tend to be more robust and survivable, as well as the fact that they are typically armed to the gills. Comms/Logistics equipment I think Europeans have a strong advantage in, and i think the most modern European AFV's have a big leg up over the current Russian equivalents, but if what I'm hearing of the 'next gen' systems is true, thats not going to be the case by the end of this decade (barring unforeseen circumstances). Naval-wise, its a tough call, Russia has some capable ships, but they aren't very well maintained, but theyve been buying up French warships to make up for their shortcomings in some areas. I'd have to give the advantage to NATO though for doctrine, not because of the US, but because of Scandinavia and Germany who have been building small, fast, and stealthy missile-boats that hit far-above their weight class and would, in theory, give even the US Navy a run for their money if we were trying to fight them in their backyard.
In any case, its irrelevant because of Russias not insignificant tactical nuclear arsenal and associated doctrine, which is something that the West doesn't really have much of an answer to anymore.
Anyway, point of all this: we could beat Russia in a fight (though we could never occupy it), but its not going to be the like the Gulf War, it would be bloody, violent, and there would be a lot of people dead on both sides.
America's air superiority isn't just number one, it's number one by a vast degree, it would own the skies in short order.
It would, but at a much greater cost than you realize.
Why wouldn't China want to defeat the US? It would dramatically enhance their prestige, give them an enormous economical boost and give them practical hegemony over the entire world.
The only thing stopping them is the fact that China is not yet strong enough to invade and defeat the US. But combined with Russia, who knows?
Thats the logical fallacy in every argument ever about a Sino-American war. China does not want to, nor does it need to, invade the US in order to defeat the US. Any war between the US and China would be a fight in China's backyard, which is what China is and has been preparing for technologically and doctrinally. The loss of an American aircraft carrier, something that isn't completely unreasonable, will be enough for China to assert dominance regionally. Considering all the resources that China has available in its back yard (aka its ever-expanding sphere of influence), China will effectively control the lions share of global trade, natural resources, raw material, etc. etc. effectively elevating it to the number one global economic power on Earth, and by virtue of the fact that it will be virtually untouchable defensively also the de facto military power on earth as well.
Unrealistic, i dont believe Ukraine really has the means of producing nuclear weapons, and they sure as gak won't be getting them from Russia or the US... the best they could muster i think would be to make a dirty bomb from the soil around Pripyat.
The nation persists, but the nation-state does not. Indeed, as I noted a few pages ago, Russia's move into Crimea is likely based on a lack of confidence that the present "government" will honor the Russian lease in Sevastopol.
Considering how much money Ukraine makes/doesn't spend (depending on how you want to look at it) by having that base there, I very much doubt they would have reneged on that lease... well... they wouldn't have, though the whole invasion thing probably wont sit well anymore...
Jihadin wrote: Hold one. I'm under the impression its Russian Marines from Sevastapol Naval Station being used. Took control of both airports and a comm center. One airport is near Sevastopol Naval Station itself and the other airport located near the intersection of two major highways of M17and M18 located at Simferpol. Pretty much keeping a logistical lifeline from both Airport to the Naval Station by Air. Under 50 miles. If so then that's pretty much it. Unless they roll across the Russian border into Crimea and literally drive down M17.
How I know? I can read a map from a military perspective
Simferpol is also the site of the Crimean parliament, aka, the Crimean capital, and as I understand it, there are Russian troops there too.
the ethnic Russians on the Crimea are genuinely afraid of the new government in Kiev.
"Genuinely afraid"? How, are the big bad Ukrainians going to come and slaughter all the poor little Russian speakers? Unless I'm mistaken, ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians have got along fairly well in Ukraine for the past 2 decades, and there certainly hasn't been any evidence of the predominantly Ukrainian/pro-Western Kiev governments of the past having done anything to give ethnic Russians cause to be 'legitimately afraid' of them.
It is curious the similarities with the American-Mexican war, a land grab started because a part of a weaker country secedes because internal conflict in the capital (and because Texas loves slavery) and then asks a stronger neighbor help.
Check your facts, you fought a civil war with Texas, Texas broke away, and became an independent nation, without American help. OVER a decade later, that now independent nation pursued annexation into the US (something that it had been favor of all along, and something which the US declined to do 10 years prior), and succeeded.
Anywho...
This situation has turned out to be far more interesting than I ever thought it would be, and did not... at all... end up the way I thought it would, and as such, I propose a new title:
Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Treesong. Its the Ukrainian ships docked in Sevastopol near Russian ships. Basically avoiding a shootout in harbor with Russian ships also there and also.
However, Interfax news agency later quoted a fleet spokesman who denied that any ultimatum had been issued.
Think about it Putin protecting Sevastopol Naval Station and keeping the logistical line open. Everything happening is aimed towards that. Already thought a land bridge existed with Russia in eastern Crimea I'm seeing there is not one or one capable to handle tonnage.
Edit
Dang..we need two brigades of these troops...total control of Crimea...with just two Brigades..
No. I agree that yes, what you say can be regarded as technically and legally correct. But then many other absurdities also have to be regarded as technically and legally correct. Therefore I consistently regard the initial point over the Crimean Governments ability to invite in foreign troops as irrelevant and pointless in reality, in the exact same way that you regard the technicalities of the Russian troop movement agreement as being irrelevant and pointless to the situation on the ground.
If you wish to be inconsistent, and apply specific logic in only some applicable cases but not the others, then really I suppose that's your affair?
Except you have yet to show that the status of force agreement states what you believe it does. Absent that Russia is the de facto aggressor, and had de facto invaded another country. So what we have is a proven fact (that Crimea cannot invite the Russian in), with an unproven assertion (that somehow occupying a foreign country is the same as moving troops between military bases).
Still, if you want to post comments that are absolutely without merit and lacking credit then I suppose that's your affair
Ketara wrote: ...no. I showed the inconsistencies in your statement by highlighting all the other absurdities it would logically lead on to. Which is what is commonly known in the trade as 'debating'.
You took a very specific set of comments in relation to a specific factual event, and extrapolated them far beyond their intended limits. That is what is commonly known in the trade as 'acting in bad faith'
PhantomViper wrote: Both the UK and the USA have signed pacts where they pledge to defend the integrity of the Ukrainian territory in exchange for their nucular weapons. How are the USA and the UK planning to respond to this move? (Really curious here, our local "news" agencies aren't covering this angle and I'm laking the free time to investigate for myself).
Russia going to come out on top. Whatever sanctions that sticks to Russia really not going to work because "buy Russian" pretty much is it unlike "Buy American" and he have a better track record of "rebuilding Nation" now...
Jihadin wrote: Russia going to come out on top. Whatever sanctions that sticks to Russia really not going to work because "buy Russian" pretty much is it unlike "Buy American" and he have a better track record of "rebuilding Nation" now...
I agree, mainly from the fact that Russia doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks about her actions. State interests first, screw everyone else.
Old bean, this is a discussion board for friendly debate. Considering you've done nothing less than accuse me in steady succession of 'distorting your arguments', 'acting in bad faith', and various other unsavoury things, I genuinely think you need to get a grip. You're actually not responding to a single thing I've said, or the main point I made, which was:-
I agree that yes, what you say can be regarded as technically and legally correct. But then many other absurdities also have to be regarded as technically and legally correct. Therefore I consistently regard the initial point over the Crimean Governments ability to invite in foreign troops as irrelevant and pointless in reality, in the exact same way that both you and I would regard the technicalities of the Russian troop movement agreement as being irrelevant and pointless to the situation on the ground.
If you don't care to engage with my primary point, that's fine. But the ad hominems don't really get you anywhere in polite debate.
For your future browsing pleasure/personal satisfaction on the agreement I mentioned earlier though, since it seems you needed me to google for you:-
30 March it seems the people are voting for their future. If Crimea military units not under lockdown are holding in place and letting two Brigades operate unhinder on a 50 mile stretch of M17 then we..as in US/EU/New Ukraine Government is in the wrong for trying to take aggressive action against Russia doing what we in the US military call "Force Protection".....makes you wonder how many military units not around the area of operation just sat back and watch. There are way more then just three military bases being mention here.
Jihadin wrote: 30 March it seems the people are voting for their future. If Crimea military units not under lockdown are holding in place and letting two Brigades operate unhinder on a 50 mile stretch of M17 then we..as in US/EU/New Ukraine Government is in the wrong for trying to take aggressive action against Russia doing what we in the US military call "Force Protection".....makes you wonder how many military units not around the area of operation just sat back and watch. There are way more then just three military bases being mention here.
With commanders defecting left and right, I'm not surprised their just sitting back and watching. What the hell else are they supposed to do? The government is in shambles, their CoC is in shambles, the best they can do is keep their bases secure and wait for a structure to be set up.
So far bloodless at that...
We should let the Dalai Lama know.
with my revolver!" Zombie Patton, from atop his Leopard II.
