What he's saying is that Russia sees any and all NATO expansion on their boarders as a threat to their national security (for obvious reasons).
They don't see NATO as a paper tiger like some on this board do, but rather as a serious threat to them.
So, once their puppet got deposed, they tried the same thing they always do in what they see as their break away provinces, they rolled in the army and set about conquering what they could, though for diplomatic reasons tried ot muddy the water until it was a fait accompli so that NATO did not directly intervene. This would have worked if Russia had stopped at Crimea, but they got greedy, probably at the prompting of GAZPROM and tried to grab for Eastern Ukraine too, spouting the old 'protecting a related ethnic minority from persecution' yarn and replacing the rebel leadership with their own pliable puppets. It's very similar to the ploy that Hitler used to great effect in Czechoslovakia when he annexed the Sudetenland.
Eastern Ukraine has a large amount of petrochemical resources under it, and a population that's largely of Russian decent. Or do you mean why do they see NATO as a threat?
If that's your question, it's 'Because Putin spent most of his life seeing NATO as a threat as a member of Soviet Intelligence.'
Grey Templar wrote: Russia being scared of NATO can mean only one of two things,
1) They are insanely insecure to be scared of the paper tiger.
2) Its just a convenient excuse to push back aggressively and expand.
The Russians know their boarders are indefensible. The entire point of the Soviet Union (and by extension the Warsaw pact) was to provide Russia buffer states loyal to them to be their meat shields. Putin wants those meat shields back because yes, they are this insecure. Russia was rocked by instability after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is the pendulum swinging the other way as people try and find security in the old way of doing things.
Grey Templar wrote: Russia being scared of NATO can mean only one of two things,
1) They are insanely insecure to be scared of the paper tiger.
2) Its just a convenient excuse to push back aggressively and expand.
The Russians know their boarders are indefensible. The entire point of the Soviet Union (and by extension the Warsaw pact) was to provide Russia buffer states loyal to them to be their meat shields. Putin wants those meat shields back because yes, they are this insecure. Russia was rocked by instability after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is the pendulum swinging the other way as people try and find security in the old way of doing things.
Russia has the greatest border defense in the history of mankind: Winter.
Natural barriers are useless if you don't actively defend them.
The Russian Winter might once have been a formidable barrier, back in the 40's, but today in the 21st century? Have modern military tactics and technology not advanced to the point where winter becomes irrelevant?
Which brings us back to the point about Russia's quite justified paranoia. The only effective defense for Russia's western border is defense in depth. That means meat shields buffer states. With NATO and the EU encroaching right up to Russia's own borders, Russia is bricking itself with the prospect of future invasion several decades in the future.
Which brings us back to the point about Russia's quite justified paranoia. The only effective defense for Russia's western border is defense in depth. That means meat shields buffer states. With NATO and the EU encroaching right up to Russia's own borders, Russia is bricking itself with the prospect of future invasion several decades in the future.
No country in either NATO (well, except the US) or the EU as ever invaded a foreign country. Why do you think that their paranoia is even remotely justified?
Which brings us back to the point about Russia's quite justified paranoia. The only effective defense for Russia's western border is defense in depth. That means meat shields buffer states. With NATO and the EU encroaching right up to Russia's own borders, Russia is bricking itself with the prospect of future invasion several decades in the future.
No country in either NATO (well, except the US) or the EU as ever invaded a foreign country. Why do you think that their paranoia is even remotely justified?
Pretty sure the UK went into Iraq alongside the US.
Which brings us back to the point about Russia's quite justified paranoia. The only effective defense for Russia's western border is defense in depth. That means meat shields buffer states. With NATO and the EU encroaching right up to Russia's own borders, Russia is bricking itself with the prospect of future invasion several decades in the future.
No country in either NATO (well, except the US) or the EU as ever invaded a foreign country. Why do you think that their paranoia is even remotely justified?
Iraq. Afghanistan. Kosovo/Serbia. Libya. Syria. Iraq again, and Ukraine. These are all countries that we have invaded, bombed or otherwise interfered in the capacity of our self appointed roles of World Policemen.
Meanwhile, the anti Russia military alliance NATO, which should have been disbanded when it's raison d'etre the Soviet Union crumbled, has been expanded to absorb many of the former Warsaw Pact states and is encroaching on the borders of Russia itself. As mentioned earlier, Instead of fostering democracy in the new Russian state, we turned a blind eye to if not outright colluded with the corrupt oligarchs and despots who took power.
Russia's paranoia regarding invasion goes back centuries all the way to Napoleon. Its been invaded countless times throughout i'ts history, Napoleon, the Crimean War, WW1, WW2...Russia's paranoia over invasion from the West is equivalent to France's historical paranoia over invasion from Germany. And Russia's renewed belligerence is largely a consequence of our own ineptitude. We treated them like we treated inter war Germany 1918-1933, with humiliation and contempt, and like Germany we are reaping the consequences now that a charismatic authoritarian leader has taken power with promises of restoring national pride and greatness.
Grey Templar wrote: Yup. Russia has been invaded twice, neither attempt was successful.
England, another country with a famed natural barrier has been invaded once. And it was successful.
Actually there were numerous invasions of England, unless Saxons and Vikings don't count. As several others have pointed out, russia has endured numerous, successful, invasions. Only Hitler and Napoleon failed, and both due to their own arrogance rather than any tactical acumen on the part of the Russians. (Russia was nearly bled white by both, as happened in WW1)
Iraq. Afghanistan. Kosovo/Serbia. Libya. Syria. Iraq again, and Ukraine. These are all countries that we have invaded, bombed or otherwise interfered in the capacity of our self appointed roles of World Policemen.
Iraq wasn't invaded in the first gulf war, Kosovo/Serbia, Libya and Syria certainly weren't invaded, much less Ukraine!
Meanwhile, the anti Russia military alliance NATO, which should have been disbanded when it's raison d'etre the Soviet Union crumbled, has been expanded to absorb many of the former Warsaw Pact states and is encroaching on the borders of Russia itself. As mentioned earlier, Instead of fostering democracy in the new Russian state, we turned a blind eye to if not outright colluded with the corrupt oligarchs and despots who took power.
If we had helped "fostering democracy in the new Russian state" then you would be here screaming that it was western interventionism... Russia is an independent nation and we shouldn't interfere with its politics but the west should just have barged in and interfered in its internal affairs?! Which one is it?
. And Russia's renewed belligerence is largely a consequence of our own ineptitude. We treated them like we treated inter war Germany 1918-1933, with humiliation and contempt, and like Germany we are reaping the consequences now that a charismatic authoritarian leader has taken power with promises of restoring national pride and greatness.
We did? I don't recall any crippling financial burdens caused by war compensations the Russia had to pay since the fall of the Soviet Union...
You have a very strange notion of facts and reality...
Which brings us back to the point about Russia's quite justified paranoia. The only effective defense for Russia's western border is defense in depth. That means meat shields buffer states. With NATO and the EU encroaching right up to Russia's own borders, Russia is bricking itself with the prospect of future invasion several decades in the future.
Why do you think that their paranoia is even remotely justified?
It can’t be justified. The problem with NATO according to Putin isn’t so much about the perceived threat of an NATO invasion; rather it has more to do with Putin wanting to secure Russia’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.
Land grapping wouldn’t have been a viable option for Putin if Ukraine and Georgia were a part of NATO, and that’s why the Russian government objects to any further eastward NATO expansion, because it’s inconvenient for them.
Which brings us back to the point about Russia's quite justified paranoia. The only effective defense for Russia's western border is defense in depth. That means meat shields buffer states. With NATO and the EU encroaching right up to Russia's own borders, Russia is bricking itself with the prospect of future invasion several decades in the future.
Why do you think that their paranoia is even remotely justified?
It can’t be justified. The problem with NATO according to Putin isn’t so much about the perceived threat of an NATO invasion; rather it has more to do with Putin wanting to secure Russia’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.
Land grapping wouldn’t have been a viable option for Putin if Ukraine and Georgia were a part of NATO, and that’s why the Russian government objects to any further eastward NATO expansion, because it’s inconvenient for them.
What I don't get is why Russia's started violating the airspace (and possibly the territorial waters) of neighboring non-NATO nations. Do they really think that will make those nations LESS likely to join NATO?
Anyway, I meant the 2nd war, not the first, and our current bombing campaign. Should have made that clear.
If we had helped "fostering democracy in the new Russian state" then you would be here screaming that it was western interventionism... Russia is an independent nation and we shouldn't interfere with its politics but the west should just have barged in and interfered in its internal affairs?! Which one is it?
Neither. You're making a Straw Man. Fostering democracy =/= Western Interventionism.
If we were serious about encouraging democracy, we'd have been slapping sanctions on corrupt Russian Oligarchs and despots decades ago. Instead, we were happy to take their money, sell them property, allow them to launder money via London banks and turned a blind eye to the corruption in Russia. Its only now, decades later after Russia has moved to block our attempts to extend our influence into Ukraine that we began to "care" about what happens in Russia.
You have a very strange notion of facts and reality...
Nope. I just don't buy the narrative that you believe in.
Both Russia and Britain have been invaded innumerable times. Overall, Russia has been saved by its size, Britain by it's geographic position (being in the middle of water).
EDIT: Russian Winter is a myth. Napoleon's campaign staled out before Winter started. It was the retreat that brutalized his army in the cold, not the advance. Same with Germany. Germany invaded Russia in the summer, and their advance halted by the time winter really set in. I.E. Russia is not saved by winter, Russia is saved by being too big.
I find it odd people constantly trout NATO as a paper tiger, while utterly missing that Russia's military, is probably even worse off. Barring a few elite and well maintained units, Russia's military is decrepit and rotting from the inside out. They can put on a show of force in a place like Ukraine or Georgia, but however Paper Tiger NATO may be, it's more that Tiger enough to pose a serious threat to Russia. And NATO is big enough at this point that it has the same advantages as Russia, namely that it's too big to be suitably conquered before the Russian Army falters and collapses.
^This is why NATO is reluctant to get involved, because they know a conflict right now would become a stalemate. Likewise, Russia is acting now because they know that NATO knows any conflict would become a stalemate. Russia played the gamble that with both sides knowing the outcome of a fight, the other side would sit back and let him have what he wanted.
Iraq. Afghanistan. Kosovo/Serbia. Libya. Syria. Iraq again, and Ukraine. These are all countries that we have invaded, bombed or otherwise interfered in the capacity of our self appointed roles of World Policemen.
Iraq wasn't invaded in the first gulf war, Kosovo/Serbia, Libya and Syria certainly weren't invaded, much less Ukraine!
Strange my brother could see Bagdad through his cab window, Before they were told to turn back.
Grey Templar wrote: Russia being scared of NATO can mean only one of two things,
1) They are insanely insecure to be scared of the paper tiger.
2) Its just a convenient excuse to push back aggressively and expand.
Option #3: Both and its a way to keep the population in line despite a craptacular economy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Yup. Russia has been invaded twice, neither attempt was successful.
England, another country with a famed natural barrier has been invaded once. And it was successful.
I would say:
*Angry Germans 1, Romans and Celts 0 Don't make me go all seaxe on your ass!
*Angry Swedes speaking Swedish-Blonds rule, burnettes drool (blood)
*Angry Swedes speaking French-Curse you Normandy - we'll get back at you in 878 years!
*French speaking French (Middle Ages). Seriously? You're French...
*Scots-Brit victory Bad Teeth 1 scary hairy legs 0
*Spanish-Kamikaze and British fire boats for Da Win
*Dutch-up the Thames shouting UP YOURS Steenking English Dutch win.
*BUffalo Bill and his Wild West Show. Sitting Bull 1 Queen Victoria 0
Russians
*Swedes (again with the Swedes! Seriously? )
*Mongols - aka the great face plant.
*Fins-another historical what? moment
*Poles (I think)
*Liberty! Egalitie! Fraternitie! Oh crap Winter run away! Bonaparte
*Crimean War-French, Brits vs. Russians vs. Turks WTF????
*Japanese. I This time with Battleships-Japan wins
*Operation Archangel - aka lets all get real cold. No one wins
*Japanese II. This Time we have Zhukov and massed artillery-USSR wins
*German race for the Volga horribly goes wrong
*Jeans invasion of the 60s. Levi wins.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile, the anti Russia military alliance NATO, which should have been disbanded when it's raison d'etre the Soviet Union crumbled, has been expanded to absorb many of the former Warsaw Pact states and is encroaching on the borders of Russia itself. As mentioned earlier, Instead of fostering democracy in the new Russian state, we turned a blind eye to if not outright colluded with the corrupt oligarchs and despots who took power.
Agreed, but Frazzled Universal theory of Immortal Bureaucracy holds here very well.
As much as I think of Putin as an appalling despot, I think making the Ukraine part of NATO is an incredible bad idea.
We're currently remembering the centenary of the Great War; a war that escalated far beyond the original issues due to mutual protection pacts. Yet for some reason people are citing the opportunity for collective defence agreements (such as NATO) as somehow making a war within Europe less likely.
It's important to set one thing straight; no-one wants a war with Russia, and the discussion of 'invading' such a country (or them invading us) is absolutely bat-gak insane. But, sabre rattling and 'standing shoulder to shoulder' as our esteemed politicians like to quote, just increases the potential for a mistake to be made (it doesn't have to be intentional), and for it to make it far more difficult for either side to back down once the first bodies are being zipped up into bags. I honestly hope things continue as they are, and the UK at least restricts its condemnation to stopping Russian diplomats from buying Jaguars on their credit cards and having them shipped back to Moscow - it needs to be kept at 'handbags at dawn' level, as far as I'm concerned, as I honestly don't think Russia has any 'empire building' in mind beyond re-patriation of Russians living the wrong side of borders, and casting a shadow over the countries that used to lie under the Iron Curtain.
Pacific wrote: As much as I think of Putin as an appalling despot, I think making the Ukraine part of NATO is an incredible bad idea.
We're currently remembering the centenary of the Great War; a war that escalated far beyond the original issues due to mutual protection pacts. Yet for some reason people are citing the opportunity for collective defence agreements (such as NATO) as somehow making a war within Europe less likely.
It's important to set one thing straight; no-one wants a war with Russia, and the discussion of 'invading' such a country (or them invading us) is absolutely bat-gak insane. But, sabre rattling and 'standing shoulder to shoulder' as our esteemed politicians like to quote, just increases the potential for a mistake to be made (it doesn't have to be intentional), and for it to make it far more difficult for either side to back down once the first bodies are being zipped up into bags.
Exalted.
This is exactly my opinion. I don't to risk WW3 for the sake of Ukraine and our Politicians' ego.
This is exactly my opinion. I don't to risk WW3 for the sake of Ukraine and our Politicians' ego.
We risk WW3 every day just for the egos. At least if the whole place went to hell in a handbasket over the Ukraine, we could say there was a reason.
Dunno about England, but several NATO members have recently kicked out Russia's ambassadors and some have had the act reciprocated by Russia for various reasons.
At the rate Vladamir's going, Finland will soon have a terrible famine that Russia will have to send their army in to distribute aid supplies.
Which brings us back to the point about Russia's quite justified paranoia. The only effective defense for Russia's western border is defense in depth. That means meat shields buffer states. With NATO and the EU encroaching right up to Russia's own borders, Russia is bricking itself with the prospect of future invasion several decades in the future.
No country in either NATO (well, except the US) or the EU as ever invaded a foreign country. Why do you think that their paranoia is even remotely justified?
Iraq. Afghanistan. Kosovo/Serbia. Libya. Syria. Iraq again, and Ukraine. These are all countries that we have invaded, bombed or otherwise interfered in the capacity of our self appointed roles of World Policemen.
Meanwhile, the anti Russia military alliance NATO, which should have been disbanded when it's raison d'etre the Soviet Union crumbled, has been expanded to absorb many of the former Warsaw Pact states and is encroaching on the borders of Russia itself. As mentioned earlier, Instead of fostering democracy in the new Russian state, we turned a blind eye to if not outright colluded with the corrupt oligarchs and despots who took power.
Couldn't have said it better. Some people here say NATO is a paper tiger, but that is not how it seems to the Russians.
They do not realise what a huge shock the NATO invasion of Serbia (Russia's staunch ally for centuries) was for Russia.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Russia's paranoia regarding invasion goes back centuries all the way to Napoleon. Its been invaded countless times throughout i'ts history, Napoleon, the Crimean War, WW1, WW2...Russia's paranoia over invasion from the West is equivalent to France's historical paranoia over invasion from Germany. And Russia's renewed belligerence is largely a consequence of our own ineptitude. We treated them like we treated inter war Germany 1918-1933, with humiliation and contempt, and like Germany we are reaping the consequences now that a charismatic authoritarian leader has taken power with promises of restoring national pride and greatness.
It actually goes back much further. Russia has been invaded by the Teutonic Knights (multiple times), the Lithuanians, the Swedes (multiple times), and the Poles (multiple times, once they captured Moscow) before Napoleon. From the East and South, Russia has been repeatedly invaded by Mongols, Tatars and Turks. For most of its history, Russia has been invaded on average about once every generation (not to mention the continuous smaller raids). It is only after Russia expanded and conquered many buffer areas that the invasions and raids became less. So yes, Russia has become really paranoid about foreign incursions. This historical trauma is a large factor in why Russia sees NATO as such a large existential threat.
In the minds of many, NATO is not just a threat to Russian political interests, it is a threat to Russian civilisation as a whole. NATO wants to subjugate Russian people and destroy traditional Russian communalistic culture and replace it with decadent consumerist American culture. This myth has originates from and was very prevalent in Soviet propaganda and it has now made a return in modern Russian mass media. The clash between Russia and the West is not just a political struggle, it is a cultural struggle, a clash of civilisations. This is also why we see the Russian government cracking down on organisations that receive funding from the West and media with pro-Western viewpoints. Those are seen as subversive attempts to destroy Russian culture from inside out.
It is a huge load of gak of course, but many Russians, especially the large group that never got over the Fall of the Soviet Union and the lower educated masses believe this myth. Putin and other politicians, rather than discouraging it, reinforce it and cater to it, thus guaranteeing lots of votes for them.
Cossacks to help Moscow police maintain public order in recreation zones, in areas around churches and monasteries
Moscow, November 28, Interfax - A team of Cossack vigilantes has been set up in Moscow to help police provide public order and is to go on duty for the first time at the Kuzminki Park on December 6, a spokesperson for the Moscow Department for inter-regional cooperation, national policy and relations with religious organizations told Interfax.
"The Cossack vigilantes will be on Moscow streets along with police officers. They will conduct joint patrol in order to provide public order in wooded park areas, summer and winter recreation zones, and in areas around Orthodox churches and monasteries," the spokesperson said.
Cossack patrol teams will also provide public order during major entertainment shows and religious events. The specialized Cossack team will be operating in accordance with the Russian laws, the spokesperson said.
The Central Cossack Army's Military Cossack Society has recommended that the Cossack team recruit Russian citizens aged 18 and above, residing in Moscow and the Moscow region, who have volunteered to take part in vigilante activities, and whose integrity, health and physical fitness make them capable of performing the duties of a vigilante, the spokesperson said.
Cossacks to help Moscow police maintain public order in recreation zones, in areas around churches and monasteries
Moscow, November 28, Interfax - A team of Cossack vigilantes has been set up in Moscow to help police provide public order and is to go on duty for the first time at the Kuzminki Park on December 6, a spokesperson for the Moscow Department for inter-regional cooperation, national policy and relations with religious organizations told Interfax.
"The Cossack vigilantes will be on Moscow streets along with police officers. They will conduct joint patrol in order to provide public order in wooded park areas, summer and winter recreation zones, and in areas around Orthodox churches and monasteries," the spokesperson said.
Cossack patrol teams will also provide public order during major entertainment shows and religious events. The specialized Cossack team will be operating in accordance with the Russian laws, the spokesperson said.
The Central Cossack Army's Military Cossack Society has recommended that the Cossack team recruit Russian citizens aged 18 and above, residing in Moscow and the Moscow region, who have volunteered to take part in vigilante activities, and whose integrity, health and physical fitness make them capable of performing the duties of a vigilante, the spokesperson said.
Bodes well ....
It's probably an issue of poor translation. I'm guessing militia might be a better description than vigilantes.
Grey Templar wrote: Yup. Russia has been invaded twice, neither attempt was successful.
England, another country with a famed natural barrier has been invaded once. And it was successful.
Actually there were numerous invasions of England, unless Saxons and Vikings don't count. As several others have pointed out, russia has endured numerous, successful, invasions. Only Hitler and Napoleon failed, and both due to their own arrogance rather than any tactical acumen on the part of the Russians. (Russia was nearly bled white by both, as happened in WW1)
Saxons and Vikings do not count because,
1) When the Saxons came it was a migration, not an invasion. They weren't conquering a political entity like when William landed and there was no organized opposition.
2) The Vikings were raiding and migrating. No hostile take over of a political entity. Just small groups taking small bits.
2) The Vikings were raiding and migrating. No hostile take over of a political entity. Just small groups taking small bits.
Also, to a very large degree, the Vikings who settled various parts of the world assimilated themselves into the existing society (as the case was for Normandy in France), or populated barren rocks (as in the case of Iceland)
Grey Templar wrote: Yup. Russia has been invaded twice, neither attempt was successful.
England, another country with a famed natural barrier has been invaded once. And it was successful.
Actually there were numerous invasions of England, unless Saxons and Vikings don't count. As several others have pointed out, russia has endured numerous, successful, invasions. Only Hitler and Napoleon failed, and both due to their own arrogance rather than any tactical acumen on the part of the Russians. (Russia was nearly bled white by both, as happened in WW1)
When the Saxons, Jutes and Angles invaded Britannia, England didn't exist as a nation or even as a word. It was they who gave the region we now know as England it's name (Angles - ENGland, Angles and Saxons - Anglo-Saxons).
And when the Vikings began their raids and invasions, England still did not exist as a unified nation state, it was merely a name for the lands occupied by the various Anglo Saxon people's and warring Kingdoms. The Vikings conquered individual Anglo Saxon kingdoms piecemeal.
So no, the Saxons and Vikings do not count. Except for the late Viking invasions of the 11th century, when England did exist.
Invading a country that did not yet exist would quite be a feat of time travel.
1) When the Saxons came it was a migration, not an invasion. They weren't conquering a political entity like when William landed and there was no organized opposition.
The natives disagree.
2) The Vikings were raiding and migrating. No hostile take over of a political entity. Just small groups taking small bits.
Er check your history again. It started that way. The the biker gangs...er VIkings...got greedy.
I seem to recall their high point was called the Battle of Mons Badonicus.
He might want to consult De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae or Historia Brittonum. Possibly Annales Cambriae. Might want to look up a certain dux bellorum named 'Artorius'.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Mexico install something similar recently in order to fight the drug cartels. As it stands though, yes this is just another way of having more boots on the ground for the Kremlin. However IIRC similar groups are already in place about Russia and have been for a good while. I mean just from reading novels set about the area police units and militia seem to be interchangeable. Cossacks though...Ah, yeah, not a high score in public relations when it comes to certain groups (youknow, the ones which the Party has spent the last while putting laws in place to discriminate against).
Hmn, its just surprising how things could have taken this course, but well looking at history the whole rise of Putin's just checking off the boxes. Give it fifty years and some historian will cite a bunch of tell tale signs that things over the past twenty years would have led us here. =P
Putin vows that West will never destroy resurgent Russia
President Vladimir Putin has portrayed Russia as an invincible nation beset by foreign foes intent on weakening and even destroying it, in a combative speech that suggested he would not bow to Western pressure over the Ukraine crisis.
In an annual state-of-the-nation address, Mr Putin claimed the West had wanted to see his country dissolve in bloody chaos like Yugoslavia, but would suffer defeat like Adolf Hitler’s Germany if it challenged Russia militarily.
He also said the West used the Ukraine conflict and his country’s “reunification” with Crimea as pretexts to slap sanctions on a resurgent Russia, and suggested the sharp fall in the rouble’s value was also part of foreign scheming against Moscow.
In Ukraine, meanwhile, President Petro Poroshenko announced that government forces would halt fighting in eastern regions next Tuesday, as long as Russian-backed separatists did the same. A longer ceasefire could follow if the first day is successful.
Mr Putin spoke on Thursday in the Kremlin before members of Russia’s parliament as, far to the south in Chechnya, at least 10 police officers and 10 rebels were killed in the worst recent fighting in the region.
Denouncing the West for backing Ukraine’s revolution, Mr Putin said he had taken control of Crimea because it had “invaluable civilisational and even sacred meaning for Russia, like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for followers of Islam and Judaism.”
It was in Crimea that Prince Vladimir the Great was baptised in 988, accepting Christianity as the faith of the eastern Slavs, and hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers died there in the Crimean and second World Wars. Mr Putin said that if the “Crimean spring” had not taken place, the West “would have come up with another reason to contain Russia’s growing capabilities”.
“
The policy of containment was not invented yesterday … every time anyone just thinks that Russia has become strong and independent, such instruments are applied immediately.”
“There is no doubt they would have loved to see the Yugoslavia scenario of collapse and dismemberment for us – with all the tragic consequences it would have for the peoples of Russia. This has not happened. We did not allow it,” Mr Putin said.
“Hitler also failed when, with his hateful ideas, he was going to destroy Russia, throw us back behind the Urals. Everyone should remember how it ended.”
In his hour-long speech, Mr Putin emphasised that Russia did not seek confrontation or isolation, but said it would not be intimidated into changing course, and would continue to strengthen and to seek out new international partners.
Sinking oil prices, uncertainty caused by the Ukraine crisis and a tightening sanctions regime on Russia are starting to take their toll on its economy, accelerating capital flight and wiping nearly 40 percent off the rouble’s value.
Mr Putin ordered Russia’s government and central bank to take tough action against currency “speculators”, while promising those who returned their capital to Russia that no questions would be asked by the police or tax authorities.
Proposing his “amnesty”, Mr Putin said: “We all understand that the origins of money can be different, that it was earned and obtained in various ways, but I am confident that the offshore page in our economy’s history … should be closed.”
“The difficulties we are facing also create new possibilities for us,” he added.
“We are ready to meet any challenge of the times, and win.”
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, said in Switzerland: “It is not our design or desire that we see a Russia isolated through its own actions. Moscow could rebuild trust and relationships if it simply helps to calm turbulent waters” in Ukraine.
Be prepared for hard times. That was one message for Russians from President Vladimir Putin in his state-of-the nation address to parliament. He urged self-reliance with the nation gripped in an economic chill.
Figures from the Federal Statistics Service in Moscow show inflation accelerated more than economists predicted reaching the fastest pace since June 2011. Consumer prices surged 9.1 percent from a year earlier in November compared with 8.3 percent in October.
The president announced a range of measures including what one commentator referred to as a remarkable call for a one off amnesty.
“I propose a full amnesty for capitals returning to Russia. It means that if a person legalizes his capital and property in Russia he will get firm guarantees that he will not be pursued or asked about the source of revenue, he will not be brought to justice or face taxation issues. Let us do it now but only once,” Putin told parliament.
Russians may have been impressed investors were not. The rouble weakened again, by mid-afternoon it was 1.6 percent lower on the day against the dollar. Over the past year it has lost around 40 percent of its value against the dollar.
Falling oil prices have hit the country hardest and in an effort to boost the economy Putin announced a four-year freeze on tax rates to help businesses. He predicted budget cuts of at least 5 percent over the next three years.
A Town Called Malus wrote: And Russia is determined to cling to its status as a "great power" despite never really being one to begin with.
There was no way Russia could have "won" the Cold War. It's economy couldn't sustain the spending required to keep pace with the post-WW2 US.
To be fair, the US economy couldn't really sustain the spending required to keep pace with the post-WW2 US either. Theres a reason why our economy is in shambles right now, and that reason goes a lot further back than Dubya or Clintons presidencies. The simple truth of the matter is that both Russia and the US were playing an economic game of chicken, Russia blinked first.
Grey Templar wrote: Yup. Russia has been invaded twice, neither attempt was successful.
England, another country with a famed natural barrier has been invaded once. And it was successful.
Actually there were numerous invasions of England, unless Saxons and Vikings don't count. As several others have pointed out, russia has endured numerous, successful, invasions. Only Hitler and Napoleon failed, and both due to their own arrogance rather than any tactical acumen on the part of the Russians. (Russia was nearly bled white by both, as happened in WW1)
Russia has been invaded unsuccesfully a lot more than twice. Disregarding the Crimean War (as the aim there was not to take territory), the last invasion of Russia that was succesful was the Polish invasion during the Time of Troubles.
Also, blaming the defeats of Hitler and Napoleon entirely on their egos displays ignorance of history. In both wars the Russians had great strategists such as Kutuzov and Zhukov and in both wars they outmanoeuvred the invaders by using Russia's vast size to slowly bleed them to death. Russia's victory in both wars was more due to Russia's size, harsh environment and tenacity of the Russian people than due to an arrogant leader on the other side. Russia had plenty of arrogant leaders itself.
And speaking of invasions of Britain, how come everyone always forgets about the latest and most succesful of them all, when the Dutch invaded and conquered Britain with a fleet twice the size of the Armada, put their leader on the British throne and pacified Ireland all with only minor effort and casualties? Everyone always forgets the Glorious Revolution.
Iron_Captain wrote: And speaking of invasions of Britain, how come everyone always forgets about the latest and most succesful of them all, when the Dutch invaded and conquered Britain with a fleet twice the size of the Armada, put their leader on the British throne and pacified Ireland all with only minor effort and casualties? Everyone always forgets the Glorious Revolution.
Doesn't count because we consented to it. ...
Well... us English did. The Scots and Irish weren't too happy about it.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia has been invaded unsuccesfully a lot more than twice. Disregarding the Crimean War (as the aim there was not to take territory), the last invasion of Russia that was successful was the Polish invasion during the Time of Troubles.
Also, blaming the defeats of Hitler and Napoleon entirely on their egos displays ignorance of history.
So, you're saying that Napoleon refusing to finish off the mauled Russian army with his fresh reserves at Borodino when Kutuzov fumbled the withdrawal and assuming that Russia would surrender just because he occupied Moscow did not lose the war for him? and that Hitler forcing his generals to wait in plain sight so the Russians could reenforce to their hearts content at Kursk, or refuse to allow them to draw the Russians into a war of maneuver against the Germans, one they could have likely won? (Remember that the Russian army, while more numerous, was not yet as mobile as it was later in the war and the Germans had for all intents and purposes absolute air superiority..)
And *I'M* the one ignorant of History?
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia's victory in both wars was more due to Russia's size, harsh environment and tenacity of the Russian people than due to an arrogant leader on the other side.
You do realize that not planning for those things was arrogance, right? Napoleon assuming it would be all over by Winter. Hitler by not playing to the existing divisions in Russia at the time. Most of western Russia would have torn itself apart before the Nazis ever got there if they had played it right.
Well... us English did. The Scots and Irish weren't too happy about it.
I seem to recall the Irish's objections to english rule in general rolled on for about 500 years and the casualties on all sides were quite heavy, actually. If you only want to start with William of Orange and Mary of England (thus, not an invasion, but a usurpation, since Mary was in line for the throne) the Jacobite rebellions were um, quite long, and bloody, finally coming to a military end with Bonnie Prince Charlie at the Battle of Culloden.
Well... us English did. The Scots and Irish weren't too happy about it.
I seem to recall the Irish's objections to english rule in general rolled on for about 500 years and the casualties on all sides were quite heavy, actually. If you only want to start with William of Orange and Mary of England (thus, not an invasion, but a usurpation, since Mary was in line for the throne) the Jacobite rebellions were um, quite long, and bloody, finally coming to a military end with Bonnie Prince Charlie at the Battle of Culloden.
Well yes, thats what I said. Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me?
Also from the same source
www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/the-west-doesn-t-understand-russians/512677.html
Russians love to criticize themselves, the authorities and their hulking, clumsy state, but they hate it when outsiders do it. Perhaps that is wrong: Maybe outsiders are naturally more objective. But right or wrong, that's how they are, and what Russians hate most of all is when foreign powers pressure them with force. That is the best way to mobilize Russians, to compel them to unite in order to fight off the opponent.
And finally, while Westerners are accustomed to operating within the framework of clearly defined laws, Russians are more attuned to the idea of justice. That is why most Russians care little about arguments that Moscow annexed Crimea in violation of international law.
Russian diplomats and politicians, by virtue of their job descriptions, are prepared to debate that issue, but the overwhelming majority of Russians would simply assert that the annexation restored historical justice. Like Cicero, they hold that whatever is most fair is also most right.
This is why the sanctions are so ineffective against the Russian character and mentality. If the aim of the sanctions is to force Russia to change its domestic and foreign policy, they will not succeed. If the aim is to weaken President Vladimir Putin's position at home, they will also fail. Only when the Russian people themselves decide that they are fed up with Putin will his rule come to an end — but not before, and not due to any pressure from the West.
loki old fart wrote: And finally, while Westerners are accustomed to operating within the framework of clearly defined laws, Russians are more attuned to the idea of justice.
Wow. That's... disturbing, to say the least. If there is no rule of law, how does one decide what is just or fair? Who is the arbiter?
loki old fart wrote: And finally, while Westerners are accustomed to operating within the framework of clearly defined laws, Russians are more attuned to the idea of justice.
Wow. That's... disturbing, to say the least. If there is no rule of law, how does one decide what is just or fair? Who is the arbiter?
I think the russian people see it as, laws are made by man, and can be fethed up. justice is justice, and thats just that.
The ruling classes make up the laws. And the rest put up with them. "The law prosecutes rich and poor for sleeping under bridges" How many rich people have to sleep under bridges.
And speaking of invasions of Britain, how come everyone always forgets about the latest and most succesful of them all, when the Dutch invaded and conquered Britain with a fleet twice the size of the Armada, put their leader on the British throne and pacified Ireland all with only minor effort and casualties? Everyone always forgets the Glorious Revolution.
The reason people tend to forget about William is because when he landed, he came equipped with twice as many arms as he had actual soldiers, so he could equip the British revolutionaries. If a good chunk of the country hadn't sided with William, and James' army hadn't been riven with traitors and deserters as a result, William would have been crushed. He only landed with 15,000 men.
In other words, whilst we lost that war, we won it too. Which makes it somewhat ambiguous as far as the phrase 'invasion' goes; when half your army is local, it's not so much an invasion as it is an insurrection backed by foreign powers.
loki old fart wrote: And finally, while Westerners are accustomed to operating within the framework of clearly defined laws, Russians are more attuned to the idea of justice.
Wow. That's... disturbing, to say the least. If there is no rule of law, how does one decide what is just or fair? Who is the arbiter?
More importantly, how exaclty, is stealing the Crimea justice?
loki old fart wrote: And finally, while Westerners are accustomed to operating within the framework of clearly defined laws, Russians are more attuned to the idea of justice.
Wow. That's... disturbing, to say the least. If there is no rule of law, how does one decide what is just or fair? Who is the arbiter?
More importantly, how exaclty, is stealing the Crimea justice?
Because it feels like justice. It's all about how it feels. It's like "truthiness".
Ketara wrote: Which makes it somewhat ambiguous as far as the phrase 'invasion' goes; when half your army is local, it's not so much an invasion as it is an insurrection backed by foreign powers.
The fact his wife was next in line after James also helped.
Ketara wrote: [...]Which makes it somewhat ambiguous as far as the phrase 'invasion' goes; when half your army is local, it's not so much an invasion as it is an insurrection backed by foreign powers.
Huh. Reminds me of a certain Eastern European country.
Ketara wrote: [...]Which makes it somewhat ambiguous as far as the phrase 'invasion' goes; when half your army is local, it's not so much an invasion as it is an insurrection backed by foreign powers.
Huh. Reminds me of a certain Eastern European country.
With regards to Ukraine, the ratio of Russian nationals to Ukrainian in their little mob squads is somewhat more one sided. I read somewhere that for every over-patriotic Eastern Ukrainian, there are about ten Russian nationals, many with military experience. I don't know how accurate that is, but it would not surprise me.
Having said that, general sentiment over there is anti-Kiev enough, and Russia has only sent in such token forces unofficially, that even now I'd hesitate to call it an invasion. If the Kiev administration had been legal at the time things had kicked off, with a firm grip on power, Russia's token forces would have been clubbed to death much like baby seal facing a Canadian on a Greenpeace site.
Hypothetical question: If a government is no longer in a state of being due to being violently removed, does a nation still exist to invade?
At the time everything kicked off, the Kiev administration did not even control the military, let alone the tax gathering apparatus or police forces. They were a faction with the potential for government, as opposed to an actual government. Unlike say, Nigeria or Syria (Or indeed, James above), which still have the original governments engulfed in a civil war, Yanukovych's government had completely ceased to exist, and no faction had yet succeeded it, in legality or in actuality.
Pretty sure if a foreign power, like China, sent a token force of armed troops into America for example it would be seen as an invasion. Regardless of the state of the Goverment. Sadly Ketera after everything that's happened you will not stop justifying Russia's actions.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Pretty sure if a foreign power, like China, sent a token force of armed troops into America for example it would be seen as an invasion. Regardless of the state of the Goverment. Sadly Ketera after everything that's happened you will not stop justifying Russia's actions.
I think a better analogy would be saying that PRC sent a token force into Chinatown in San Francisco to quell riots in the area. The rest of the world, and especially the rest of the US would certainly see it as an invasion, regardless of intent.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Pretty sure if a foreign power, like China, sent a token force of armed troops into America for example it would be seen as an invasion. Regardless of the state of the Goverment. Sadly Ketera after everything that's happened you will not stop justifying Russia's actions.
I think a better analogy would be saying that PRC sent a token force into Chinatown in San Francisco to quell riots in the area. The rest of the world, and especially the rest of the US would certainly see it as an invasion, regardless of intent.
And also annex San Francisco into the PRC for the good of America.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Pretty sure if a foreign power, like China, sent a token force of armed troops into America for example it would be seen as an invasion. Regardless of the state of the Goverment. Sadly Ketera after everything that's happened you will not stop justifying Russia's actions.
Ketara's by no means defending Russia.
He's just pointing out that the situations nowhere near as black and white as you think it is.
Hypothetical question: If a government is no longer in a state of being due to being violently removed, does a nation still exist to invade?
Under international law, the answer is yes, surprisingly. The state of a nation's internal political situation is not factored in determining if a country has been invaded by a foreign power or not.
The US Invasion of Somalia is an example of this.
To be blunt, it's a very flimsy pretext for a land grab. Particularly when spouting that old chestnut about defending an ethnic minority.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Pretty sure if a foreign power, like China, sent a token force of armed troops into America for example it would be seen as an invasion. Regardless of the state of the Goverment. Sadly Ketera after everything that's happened you will not stop justifying Russia's actions.
Pardon? I'm not justifying anything, I was merely musing about political/international definitions. Ukraine is almost irrelevant to the hypothetical.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:That's the great thing about borders. They're like some kind of clearly defined line you don't cross.
Borders are defined, drawn, and redrawn across most of Europe all the time. Most of the nations have yet to meet their first century in their current incarnation. Britain did an excellent job of demonstrating how 'borders' are vastly mutable when they broke up their Empire.
Hypothetical question: If a government is no longer in a state of being due to being violently removed, does a nation still exist to invade?
Under international law, the answer is yes, surprisingly. The state of a nation's internal political situation is not factored in determining if a country has been invaded by a foreign power or not.
The US Invasion of Somalia is an example of this.
To be blunt, it's a very flimsy pretext for a land grab. Particularly when spouting that old chestnut about defending an ethnic minority.
Which international law is that? (genuinely curious) Is it the UN? And is the definition of a 'nation' directly linked to the previous incarnation of government, however bad it might be?
If so, where does that leave IS? They're half invaders, half locals. But they don't originate from the government of any neighbouring country. The same for Boko Haram in Nigeria. But if the Government has ceased to have effective control over a territory, and a local faction is backed by a foreign power and has taken control (for example, Russia and the Trans-Dniester right now), does that count as an invasion yet?
On the flip side of the coin, if a nation breaks up, consolidates into a number of different countries, and then half of those break up and re-consolidate within a short timespan, is it invasion when one of the previous territories that was part of the same nation invades a neighbouring one? After all, most of the inhabitants remember being the same country. What differentiates that from a prolonged civil war?
Unfortunately, there seem to be many shades of grey here (if not quite 50). I have a sneaky feeling that with most things in international politics, there is no definitive answer.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Pretty sure if a foreign power, like China, sent a token force of armed troops into America for example it would be seen as an invasion. Regardless of the state of the Goverment. Sadly Ketera after everything that's happened you will not stop justifying Russia's actions.
Pardon? I'm not justifying anything, I was merely musing about political/international definitions. Ukraine is almost irrelevant to the hypothetical.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:That's the great thing about borders. They're like some kind of clearly defined line you don't cross.
Borders are defined, drawn, and redrawn across most of Europe all the time. Most of the nations have yet to meet their first century in their current incarnation. Britain did an excellent job of demonstrating how 'borders' are vastly mutable when they broke up their Empire.
What kind of logic is that? So borders where redrawn at some other time in Europe so its ok for Ukraine's to be redrawn now? Must I point out that Ukraine does not wish to have its borders redrawn they were fine with them. It's such a flimsy argument that I can only think your real reasoning that it is ok for them to be violated is that it is Russia doing it. That is why I take issue with your statement it is ok to violate Ukraine's borders if it is only a "token" force. Please define a "token" force. I would say the Ukraine's borders, like most countries, exist for the explicit reason to be a line where they do not wish foreign troops to cross without their permission no matter how "token".
Previously in this thread you blamed Russia's invasion all on Poroshenko. I'm sorry Ketara, but the Russia's invasion and military actions are actually completely the responsibility of Putin.
Finally, if Russia's actions are so noble and understandable why won't they admit to their military invasion and inferences? Even to their own people.
What kind of logic is that? So borders where redrawn at some other time in Europe so its ok for Ukraine's to be redrawn now?
'Okay'? I'm sorry, but the concept of 'ok' isn't one I'm generally familiar with in this sort of context. Is that a moral objection? If so, a quantification of your standpoint would be appropriate here. Debating with ambiguous counter-statements without substance/definition rarely leads anywhere good.
Must I point out that Ukraine does not wish to have its borders redrawn they were fine with them.
The concept I'm currently interested in exploring is whether or not a nation continues to exist separately from its government after the cessation/elimination of that government. In a feudal system, you could tie the government to the monarchy/bloodline, and so perpetuate it beyond the termination of the immediate ruler/heir. If a government has been overthrown however, but no replacement set up (think Russia's civil war between the whites and reds, or unified Korea), at what point does the 'nation' cease to exist? If the Whites and Reds had split Russia down the middle, had peace for ten years, and then had the whites invade the reds, would it truly be an invasion?
I have no real viewpoint on this interesting debate of concepts as things stand, which is why I'm mooting it for discussion.
It's such a flimsy argument that I can only think your real reasoning that it is ok for them to be violated is that it is Russia doing it. That is why I take issue with your statement it is ok to violate Ukraine's borders if it is only a "token" force.
In the Spanish civil war, a large number of ideologically motivated fighters from various countries descended into the fray, and we're seeing something similar in Syria right now. It would be foolish to claim Britain was at war with Spain/Syria because a number of British citizens engage in the fighting.
I suppose intent would be a good initial way of measuring things, primarily whether or not a government has actively planned to send designated military forces across your borders. But even then, is the word 'invasion' appropriate? India/Pakistan regularly have small incursions/skirmishes over their borders, yet it would be foolish to term those 'invasions'. It's quite a loaded, yet ambiguous word when one comes to consider it.
Please define a "token" force. I would say the Ukraine's borders, like most countries, exist for the explicit reason to be a line where they do not wish foreign troops to cross without their permission no matter how "token".
That's one of the key concepts I'm exploring here, whether or not 'Ukraine' actually existed at the point of 'incursion' (for want of a better phrase). This is of course, completely separate from the Kiev administrations original claim to be a successor government from Yanukovych, a whole other can of worms in and of itself.
Previously in this thread you blamed Russia's invasion all on Poroshenko. I'm sorry Ketara, but the Russia's invasion and military actions are actually completely the responsibility of Putin.
Quotes please? I recall noting the game of cat and mouse between them, and being wryly amused when Poroshenko played his cards wrong. I might even have said that some of Putin's countermoves were logical causative results of some of Proshenko's. I don't recall taking sides though after the point Poroshenko was elected.
Finally, if Russia's actions are so noble and understandable why won't they admit to their military invasion and inferences? Even to their own people.
Because 'invasion' is clearly an inaccurate term here, and because Russia has no desire to absorb the territory mentioned (or they would have done so already).
Yes, of course a nation can still exist without a government. If you were to ask the Ukrainians themselves if they were a nation during that time they would say they are.
Belgium had no government for almost a year a while ago but that doesn't mean everyone can go invade them now or disrespect their borders.
If America fails to pass a budget and their government shuts down Canada can not just swoop in and say Detroit is ours now. In many ways the government is the least important part of a nation.
If America fails to pass a budget and their government shuts down Canada can not just swoop in and say Detroit is ours now. In many ways the government is the least important part of a nation.
But at the same time, if Canada decides it wants Detroit, and the US says, "no, you cant have it", there's really only one way of getting Detroit, and that is through military force, in which the US has 3 options.
1. They fight back, and militarily keep Detroit.
2. They don't fight back, and Detroit becomes Canadian (so long, Detroit, you're probably better off there )
3. Appeal to the international community, and maintain Detroit through diplomatic means.
If America fails to pass a budget and their government shuts down Canada can not just swoop in and say Detroit is ours now. In many ways the government is the least important part of a nation.
But at the same time, if Canada decides it wants Detroit, and the US says, "no, you cant have it", there's really only one way of getting Detroit, and that is through military force, in which the US has 3 options.
1. They fight back, and militarily keep Detroit.
2. They don't fight back, and Detroit becomes Canadian (so long, Detroit, you're probably better off there )
3. Appeal to the international community, and maintain Detroit through diplomatic means.
Obviously I'm being preposterous. ....nobody really wants Detroit....
Which international law is that? (genuinely curious) Is it the UN? And is the definition of a 'nation' directly linked to the previous incarnation of government, however bad it might be?
While not specifying as an invasion, the hague Convention and article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention lay it out.
Hague art 42:
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
4th Geneva Convention, Article 2:
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Basically, any time you march into a territory not your own, you're considered an occupying force, regardless of what you call it, or if they welcome you with open arms, as long as you have no legal claim over the territory in question. It doesn't matter if the government there can put up resistance or not.
1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78)
See, I can spot about five linguistic issues with that definition without even trying. It doesn't nail down my hypotheticals, rather, it just makes it more complicated.
I might bounce it around the war studies department, see if I can get another definition.
Ketara wrote: See, I can spot about five linguistic issues with that definition without even trying. It doesn't nail down my hypotheticals, rather, it just makes it more complicated.
I might bounce it around the war studies department, see if I can get another definition.
You'll have fun. Just to make your head spin more, the original language of Hague was not English.
Red Cross gives a nice little summery of what is and is not allowed under what's generally known as the Law of Occupation:
ICRC wrote:
The main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that:
The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
Collective punishment is prohibited.
The taking of hostages is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
Cultural property must be respected.
People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charg ed with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.
Noticed this on the BBC site today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30414955 Ukraine underplays role of far right in conflict By David Stern BBC News, Kiev
Ever since Ukraine's February revolution, the Kremlin has characterised the new leaders in Kiev as a "fascist junta" made up of neo-Nazis and anti-Semites, set on persecuting, if not eradicating, the Russian-speaking population.
This is demonstrably false. Far-right parties failed to pass a 5% percent barrier to enter parliament, although if they had banded together, and not split their vote, they would have probably slipped past the threshold.
Only one government minister has links to nationalist parties - though he is in no way a neo-Nazi or fascist. And the speaker of parliament, Volodymyr Groysman, is Jewish. He has the third most powerful position in the country after the president and prime minister.
But Ukrainian officials and many in the media err to the other extreme. They claim that Ukrainian politics are completely fascist-free. This, too, is plain wrong.
As a result, the question of the presence of the far-right in Ukraine remains a highly sensitive issue, one which top officials and the media shy away from. No-one wants to provide fuel to the Russian propaganda machine.
Mr Poroshenko (R) was pictured on his website clasping Serhiy Korotkykh on the shoulder
But this blanket denial also has its dangers, since it allows the ultra-nationalists to fly under the radar. Many Ukrainians are unaware that they exist, or even what a neo-Nazi or fascist actually is, or what they stand for.
Controversial 'patriot'
This hyper-sensitivity and stonewalling were on full display after President Petro Poroshenko presented a Ukrainian passport to someone who, according to human rights activists, is a "Belarusian neo-Nazi".
The Ukrainian leader handed out medals on 5 December to fighters who had tenaciously defended the main airport in the eastern region of Donetsk from being taken over by Russian-backed separatists.
Among the recipients was Serhiy Korotkykh, a Belarusian national, to whom Mr Poroshenko awarded Ukrainian citizenship, praising his "courageous and selfless service".
The president's website showed a photo of Mr Poroshenko patting the shoulder of the Belarusian, who was clad in military fatigues.
Serhiy Korotkykh was among the fighters surrounded inside the wreck of Donetsk airport terminal
Experts who follow the far right have strongly objected to President Poroshenko's decision.
They say Mr Korotkykh was a member of the far-right Russian National Unity party and also a founding member of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Society (NSS) in Russia.
According to Ukrainian academic Anton Shekhovtsov, the NSS's main goal "is to prepare for a race war".
Mr Shekhovtsov said the Belarusian had been charged for involvement in a bombing in central Moscow in 2007, and was detained in 2013 in the Belarusian capital Minsk for allegedly stabbing an anti-fascist activist. He was later released for lack of evidence.
Even though the details involved accusations rather than facts, if true they were damning, said human rights activist Halya Coynash.
Top Ukrainian officials then rejected as defamatory any claims that Mr Korotkykh had neo-Nazi ties.
"Counter-intelligence has no information that could prevent him from receiving Ukrainian citizenship," said Valentyn Nalyvaychenko, the head of Ukraine's security services.
Nevertheless, the fact is, neo-Nazis are indeed a fixture in Ukraine's new political landscape, albeit in small numbers.
Azov Battalion
As Mr Korotkykh's case demonstrates, the ultra-nationalists have proven to be effective and dedicated fighters in the brutal war in the east against Russian-backed separatists and Russian forces, whose numbers also include a large contingent from Russia's far right.
As a result, they have achieved a level of acceptance, even though most Ukrainians are unfamiliar with their actual beliefs.
The volunteer Azov Battalion is a case in point.
The Azov battalion seems to enjoy the support of several top officials
Run by the extremist Patriot of Ukraine organisation, which considers Jews and other minorities "sub-human" and calls for a white, Christian crusade against them, it sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia: a modified Wolf's Hook, a black sun (or "Hakensonne") and the title Black Corps, which was used by the Waffen SS.
Azov is just one of more than 50 volunteer groups fighting in the east, the vast majority of which are not extremist, yet it seems to enjoy special backing from some top officials:
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov and his deputy Anton Gerashchenko actively supported the parliament candidacy of Andriy Biletsky, the Azov and Patriot of Ukraine commander
Vadim Troyan, another top Azov official and Patriot of Ukraine member, was recently named police chief for the Kiev region
Mr Korotkykh is also an Azov member
Ukraine's media has been noticeably silent on this subject.
Recently, prominent newspaper and online publication Left Bank published an extensive interview with Mr Troyan, in which the journalists asked no questions at all about his neo-Nazi past or political views.
And after the Unian news agency reported the presidential ceremony under the headline, "Poroshenko awarded Belarusian neo-Nazi with Ukrainian passport", it was soon replaced with an article that air-brushed out the accusations of extremism.
Unian's editors have declined to comment on the two pieces.
There are significant risks to this silence. Experts say the Azov Battalion, which has been widely reported on in the West, has damaged Ukraine's image and bolsters Russia's information campaign.
And although Ukraine is emphatically not run by fascists, far-right extremists seem to be making inroads by other means, as in the country's police department.
Ukraine's public is grossly under-informed about this. The question is, why doesn't anyone want to tell them?
interesting read about the current status of russia economy, cant really quote well from my phone, if someone could copy/paste the text for the work blocked thatd be great.
interesting read about the current status of russia economy, cant really quote well from my phone, if someone could copy/paste the text for the work blocked thatd be great.
Sure thing
Today's 10 percent drop in the value of Russia's ruble is remarkable. Not as much for being the biggest one-day drop in Russia's currency since 1999, but for failing to faze much of anyone in Moscow.
There was no panic in the streets, and no lines outside banks and currency exchanges. But then again, Russians have been here before. Retailers know how to cope, pricing goods and services not in rubles, but in "conditional units" — shorthand for dollars or euros, the conversion rates of which are adjusted daily or even hourly. It's an old habit (and also an illegal one) that got Russians through the hyperinflation of the 1990s, and one that will get them through now.
Under pressure from the collapsing currency and plummeting oil prices, as well as from sanctions that have raised the cost of borrowing for everyone from ordinary consumers to natural gas giant Gazprom, Russia's economy is reeling. Inflation is now predicted to top 11 percent in the first quarter of next year, and the economy may contract by as much as 4.5 percent, according to the Russian Central Bank's own estimates. The government, meanwhile, announced plans to cut spending next year by 10 percent.
In an effort to stop the bleeding, the Central Bank announced hours ago — in the middle of the night — that it would raise interest rates 650 basis points, to 17 percent from 10.5 percent. Words like "stunning," "drastic," and "emergency" are being used to describe the massive hike, and it's far from clear how markets will respond.
The fundamental problems with Russia's economy are well-known: over-reliance on oil, gas, and other resource exports; tremendous inefficiency compounded by creaking infrastructure corruption, red tape, and a lack of legal protection for property rights; and so on. But Russia's companies, currency, and debt are all fundamentally worth much more than they're trading for on global and, now, domestic markets.
The problem is, fundamentals don't move markets — sentiments do.
Some sentiments are fickle, like the ones that help people determine that the maker of Candy Crush is worth billions of dollars. But other sentiments are sticky, and that's particularly true of the hurt feelings that usually follow a default. Moscow knows that, having struggled mightily to overcome the disdain of capital markets after its 1998 default, and has kept admirably current on its financial obligations.
Instead, Moscow has defaulted on its political obligations. Just as Western businesses invested in Russia's remarkable post-1998 economic turnaround, so did Western governments — especially those in Europe — invest in a new relationship. Germany in particular poured tremendous political capital into building bridges with Moscow. So did Italy, France, and even some in the UK. While facilitating access for their corporations, political leaders thought they were also buying leverage and a degree of understanding. When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and effectively occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Berlin and others convinced themselves that it was a blip, and that things would return to normal.
Post-Ukraine, however, politicians and investors in Europe — and, increasingly, in Russia itself — have now become convinced of the opposite. The Georgian and Ukrainian incursions today look to be the key data points, and good relations with the West to be the aberration. The bubble of Russian-European détente has burst.
But that's only half the problem. After Vladimir Putin said oil prices would soon stabilize, OPEC members said they would be happy to see prices fall still further. And when the Russian Central Bank raised interest rates 100 basis points last week, the ruble continued to plunge. While last night's rate hike was calculated to shock the ruble back to life, there is a growing sense that Moscow has lost its grip on economic management. The bubble of Kremlin competence has burst too.
That leaves ordinary Russians to do what they have almost always done: With no good way of changing their government's policies, with no way of appealing to leaders in Berlin or Washington or Riyadh, and with no faith in anything but their own ability to cope, they cope. And for the time being, at least, the West will likely write Russia out of the equation of global economic prosperity.
In a sense, these bursting bubbles free Putin to do as he sees fit, having been relieved of the expectations of his domestic masses and his foreign interlocutors. But they also diminish him. Leaders, after all, are a lot like currencies: only as powerful as people believe them to be — and when that belief evaporates, not worth very much at all.
That report seems out of date. I've read others saying there is a bit of panic. Not full blown but people are trying to buy things like washing machines and other hardware because they fear their money will be worthless soon.
To be fair, invading the Ukraine isn't what's bringing the Russian economy down. The price of oil is. The Saudis are throwing Putin under the bus, which I find funny for some strange reason.
I am kind of sad though. I was hoping that a resurgent Russia might convince the EU to develop some real military capability. I doubt it will happen now.
The Russians fighting a 'holy war' in Ukraine http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30518054 Since the start of the conflict in eastern Ukraine eight months ago, the Kremlin has denied any direct involvement, including sending Russian troops. But there are Russian fighters on the ground who are proud to announce their presence - and to discuss their ideas of "holy war".
Even when the morning sun catches the gold domes of its Orthodox churches, the Ukrainian city of Donetsk, stronghold of the pro-Russian rebels, doesn't look much like Jerusalem. Trolley-buses trundle through the dirty snow, past belching chimneys and the slag-heaps from the coal-mines on the edge of town.
But through the smoke and grime, Pavel Rasta sees a sacred city - and he's fighting for it, Kalashnikov in hand, just like the Crusaders fought for the heart of Christendom centuries ago. He may be a financial manager - most recently working in a funeral parlour - who's never held a gun before in his life, but he sees himself as the modern version of a medieval knight, dedicated to chivalrous ideas of Christian purity and defending the defenceless.
And the defenceless, for him, are the citizens of eastern Ukraine, mainly Russian-speaking, who are under attack, as he sees it, by a ruthless Ukrainian government intent on wiping them out culturally, or even physically.
Pavel used Rasta as his name for blogging, before it became his nom de guerre
Pavel, from the southern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don - a tall man in his late 30s with a fashionably trimmed beard and a bookish air - is just one of hundreds, perhaps as many as 1,000, Russian volunteers fighting in Ukraine.
The conflict around the self-proclaimed separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk has now dragged on for eight months - with at least 4,600 killed, even by the most conservative, UN, estimate. Despite Kremlin denials, evidence from intelligence sources, and Russian human rights groups, suggests thousands of regular Russian troops have also been fighting there, alongside a larger number of local rebels. But men like Pavel say they aren't there under orders, or for money, but only for an idea, the idea of restoring a Russian empire. It would be Orthodox, like the empire of the tsars, including Ukraine and Belarus.
"Why do I say Donetsk is Jerusalem? Because what's happening here is a holy war of the Russian people for its own future, for its own ideals, for its children and its great country that 25 years ago was divided into pieces," Pavel says.
We're sitting on his narrow, squeaky bed in a barracks in Donetsk, our conversation interrupted periodically by the boom of shelling and the crackle of gunfire. Like the other Russians here, he says he's paid for much of his equipment and travel arrangements himself. Some kit and food comes from donations channelled through Russian nationalist organisations, while their weapons - in this unit, mostly rifles - are from the rebel military authorities, originally captured from Ukrainian forces or supplied by Russia.
Few Western journalists have been allowed to meet the volunteers before - revealing any Russian involvement in the war is sensitive - and some of his comrades in this unit of Russian and Ukrainian volunteers are nervous about our presence.
They're a mixed bunch: some are retired professional soldiers hardened by Russia's wars against the Chechen rebels, some former policemen - and possibly, secret service agents - who later went into business, some youngsters who've never even served in the army. And their cultural reference-points are bewilderingly eclectic. The image of Orthodox Crusaders sits uneasily with the emblem of the brigade they serve in - a skull-and-crossbones - and their motto: "The more enemies - the more honour."
Some are clearly driven partly by an existentialist quest to give meaning to their lives - it's no surprise to find Pavel's most recent reading is Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. But what seems to unite most of them is a belief that they're in Ukraine not to support a rebellion against the legitimate government there, but rather to defend Russia itself against sinister Western forces that want its total destruction.
"The Ukrainian authorities aren't responsible for starting this war," says a young volunteer from the outskirts of Moscow who wants to be known only by his military nickname Chernomor (Black Sea). "It's Britain, Europe and the West." He's a trained lawyer who served in the Interior Ministry forces, partly in Chechnya, and now he's left his new wife and baby son to fight, he says, for "freedom". That means freedom, in the first instance, for the Russian nation. Pavel is more apocalyptic. "Our efforts are saving the Russian state," he says. "Because if the war for Donetsk is lost, it will immediately cross the border and begin in Russia. Rostov, Moscow, Vladivostok will be in flames."
To many outsiders this looks like paranoia. But the idea that Russia - and the wider Orthodox, Slav world - are surrounded by steadily encroaching enemies has been a powerful current in Russian thought for at least 200 years. And the tradition of volunteers travelling to defend it also goes back a long way. In the late Nineteenth Century there were many real-life equivalents of Count Vronsky, the lover of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, who signs up after her suicide to protect fellow Slavs against the Turks in Serbia, and dies in the struggle. In the 1990s Russian volunteers - including some now fighting in Ukraine - took the same road, joining the Orthodox Serbs against the Catholic Croats and Bosnian Muslims in the Yugoslav wars.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting pod cast" Telling russians crimea isn't russian, is like telling texans the alamo's mexican".
WellSpokenMan wrote: To be fair, invading the Ukraine isn't what's bringing the Russian economy down. The price of oil is. The Saudis are throwing Putin under the bus, which I find funny for some strange reason.
I am kind of sad though. I was hoping that a resurgent Russia might convince the EU to develop some real military capability. I doubt it will happen now.
It's not helping. Also, the annexation of Crimea is now turning into the expensive prospect of supporting it.
WellSpokenMan wrote: To be fair, invading the Ukraine isn't what's bringing the Russian economy down. The price of oil is. The Saudis are throwing Putin under the bus, which I find funny for some strange reason.
.
The British too. North Sea Oil ceases to be viable below a certain price, and we're approaching that price fast. The bigger companies have already started laying people off around Edinburgh.
Good thing Scotland didn't go independent after all, eh wot?
WellSpokenMan wrote: To be fair, invading the Ukraine isn't what's bringing the Russian economy down. The price of oil is. The Saudis are throwing Putin under the bus, which I find funny for some strange reason.
.
The British too. North Sea Oil ceases to be viable below a certain price, and we're approaching that price fast. The bigger companies have already started laying people off around Edinburgh.
Good thing Scotland didn't go independent after all, eh wot?
And America. Some fracking is now impractical, it's costing more to get the oil, than it sells for.
Ukraine crisis: Rebels 'intensify Donetsk and Luhansk attacks'
Pro-Russian separatists have intensified their shelling of government positions in eastern Ukraine, military officials say.
Four Ukrainian soldiers and two civilians have reportedly been killed in the latest violence in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
Officials said the spike in attacks followed the arrival of a Russian aid convoy in the region on Thursday.
The fighting comes ahead of peace talks mooted to take place next week.
The foreign ministers of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine have agreed to meet on Monday to discuss the crisis, according to the German foreign ministry.
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said in December that he planned to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Astana, the Kazakh capital, on 15 January alongside the German and French leaders. However, officials in Germany and France have not confirmed this.
'Military supplies'
Ukrainian military officials said the soldiers had been killed following a surge in mortar and rocket attacks on army positions in eastern Ukraine.
They claim the Russian aid convoy that arrived in the region on Thursday was used as cover for bringing military supplies to the rebels.
Meanwhile separatist leaders in the rebel stronghold of Donetsk say two civilians were killed in clashes around the city's bitterly contested airport, AFP news agency reports.
The airport, just outside the city, has been battered by shelling for months.
A ceasefire in eastern Ukraine was agreed in September, but there have been many violations and tensions escalated when the separatists held elections condemned by Ukraine as illegal.
Nato has condemned Russia's involvement in Ukraine and has plans for a "high readiness force" that could be deployed rapidly to Eastern Europe.
The rebels seized official buildings in the east in April, soon after Russia's annexation of the Crimean peninsula. The rebels and Moscow accuse the pro-Western leaders in Kiev of having ousted former President Viktor Yanukovych illegally, and of threatening the rights of Russian-speakers.
The rebels control much of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. They accuse Ukraine of shelling residential areas of Donetsk indiscriminately from positions in and around the airport.
So I'm curious here, is there a legitimate reason to support the Russian-backed rebels? I've been looking over this for the past half year and relaying my thoughts to a Belorussian coworker who vehemently despises Putin and most of eastern Europe's politics. Thus far we've concluded that it might help everyone if they simply moved to Russia instead of trying to make a separate state.
Because as it stands, State forces lack the sophisticated weaponry that the Russian have given the rebels -- and it shows. Hopefully NATO/US support can even the odds a little bit.
I like how the rebels stopped the government offensive approaching the bridge by destroying the bridge. I'm guessing most of the far bank is in Government hands now then, though fighting remains intense, apparently.
The Airman wrote: So I'm curious here, is there a legitimate reason to support the Russian-backed rebels? I've been looking over this for the past half year and relaying my thoughts to a Belorussian coworker who vehemently despises Putin and most of eastern Europe's politics. Thus far we've concluded that it might help everyone if they simply moved to Russia instead of trying to make a separate state.
Because as it stands, State forces lack the sophisticated weaponry that the Russian have given the rebels -- and it shows. Hopefully NATO/US support can even the odds a little bit.
Well, legitimate is a bit iffy in this whole conflict, seeing as that the Ukrainian government is not legitimate either. But there are many reasons a lot of people support the seperatists. The seperatists can be roughly divided in two generalised groups: The locals and the foreign volunteers, who can be further divided in other groups.
First up there are the disgruntled locals, as they are the ones who started all this. It all goes back to the divide in Ukraine between the pro-West western Ukrainians and pro-Russian eastern Ukrainians. The Yanukovich government was dominated by Eastern-Ukrainians and moderately pro-Russian. People in the western Ukraine did not like that and started to protest after Yanukovich turned down an agreement with the EU. Receiving a lot of support from the West, they succeeded in overthrowing the government after protests turned violent. Among these protesters were radical nationalists and neo-nazis, who now got a lot of influence. The first act of this new regime was to repel a law that gave equal status to the Russian language. This did not sit well with the ethnic Russian minority or Russian speaking Ukrainians who already were unhappy with the regime change in Kiev. They felt this new regime, dominated by Western Ukrainians, was illegitimate (which it was according to the constitution) and hostile towards Eastern Ukrainians and Russians. So, inspired by the events in Crimea, they took to the streets to start demanding greater autonomy, and after the regime responded to the protests with violence, some of them took up arms in local militias.
Also part of this group are the defected Ukrainian soldiers. A large part of the Ukrainian army and navy was made up of Eastern Ukrainians and defected to the protester's side.
The third part of the 'local' group consists of ethnic Russians from Crimea. They share their reasons for fighting with the locals and many of the local militias who helped the Russians take over Crimea travelled to Eastern Ukraine hoping to repeat the same thing there.
The second group is made up of foreign volunteers, most of them from Russia. There are many reasons why they fight. Many of them are Russian nationalists that want to see a 'Greater Russia' restored. Another major group are the Cossacks, a warrior caste that traditionally guarded the borders of the Russian Empire. They fight in order to protect ethnic Russians in the Ukraine and to return the Ukraine, their ancestral homeland, to Russian control. For a large part they also fight because of their loyalty to Putin and the modern Russian state. The Cossacks have long been repressed under the Soviet regime, but Putin restored most of their ancient privileges and the Cossacks have been slowly recovering since then. For that, they are obviously very grateful to Putin. Others are Soviets who would love to see a return of the Soviet Union. Others see the events in Ukraine as a Western plot to destroy Russia and want to thwart it. And others fight for religious reasons, seeing the events in Ukraine as a threat to Russian Orthodoxy. Than there are the Kadyrovtsy, Chechen soldiers send by Ramzan Kadyrov to demonstrate his loyalty to Putin. There are Belarusians, who fight because of their pro-Russian, anti-Western sentiments. There are the Serbians, mostly veterans from the Yugoslav wars who fight out of hatred of the West and to repay Russia for its support of Serbia. And last but not least there are volunteers from the West who oppose Western institutions like NATO, the EU or who hate the US and see the events in Ukraine as a US plot.
And of course there is also an 'unoffical group' of Russian military or ex-military sent by Russia. Many of them are part of the secret service and serve as military advisors and trainers.
loki old fart wrote: I feel sorry for those people who have been murdered, because they believed in freedom of expression.
Or were driven out of their homes and forced across into Ukrainian territory for the sin of not being 'Russian'. Amusingly, this has been going on in Crimea as well, though, as our favorite apologist will be quick to point out, they're willingly leaving. Their homes mysteriously burning while the authorities do nothing to stop it has nothing to do with it.
Mind you, though, everyone in Crimea is enjoying a long, cold, food deprived winter. Seems Russia is generous with guns, but not so open with food, fuel, and money. Apparently while international sanctions might not scare Putin, they put the fear of god into many non-state owned companies, who are refusing to do business there, meaning severe shortages of food and basics.
Iron avoids the obvious that Russia is in violation of the Geneva Conventions several different ways regarding their operations in the Ukraine. Crimea alone violated three treaties they themselves signed, and not just with the Ukraine. By taking it, they basically set fire to every nuclear disarmament treaty in Eastern Europe. That has the potential to be very bad, for those not keeping score.
loki old fart wrote: I feel sorry for those people who have been murdered, because they believed in freedom of expression.
Iron avoids the obvious that Russia is in violation of the Geneva Conventions several different ways regarding their operations in the Ukraine. Crimea alone violated three treaties they themselves signed, and not just with the Ukraine. By taking it, they basically set fire to every nuclear disarmament treaty in Eastern Europe. That has the potential to be very bad, for those not keeping score.
America the only country that cannot be prosecuted for war crimes. America who totally ignore international law whenever it suits them.
Regime change anyone ??
1 Syria 1949.
2 Iran 1953
3 Guatemala 1954
4 Tibet 1955–70s
5 Indonesia 1958
6 Cuba 1959
7 Iraq 1960–63
8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
9 Dominican Republic 1961
10 South Vietnam 1963
11 Brazil 1964
12 Ghana 1966
13 Chile 1970–73
14 Argentina 1976
15 Afghanistan 1979–89
16 Turkey 1980
17 Poland 1980–89
18 Nicaragua 1981–90
OH! and Libya, Egypt, Cuba, Ukraine ETCETC
Hmn, odd seeing pictures of this war now that winter's hit the area. Of course it leaves us with images like this:
An interesting thread that I've been following which has been detailing the vehicles being used in the conflict. A lot of Cold War era Soviet gear that's been modernized to a degree. A lot of modern Russian armour as well (the Russians have definitely been field testing). Besides that though technicals and up armoured civilian vehicles have been appearing all over the place.
Also from that thread, which yes sources a pro-Ukrainian news site, a short list of some identifiers on the vehicles the pro-Russians have been using (though if you really care you can find a million sources showing the same markings elsewhere). Seems the Russians are throwing their border units into this war, presumably because the folks in Moscow give less of a crap if its Chechen or Georgian units dying than locals. Ah right, because they're units out in the sticks clearly that means that someone just happened to steal all their vehicles and that's how they turned up in Ukraine? ...Or more likely the guys operating in those areas have plenty of experience in fighting their neighbors.
Hmn, on that note though is there any indication of the number of pro-Ukrainian Chechen fighters (or similar areas that Russian's screwed over)? Its been noted that Europeans have been turning up on that side of things, but I think that those guys would be all for fighting the Russians. Though I'd suspect the Ukrainians would just be called a bunch of pro-European Jew loving Nazi Muslim Pedophiles by Russia Today in that event (...damn I bet that's already happened).
Something which also struck me there. Ukraine's still listed as having 569 Peacekeepers abroad. They've brought back a number of oversees troops, but its a wonder they're keeping to their peacekeeping commitments (unless the UN's fudging he details).
loki old fart wrote: I feel sorry for those people who have been murdered, because they believed in freedom of expression.
Iron avoids the obvious that Russia is in violation of the Geneva Conventions several different ways regarding their operations in the Ukraine. Crimea alone violated three treaties they themselves signed, and not just with the Ukraine. By taking it, they basically set fire to every nuclear disarmament treaty in Eastern Europe. That has the potential to be very bad, for those not keeping score.
America the only country that cannot be prosecuted for war crimes. America who totally ignore international law whenever it suits them.
Regime change anyone ??
1 Syria 1949.
2 Iran 1953
3 Guatemala 1954
4 Tibet 1955–70s
5 Indonesia 1958
6 Cuba 1959
7 Iraq 1960–63
8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
9 Dominican Republic 1961
10 South Vietnam 1963
11 Brazil 1964
12 Ghana 1966
13 Chile 1970–73
14 Argentina 1976
15 Afghanistan 1979–89
16 Turkey 1980
17 Poland 1980–89
18 Nicaragua 1981–90
OH! and Libya, Egypt, Cuba, Ukraine ETCETC
Could you please stop doing that every time someone points out that Russia's being rather nasty? It's a rather transparent attempt at deflection. What Russia is doing is against treaties they themselves have signed, regardless of whether the US has been nasty at another point in time or not.
Agreed. When discussing a topic it's childish to come out with a comment based on the flag the poster has on his profile and say "America did bad stuff in the past" as if that invalidates all their future posts.
loki old fart wrote: I feel sorry for those people who have been murdered, because they believed in freedom of expression.
Iron avoids the obvious that Russia is in violation of the Geneva Conventions several different ways regarding their operations in the Ukraine. Crimea alone violated three treaties they themselves signed, and not just with the Ukraine. By taking it, they basically set fire to every nuclear disarmament treaty in Eastern Europe. That has the potential to be very bad, for those not keeping score.
America the only country that cannot be prosecuted for war crimes. America who totally ignore international law whenever it suits them.
Regime change anyone ??
1 Syria 1949.
2 Iran 1953
3 Guatemala 1954
4 Tibet 1955–70s
5 Indonesia 1958
6 Cuba 1959
7 Iraq 1960–63
8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
9 Dominican Republic 1961
10 South Vietnam 1963
11 Brazil 1964
12 Ghana 1966
13 Chile 1970–73
14 Argentina 1976
15 Afghanistan 1979–89
16 Turkey 1980
17 Poland 1980–89
18 Nicaragua 1981–90
OH! and Libya, Egypt, Cuba, Ukraine ETCETC
Could you please stop doing that every time someone points out that Russia's being rather nasty? It's a rather transparent attempt at deflection. What Russia is doing is against treaties they themselves have signed, regardless of whether the US has been nasty at another point in time or not.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Agreed. When discussing a topic it's childish to come out with a comment based on the flag the poster has on his profile and say "America did bad stuff in the past" as if that invalidates all their future posts.
Maybe I,m so fed up with the hypocrisy, That glass houses, and pots calling kettles black wasn't enough.
loki old fart wrote: I feel sorry for those people who have been murdered, because they believed in freedom of expression.
Iron avoids the obvious that Russia is in violation of the Geneva Conventions several different ways regarding their operations in the Ukraine. Crimea alone violated three treaties they themselves signed, and not just with the Ukraine. By taking it, they basically set fire to every nuclear disarmament treaty in Eastern Europe. That has the potential to be very bad, for those not keeping score.
America the only country that cannot be prosecuted for war crimes. America who totally ignore international law whenever it suits them. Regime change anyone ??
1 Syria 1949. 2 Iran 1953 3 Guatemala 1954 4 Tibet 1955–70s 5 Indonesia 1958 6 Cuba 1959 7 Iraq 1960–63 8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65 9 Dominican Republic 1961 10 South Vietnam 1963 11 Brazil 1964 12 Ghana 1966 13 Chile 1970–73 14 Argentina 1976 15 Afghanistan 1979–89 16 Turkey 1980 17 Poland 1980–89 18 Nicaragua 1981–90 OH! and Libya, Egypt, Cuba, Ukraine ETCETC
Poland was regime change? What are you, 14? Ever read a book. Look up "Cold War" and "Warsaw Pact" and "Lech Walesa" Tibet regime change? When did Austin become the capital of China?
EDIT: in looking at all those countries one would think: 1. We jeaulously guard our Latin American sisters oh so hawt hawt 2. With such of a list of failures why on earth would anyone be afraid of us?
Maybe I,m so fed up with the hypocrisy, That glass houses, and pots calling kettles black wasn't enough.
You're so fed up with the hypocrisy that you project it onto other people and then deflect any time someone tries to call Russia out on something? Because I'm pretty sure no one's argued that the US (or "the West" or whatever) is free of nastiness.
Wyrmalla wrote: Hmn, odd seeing pictures of this war now that winter's hit the area. Of course it leaves us with images like this:
Spoiler:
Snow tanks are fun! Makes me sad there is no snow here
Wyrmalla wrote: An interesting thread that I've been following which has been detailing the vehicles being used in the conflict. A lot of Cold War era Soviet gear that's been modernized to a degree. A lot of modern Russian armour as well (the Russians have definitely been field testing). Besides that though technicals and up armoured civilian vehicles have been appearing all over the place.
Also from that thread, which yes sources a pro-Ukrainian news site, a short list of some identifiers on the vehicles the pro-Russians have been using (though if you really care you can find a million sources showing the same markings elsewhere). Seems the Russians are throwing their border units into this war, presumably because the folks in Moscow give less of a crap if its Chechen or Georgian units dying than locals. Ah right, because they're units out in the sticks clearly that means that someone just happened to steal all their vehicles and that's how they turned up in Ukraine? ...Or more likely the guys operating in those areas have plenty of experience in fighting their neighbors.
Spoiler:
Hmn, on that note though is there any indication of the number of pro-Ukrainian Chechen fighters (or similar areas that Russian's screwed over)? Its been noted that Europeans have been turning up on that side of things, but I think that those guys would be all for fighting the Russians.
Such a list does not prove anything. I highly doubt there are entire Russian army units fighting in the area, that would be ridiculous. The war would be entirely different if that had been the case, it would have been much more like Crimea, where the Russian army (and navy) actually was involved.
More likely those border units just happened to "lose" a bit of equipment that suddenly turned up in Ukraine. Apart from small units operating as instructors and operators of specialised equipment, I don't think there are many Russian soldiers in Ukraine. They would not have lost Kramatorsk if that had been the case.
There are probably plenty of Georgian volunteers fighting for Ukraine, but I don't think there are many Chechens. Chechnya has changed a lot since the wars there now that Kadyrov is in charge.
Almost all anti-Russian Chechens are radical islamists nowadays, and in their eyes Ukraine is just as bad as Russia, and a whole lot less interesting because there are no muslims. There once were secular Chechen rebels as well, but they have mostly been elimated since Kadyrov betrayed them. And since Kadyrov's love for Putin is so great, every Chechen fighting for Ukraine likely risks having his entire family murdered by the Kadyrovtsy. I do not know about the general Chechen population, but the current Chechen leadership is very pro-Russian. There are lots of Chechens fighting for the seperatists, so it seems modern Chechens are either pro-Russian, to afraid to do anything, or dead.
Wyrmalla wrote: Though I'd suspect the Ukrainians would just be called a bunch of pro-European Jew loving Nazi Muslim Pedophiles by Russia Today in that event (...damn I bet that's already happened).
They are called liberast. The word liberast is made up of the words liberal (pro-Western) and pederast (which means both homosexual and pedophile), because in their eyes, all those things are the same. Another common insult is banderites, which means as much as fascists. And Jews are always behind it anyways, so expect that as well. No muslims though, that would upset Russia's large muslim population.
I think the line with the Russians over their equipment is that they happen to just leave it in areas controlled by the separatists, who then just happen to stroll of with it. But no, obviously there are Russian soldiers active in some capacity throughout the region and the rest of Ukraine, even if they've taken more of a backseat after the initial invasion. Given how crappy a shot those separatists tend to be in their videos (spray and pray) I'd suspect they weren't actual soldiers, but then again the real soldiers didn't even bother changing out of their issued uniforms so that much would be obvious. I doubt though that the Russians would be sending their newer gear into the area and just giving it to random guys. Rather why lose a shiny new tank because the guy driving it hasn't been trained when you can have one of your own guys ensure that doesn't happen. If you're being so flagrant about having troops in the area then I don't see the point in moving the vehicles in without their crews, or are the Russians find with just throwing money away by having some idiot ride about their fancy new equipment?
Eugh, but there's no point in arguing over that matter. Its like discussing whether the earth revolves around the sun.
At this stage in the war its hardly like the Russians really need to bother their arses anymore. They took what they wanted last year, this is them just insighting continued conflict to keep Ukraine out of the picture. Even better they can let Ukraine integrate itself with the EU and still have a buffer state to an extent by create some out what the separatists have taken (just do like they did with Chechnya). It is rather a joke though that they can manage to use the exact same tactics for seventy years and still get away with it, you'd think the UN would have came up with a way to counter such false flag operations by now (then again no, I'd expect that they wouldn't). By now I doubt the Ukrainians have any chance of reclaiming any of their territory, and well even if they do kick the separatists out of the border regions, the Russians have already dumped enough troops into Crimea that there's no way the Ukrainians have, or ever had the capacity to take that area. Heh, but the Russians can change their atlases all they like, I doubt the rest of the world will be officially recognizing the region as anything buy a part of Ukraine for a good while (which is going to start getting confusing unless the situation changes).
The results seem like one European economy's been blown away to hell and the Russian one's still stagnating. At least the Russian people can just eat all the propaganda their government's shoveling them right (hell go back to the famine days and they can start eating all those dissidents they hate so much)?
loki old fart wrote: I feel sorry for those people who have been murdered, because they believed in freedom of expression.
Or were driven out of their homes and forced across into Ukrainian territory for the sin of not being 'Russian'. Amusingly, this has been going on in Crimea as well, though, as our favorite apologist will be quick to point out, they're willingly leaving. Their homes mysteriously burning while the authorities do nothing to stop it has nothing to do with it.
Actually, I would say they are not leaving willingly. Anti-Russian people (or people perceived by the radicals as anti-Russian) are threatened and harassed until they flee to Ukraine in order to protect themselves. It is a sad thing.
BaronIveagh wrote: Mind you, though, everyone in Crimea is enjoying a long, cold, food deprived winter. Seems Russia is generous with guns, but not so open with food, fuel, and money. Apparently while international sanctions might not scare Putin, they put the fear of god into many non-state owned companies, who are refusing to do business there, meaning severe shortages of food and basics.
Crimea is not food deprived, it produces more than enough grain and vegetables to feed itself. There are shortages in meat and many other consumer products that used to be produced in other parts of Ukraine though, but nothing that major, considering Ukraine as a whole is suffering from shortages in food, electricity and pretty much everything except weapons. Crimea is still very dependent on the Ukrainian mainland of course, but if the Ukrainians are smart, they won't cut support lines to Crimea. If they ever want to see Crimea returned to Ukraine, they can't go about antagonising the population even further, plus it won't hurt the seperatists or Russian army. It could also encourage Russia to launch an offensive to open a land corridor to Crimea.
BaronIveagh wrote: Iron avoids the obvious that Russia is in violation of the Geneva Conventions several different ways regarding their operations in the Ukraine. Crimea alone violated three treaties they themselves signed, and not just with the Ukraine. By taking it, they basically set fire to every nuclear disarmament treaty in Eastern Europe. That has the potential to be very bad, for those not keeping score.
Russia is a great power. Great powers only adhere to laws and treaties when it suits them. Other great powers such as the US or China are no different. And nuclear disarmament treaties were already almost null and void ever since the US pulled out of some of the most important of them.
Wyrmalla wrote: By now I doubt the Ukrainians have any chance of reclaiming any of their territory, and well even if they do kick the separatists out of the border regions, the Russians have already dumped enough troops into Crimea that there's no way the Ukrainians have, or ever had the capacity to take that area.
Moral of the story: beware unintended consequences when overthrowing a government popular with half of the country and with a powerful foreign power backing it.
That's a bit of victim blaming there. Start a revolution against an oppressive government, then say that its the revolutionaries' fault when someone decides to invade them. The circumstances are correct, but don't put down people for not wanting to be under a despotic government (which yes is circumstantial, but I think the common view is that the original revolution in the country was a just one).
Da Boss wrote: Honestly, I hope the entire thing blows up in Putin's face. The games that are being played are disgusting.
Well...we started it.
If by "We" you mean the Russians conquering the Ukraine and Crimea in the first place, I agree 100%. I blame Ivan the Terrible. Alternatively I blame Peter the Mildly Annoying
Frazzled wrote: I blame Ivan the Terrible. Alternatively I blame Peter the Mildly Annoying
No you are all wrong. It is all the fault of Yuriy the Long-Armed and Vsevolod the Big Nest. Also, Mstislav the Eyeless may or may not have something to do with it.
I guess it now comes down to who succumbs to war weariness first. That seems Ukraine's only chance. It's not that far fetched. Russian families are starting to get sick of seeing their soldier sons come home in body bags when their government is telling them they are at peace. Ukraine might have a slightly higher tolerance for it because they see themselves as being invaded and know they are at war. But I'm sure everyone is quite sick of this conflict.
What civilians? They're just shooting up the damn dirty Nazi pedophiles across the ways silly.
Random question: has the war had an effect on the new dome that was supposed to be being built over the Chernobyl NPP? It was being talked about early last year, so I'm wondering if much of a move has been made on it since. It would seem petty for such a thing not to be put into place because of politics (I mean in the long term scheme of things), though IIRC it was a French team doing the work on it, and that whole region seems a bit distanced from every day Ukraine, so perhaps they carried on regardless of what was happening elsewhere. Hmn, generally I don't recall much being said about Chernobyl at any point in this conflict, bar it being pointed out earlier in this thread that it'd be a silly idea for anyone to go near that place. Hell tourism there's probably continuing unabated.
Wyrmalla wrote: That's a bit of victim blaming there. Start a revolution against an oppressive government, then say that its the revolutionaries' fault when someone decides to invade them. The circumstances are correct, but don't put down people for not wanting to be under a despotic government (which yes is circumstantial, but I think the common view is that the original revolution in the country was a just one).
The Ukrainian government was neither opressive nor despotic, but democratically elected in free and fair elections (as observed by independent international organisations). They simply made a decision part of the population did not like (not signing a treaty with the EU), which is no fair, legal or moral ground for overthrowing a democratic government. The current Ukrainian government is unconstitutional and hypocritical. When you use illegal, unconstitutional means to usurp state power, you should not complain when others do the same to you.
Barring their actions before the revolution, Yanukovych's government sanctioned an overly violent put down of protests against itself, so had not a leg to stand on after that no matter what side of the European question you stood on. Its hardly immoral for the people to kick a government out which is gunning down protesters (yes a similar argument could be said of the British government in reaction to Ireland and elsewhere, and yes I'd point out that people have tried). I'd note that he was moving towards pro-European ties, but he seemed to turn back against them after pushes from Russia (being that the Federation wants to keep the rest of the former USSR under its thumb and you can't piss off the guys who're backing you). Maybe the word isn't despotic, but rather incompetent. He jumped between both sides on issues repeatedly, but always returning to his role as the bitch. "Hey Russia's just taken half the country I used to rule away because of the crap I pulled. Yeah time to say that was bad, but still support the Russians and blame my own people for not doing anything about it".
Ah, but on the topic of his support. Yeah sure the guy had the country just loving him. Youknow being Moscow's puppet and all. He got in originally through underhanded tactics (pulling a Putin), for one trying to kill the opposition leader, then got in a second time by throwing the opposition in prison. Yup, stand up guy. Would these be the same bodies which say that Putin's been in power legally for the last decade? Technically he isn't breaking the constitution over there either, even if he's taking a massive dump on its spirit, but I suppose they glazed over all the crap that was illegal too.
The joke here being that the current government is apparently unconstitutional based on what? The previous government is in exile whilst the current one is recognized on the world stage (yes, it wasn't the cleanest of elections obviously, but youknow the whole war thing). The same thing could hardly be said of the vote that the Russians held over Crimea, which I'd add isn't international recognized (officially the whole region is still owned by Ukraine) and yes, was shown to be a complete sham. Neither would I strictly trust the men in lead of the separatist regions, who IIRC have shown to have had ties with Russian efforts in similar conflicts.
Ah, but back to the route of the matter. Whilst the matter is hardly so clean cut, it takes a sheer skewed view on this situation to come out thinking that the Russians are in the right. Ignorance even to think that this whole thing wasn't a by the books invasion like they've done repeatedly before. A puppet government was overthrown by the people because it didn't represent their views. The puppeteer then threw that government aside, invaded the country and took as much of it as possible, before leaving the remainder in a state of civil war with itself to keep it from reacting. Yanukovych at least can sit pretty on the bribes he has, but Russia's actions certainly showed him to be nothing else than their tool.
Hell at this rate I'm expecting Putin to go the same way as that guy, or to eventually pull a Stalin (the more likely situation, after a long retirement). I don't think the rest of the world would appreciate another violent uprising in the country however, youknow economics wise. Fifty years of trying didn't achieve it with Communism, I doubt Putin will be the guy that gets taken out back of the dacha and shot with his family either (...or blown up by an explosive crustacean).
Iron_Captain wrote: They simply made a decision part of the population did not like (not signing a treaty with the EU), which is no fair, legal or moral ground for overthrowing a democratic government. The current Ukrainian government is unconstitutional and hypocritical. When you use illegal, unconstitutional means to usurp state power, you should not complain when others do the same to you.
Throwing four or five men out of office is hardly 'a overthrow of the government'. If it was, Richard Nixon would have been the last President of the United States.
The vote in the Ukrainian parliament was 386-0 to return to the 2004 Ukrainian Constitution and Yanukovych fled, after his own party voted in favor of this. While the Parliament did not immediately charge Yanukovych with a crime at that time, this was because he used the two or three days of mourning that the government was closed after the rioting to flee. Once courts were back in session, criminal charges were procured, based on his violation of the Constitution (the one in place at the time) by ordering the military to try and suppress the rioters, which itself led to the resignation of several staff officers of the Ukrainian army, who quit rather than follow an illegal order.
The parliament observed at the time that they had followed the law as closely as possible under the circumstances (ie the courts being closed and Yanukovych's flight from the Ukraine already being in progress).
Iron_Captain wrote: They simply made a decision part of the population did not like (not signing a treaty with the EU), which is no fair, legal or moral ground for overthrowing a democratic government. The current Ukrainian government is unconstitutional and hypocritical. When you use illegal, unconstitutional means to usurp state power, you should not complain when others do the same to you.
Throwing four or five men out of office is hardly 'a overthrow of the government'. If it was, Richard Nixon would have been the last President of the United States.
It is a overthrow of the government if said men thrown out are the president and his ministers (who constitute the government). The government was thrown out of office, therefore the government was overthrown. Is that so hard to get? According to the Ukrainian constitution, it is of course possible to remove a government by legal means, however, these were not properly applied and therefore this constitutes an illegal, unconstitutional coup by the opposition.
BaronIveagh wrote: The vote in the Ukrainian parliament was 386-0 to return to the 2004 Ukrainian Constitution and Yanukovych fled, after his own party voted in favor of this. While the Parliament did not immediately charge Yanukovych with a crime at that time, this was because he used the two or three days of mourning that the government was closed after the rioting to flee. Once courts were back in session, criminal charges were procured, based on his violation of the Constitution (the one in place at the time) by ordering the military to try and suppress the rioters, which itself led to the resignation of several staff officers of the Ukrainian army, who quit rather than follow an illegal order.
That vote was not valid under both the 2010 and 2004 Ukrainian constitutions. And yes, Yanukovich too violated the constitution, which in itself would have been a valid ground to throw him out of office. However, this should have happened according to the proper procedures laid out in the constitution. These procedures were not observed by the opposition, therefore their throwing Yanukovich out of office is illegal.
BaronIveagh wrote: The parliament observed at the time that they had followed the law as closely as possible under the circumstances (ie the courts being closed and Yanukovych's flight from the Ukraine already being in progress).
What parliament did here was not a proper impeachment procedure, but an ordinary coup. The vote was nothing but a farce as the opposition was already in de-facto control of the government and Eastern Ukrainian parlementarians were intimidated and threatened to make them go along with the changes.
Yanukovich was a piece of gak, but the opposition was and isn't any different. All politicians in Ukraine are corrupt, gak filled scumbags. They are all the same.
Maybe I,m so fed up with the hypocrisy, That glass houses, and pots calling kettles black wasn't enough.
Hey, I'm fed up with people accusing me of being American because my national flag isn't part of whatever presets the forum software uses.
Though, on a glass houses note, the Ukrainian rebels are using this here BM-21 Grad and complaining about artillery hitting civilian areas.
Wait, isn't "Grad" Russian for "city"? Maybe they're actually complaining that the Ukranian artillerty is hitting their rockets, as in "yeah, they totally shelled the city (grad)", and it's just getting lost in translation?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Wait, isn't "Grad" Russian for "city"? Maybe they're actually complaining that the Ukranian artillerty is hitting their rockets, as in "yeah, they totally shelled the city (grad)", and it's just getting lost in translation?
No, city is gorod in Russian. Grad means hail. Grad can also mean city, but only when it is part of a placename, such as in Kaliningrad or Volgograd. But even in those cases gorod is often used, such as in Novgorod. Gorod is derived from Old Russian, and is the normal word for city, while grad as a word for city is derived from Church Slavonic and is more poetic and archaic. In the missile launcher, it just means hail. I guess it can be confusing if you don't speak Russian.
I remember about a decade ago one of Ukraine's presidential candidates who was Pro-EU was poisoned and Russia who backed the other candidate was a suspect. Did they ever get to the bottom of that?
Poland was regime change? What are you, 14? Ever read a book. Look up "Cold War" and "Warsaw Pact" and "Lech Walesa"
Tibet regime change? When did Austin become the capital of China?
EDIT: in looking at all those countries one would think:
1. We jeaulously guard our Latin American sisters oh so hawt hawt
2. With such of a list of failures why on earth would anyone be afraid of us?
Also, he put Cuba 1959... Pretty sure the USA wasn't helping Communist revolutionaries overthrow their own dictator
It is a overthrow of the government if said men thrown out are the president and his ministers (who constitute the government). The government was thrown out of office, therefore the government was overthrown. Is that so hard to get? According to the Ukrainian constitution, it is of course possible to remove a government by legal means, however, these were not properly applied and therefore this constitutes an illegal, unconstitutional coup by the opposition.
Because it wasn't just the opposition, it was his own party too. 386-0 NO ONE voted in favor of keeping him. Not even a token 'hey, let's not make it wholly one sided' vote by the last guy to stand up and vote And, no, a government is way more than the four or five guys at the top, even under communism. The only government where that's even close to true is a dictatorship.
Iron_Captain wrote: That vote was not valid under both the 2010 and 2004 Ukrainian constitutions. And yes, Yanukovich too violated the constitution, which in itself would have been a valid ground to throw him out of office. However, this should have happened according to the proper procedures laid out in the constitution. These procedures were not observed by the opposition, therefore their throwing Yanukovich out of office is illegal.
He had already fled the capital before they even tabled the idea of a vote, and his own party was firmly in favor of his removal. They did so, on the grounds that he was no longer able to carry out his duties, having fled the country the day before. What then, leave the office empty? The Ukrainian Constitution doesn't actually cover if the President flees to another country. Further, the vote IS constitutional, as while the vote did not garner the required number of votes, despite getting 100% of the votes from those present, because the balance were vacated by MPs who were other wise occupied fleeing the country with millions of stolen dollars of the Ukrainian's money, or committing treason with Russia, or both! In other countries (even mine) those are high crimes and misdemeanors, and pretty much mean your seat in the government is vacant.
Further, their first act after renewing the previous Constitution was to more or less throw themselves out of office come the fresh elections. If the 'coup' as you put it was not the will of the people, they were free to vote against it. Instead, Russia invaded and supported rebellion against the sovereign government.
Yanukovich was a piece of gak, but the opposition was and isn't any different. All politicians in Ukraine are corrupt, gak filled scumbags. They are all the same.
I might say the same for every elected official I've ever met. But I'm biased there.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Wait, isn't "Grad" Russian for "city"? Maybe they're actually complaining that the Ukranian artillerty is hitting their rockets, as in "yeah, they totally shelled the city (grad)", and it's just getting lost in translation?
No, city is gorod in Russian. Grad means hail. Grad can also mean city, but only when it is part of a placename, such as in Kaliningrad or Volgograd. But even in those cases gorod is often used, such as in Novgorod. Gorod is derived from Old Russian, and is the normal word for city, while grad as a word for city is derived from Church Slavonic and is more poetic and archaic. In the missile launcher, it just means hail. I guess it can be confusing if you don't speak Russian.
Damnit, that's an excellent wordplay-opportunity out the window.
It is a overthrow of the government if said men thrown out are the president and his ministers (who constitute the government). The government was thrown out of office, therefore the government was overthrown. Is that so hard to get? According to the Ukrainian constitution, it is of course possible to remove a government by legal means, however, these were not properly applied and therefore this constitutes an illegal, unconstitutional coup by the opposition.
Because it wasn't just the opposition, it was his own party too. 386-0 NO ONE voted in favor of keeping him. Not even a token 'hey, let's not make it wholly one sided' vote by the last guy to stand up and vote And, no, a government is way more than the four or five guys at the top, even under communism. The only government where that's even close to true is a dictatorship.
As I said already, that vote was a complete farce, on the same level as the referendum in Crimea and the elections in Donbass. The opposition and their militias were already in complete control of the capital, and Yanukovich's supporters in parliament were threatened in going along with the vote.
Iron_Captain wrote: That vote was not valid under both the 2010 and 2004 Ukrainian constitutions. And yes, Yanukovich too violated the constitution, which in itself would have been a valid ground to throw him out of office. However, this should have happened according to the proper procedures laid out in the constitution. These procedures were not observed by the opposition, therefore their throwing Yanukovich out of office is illegal.
He had already fled the capital before they even tabled the idea of a vote, and his own party was firmly in favor of his removal. They did so, on the grounds that he was no longer able to carry out his duties, having fled the country the day before. What then, leave the office empty? The Ukrainian Constitution doesn't actually cover if the President flees to another country. Further, the vote IS constitutional, as while the vote did not garner the required number of votes, despite getting 100% of the votes from those present, because the balance were vacated by MPs who were other wise occupied fleeing the country with millions of stolen dollars of the Ukrainian's money, or committing treason with Russia, or both! In other countries (even mine) those are high crimes and misdemeanors, and pretty much mean your seat in the government is vacant.
If the president of Ukraine is incapable of performing his duties for whatever reason, the chairman of the parliament is supposed to take over as acting president. This would have been Volodymyr Rybak, of the Party of Regions (Yanukovych's party), were it not that he was threatened into resigning right after Yanukovych fled. His 'replacement', Turchynov, then went on to violate all of the restrictions on an acting president.
Besides, the president leaving the country is no valid, legal ground to remove him from office. A Ukrainian president may only be removed if he has been formally charged with the crime of high treason following an investigation by the Supreme Court. Under no circumstance is the position of president ever vacant.
And those parlimentarians that were absent just so conveniently happened to almost all be of the Party of Regions, and nobody ever had a problem with them stealing millions of the people's money (of which the opposition is equally guilty) until this convenient moment. Even then, they had not been charged and their crimes had not been proven, and even it it was, it would do nothing to change the fact that the vote did not reach the required majority according to the constitution.
Yanukovich was a piece of gak, but the opposition was and isn't any different. All politicians in Ukraine are corrupt, gak filled scumbags. They are all the same.
I might say the same for every elected official I've ever met. But I'm biased there.
All politicians are bad. But those in the Ukraine are worse than elsewhere. Just watch them fight (literally) in parliament. It is emberassing.
Yanukovich was a piece of gak, but the opposition was and isn't any different. All politicians in Ukraine are corrupt, gak filled scumbags. They are all the same.
I might say the same for every elected official I've ever met. But I'm biased there.
All politicians are bad. But those in the Ukraine are worse than elsewhere. Just watch them fight (literally) in parliament. It is emberassing.
Yanukovich was a piece of gak, but the opposition was and isn't any different. All politicians in Ukraine are corrupt, gak filled scumbags. They are all the same.
I might say the same for every elected official I've ever met. But I'm biased there.
All politicians are bad. But those in the Ukraine are worse than elsewhere. Just watch them fight (literally) in parliament. It is emberassing.
I guess someone's never watched talk show exerts on Youtube where politicians literally leap over the table each other and slap their opponent about with a shoe? Hmn, does the Ukrainian parliament do that thing the British one does where every start's saying "haw haw haw" loudly when they disagree with the speaker? Frankly if the politicians here quit acting like children and started nutting each other they might actually get a bit more respect. =P
Find a parliament where people aren't acting like asshats. Its a biased opinion which makes you think that the Ukrainian one is any worse than others, though like I've said the bar is set rather low.
[ I guess someone's never watched talk show exerts on Youtube where politicians literally leap over the table each other and slap their opponent about with a shoe? Hmn, does the Ukrainian parliament do that thing the British one does where every start's saying "haw haw haw" loudly when they disagree with the speaker? Frankly if the politicians here quit acting like children and started nutting each other they might actually get a bit more respect. =P
Find a parliament where people aren't acting like asshats. Its a biased opinion which makes you think that the Ukrainian one is any worse than others, though like I've said the bar is set rather low.
Well, British politicians can haw haw and rape kids all they want, they still do one hell of a better job in running their country. They are less likely to have all kinds of shady "side" jobs that leaves them with conflicting interests and they also don't systematically sluice tax money to Switzerland. They are probably only half as corrupt as Ukrainian politicians too. At least I can be happy there is no corruption in Russia.
Well, British politicians can haw haw and rape kids all they want, they still do one hell of a better job in running their country. They are less likely to have all kinds of shady "side" jobs that leaves them with conflicting interests and they also don't systematically sluice tax money to Switzerland. They are probably only half as corrupt as Ukrainian politicians too.
At least I can be happy there is no corruption in Russia.
Iron_Captain wrote: At least I can be happy there is no corruption in Russia.
Thats...a joke right?
No. There truly is no corruption in Russia. Corruption is what happens when businessmen or other wealthy persons bribe government officials for favors. In Russia, the businessmen, wealthy persons and government officials are all the same people. Therefore there is no corruption in Russia. They can hardly bribe themselves no?
Let me link you to the Wikipedia page defining political corruption as you seem to not be aware of just what it is. You may need to turn down the State Anthem a bit in order to focus on it fully. =P
I guess someone's never watched talk show exerts on Youtube where politicians literally leap over the table each other and slap their opponent about with a shoe? Hmn, does the Ukrainian parliament do that thing the British one does where every start's saying "haw haw haw" loudly when they disagree with the speaker? Frankly if the politicians here quit acting like children and started nutting each other they might actually get a bit more respect. =P
Find a parliament where people aren't acting like asshats. Its a biased opinion which makes you think that the Ukrainian one is any worse than others, though like I've said the bar is set rather low.
Do the German parliament act like asshats? I saw a politician on tv about a year ago and he seemed to be making reasonable comments and actually be concerned with solving the problem he was talking about. It kind of blew my mind, I mean politicians trying to fix things instead of making political capital, that's just crazy.
Wyrmalla wrote: Let me link you to the Wikipedia page defining political corruption as you seem to not be aware of just what it is. You may need to turn down the State Anthem a bit in order to focus on it fully. =P
Spoiler:
I tried to read the page you linked, but as soon as I turn down volume on State Anthem, the FSB burst into the roam and started playing patriotic music very loudly. They also plastered my screen with motivational posters and Pravda articles that say there be of no corruptions in Russia. The FSB then proceeded to paint a large, motivational slogan on my wall that says "No corruption in Russia!", so that means it is true. There is no corruption in Russia. Corruption is decadent invention of liberast West that does not affect glorious Russian peoples. Glory to the Motherland! Glory to Putin! Glory to the FSB!
There has been some action going on in Mariupol lately.
There has been a rocket strike that killed 30 people, Ukrainian government says rebels did it, rebels say it was government false flag operation. The government also claims the rebels want to launch an offensive on Mariupol, but the rebels deny that:]
Supertony51 wrote: So ive been out of the loop on this...is Russia leaving Ukraine, or are they sticking around?
Russia leaving Ukraine? Now that would be a really strange world... Russia will never leave Ukraine, it would be impossible.
Hope they like their new neighbors
While the presence of American volunteers in Ukraine has already been proven, that video does not really prove anything. It is just a bit of footage of a guy in a vaguely Western-looking uniform who speaks English. He does not have to be a mercenary.
They seem to be relatively far and few between however if there are any others over there, and certainly nothing like the indications of actual Russian troops that have been seen (e.g. the guys with Russian pattern fatigues with Russian Marine insignia on their arms as shown in the ruins of the Donetsk airport shot by Rossiya Odin).
The Donetsk guys make it increasingly difficult to be sympathetic, publicly parading, abusing, and beating prisoners and graphically displaying dead Ukrainian troops on a playground in a recent video (I won't link it for now since it's extremely graphic, but it's on Reddit's WTF board currently).
They seem to be relatively far and few between however if there are any others over there, and certainly nothing like the indications of actual Russian troops that have been seen (e.g. the guys with Russian pattern fatigues with Russian Marine insignia on their arms as shown in the ruins of the Donetsk airport shot by Rossiya Odin).
The Donetsk guys make it increasingly difficult to be sympathetic, publicly parading, abusing, and beating prisoners and graphically displaying dead Ukrainian troops on a playground in a recent video (I won't link it for now since it's extremely graphic, but it's on Reddit's WTF board currently).
As if the Ukrainian government does not commit any warcrimes. The Ukrainian Army also makes it difficult to be sympathetic, bombing densely populated cities and blowing up schools with artillery. You can find pictures and videos of street full of dead civilians killed in Ukrainian bombing runs/artillery strikes. And that is before mentioning torture of prisoners, dissapearance of pro-Russian journalists and opposition politicians, the massacre of protesters in Odessa etc. But the US media probably chooses not to report on those things. Also, guys in Russian uniform doesn't mean Russian army is involved. You can just buy those uniforms on the internet if you'd like. If actual Russian soldiers are involved, they would probably not be so stupid to go running around in their official uniforms and insignia.
I would posit there is a difference between collateral damage, and intentionally abusing prisoners and allowing members of the public to attack them and videotaping it. Besides, it's not like the Russians and the seperatists aren't also bombing densely populated areas on their own, as in Mariupol at this very moment.
Also, lets not get into US media. I don't watch US media because its mostly garbage (though it's also not owned and operated by the state as in Russia), hell I don't even have cable. Everything I've mentioned has come from videos aired on actual Russian TV, or uploaded by the parties themselves or independent organizations (such as the VICE video in the gawker link above).
They seem to be relatively far and few between however if there are any others over there, and certainly nothing like the indications of actual Russian troops that have been seen (e.g. the guys with Russian pattern fatigues with Russian Marine insignia on their arms as shown in the ruins of the Donetsk airport shot by Rossiya Odin).
The Donetsk guys make it increasingly difficult to be sympathetic, publicly parading, abusing, and beating prisoners and graphically displaying dead Ukrainian troops on a playground in a recent video (I won't link it for now since it's extremely graphic, but it's on Reddit's WTF board currently).
As if the Ukrainian government does not commit any warcrimes. The Ukrainian Army also makes it difficult to be sympathetic, bombing densely populated cities and blowing up schools with artillery. You can find pictures and videos of street full of dead civilians killed in Ukrainian bombing runs/artillery strikes. And that is before mentioning torture of prisoners, dissapearance of pro-Russian journalists and opposition politicians, the massacre of protesters in Odessa etc. But the US media probably chooses not to report on those things.
Also, guys in Russian uniform doesn't mean Russian army is involved. You can just buy those uniforms on the internet if you'd like. If actual Russian soldiers are involved, they would probably not be so stupid to go running around in their official uniforms and insignia.
In regards to the media, it's not so much that they don't report it out of some pro-US thing, but that they only report what Americans find interesting. Cable new at the very least. I have heard about some of this stuff on NPR though. They aren't really as bound to the wants of their veiwers.
Supertony51 wrote: So ive been out of the loop on this...is Russia leaving Ukraine, or are they sticking around?
Russia leaving Ukraine?
Now that would be a really strange world... Russia will never leave Ukraine, it would be impossible.
Hope they like their new neighbors
He sounds Brit or Aussie. Still, Russian "mercs" and "volunteers" have been found in Ukraine along with supplied equipment and vehicles.
I wish we could do more for the Ukrainians besides slap more sanctions on the Russian state, whose upper echelons have been lying through their teeth for the past eight or so months -- and who have been prolonging this conflict.
Russia will eventually have the Ukraine back. Once that's done they'll start destabilising Kazakhstan then they'll go rescue them. Repeat till Putin dies of old age.
Russia will eventually have the Ukraine back. Once that's done they'll start destabilising Kazakhstan then they'll go rescue them. Repeat till Putin dies of old age.
No need for Russia to destabilise Kazakhstan. They are smart enough not to make Putin mad, especially after he is done with Ukraine. Besides, why bother with them? There is nothing there, and they are really friendly with Russia anyways. Much more value to be had from destabilising Armenia/Azerbaidzhan
If the oil prices don't start rising again soon, Putin won't have enough money left to conquer a game of Risk, let alone the rest of the Ukraine.
He is finished, all that he has left is bluster so he will keep that up for a few more months, but I highly doubt that he will last to the end of the year.
obsidianaura wrote: Putin recently started questioning the legitimacy of Kazakhstan being a post-soviet state. Plus a lot of ethnic Russians there.
Maybe it wont be the first thing he does but if Kazakhstan keeps seeking closer ties with "the west" it may change.
Someone's been reading a particular piece of speculative fiction...
Love that series. ^^
Based on that novel it'd be a raw deal for the electronics industry if Kazakhstan went under given the natural resources available, even if they're sitting idle at the moment (some of the mines are just guys digging holes randomly in the ground with spades). The Russians would exploit the mining industry to hell if they owned that place, though there's already plenty of foreign investors as it is.
Hmn, my wargaming tastes seem to be erring closer to this conflict it would seem. Beyond the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. stuff I think I'm now delving into making models based on this conflict directly for some modern conflict games. Naturally, primarily to avoid offence, the scenarios involving the Little Green Men will have them invading a country known as Uchechistan of course. Eugh, its just a damm shame how difficult it is to find modern Russian and Eastern European miniatures (I'm fine with the infantry mostly as I can make them myself or Empress do them, but I'm holding out on someone making a bloody Gaz Tigr model).
Someone needs to read the Germline series ...though I couldn't say things are going too fine for the rest of the world beyond Russia either (want to know what happens when a war with Russia happens, well there's that novel ...ah, if in a couple of decades we happen to have flechette guns and we've strip mind the planet into nothing ...So youknow 50/50 on that happening).
Hey I'd be fine if the Russians got off their butts, nuked Chernobyl and gave us this.
Wyrmalla wrote:
Hmn, my wargaming tastes seem to be erring closer to this conflict it would seem. Beyond the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. stuff I think I'm now delving into making models based on this conflict directly for some modern conflict games. Naturally, primarily to avoid offence, the scenarios involving the Little Green Men will have them invading a country known as Uchechistan of course. Eugh, its just a damm shame how difficult it is to find modern Russian and Eastern European miniatures (I'm fine with the infantry mostly as I can make them myself or Empress do them, but I'm holding out on someone making a bloody Gaz Tigr model).
I don't know what scale you are looking into, but Zvezda makes a lot of modern Russians in 1/35 scale. There is even a Gaz-2330 Tigr model around in that scale. There is also plenty of modern Russians in 28mm, but no Tigr.
Co'tor Shas wrote:Nah, I know what this is going to turn into.
I am just playing through that game again. It never loses its epicness.
Wyrmalla wrote:
Hmn, my wargaming tastes seem to be erring closer to this conflict it would seem. Beyond the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. stuff I think I'm now delving into making models based on this conflict directly for some modern conflict games. Naturally, primarily to avoid offence, the scenarios involving the Little Green Men will have them invading a country known as Uchechistan of course. Eugh, its just a damm shame how difficult it is to find modern Russian and Eastern European miniatures (I'm fine with the infantry mostly as I can make them myself or Empress do them, but I'm holding out on someone making a bloody Gaz Tigr model).
I don't know what scale you are looking into, but Zvezda makes a lot of modern Russians in 1/35 scale. There is even a Gaz-2330 Tigr model around in that scale. There is also plenty of modern Russians in 28mm, but no Tigr.
Oh hell don't talk to me about 1/35th scale. You can find anything in that. Jump over to 1/48th and you're scraping the barrel. As far as modern miniatures go the US seems to be covered half decently, but if its not a tank you're stuck a lot of the time for the other countries. Well at least Russia is covered due to Cold War models, but there's nout in regards to the newer equipment, which yes is all right most of the time as a lot of countries as still using the gear that they were twenty years ago, but it would be nice to have modern workhorses like the Tigr (which oddly enough I can find the civilian version of, but not the military). Ack, I'll probably have to do with a tank and an APC, but if I want any of the support vehicles like trucks I'm screwed (1/48th Urals go for £50+). Empress Miniatures have just released modern Russian miniatures in 28mm (with more specialised stuff to come, even if Spetnaz for the most part have the same kit as the regulars), and they also sell Chechen war Russians as well. As far as vehicles go there's a decent range of armoured vehicles in the £20-30 range in resin (which I hate spending on a single model unless its something interesting like a crashed Hind or Aral Sea ship), though Kitech also do some tanks in plastic as well. ...But yeah certainly it doesn't seem like there's nearly as much interest in Russian models are there is the US. I'm just lucky I'm not starting PLA (Empress do some which I've been eyeing up for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. a bit as they turn up in the sequel ...because yeah when something like the zone happens its not just NATO and Russia that want a finger in it).
As for the Ukrainians and pro-Russians that aren't using Russian gear, well they're well covered. Want an armoured transport vehicle? Just find a diecast UAZ Van and stick on some armour (albeit such vehicles aren't actually that common, but I managed to get my hands on loads of diecast Soviet civilian vehicles a while back). Hopefully I'll be picking up a Humvee next week and turning it into one of those ones with the enclosed rear compartment the Ukrainians have been using. (which I'm sort of wondering how the Ukrainians got their hands on. They road regular Humvees in Afghanistan so maybe they transported those back and altered them for the climate. Alternatively they were picked up on the cheap from somewhere, though who has a couple of Humvees to spare?).
Ack, but yeah, anyway that'll all wind up finding a use for the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and other settings if they're not doing for modern games (not necessarily war in Ukraine stuff, the guys I know have the UK and US IIRC). The kit that's been used in this war naturally would do for the fictional Stalker setting, particularly the mix of high tech and ad-hoc gear. The reverse would be true to an extent, ah, just not the exo-skeletons and magical artifact carrying models so much. =P
Ah, hmn, this talking about miniatures based on the war in Ukraine isn't OT is it?
Oh hell don't talk to me about 1/35th scale. You can find anything in that. Jump over to 1/48th and you're scraping the barrel. As far as modern miniatures go the US seems to be covered half decently, but if its not a tank you're stuck a lot of the time for the other countries. Well at least Russia is covered due to Cold War models, but there's nout in regards to the newer equipment, which yes is all right most of the time as a lot of countries as still using the gear that they were twenty years ago, but it would be nice to have modern workhorses like the Tigr (which oddly enough I can find the civilian version of, but not the military). Ack, I'll probably have to do with a tank and an APC, but if I want any of the support vehicles like trucks I'm screwed (1/48th Urals go for £50+). Empress Miniatures have just released modern Russian miniatures in 28mm (with more specialised stuff to come, even if Spetnaz for the most part have the same kit as the regulars), and they also sell Chechen war Russians as well. As far as vehicles go there's a decent range of armoured vehicles in the £20-30 range in resin (which I hate spending on a single model unless its something interesting like a crashed Hind or Aral Sea ship), though Kitech also do some tanks in plastic as well. ...But yeah certainly it doesn't seem like there's nearly as much interest in Russian models are there is the US. I'm just lucky I'm not starting PLA (Empress do some which I've been eyeing up for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. a bit as they turn up in the sequel ...because yeah when something like the zone happens its not just NATO and Russia that want a finger in it).
Yeah... I don't get why military vehicles are generally 1/35 scale, racing cars/street cars are 1/24 scale, F-1 cars are generally 1/20 scale, and model aircraft are equally in either 1/48 or 1/72 scale..... Don't those people realize that I want to make a Diorama of an M-1 Abrams driving over a Mitsubishi Eclipse, but can't due to scale issues!?
Things might not be going too well in the Ukraine.
Leaked document. Image from http://www.cyber-berkut.org/ SEE THE TRANSLATION BELOW]
“Order by the first deputy head of the Anti-Terrorist center of the Ukraine's Security Service (SBU)
on anti-terrorist operation
Relating to orders by Defense Ministry, General Staff of Ukrainian Defense Forces and Head of anti-terrorist center of the Ukrainian Security Service to restrict from 26 Jan 2015 the presentation of data on real losses in the area of anti-terrorist operation.
Order:
1. Commanders of the military units shall present reports only to the anti-terrorist center
2. Deputy head of the Anti-Terrorist HQ shall instruct via Military Medical Department of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry head of the Dnepropetrovsk Military Hospital, Southern Military Medical Center (Odessa) and Northern Military Medical Center (Kharkov) to stop until further notice make reports through official channels on real losses in the area of anti-terrorist operation.”
The documents the hacktivists claim they have obtained paint a grim picture of the Ukrainian warfare: discipline of the troops is undermined, troops are running out of reserves, mobilization is stalled as army draftees are escaping the country, mostly running to Russia and other neighboring states.
With the lack of the hardened troops, Ukrainian military leaders order recruits into meaningless attacks on multi-layered defenses of the separatists, which results in havoc and vast casualties.
The Ukrainian military have even employed barrier troops who fired at their fellow servicemen in order to prevent their retreat, as could be learnt from the documents.
That reads very much like a pro-Russian propaganda piece. Really what's happening is the Ukrainian state is no match for Russian units and equipment. I read in a gun magazine that the Ukrainian forces don't have optics on their AK-74Ms don't have optics, while the rebels and Russians do.
It's a shame NATO is afraid of Putin, otherwise we'd have sent equipment of our own. I doubt playing his game of "proxy war" would escalate to MAD.
I wouldn't be surprised. The state of the Ukrainian Army was extremely bad even before the crisis. Now that almost half the Army went to the seperatist side they had to fill up those losses with untrained (and mostly unmotivated) conscripts. It has been reported several that the government had trouble feeding its troops, much less paying them. The Ukrainian government mostly relies on fanatical volunteer militias of radical nationalists such as the Azov Batallion to do the fighting.
Iron_Captain wrote: I wouldn't be surprised. The state of the Ukrainian Army was extremely bad even before the crisis. Now that almost half the Army went to the seperatist side they had to fill up those losses with untrained (and mostly unmotivated) conscripts.
It has been reported several that the government had trouble feeding its troops, much less paying them.
The Ukrainian government mostly relies on fanatical volunteer militias of radical nationalists such as the Azov Batallion to do the fighting.
" The price of the warfare resumed by President Petro Poroshhenko in the east is terrifying. The hacked documents claim at least 1,100 servicemen of the Ukrainian army have lost their lives over the period of the last two weeks. Many dozens Ukrainian soldiers gave up to separatist forces. Ukrainian army has lost over 100 tanks and the armored vehicles."
This information comes into collision with the latest reports by Kiev generals about “no losses”, “defeated enemy” and “thousands of eliminated terrorists”.
The explanation to this is simple: according to the documents allegedly hacked, Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) has officially forbidden the Defense Ministry to reveal true casualties among servicemen.
Loki, 'hacktavists' don't usually work directly for the state. As has been pointed out in the past, Cyber-Berkut take their orders from SVR, and are also behind several attempts at Election rigging in the Ukraine. That they might, say, fabricate 'proof' of the Russian state media's claims doesn't seem too far fetched to me.
According to various experts trotted out by TASS over the last few months, the Ukrainian losses are huge.. If you actually add them up, the Ukrainians have lost four times the population of the entire Donbass region. Surly a sign of NATO intervention.
As anyone who has ever seen, heard of, or read about war will tell you, don't believe what you hear when people talk about casualties until after the treaty is signed, and then only half of it. After all, the Russians still don't know how many people they actually lost in WW2.
" The price of the warfare resumed by President Petro Poroshhenko in the east is terrifying. The hacked documents claim at least 1,100 servicemen of the Ukrainian army have lost their lives over the period of the last two weeks.
Jesus... if those documents are true... that is just an insane amount of losses considering the state of "modern" medicine (even if they're not up to US/UK type standards, they're still a sight better than even the 80s)
I'm inclined to believe the losses are way overinflated to support the Russian cause. They also claimed America sent a decent supply of weapons over but failed to cite any sources on the matter (was relayed to me by a native Russian speaker who read the page in Russian. He shook his head and called them "bull**** liars".).
Loki, 'hacktavists' don't usually work directly for the state. As has been pointed out in the past, Cyber-Berkut take their orders from SVR, and are also behind several attempts at Election rigging in the Ukraine. That they might, say, fabricate 'proof' of the Russian state media's claims doesn't seem too far fetched to me.
And others say Cyber-Berkut is a branch of the FSB, or is made up of former members of the SBU. Who Cyber-Berkut are and who they work for is not known because the members are anonymous. All we know is that they are on the pro-Russian side, that they have published accurate sensitive information in the past, and have attacked several pro-Ukrainian sites and NATO.
BaronIveagh wrote: As anyone who has ever seen, heard of, or read about war will tell you, don't believe what you hear when people talk about casualties until after the treaty is signed, and then only half of it. After all, the Russians still don't know how many people they actually lost in WW2.
Agreed. Casualty estimates are always highly unreliable, especially for an ongoing conflict.
What is sure is that Ukraine is suffering quite a few losses. In the past few weeks alone there have been a lot of prisoners taken, more than before, and including quite a few high-ranking officers.
Over 1000 troops lost in 2 weeks does seem a bit extreme though, even considering the sad state of the Ukrainian military.
Iron_Captain wrote: Who Cyber-Berkut are and who they work for is not known because the members are anonymous. All we know is that they are on the pro-Russian side, that they have published accurate sensitive information in the past, and have attacked several pro-Ukrainian sites and NATO.
Well, no, again, their information has been highly inaccurate in the past. Some of their supposed US documents have the sort of grammatical errors that suggest that they were written by a non-native speaker. Which makes them pretty suspect since I would hope that Jason P. Gresh
Lieutenant Colonel, US Army would have learned by now that "Your job is to cause some problems to the transport hubs in the south-east in order to frame-up the neighbor." isn't quite right, even when speaking in code. It sounds like he's a cover for Boris Badenov's latest plan to eliminate Moose and Squirrel.
Agreed. Casualty estimates are always highly unreliable, especially for an ongoing conflict.
What is sure is that Ukraine is suffering quite a few losses. In the past few weeks alone there have been a lot of prisoners taken, more than before, and including quite a few high-ranking officers.
According to some reports, mostly from Cargo 200, so grain of salt, the Russians have lost up to 6,200 men. Unfortunately, it's the only actual number I can find, and I consider it suspect. But assuming the Ukrainians really did lose 1k men, and the Russians were assaulting dug in positions, it's not outside the realm of possibility. The Ukrainians have had significant close air support, the 'rebels' have not really had much in that way.
Iron_Captain wrote: Who Cyber-Berkut are and who they work for is not known because the members are anonymous. All we know is that they are on the pro-Russian side, that they have published accurate sensitive information in the past, and have attacked several pro-Ukrainian sites and NATO.
Well, no, again, their information has been highly inaccurate in the past. Some of their supposed US documents have the sort of grammatical errors that suggest that they were written by a non-native speaker. Which makes them pretty suspect since I would hope that Jason P. Gresh Lieutenant Colonel, US Army would have learned by now that "Your job is to cause some problems to the transport hubs in the south-east in order to frame-up the neighbor." isn't quite right, even when speaking in code. It sounds like he's a cover for Boris Badenov's latest plan to eliminate Moose and Squirrel.
I did not say all of their information has been correct, only that some of it was.
Agreed. Casualty estimates are always highly unreliable, especially for an ongoing conflict. What is sure is that Ukraine is suffering quite a few losses. In the past few weeks alone there have been a lot of prisoners taken, more than before, and including quite a few high-ranking officers.
According to some reports, mostly from Cargo 200, so grain of salt, the Russians have lost up to 6,200 men. Unfortunately, it's the only actual number I can find, and I consider it suspect. But assuming the Ukrainians really did lose 1k men, and the Russians were assaulting dug in positions, it's not outside the realm of possibility. The Ukrainians have had significant close air support, the 'rebels' have not really had much in that way.
6,200? On a total strength of about 10,000-20,000? Seems unlikely. It is far more ridiculous than those 1.000 losses on the Ukrainian Army side, especially considering the fact that the seperatists are better equipped and that the Army has been on the offense as much as they have been on the defense, if not more. The Ukrainian Army also does not nearly get as much air support as they would want. The majority of their air force was not maintained and inoperable, and that was before the crisis began. Also, they are not Russian, they are pro-Russian. Most of them are Ukrainians. So far losses reported on both sides seem to be pretty equal.
Actually, Ukrainian air support is nonexistent and useless due to the shamelessly given G2A launchers that the rebels have. Still, the rebels and Russian news media like to flaunt Ukrainian casualties -- but I wonder how many rebels and Russian infantry were sent home in body bags?
It's never their own fault, it's the world's. That's how they (the Russians) see things. That or it's always America because we're always a convenient target by their media, especially outlets like Live NEws claiming Americans were behind the Parin shootings. But hey, that's what you get with state owned media: blatant lies and misinformation. Not to saw American news is any better, just that Russian media is typically up to no good.
Iron_Captain wrote: The Ukrainian Army also does not nearly get as much air support as they would want. The majority of their air force was not maintained and inoperable, and that was before the crisis began. Also, they are not Russian, they are pro-Russian. Most of them are Ukrainians.
It only takes a handful in the right place at the right time.
Further, Ukrainians don't get flown back to Russia as 'Cargo 200's. That's specifically reserved for dead Russian Military. (Wounded is 'Cargo 300'). According to sources inside Russia, over 6,200 Cargo 200's have landed in Russia since Mid January.
Either the Russian military is writing fake manifests to over-report it's casualties, or they're taking losses somewhere.
Iron_Captain wrote: The Ukrainian Army also does not nearly get as much air support as they would want. The majority of their air force was not maintained and inoperable, and that was before the crisis began. Also, they are not Russian, they are pro-Russian. Most of them are Ukrainians.
It only takes a handful in the right place at the right time.
Further, Ukrainians don't get flown back to Russia as 'Cargo 200's. That's specifically reserved for dead Russian Military. (Wounded is 'Cargo 300'). According to sources inside Russia, over 6,200 Cargo 200's have landed in Russia since Mid January.
Either the Russian military is writing fake manifests to over-report it's casualties, or they're taking losses somewhere.
That, or the mysterious source is simply not being truthful.
In any case there is no Russian military in Ukraine. Those body bags shipped back to Russia are volunteers and also some "volunteers". If there were a large Russian military presence in Donbass, things would look quite different there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Airman wrote: It's never their own fault, it's the world's. That's how they (the Russians) see things. That or it's always America because we're always a convenient target by their media, especially outlets like Live NEws claiming Americans were behind the Parin shootings. But hey, that's what you get with state owned media: blatant lies and misinformation. Not to saw American news is any better, just that Russian media is typically up to no good.
From the Kremlin manual of emercencies:
Whenever something goes wrong it is the fault of:
(roll 1d6)
1. Fascists
2. Western Liberasts
3. America
4. Foreign spies
5. Chechen terrorists
6. All of the above (American fascist-liberast terrorist spies)
Well they volunteered to join the Russian army, so that means that they volunteered when the government sent them to invade Ukraine right? Right!?
...Of course doesn't Russia still use conscription? Ah, tsk, then all those young men clearly just loved their country so much that they enlisted. Loved their country so much in fact that they lept at the chance to include even more people in it so that they could join them in all that loving.
...Naturally that being purely a love for once's country and in a totally not for each other in a non-heterosexual way.
...
Ah, but in all seriousness, there's no need for the Russians to send there entire army into the region given that its clear they've achieved their objectives with what's currently there. Obviously the exact number of troops is rather irrelevant if the debate's about whether the number reflects if we aught to know they're there given how blatant the Russians were at invading Ukraine in the first place. So the question aught not to be if there are Russian troops in Ukraine (that being ones sent there under orders from the government if we want to get into the whole "volunteering" silliness), rather it should be why are people dumb enough to still question that? I'd say its trolling at this stage to argue that point, then again that's the whole line of the Russian government ...though the Russians did find themselves being "banned" from a few international institutions so that may not be quite the point of contention. Like's been said before in this thread, it shows an ignorance of Soviet/Russian military tactics when it comes to invasions to believe that there isn't any troops in Ukraine.
Come to think of it, at least here in the UK, you're put on a terrorism watch list if you go and fight abroad in conflicts like Syria. I doubt that the Russians have been putting any of their own soldiers on a similar list, but imagine that they have one for those who have sided with the Ukrainians (or the Chechens/Georgians/etc). I wonder if they've been asked to produce any such documentation given that having young men going abroad to fight and coming back trained is something that the West at least seems to care so much about.
Though if they are volunteers, and they are full time soldiers, who's giving them permission to leave their service, or is the government find with a ton of troops going awol enmasse?
Ack, ok the level of doublespeak here's becoming a little heavy (reasons why I hate politics...), time to ditch this thread and nestle away in the hot chicks one for a while.
Though if they are volunteers, and they are full time soldiers, who's giving them permission to leave their service, or is the government find with a ton of troops going awol enmasse?
Ack, ok the level of doublespeak here's becoming a little heavy (reasons why I hate politics...), time to ditch this thread and nestle away in the hot chicks one for a while.
What they are doing is that they give soldiers "official leave" for a few months so they can go to Ukraine as "volunteers" and train and help the seperatists.
As for the number of Russian "troops" in Ukraine, I think that is impossible to say, but I would estimate there are at least a few hundred. (with many more ex-military)
Though if they are volunteers, and they are full time soldiers, who's giving them permission to leave their service, or is the government find with a ton of troops going awol enmasse?
Ack, ok the level of doublespeak here's becoming a little heavy (reasons why I hate politics...), time to ditch this thread and nestle away in the hot chicks one for a while.
What they are doing is that they give soldiers "official leave" for a few months so they can go to Ukraine as "volunteers" and train and help the seperatists.
As for the number of Russian "troops" in Ukraine, I think that is impossible to say, but I would estimate there are at least a few hundred. (with many more ex-military)
BaronIveagh wrote: Seems the man nominated for SecDef likes the idea of Arming the Ukrainians.
Oh please no, I hope not.
That's just going to feed the Russian propaganda machine. Ukraine isn't exactly lacking for arms, it was the dumping ground for the Warsaw Pact's legions as they returned from eastern Europe following the downfall of the USSR, at one point having ten rifles to each Ukrainian soldier. Unless all of it just got sold on the black market (which, a fair amount of it did).
And really, what they need more than arms, is technical and logistical support for the equipment they already have and are unable to effective deploy and use, along with training. Even more than that however, is a more functional and less corrupt government. Even if one wants to accept that the guys at the top are clean, the bureaucracy and middle level functionaries are absurdly rotten, something which contributed greatly to the downfall of the previous government and which continues to greatly hamper the current government.
Sending arms is just going to be wasted money and a propaganda coup for Putin methinks.
Sending arms is just going to be wasted money and a propaganda coup for Putin methinks.
Not so much. Putin's been screaming how the US has been sending guns and tanks and bombs and troops to back the Nazis for a few months now. Officially the US has been sending food and non lethal military gear. As opposed the highly lethal tanks and guns that Putin has been sending.
BMP variant? Looks a bit like a BMP-3 but it's hard to say.
That is no BMP, it is a MT-LB BMP-3:
Spoiler:
MT-LB:
Spoiler:
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Yes, Putin has already called The Ukraine NATO's proxy army and everyone in Russia believes him so I don't see what difference it makes.
No. Not nearly everyone in Russia believes Putin. Most Russians know that the state media is nothing but propaganda. The US sending arms to Ukraine would not only be futile (Ukraine already has huge stockpiles of equipment and a huge domestic armaments industry) and only making the conflict worse, it would also make Putin's lies true and antagonise even the most liberal Russians. If the US really wants to help, they must send money to Ukraine, huge loads of money, because that is what they lack. Not weapons.
Iron_Captain wrote: I wouldn't be surprised. The state of the Ukrainian Army was extremely bad even before the crisis. Now that almost half the Army went to the seperatist side they had to fill up those losses with untrained (and mostly unmotivated) conscripts.
It has been reported several that the government had trouble feeding its troops, much less paying them.
The Ukrainian government mostly relies on fanatical volunteer militias of radical nationalists such as the Azov Batallion to do the fighting.
I'm sure the Little Green Men aren't hurting either
Medium of Death wrote: Remember that time that the US armed what would turn out to be ISIS?
Actually, I don't. I remember the part where they armed some of the moderate anti-al-Assad forces, and I'm sure some of that support ended up in what would become ISIS. That's a far cry from what you're claiming.
A worry now is that during Carter's SECDEF confirmation hearing he advocated for arming the Ukrainians. That provides a lot of incentive for Putin to step it up before this could happen.
I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.
To what end?
As is, Russia's economy is faltering, their currency reserves are drying up, the purchasing power of their currency is weakening, the annexation of Crimea is putting a large strain on the government to digest, the value of their exports are plummeting, government budgets look to shrink, and they've irked/alarmed most of their neighbors and trading partners.
Threatening to send "volunteers" would only feed Putin's propaganda and reinforce his narrative, and potentially get US forces involved in a conflict they ultimate have no direct stake in a non-NATO country, and potentially bring into direct conflict two nuclear armed powers. Nothing good will come of that.
Dropbear Victim wrote: So its come to my attention NATO is planning to mass 30k troops in eastern europe. Has Russia reacted to this planned action yet?
Not that I know of, not sure they necessarily will, it's sabre-rattling. There's already thirteen thousand troops here, they're doubling that number basically. That's just a couple of divisions worth of troops in total and does not appear to include US forces AFAIK, and Eastern Europe is a very large place. The last time an army seriously moved eastward through there, it was with 153 divisions. Not sure Russia is particularly worried, particularly as they aren't entering Ukraine.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.
To what end?
As is, Russia's economy is faltering, their currency reserves are drying up, the purchasing power of their currency is weakening, the annexation of Crimea is putting a large strain on the government to digest, the value of their exports are plummeting, government budgets look to shrink, and they've irked/alarmed most of their neighbors and trading partners.
Threatening to send "volunteers" would only feed Putin's propaganda and reinforce his narrative, and potentially get US forces involved in a conflict they ultimate have no direct stake in a non-NATO country, and potentially bring into direct conflict two nuclear armed powers. Nothing good will come of that.
I just want something to get Putin to stop being a gakker and funding the totalynonfundedbyrussia rebels. Or at least get the to stop killing each-other.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.
To what end?
As is, Russia's economy is faltering, their currency reserves are drying up, the purchasing power of their currency is weakening, the annexation of Crimea is putting a large strain on the government to digest, the value of their exports are plummeting, government budgets look to shrink, and they've irked/alarmed most of their neighbors and trading partners.
Threatening to send "volunteers" would only feed Putin's propaganda and reinforce his narrative, and potentially get US forces involved in a conflict they ultimate have no direct stake in a non-NATO country, and potentially bring into direct conflict two nuclear armed powers. Nothing good will come of that.
I just want something to get Putin to stop being a gakker and funding the totalynonfundedbyrussia rebels. Or at least get the to stop killing each-other.
Unfortunately I don't think there's anything simple, or that a foreign nation is capable of without a real chance of an escalation nobody wants, that will solve that issue nicely.
Personally, if I were Ukraine, at this point I'd threaten the following if acceptable peace terms cannot be reached in short order.
1: Declare the Budapest Memorandum to have been violated and its terms no longer applicable following the violation of territorial sovereignty by a signatory power.
2: Let the eastern territories go. Cease payment of salaries and pensions, stop services, cut off utilities, and abandon the region. Leave Russia on the hook for rebuilding these areas and trying to govern them and their thousands of armed partisans with their already strained resources, These areas no longer will no longer have representation in Kiev and as such it will move far more to the West, and will no longer constitute an ongoing territorial issue or existing conflict which leads to the next point
3: Petition for NATO & EU membership.
I can't imagine a worse backfire for Putin than this. At least if those areas are reintegrated into Ukraine there remains a strident pro-Russia voice in Kiev and greater economic integration even if Ukraine joins the EU.
Your #3 would backfire on Ukraine. No way NATO accepts them in while they are involved in a shooting war with Russia. Putin would see a denial of NATO membership as a green light.
CptJake wrote: Your #3 would backfire on Ukraine. No way NATO accepts them in while they are involved in a shooting war with Russia. Putin would see a denial of NATO membership as a green light.
You assume Russia holds what they have where they are. I'm not willing to assume that. You would find 'rebel' groups springing up in Ukrainian territory.
If they haven't been able to generate unrest in other areas yet, I'd be surprised if it spread significantly more, especially given the increased distance Russian logistical support would have to travel and the strain of incorporating and rebuilding Donetsk and Luhansk, coupled with the decreasing percentage of the population that identifies as or speaks Russian as you move away from these areas.
I just want something to get Putin to stop being a gakker and funding the totalynonfundedbyrussia rebels. Or at least get the to stop killing each-other.
You don't really understand realpolitik, do you?
Vaktathi wrote: Unfortunately I don't think there's anything simple, or that a foreign nation is capable of without a real chance of an escalation nobody wants, that will solve that issue nicely.
Personally, if I were Ukraine, at this point I'd threaten the following if acceptable peace terms cannot be reached in short order.
1: Declare the Budapest Memorandum to have been violated and its terms no longer applicable following the violation of territorial sovereignty by a signatory power.
2: Let the eastern territories go. Cease payment of salaries and pensions, stop services, cut off utilities, and abandon the region. Leave Russia on the hook for rebuilding these areas and trying to govern them and their thousands of armed partisans with their already strained resources, These areas no longer will no longer have representation in Kiev and as such it will move far more to the West, and will no longer constitute an ongoing territorial issue or existing conflict which leads to the next point
3: Petition for NATO & EU membership.
I can't imagine a worse backfire for Putin than this. At least if those areas are reintegrated into Ukraine there remains a strident pro-Russia voice in Kiev and greater economic integration even if Ukraine joins the EU.
Actually, Ukraine already did all of this. After № 1, Western nations all agreed that Russia was in breach of the Budapest memorandum, told Putin he was very naughty and ordered him to stop messing with Ukraine. Then they went back to their own issues. № 2 kinda backfired on Ukraine, because now the Donbass is completely dependent on the Seperatists, who have taken over government. They still supply electricity and water though, as they are afraid cutting that of too will antagonise the Eastern Ukrainian population too much, making any sort of future reunification impossible. After № 3, NATO and EU welcomed Ukraine's efforts, but stated that it does not meet the demands for either organisation and still has a very long way to go.
Vaktathi wrote: If they haven't been able to generate unrest in other areas yet, I'd be surprised if it spread significantly more, especially given the increased distance Russian logistical support would have to travel and the strain of incorporating and rebuilding Donetsk and Luhansk, coupled with the decreasing percentage of the population that identifies as or speaks Russian as you move away from these areas.
What makes you think Russia wants to incorporate Donetsk and Lugansk? Putin just wants to have his frozen conflict so he can have his buffer zones.
I just want something to get Putin to stop being a gakker and funding the totalynonfundedbyrussia rebels. Or at least get the to stop killing each-other.
You don't really understand realpolitik, do you?
I have no idea what that even means.
I just don't like killing. Especially this meaningless death that is happening.
3: Petition for NATO & EU membership.
I can't imagine a worse backfire for Putin than this. At least if those areas are reintegrated into Ukraine there remains a strident pro-Russia voice in Kiev and greater economic integration even if Ukraine joins the EU.
That will never happen.
Sarkozy: Crimea cannot be blamed for joining Russia Crimea cannot be blamed for seceding from Ukraine – a country in turmoil – and choosing to join Russia, said former president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. He also added that Ukraine “is not destined to join the EU.”
“We are part of a common civilization with Russia,” said Sarkozy, speaking on Saturday at the congress of the Union for a Popular Movement Party (UMP), which the former president heads.
“The interests of the Americans with the Russians are not the interests of Europe and Russia,” he said adding that “we do not want the revival of a Cold War between Europe and Russia.”
Regarding Crimea’s choice to secede from Ukraine when the country was in the midst of political turmoil, Sarkozy noted that the residents of the peninsula cannot be accused for doing so.
“Crimea has chosen Russia, and we cannot blame it [for doing so],” he said pointing out that “we must find the means to create a peacekeeping force to protect Russian speakers in Ukraine.”
In March 2014 over 96 percent of Crimea’s residents – the majority of whom are ethnic Russians – voted to secede from Ukraine to reunify with Russia. The decision was prompted by a massive uprising in Ukraine, that led to the ouster of its democratically elected government, and the fact that the first bills approved by the new Kiev authorities were infringing the rights of ethnic Russians.
Concerning Kiev’s hopes of joining the EU in the near future Sarkozy voiced the same position as had been previously expressed by some EU leaders. “It is not destined to join the EU," he said. “Ukraine must preserve its role as a bridge between Europe and Russia.”
While the West has been criticizing Russia’s stance on Crimea, the Russian Foreign Minister said on Saturday that the peninsula’s residents had the right to “self-determination” citing the March referendum. He gave the example of Kosovo, which despite not holding a referendum, was allowed to leave Serbia and create its own state.
“In Crimea what happened complies with the UN Charter on self-determination,” Lavrov said during his speech at the Munich security conference. “The UN Charter has several principles, and the right of a nation for self-determination has a key position.”
On Saturday, French President Francois Hollande called for broader autonomy for the eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. They need “rather strong” autonomy from Kiev, he said speaking on France 2 TV.
The comment comes after Hollande together with German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Kiev and Moscow this week for talks on the resolution of the Ukrainian conflict, that has escalated in January.
Iron_Captain wrote: Actually, Ukraine already did all of this.
After № 1, Western nations all agreed that Russia was in breach of the Budapest memorandum, told Putin he was very naughty and ordered him to stop messing with Ukraine. Then they went back to their own issues.
AFAIK the Ukrainian government itself has not repudiated its obligations under the treaty.
№ 2 kinda backfired on Ukraine, because now the Donbass is completely dependent on the Seperatists, who have taken over government. They still supply electricity and water though, as they are afraid cutting that of too will antagonise the Eastern Ukrainian population too much, making any sort of future reunification impossible.
In some ways I'd agree that it's backfired but at the same time it's probably the only realistic option, cut off funding and make it untenable to sustain, and it doesn't look like the Separatists are doing a great job of administering the area. However, abandoning it entirely would be necessary for point #3 to occur, and the threat of that is really what's salient.
After № 3, NATO and EU welcomed Ukraine's efforts, but stated that it does not meet the demands for either organisation and still has a very long way to go.
Indeed it does have a long way to go, and as long as there's an issue in Donbass, they won't be able to join NATO.
However, these three taken together would free Ukraine from its territorial issues and allow it to join NATO much sooner, while presenting Putin with a threat on his borders that Russia has been attempting to prevent for the last seventy years. This would not be the ideal solution for anyone I think, but, it I were the Ukrainian government, this is the stance I would present to Russia to begin the peace process from a much stronger position than trying to kill and bleed its way through reconquering Donetsk and Luhansk or allow Russia to freeze it into some sort of permanent political limbo.
What makes you think Russia wants to incorporate Donetsk and Lugansk? Putin just wants to have his frozen conflict so he can have his buffer zones.
I agree, which is why Ukraine would have to countenance abandoning it. If such happened (along with Ukraine's claim on Crimea), Ukraine would have no territorial conflicts preventing it from joining NATO, and it would appear likely that popular pressures would force Putin's absorption of the Donbass, as I do not think they'd simply let it float about in its own, particularly when many within the region want to join Russia.
This is all about threatening a potential bad end for Putin in a worst case scenario, not really about wanting to actually do these things, in order to have a viable footing from which to negotiate.
3: Petition for NATO & EU membership.
I can't imagine a worse backfire for Putin than this. At least if those areas are reintegrated into Ukraine there remains a strident pro-Russia voice in Kiev and greater economic integration even if Ukraine joins the EU.
That will never happen.
Sarkozy: Crimea cannot be blamed for joining Russia Crimea cannot be blamed for seceding from Ukraine – a country in turmoil – and choosing to join Russia, said former president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. He also added that Ukraine “is not destined to join the EU.”
“We are part of a common civilization with Russia,” said Sarkozy, speaking on Saturday at the congress of the Union for a Popular Movement Party (UMP), which the former president heads.
“The interests of the Americans with the Russians are not the interests of Europe and Russia,” he said adding that “we do not want the revival of a Cold War between Europe and Russia.”
Regarding Crimea’s choice to secede from Ukraine when the country was in the midst of political turmoil, Sarkozy noted that the residents of the peninsula cannot be accused for doing so.
“Crimea has chosen Russia, and we cannot blame it [for doing so],” he said pointing out that “we must find the means to create a peacekeeping force to protect Russian speakers in Ukraine.”
In March 2014 over 96 percent of Crimea’s residents – the majority of whom are ethnic Russians – voted to secede from Ukraine to reunify with Russia. The decision was prompted by a massive uprising in Ukraine, that led to the ouster of its democratically elected government, and the fact that the first bills approved by the new Kiev authorities were infringing the rights of ethnic Russians.
Concerning Kiev’s hopes of joining the EU in the near future Sarkozy voiced the same position as had been previously expressed by some EU leaders. “It is not destined to join the EU," he said. “Ukraine must preserve its role as a bridge between Europe and Russia.”
While the West has been criticizing Russia’s stance on Crimea, the Russian Foreign Minister said on Saturday that the peninsula’s residents had the right to “self-determination” citing the March referendum. He gave the example of Kosovo, which despite not holding a referendum, was allowed to leave Serbia and create its own state.
“In Crimea what happened complies with the UN Charter on self-determination,” Lavrov said during his speech at the Munich security conference. “The UN Charter has several principles, and the right of a nation for self-determination has a key position.”
On Saturday, French President Francois Hollande called for broader autonomy for the eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. They need “rather strong” autonomy from Kiev, he said speaking on France 2 TV.
The comment comes after Hollande together with German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Kiev and Moscow this week for talks on the resolution of the Ukrainian conflict, that has escalated in January.
I'm not seeing what Sarkozy has to do with anything, he's not in political power, and in fact is facing criminal charges for corruption. His thoughts on the situation have no bearing on it.
Likewise, the 96% "yes" vote is believed by largely nobody, particularly when a not insignificant part of the Crimean population didn't participate. Pass rates that high are almost always fraudulent. Truth be told, I could believe a majority or plurality vote having passed, but a 96% rate is absurdly obviously rigged.
Iron_Captain wrote: Actually, Ukraine already did all of this.
After № 1, Western nations all agreed that Russia was in breach of the Budapest memorandum, told Putin he was very naughty and ordered him to stop messing with Ukraine. Then they went back to their own issues.
AFAIK the Ukrainian government itself has not repudiated its obligations under the treaty.
№ 2 kinda backfired on Ukraine, because now the Donbass is completely dependent on the Seperatists, who have taken over government. They still supply electricity and water though, as they are afraid cutting that of too will antagonise the Eastern Ukrainian population too much, making any sort of future reunification impossible.
In some ways I'd agree that it's backfired but at the same time it's probably the only realistic option, cut off funding and make it untenable to sustain, and it doesn't look like the Separatists are doing a great job of administering the area. However, abandoning it entirely would be necessary for point #3 to occur, and the threat of that is really what's salient.
After № 3, NATO and EU welcomed Ukraine's efforts, but stated that it does not meet the demands for either organisation and still has a very long way to go.
Indeed it does have a long way to go, and as long as there's an issue in Donbass, they won't be able to join NATO.
However, these three taken together would free Ukraine from its territorial issues and allow it to join NATO much sooner, while presenting Putin with a threat on his borders that Russia has been attempting to prevent for the last seventy years. This would not be the ideal solution for anyone I think, but, it I were the Ukrainian government, this is the stance I would present to Russia to begin the peace process from a much stronger position than trying to kill and bleed its way through reconquering Donetsk and Luhansk or allow Russia to freeze it into some sort of permanent political limbo.
What makes you think Russia wants to incorporate Donetsk and Lugansk? Putin just wants to have his frozen conflict so he can have his buffer zones.
I agree, which is why Ukraine would have to countenance abandoning it. If such happened (along with Ukraine's claim on Crimea), Ukraine would have no territorial conflicts preventing it from joining NATO, and it would appear likely that popular pressures would force Putin's absorption of the Donbass, as I do not think they'd simply let it float about in its own, particularly when many within the region want to join Russia.
This is all about threatening a potential bad end for Putin in a worst case scenario, not really about wanting to actually do these things, in order to have a viable footing from which to negotiate.
3: Petition for NATO & EU membership.
I can't imagine a worse backfire for Putin than this. At least if those areas are reintegrated into Ukraine there remains a strident pro-Russia voice in Kiev and greater economic integration even if Ukraine joins the EU.
That will never happen.
Sarkozy: Crimea cannot be blamed for joining Russia Crimea cannot be blamed for seceding from Ukraine – a country in turmoil – and choosing to join Russia, said former president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. He also added that Ukraine “is not destined to join the EU.”
“We are part of a common civilization with Russia,” said Sarkozy, speaking on Saturday at the congress of the Union for a Popular Movement Party (UMP), which the former president heads.
“The interests of the Americans with the Russians are not the interests of Europe and Russia,” he said adding that “we do not want the revival of a Cold War between Europe and Russia.”
Regarding Crimea’s choice to secede from Ukraine when the country was in the midst of political turmoil, Sarkozy noted that the residents of the peninsula cannot be accused for doing so.
“Crimea has chosen Russia, and we cannot blame it [for doing so],” he said pointing out that “we must find the means to create a peacekeeping force to protect Russian speakers in Ukraine.”
In March 2014 over 96 percent of Crimea’s residents – the majority of whom are ethnic Russians – voted to secede from Ukraine to reunify with Russia. The decision was prompted by a massive uprising in Ukraine, that led to the ouster of its democratically elected government, and the fact that the first bills approved by the new Kiev authorities were infringing the rights of ethnic Russians.
Concerning Kiev’s hopes of joining the EU in the near future Sarkozy voiced the same position as had been previously expressed by some EU leaders. “It is not destined to join the EU," he said. “Ukraine must preserve its role as a bridge between Europe and Russia.”
While the West has been criticizing Russia’s stance on Crimea, the Russian Foreign Minister said on Saturday that the peninsula’s residents had the right to “self-determination” citing the March referendum. He gave the example of Kosovo, which despite not holding a referendum, was allowed to leave Serbia and create its own state.
“In Crimea what happened complies with the UN Charter on self-determination,” Lavrov said during his speech at the Munich security conference. “The UN Charter has several principles, and the right of a nation for self-determination has a key position.”
On Saturday, French President Francois Hollande called for broader autonomy for the eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. They need “rather strong” autonomy from Kiev, he said speaking on France 2 TV.
The comment comes after Hollande together with German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Kiev and Moscow this week for talks on the resolution of the Ukrainian conflict, that has escalated in January.
I'm not seeing what Sarkozy has to do with anything, he's not in political power, and in fact is facing criminal charges for corruption. His thoughts on the situation have no bearing on it.
Likewise, the 96% "yes" vote is believed by largely nobody, particularly when a not insignificant part of the Crimean population didn't participate. Pass rates that high are almost always fraudulent. Truth be told, I could believe a majority or plurality vote having passed, but a 96% rate is absurdly obviously rigged.
This is the president of france,"On Saturday, French President Francois Hollande called for broader autonomy for the eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. They need “rather strong” autonomy from Kiev, he said speaking on France 2 TV."
Now he as a election soon, what do the opposition think?.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30278606
How can the West solve its Ukraine problem? Marine Le Pen: hostile to further European integration
n their zeal to denounce Russia for putting pressure on Ukraine over gas supplies, Western commentators usually neglected to mention that, through cheap gas and lenient payment terms, Russia was in fact subsidising the Ukrainian economy to the tune of several billion dollars each year - many times the total of Western aid during this period.
This allowed the same commentators not to address the obvious question of whether Western states would be willing to pay these billions in order to take Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence and into that of the West.
Finally, very few Western commentators indeed have mentioned what is perhaps the most significant aspect of the Ukrainian-Russian relationship, namely that Ukrainians are entirely free to move to Russia to work, and to work in the vast majority of jobs and professions.
As a result of Russia's much more successful economy, more than three million Ukrainians are now working in Russia, and sending remittances to their families in Ukraine - a vital contribution to the economies of several Ukrainian regions.
Do you think Europe can afford another Greece? Where are all these Ukrainians going to work in the EU. Whose jobs are they having.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threaten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.
Why?
I don't like killing, and I want it to stop. Simple as that really.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threaten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.
Why?
I don't like killing, and I want it to stop. Simple as that really.
"Yo dawg. I don't like killing, so I think we should have more killing to stop the killing so we can stop killing while killing".
Thanks for the laugh mate.
I don't think deliberately escalating a conflict will have the effect you desire...
Co'tor Shas wrote: I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threaten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.
Why?
I don't like killing, and I want it to stop. Simple as that really.
"Yo dawg. I don't like killing, so I think we should have more killing to stop the killing so we can stop killing while killing".
n their zeal to denounce Russia for putting pressure on Ukraine over gas supplies, Western commentators usually neglected to mention that, through cheap gas and lenient payment terms, Russia was in fact subsidising the Ukrainian economy to the tune of several billion dollars each year - many times the total of Western aid during this period.
This allowed the same commentators not to address the obvious question of whether Western states would be willing to pay these billions in order to take Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence and into that of the West.
Finally, very few Western commentators indeed have mentioned what is perhaps the most significant aspect of the Ukrainian-Russian relationship, namely that Ukrainians are entirely free to move to Russia to work, and to work in the vast majority of jobs and professions.
As a result of Russia's much more successful economy, more than three million Ukrainians are now working in Russia, and sending remittances to their families in Ukraine - a vital contribution to the economies of several Ukrainian regions.
Do you think Europe can afford another Greece? Where are all these Ukrainians going to work in the EU. Whose jobs are they having.
What does any of that has to do with Russia invading Ukraine?
Co'tor Shas wrote: I did just say threaten. I don't want war, I want reasonable people to sort problems out.
Well, threatening to out-Russia Russia doesn't strike me as particularly reasonable.
What would be reasonable, is a mutually agreeable compromise and peace agreement for both sides. Political autonomy / revolution for eastern regions, a DeMilitarized Zone so Putin can have his buffer regions, and closer economic ties (NOT military) with Europe for West Ukraine.
Which sounds like what Hollande and Sarkozy are suggesting...
Co'tor Shas wrote: I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threaten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.
Why?
I don't like killing, and I want it to stop. Simple as that really.
how is dragging the US into it stopping the killing? Please explain the logic here?
Dear Co'tor, please do not take this personally, but your comments were a bit... naive...
If you want to make the conflict stop, the worst thing you possibly could do is threatening Russia or escalating the conflict. That will only make things much worse. The only road to peace is diplomatic compromise.
Dear Co'tor, please do not take this personally, but your comments were a bit... naive...
If you want to make the conflict stop, the worst thing you possibly could do is threatening Russia or escalating the conflict. That will only make things much worse. The only road to peace is diplomatic compromise.
That's why I had other thing in there as well, and that was my last suggestion. I really don't know the politics of this. That's why I said, "If it would work, then use it. If it wouldn't, then don't.".
Iron_Captain wrote: What makes you think Russia wants to incorporate Donetsk and Lugansk? Putin just wants to have his frozen conflict so he can have his buffer zones.
I agree, which is why Ukraine would have to countenance abandoning it. If such happened (along with Ukraine's claim on Crimea), Ukraine would have no territorial conflicts preventing it from joining NATO, and it would appear likely that popular pressures would force Putin's absorption of the Donbass, as I do not think they'd simply let it float about in its own, particularly when many within the region want to join Russia.
It would work... until 'little green men' suddenly show up in Kharkov and Odessa that is. Russia needs its buffer zone, Ukraine is that buffer zone (the name even translates to 'border lands'). Ukraine joining NATO is unacceptable for Russia, as that would mean they would share a direct border with NATO. As Russian history has shown, having a direct border with your greatest enemy is a very, very bad thing.
n their zeal to denounce Russia for putting pressure on Ukraine over gas supplies, Western commentators usually neglected to mention that, through cheap gas and lenient payment terms, Russia was in fact subsidising the Ukrainian economy to the tune of several billion dollars each year - many times the total of Western aid during this period.
This allowed the same commentators not to address the obvious question of whether Western states would be willing to pay these billions in order to take Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence and into that of the West.
Finally, very few Western commentators indeed have mentioned what is perhaps the most significant aspect of the Ukrainian-Russian relationship, namely that Ukrainians are entirely free to move to Russia to work, and to work in the vast majority of jobs and professions.
As a result of Russia's much more successful economy, more than three million Ukrainians are now working in Russia, and sending remittances to their families in Ukraine - a vital contribution to the economies of several Ukrainian regions.
Do you think Europe can afford another Greece? Where are all these Ukrainians going to work in the EU. Whose jobs are they having.
What does any of that has to do with Russia invading Ukraine?
It's what started it all.
The student protests organised to force President Viktor Yanukovych and Prime Minister Mykola Azarov to sign an association agreement with the EU developed into a revolution that overthrew the government and sparked a counter-revolution in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.
The fact that a corrupt and poverty stricken Ukraine joining the EU is the last thing we need.
The student protests organised to force President Viktor Yanukovych and Prime Minister Mykola Azarov to sign an association agreement with the EU developed into a revolution that overthrew the government and sparked a counter-revolution in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.
The fact that a corrupt and poverty stricken Ukraine joining the EU is the last thing we need.
And that was never a real hypothesis to begin with. What the Association Agreement had were provisions for reforms that Ukraine had to implement to even be considered for membership. As Turkey can attest, that is a long way out from actually becoming a member of the EU.
And all of that doesn't matter one bit on the face of Russia's illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, hopefully, Holland and Merkel don't cave and keep up the sanctions until Russia retreats from the Crimean Peninsula.
Iron_Captain wrote: That will only make things much worse. The only road to peace is diplomatic compromise.
I seem to recall that sentiment has been stated about numerous expansionist powers in the past, particularly those who used small ethnic groups as a justification to annex territory. Said treaties sometimes lasted long enough for the ink to dry.
I don't expect Russia to suddenly over run Poland in the near future, but this current policy elicits a knee jerk reaction in those of us who still have negative associations with the name 'Joseph Stalin'. I know many Russians think he was great, but a lot of people still think Hitler had the right idea too.
Iron_Captain wrote: That will only make things much worse. The only road to peace is diplomatic compromise.
I seem to recall that sentiment has been stated about numerous expansionist powers in the past, particularly those who used small ethnic groups as a justification to annex territory. Said treaties sometimes lasted long enough for the ink to dry.
I don't expect Russia to suddenly over run Poland in the near future, but this current policy elicits a knee jerk reaction in those of us who still have negative associations with the name 'Joseph Stalin'. I know many Russians think he was great, but a lot of people still think Hitler had the right idea too.
You are referring to appeasement again. Given their situation, appeasement was the right choice for the British at that time. World War 2 already was inevitable, no amount of "appeasement" or "though measures" could have changed that. If the Allies would have chosen for escalation instead of appeasement, it only would have gotten the War started sooner.
This conflict is very, very different from World War 2, so drawing comparisons to it has little value. It is not too late for diplomacy here, and the whole West/Ukraine/Russia conflict can be turned back and avoided if people are willing to take solid measures to resolve the points that cause tension.
What else would you exactly call it? The sheer amount of brand new Russian tech that even most Russian troops don't have yet and the number of Russian troops dying mysteriously has reached the point that one must ask who Putin thinks he's fooling when he claims that the Russian military has not invaded the Ukraine. I mean, honestly, the elected leaders and military commanders have all mysteriously been replaced by Putin's hand picked man, who had also previously overseen Russian actions in Crimea, Moldova, Lithuania, and Georgia.
A Russian bear with a paper bag over it's head is still a Russian bear.
Ruslan Kotsaba, a journalist in western Ukraine, has been detained for 60 days on charges of high treason, according to his family. In a video last month, Kotsaba called on Ukrainian citizens to avoid the military draft and to not kill their compatriots.
Kotsaba is from Ivano-Frankovsk, located in the western part of the country which is loyal to Kiev. He has been accused of treason and espionage, his wife wrote on her Facebook page. She also reported that police searched their house and seized the journalist's personal belongings.
The journalist himself has only admitted to attempting to wreck the draft.
"I find it easier to serve in prison two to five years, than going to the civil war, to kill or assist in killing my compatriots who live in the east,” he said in a video released on January 17. “Even if they think different and believe that the Kiev government is not worthy to be obeyed.”
The Ukrainian intelligence service has accused Kotsaba of not only draft disruption, but also for giving interviews to Russian media. The maximum punishment for treason is 15 years in prison.
The Ukrainian government is working to hush anti-mobilization protests. Authorities in Mariupol, eastern Ukraine, have promised to detain anyone who attends meetings calling against the draft.
Local members of parliament have also prepared a bill which would impose criminal responsibility on those who publicly oppose and call for disruption of the draft.
However, a considerable number of people have refused to show up at enlistment offices, and some have even left the country. Over 7,000 people were already facing criminal charges for evading military service by the end of January.
The Ukrainian government has imposed a temporary restriction on leaving the country for men bound to military service.
loki old fart wrote: Ruslan Kotsaba, a journalist in western Ukraine, has been detained for 60 days on charges of high treason, according to his family. In a video last month, Kotsaba called on Ukrainian citizens to avoid the military draft and to not kill their compatriots.
Please link to articles rather than quote the whole thing.
and, reading through what he did, producing videos espousing fleeing rather than serving during a war is, by definition, aiding and abetting the enemy, also known as treason (It's the same in the US and Russia, by the way, both not known for necessarily waiting for a guilty verdict before the execution). I'd say they're not wrong. It also shows the difference between the Ukraine and Russia, where he would have mysteriously died of polonium poisoning rather than be held under arrest and face trial.
The actual 'considerable' number is 40% btw. The numbers are actually pretty good for a Civil War. To compare them to the US Civil war: between July 1863 and April 1865, four national drafts resulting in a call of 776,829 men took place, but of these men only 46,347 were held to service.
Ukraine conflict: Bombings go beyond battle zone
A bomb attack in the southern port city of Odessa targeted a collection point for donations to Ukraine's military on 4 January
The National Guard has been deployed to Odessa.
Kharkiv, in north-east Ukraine but well away from the battle lines, has seen the lion's share of the attacks.
BBC good enough for you.
Being in favor of it is immaterial. It's a reality during either invasion or civil war. Or should I condemn all the allied powers of WW2 as nazi tyrants? Or damn the US for using the draft during it's civil war? Both sentenced people to death for interfering with conscription, sometimes without a trial.
England has, historically, rarely been shy about executing those who have aided the enemy, even if just in the way of producing propaganda. Which this most certainly would qualify as.
Putin's Russia. Looks like he wants to make it Soviet Union 1975 all over again.
Human rights violations and strong-arming the neighbors.
Is it just me or is the world in a very similar position, principally speaking, to where things were prior to WW1?
I just watched "The Guns of August" the other day and even though things are not exactly the same in terms of countries and treaties and pacts etcetra, there is the same feeling I have of being in a tinderbox just ready to go. I am looking at Ukraine and Crimea along with what is going on with ISIL (Daesh) as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia and It just looks like there are a lot of lines being drawn that will bring things crashing up all together and exploding at once.
Anyone else get this feeling as well, I mean us wargamers are a pretty well-real lot on these things, does anyone else here see the similarities or am I just a crazed nutter?
Oh there's similarities, but there's also the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over any potential war. The whole "we'll crush them by Christmas!" deal that was so prevalent during WWI is going to be a lot harder to find when several of the major actors can destroy all human life on Earth.
The question then becomes, "Who gets sick and tired enough to push the button". Or "how crazy does someone have to be to launch an attack that will not only kill their enemy, but also themself as well?"
Would pacts and treaties give nuclear coverage to allies or just those nations with the weapons already?
OTOH Pakistan and India both have access to nukes and they have been in a state of conventional war for years yet haven't put up the balloon yet.
How crazy is Putin, would he use an atomic option?
Counterpoint: The US is the only nation to have deployed atomic weapons against an enemy nation.
The question is does this make any war pointless,
how far do you push the enemy, before he hits the button.
How far would you retreat before using nukes.
On allied territory, or on your own soil.??
Is it just me or is the world in a very similar position, principally speaking, to where things were prior to WW1?
I just watched "The Guns of August" the other day and even though things are not exactly the same in terms of countries and treaties and pacts etcetra, there is the same feeling I have of being in a tinderbox just ready to go. I am looking at Ukraine and Crimea along with what is going on with ISIL (Daesh) as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia and It just looks like there are a lot of lines being drawn that will bring things crashing up all together and exploding at once.
Anyone else get this feeling as well, I mean us wargamers are a pretty well-real lot on these things, does anyone else here see the similarities or am I just a crazed nutter?
There are some similarities, but not with regards to Russia. For starters, Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.
No, the real worry these days is China. Russia is just a sideshow. China has the population, the economic muscle, the sense of being hard-done by, a desire to claim it's 'place in the sun', a stated intent to control power within their local region, and a military that keeps getting more and more powerful.
Whilst I do not see any immediate danger, I personally would actually be more surprised than not if war did not come between the US and China within the next forty years. Bar a monumental shift in public policy by one party, the two are on an eventual collision course.
Which is mildly worrying, because the UK is heavily allied to the US, and if the US ends up going for it hammer and tongs, it will be my nation that gets dragged into the fire, and me personally who would be liable for conscription.
Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.
And Putin, very smartly, has made it so he does not need to endure sustained military conflict with NATO. He instead goes with taking chunks of what he wants when he feels NATO won't find that particular chunk worth fighting over (the war with Georgia, the Crimea, now Ukraine). And he does so in a way that is fracturing NATO, getting NATO to disagree at a time where due to years of underspending on defense, they cannot afford sustained military conflict themselves.
Look at the GAZPROM pipelines, to think Russia is not a genuine threat (if they want to be) is silly as well. Is Europe/the EU/NATO willing to have the heat shut off? Putin clearly feels he can push a bit more, a bit at a time, and so far he is correct.
As for what does a war with China look like? A lot of it will take place in the cyber-sphere. China is pretty good at understanding asymmetrical warfare and is investing in capabilities designed to combat US weaknesses and defend against US strengths, not all are traditional military capabilities.
Tyran wrote: How would a war between China and USA happen?
China isn't stupid enough to try to invade USA, and the USA isn't stupid enough try to invade China.
Regional politics. China is determined as things stand to control local regional dominance and project a sphere of power/influence of their own as they once used to. China has no desire to invade the outside world, but the Chinese view of the future involves Chinese dominance in Asia with the other local nations subservient. They've long since twigged that such influence can only come about as a result of military power, and that's why China has a military spending second only to the US and is in the process of constructing several carrier fleets.
The US is tied up in supporting Japan and South Korea however, and as a nation has always been quite pugnacious. It is unlikely the US will back down and concede the role of dominant nation in that part of the world.
The Chinese have spent a considerable amount of time and effort culturally blacklisting Japan and making a point of how Western nations screwed over China a hundred years ago.They've also initiated an arms race in that part of the world. It's subtle but there, you'll note that the US and Japan have been busy building pseudo carriers to help counterbalance recent Chinese naval construction.
It's not going to happen soon. China does not yet possess the military muscle to match the US. But the technological advantage of the West has been shrinking year by year, Western military budgets keep declining, and Chinese ones keep growing. The Chinese manufacturing capacity and population figures already match or outstrips that of America, and once they have the military brickbats as well, America will have a choice. Try and confine China with regional alliances, or leave the region. And the Chinese will most likely refuse to be contained.
Is it just me or is the world in a very similar position, principally speaking, to where things were prior to WW1?
I just watched "The Guns of August" the other day and even though things are not exactly the same in terms of countries and treaties and pacts etcetra, there is the same feeling I have of being in a tinderbox just ready to go. I am looking at Ukraine and Crimea along with what is going on with ISIL (Daesh) as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia and It just looks like there are a lot of lines being drawn that will bring things crashing up all together and exploding at once.
Anyone else get this feeling as well, I mean us wargamers are a pretty well-real lot on these things, does anyone else here see the similarities or am I just a crazed nutter?
There are some similarities, but not with regards to Russia. For starters, Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.
No, the real worry these days is China. Russia is just a sideshow. China has the population, the economic muscle, the sense of being hard-done by, a desire to claim it's 'place in the sun', a stated intent to control power within their local region, and a military that keeps getting more and more powerful.
Whilst I do not see any immediate danger, I personally would actually be more surprised than not if war did not come between the US and China within the next forty years. Bar a monumental shift in public policy by one party, the two are on an eventual collision course.
Which is mildly worrying, because the UK is heavily allied to the US, and if the US ends up going for it hammer and tongs, it will be my nation that gets dragged into the fire, and me personally who would be liable for conscription.
The patient warrior sits idly by the river, knowing in the fullness of time, the dead bodies of his enemies will float by.
China waits for America to destroy itself. North Korea may start something that escalates though.
Intense fighting has been reported in eastern Ukraine, a day after a peace deal was reached in Minsk.
The fiercest battles were over control of the town of Debaltseve, a strategic town in between rebel-held areas.
The group responsible for monitoring the ceasefire, due to start at midnight on Saturday, says there is still "quite serious live fire" in several areas.
European leaders have warned Russia that it faces additional sanctions if the Minsk agreement is not respected.
BBC journalists in Donetsk heard new shelling on Friday morning, though they said it sounded less intense than in recent days.
Luhansk also came under bombardment overnight - with Russian TV reporting some of the heaviest fighting there in months.
But Ukraine's army said the most ferocious fighting centred on Debaltseve, a railway junction where rebels have besieged government troops in a last-ditch effort to win the town.
"The enemy continues to build up forces in the main areas of the armed conflict. The most tense situation is near Debaltseve," military spokesman Andriy Lysenko told reporters.
Ukrainian troops rumbled towards the town of Debaltseve on Friday where fighting continues to rage
Women embrace as they wait for a bus, carrying evacuees to Russia, to leave Donetsk
Tyran wrote: How would a war between China and USA happen?
China isn't stupid enough to try to invade USA, and the USA isn't stupid enough try to invade China.
Regional politics. China is determined as things stand to control local regional dominance and project a sphere of power/influence of their own as they once used to. China has no desire to invade the outside world, but the Chinese view of the future involves Chinese dominance in Asia with the other local nations subservient. They've long since twigged that such influence can only come about as a result of military power, and that's why China has a military spending second only to the US and is in the process of constructing several carrier fleets.
The US is tied up in supporting Japan and South Korea however, and as a nation has always been quite pugnacious. It is unlikely the US will back down and concede the role of dominant nation in that part of the world.
The Chinese have spent a considerable amount of time and effort culturally blacklisting Japan and making a point of how Western nations screwed over China a hundred years ago.They've also initiated an arms race in that part of the world. It's subtle but there, you'll note that the US and Japan have been busy building pseudo carriers to help counterbalance recent Chinese naval construction.
It's not going to happen soon. China does not yet possess the military muscle to match the US. But the technological advantage of the West has been shrinking year by year, Western military budgets keep declining, and Chinese ones keep growing. The Chinese manufacturing capacity and population figures already match or outstrips that of America, and once they have the military brickbats as well, America will have a choice. Try and confine China with regional alliances, or leave the region. And the Chinese will most likely refuse to be contained.
In other words, war.
I expect China to win that one, they have the home advantage.
Is it just me or is the world in a very similar position, principally speaking, to where things were prior to WW1?
I just watched "The Guns of August" the other day and even though things are not exactly the same in terms of countries and treaties and pacts etcetra, there is the same feeling I have of being in a tinderbox just ready to go. I am looking at Ukraine and Crimea along with what is going on with ISIL (Daesh) as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia and It just looks like there are a lot of lines being drawn that will bring things crashing up all together and exploding at once.
Anyone else get this feeling as well, I mean us wargamers are a pretty well-real lot on these things, does anyone else here see the similarities or am I just a crazed nutter?
There are some similarities, but not with regards to Russia. For starters, Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.
No, the real worry these days is China. Russia is just a sideshow. China has the population, the economic muscle, the sense of being hard-done by, a desire to claim it's 'place in the sun', a stated intent to control power within their local region, and a military that keeps getting more and more powerful.
Whilst I do not see any immediate danger, I personally would actually be more surprised than not if war did not come between the US and China within the next forty years. Bar a monumental shift in public policy by one party, the two are on an eventual collision course.
Which is mildly worrying, because the UK is heavily allied to the US, and if the US ends up going for it hammer and tongs, it will be my nation that gets dragged into the fire, and me personally who would be liable for conscription.
No. A war with China and the US would be a similar nuke war very quickly.
(which is why the US needs to get neutral sooner rather than later).
We've had one war with China. Thats enough thank you.
Tyran wrote: How would a war between China and USA happen?
China isn't stupid enough to try to invade USA, and the USA isn't stupid enough try to invade China.
Regional politics. China is determined as things stand to control local regional dominance and project a sphere of power/influence of their own as they once used to. China has no desire to invade the outside world, but the Chinese view of the future involves Chinese dominance in Asia with the other local nations subservient. They've long since twigged that such influence can only come about as a result of military power, and that's why China has a military spending second only to the US and is in the process of constructing several carrier fleets.
The US is tied up in supporting Japan and South Korea however, and as a nation has always been quite pugnacious. It is unlikely the US will back down and concede the role of dominant nation in that part of the world.
The Chinese have spent a considerable amount of time and effort culturally blacklisting Japan and making a point of how Western nations screwed over China a hundred years ago.They've also initiated an arms race in that part of the world. It's subtle but there, you'll note that the US and Japan have been busy building pseudo carriers to help counterbalance recent Chinese naval construction.
It's not going to happen soon. China does not yet possess the military muscle to match the US. But the technological advantage of the West has been shrinking year by year, Western military budgets keep declining, and Chinese ones keep growing. The Chinese manufacturing capacity and population figures already match or outstrips that of America, and once they have the military brickbats as well, America will have a choice. Try and confine China with regional alliances, or leave the region. And the Chinese will most likely refuse to be contained.
In other words, war.
I expect China to win that one, they have the home advantage.
As things stand right now, China would get hammered if they stepped out of line.
In fifteen years with four carrier fleets? They would still get hammered.
What matters is whether or not they maintain their current trend. The current military spending of China is at $131 billion (2% of GDP) as compared to $640 billion (3.8% of GDP) in the US, $48.6 billion(1% of GDP) in Japan and $33.9 billion(2.8% of GDP) in South Korea. If China maintains it's current rate of increase in defence funding, it will achieve dollar parity with the US in about 15-20 years.
If China decides in fifteen years time that they have the budget to build another six carrier fleets, they will have the resources, both in shipbuilding expertise and cash, to launch them within a further ten years. Assuming that America maintains its current level of strength at ten carrier fleets (which is not a given) that's a close match. Given that any fighting would take place within range of Chinese airpower and missile strikes, any conflict between the two would be ruinous for the US in terms of lives and material, and absorb most the of the USA's naval capabilities.
Fortunately, things don't take place in a vaccum, and neither Japan nor South Korea plan on being easy marks. The US has been placing pressure on the Japanese to rearm of late to help balance the figures (both in military and financial terms), resulting in the Izumo class 'Helicopter' carriers (which could easily take VTOL aircraft). If they work together, they should be able to contain China for a goodly time to come.
The real question is whether China will accept that, or keep increasing spending past that point. If China continues to perceive itself as a victim of the west/Japan, it would undoubtedly get more and more muscular as time progresses, and keep jacking up the defence spending and throwing it's weight around. And that would be a sure recipe for conflict.
Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.
And Putin, very smartly, has made it so he does not need to endure sustained military conflict with NATO. He instead goes with taking chunks of what he wants when he feels NATO won't find that particular chunk worth fighting over (the war with Georgia, the Crimea, now Ukraine). And he does so in a way that is fracturing NATO, getting NATO to disagree at a time where due to years of underspending on defense, they cannot afford sustained military conflict themselves.
Look at the GAZPROM pipelines, to think Russia is not a genuine threat (if they want to be) is silly as well. Is Europe/the EU/NATO willing to have the heat shut off? Putin clearly feels he can push a bit more, a bit at a time, and so far he is correct.
Problem with that logic is that Russia cannot sustain itself without the money that comes in from that oil and gas. Which is what happens when you have an economy built around a single export. If Putin were to shut it off then it would kill Russia as surely as nuclear war.
Hell, look at how the russian economy is doing now when the pipes are still open but the price has gone down. Shutting off the gas is a bluff and everyone can see that.
Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.
And Putin, very smartly, has made it so he does not need to endure sustained military conflict with NATO. He instead goes with taking chunks of what he wants when he feels NATO won't find that particular chunk worth fighting over (the war with Georgia, the Crimea, now Ukraine). And he does so in a way that is fracturing NATO, getting NATO to disagree at a time where due to years of underspending on defense, they cannot afford sustained military conflict themselves.
Look at the GAZPROM pipelines, to think Russia is not a genuine threat (if they want to be) is silly as well. Is Europe/the EU/NATO willing to have the heat shut off? Putin clearly feels he can push a bit more, a bit at a time, and so far he is correct.
Problem with that logic is that Russia cannot sustain itself without the money that comes in from that oil and gas. Which is what happens when you have an economy built around a single export. If Putin were to shut it off then it would kill Russia as surely as nuclear war.
Hell, look at how the russian economy is doing now when the pipes are still open but the price has gone down. Shutting off the gas is a bluff and everyone can see that.
The Euro Zone economy is also very fragile, and I suspect Putin is willing to accept more pain than any of the euro leaders, and waving the flag of Rodina has rallied the Russian people to accept quite a bit in the way of sacrifice in the past. So, it may very well be a bluff, but is it one the Euro Zone and NATO is willing to call? A Putin backed into a corner, even if it is one of his own making, is a dangerous animal.
Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.
And Putin, very smartly, has made it so he does not need to endure sustained military conflict with NATO. He instead goes with taking chunks of what he wants when he feels NATO won't find that particular chunk worth fighting over (the war with Georgia, the Crimea, now Ukraine). And he does so in a way that is fracturing NATO, getting NATO to disagree at a time where due to years of underspending on defense, they cannot afford sustained military conflict themselves.
Look at the GAZPROM pipelines, to think Russia is not a genuine threat (if they want to be) is silly as well. Is Europe/the EU/NATO willing to have the heat shut off? Putin clearly feels he can push a bit more, a bit at a time, and so far he is correct.
Problem with that logic is that Russia cannot sustain itself without the money that comes in from that oil and gas. Which is what happens when you have an economy built around a single export. If Putin were to shut it off then it would kill Russia as surely as nuclear war.
Hell, look at how the russian economy is doing now when the pipes are still open but the price has gone down. Shutting off the gas is a bluff and everyone can see that.
The Euro Zone economy is also very fragile, and I suspect Putin is willing to accept more pain than any of the euro leaders, and waving the flag of Rodina has rallied the Russian people to accept quite a bit in the way of sacrifice in the past. So, it may very well be a bluff, but is it one the Euro Zone and NATO is willing to call? A Putin backed into a corner, even if it is one of his own making, is a dangerous animal.
It is not a corner of his own making. It is NATO that has driven Russia into the corner:
Putin has no choice in what he does. Russia needs its sphere of influence to be safe.
Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.
And Putin, very smartly, has made it so he does not need to endure sustained military conflict with NATO. He instead goes with taking chunks of what he wants when he feels NATO won't find that particular chunk worth fighting over (the war with Georgia, the Crimea, now Ukraine). And he does so in a way that is fracturing NATO, getting NATO to disagree at a time where due to years of underspending on defense, they cannot afford sustained military conflict themselves.
Look at the GAZPROM pipelines, to think Russia is not a genuine threat (if they want to be) is silly as well. Is Europe/the EU/NATO willing to have the heat shut off? Putin clearly feels he can push a bit more, a bit at a time, and so far he is correct.
Problem with that logic is that Russia cannot sustain itself without the money that comes in from that oil and gas. Which is what happens when you have an economy built around a single export. If Putin were to shut it off then it would kill Russia as surely as nuclear war.
Hell, look at how the russian economy is doing now when the pipes are still open but the price has gone down. Shutting off the gas is a bluff and everyone can see that.
The Euro Zone economy is also very fragile, and I suspect Putin is willing to accept more pain than any of the euro leaders, and waving the flag of Rodina has rallied the Russian people to accept quite a bit in the way of sacrifice in the past. So, it may very well be a bluff, but is it one the Euro Zone and NATO is willing to call? A Putin backed into a corner, even if it is one of his own making, is a dangerous animal.
It is not a corner of his own making. It is NATO that has driven Russia into the corner:
Putin has no choice in what he does. Russia needs its sphere of influence to be safe.
Or it could stop bullying its neighbors. They haven't joined NATO without reason, after all.
Russia is incapable of sustaining any sort of real military conflict with NATO, and would back down the minute it appeared inevitable. There was a time when the Soviets were a genuine threat to Europe, but bar nukes, that time has passed.
And Putin, very smartly, has made it so he does not need to endure sustained military conflict with NATO. He instead goes with taking chunks of what he wants when he feels NATO won't find that particular chunk worth fighting over (the war with Georgia, the Crimea, now Ukraine). And he does so in a way that is fracturing NATO, getting NATO to disagree at a time where due to years of underspending on defense, they cannot afford sustained military conflict themselves.
Look at the GAZPROM pipelines, to think Russia is not a genuine threat (if they want to be) is silly as well. Is Europe/the EU/NATO willing to have the heat shut off? Putin clearly feels he can push a bit more, a bit at a time, and so far he is correct.
Problem with that logic is that Russia cannot sustain itself without the money that comes in from that oil and gas. Which is what happens when you have an economy built around a single export. If Putin were to shut it off then it would kill Russia as surely as nuclear war.
Hell, look at how the russian economy is doing now when the pipes are still open but the price has gone down. Shutting off the gas is a bluff and everyone can see that.
The Euro Zone economy is also very fragile, and I suspect Putin is willing to accept more pain than any of the euro leaders, and waving the flag of Rodina has rallied the Russian people to accept quite a bit in the way of sacrifice in the past. So, it may very well be a bluff, but is it one the Euro Zone and NATO is willing to call? A Putin backed into a corner, even if it is one of his own making, is a dangerous animal.
It is not a corner of his own making. It is NATO that has driven Russia into the corner:
Putin has no choice in what he does. Russia needs its sphere of influence to be safe.
Or it could stop bullying its neighbors. They haven't joined NATO without reason, after all.
Yes, that is the other side.
But the reality is that Russia is a great power and its neighbours are not. How would the US feel if Venezuela and Cuba somehow started a military alliance to counter US interests and got most of South America in it, and then suddenly Mexico and Canada announce they want to join too. I imagine the US wouldn't be too amused if such a thing happened. And here the situation is complicated by the fact that those territories are former Russian territories and still have large ethnic Russian populations. What about them? Are they not important? Do their opinions and wish to be reunited with Russia not count?
...
.jpg)
