Howard A Treesong wrote: I'm getting fed up of reading that anti-Russian attitudes are due to 'nazi propaganda', especially coming from people not even born until after the collapse of the Soviet Union so have a world view based on what is spooned to them by the Russian state in what passes for education and media. It would be nice to have a serious thread about Ukraine without crackpot claims about the CIA controlling the world with only Russia bravely standing up to them.
Went to the Stazi museum in Berlin yesterday and it was quite shocking the scale of the spying and nasty methods used to keep the population in line. Clearly the form of governing the Soviet Union approved of and consequently no wonder that returning under control by Russia is not popular with many Eastern European countries.
Looks like russian T-72B3 with some parts missing. But rough white lines? it means, it used by ukraine army. Strange. If we find serial number, we can track down where this tank came from.
It's a double reference to the decidedly lethal game "Russian Roulette", where one never knows the consequences of a trigger pull, and the fact that there's Russians involved (even if they're not Russian troops, the DNR rebels and the like all claim to be Russsian).
Yes, I know that game. It was popular during revolution and civil war amongst officers, who can't decide to suicide or to live.
If there's a such name, author think it is Russia responsible for Ukraine chaos? No, it's all ukrainian Yanukovich, euromaidan, Poroshenko, oligarchs, UPA, Bandera and whatever
Howard A Treesong wrote: Went to the Stazi museum in Berlin yesterday and it was quite shocking the scale of the spying and nasty methods used to keep the population in line. Clearly the form of governing the Soviet Union approved of and consequently no wonder that returning under control by Russia is not popular with many Eastern European countries.
Probably, there will be CIA museum in the future. Where our descendants will see how CIA controlled world
Okay either this guy is serious and I now feel extremely bad for the average russian, or he is spreading misinformation for pay from a certain eastern European government.
Ustrello wrote: Okay either this guy is serious and I now feel extremely bad for the average russian, or he is spreading misinformation for pay from a certain eastern European government.
Regardless I reported him for trolling because I personally believe he is doing it to be a troll.
Ustrello wrote: Okay either this guy is serious and I now feel extremely bad for the average russian, or he is spreading misinformation for pay from a certain eastern European government.
I'm just spitballing here, maybe he's a CIA agent trying to convince the rest of us the CIA isn't as stupid as they seem to be!
Also;
Also as an example of just how bad the CIA is at being the CIA (which I found while looking for the above picture);
If you look through this thread myself and others have posted before and after images of Russian tanks with and without their insignia. "Oh those aren't the same tanks, see the paintjobs different". ...Yes, yes it is, that's the point. The stowage, wear and uh... crew are the same however.
Posters like that are trolls, but I think people's stance on them is that they're offering a rather curious look on the perspective of "the other side" as it were. As batgak crazy as it is of course.
Is it possible, that Ukraine made fake "russian" tank?
If they have, they're making a lot of them, here's three more.
I think it's easier to explain this by saying they're Russian tanks that have had their insignias removed or overpainted.
Oh, Grisha. What are you doing on this tank?
It looks like T-72B3 too. All the same? Sosna tageter, wind detector, Contact-5 armour. But It also might be ukrainian T-72UMG. Or something between them,
Or maybe, it's repaired T-72, captured from ukraine army, using stolen from Rusia upgrade kits.
Heh, que an investigation into corruption in the Russian army and how so many active service men are allowed to just up and leave with millions of top of the line gear. ...Or not, because said investigation would be funded by the Russian government, which is as corrupt, if not more so, than the military.
Yes though, I do question how the people how actually believe this bull are fine with all that state paid for equipment and men just upping and leaving. Then again, I guess they're so used to so much of their money going off into politicians pockets as it is.
Countries that I would hate to live in number #15...
Obviously this just means that Nicholas Cage works for the CIA in their dastardly plans to frame Russia for starting a civil war in their country and then invading their country when the civil war didn't go how Russia wanted
It looks like T-72B3 too. All the same? Sosna tageter, wind detector, Contact-5 armour. But It also might be ukrainian T-72UMG. Or something between them,
Or maybe, it's repaired T-72, captured from ukraine army, using stolen from Rusia upgrade kits.
Yeah, just like in the old days they put the whole tank factory on their backs and carried it back from Russia without getting caught.
These are most likely Russian, possibly 4th or 5th armored, since those crazy Buryats tweeted and facebooked and youtubed their way from Ulan-Ude to Donetsk..
That "base" the drone was recording.
Seems to be a FARP, Bivouac, rest tents, etc etc
Basically a rest and refit site. Saw the six Jersey Barriers they have
Also the reflector are straight lined. Separating armor vehicles from the walking space.. Dress right dress sort of thing.
That towed artillery piece was not deployed into combat configuration. Seem its Prime mover was over at the maintenance tent.
I've a feeling the one parked in the herring bone in prepared positions are ammo carriers.
My Pathfinder side of myself notice the length and width of the straight clearings.
I see enough spaces for at least eight HIPS to land on one section
The other seems to be the same but throw in Hinds to.
Under NOD's IR lights on you can see the guiding lines for aircraft's to move.
I don't think, what they did is legal. Going into other country without order of the high command is impossible. They most likely left from service and went illegally. Participation in any war as the mercenary is a crime in Russia.
Freakazoitt wrote: I don't think, what they did is legal. Going into other country without order of the high command is impossible. They most likely left from service and went illegally. Participation in any war as the mercenary is a crime in Russia.
According to one Dorzhi Batomunkuyev, who was interviewed by the Russian press while recovering from burns received when his tank was knocked out (there are pictures of the poor guy, but you'll want to Google them, mods won't let us show that sort of thing), they had orders to cross into the Ukraine. It's been verified that he is/was part of the 5th Tank Brigade of the 36th Army of the Eastern Military Command, military unit 46108 (Ulan-Ude).
He was. But dismissed and went there by his own will. When I first heard about that, there were SO many ukrainian fake, so I didn't even interested in. So many photoshoped pictures, photos from Georgia, Chechnya, Serbia and even Syria, so many insulting and absurd texts on official ukrainian news.
I don't understeand, how few tanks or crew can help DNR. Is it worth to make international scandal?
Still, it's not an "invasion".
Were the fuelers and ammo haulers that supported his tanks movement to the Ukraine and combat in the Ukraine also crewed by folks who deserted? How about the maintenance assets? How about the comms networks set up for them? Were those established by deserters as well?
Amazing your country can't stop some troop from not only stealing his tank but from traveling all the way to the Ukraine along with the combat support and combat service support required to get there and then fight once there.
Freakazoitt wrote: He was. But dismissed and went there by his own will. When I first heard about that, there were SO many ukrainian fake, so I didn't even interested in. So many photoshoped pictures, photos from Georgia, Chechnya, Serbia and even Syria, so many insulting and absurd texts on official ukrainian news.
I don't understeand, how few tanks or crew can help DNR. Is it worth to make international scandal?
Still, it's not an "invasion".
Actually? It IS an "invasion" when those tank crews are saying that they were ordered to go.
You understand, in any case, that you are not the hero in this thread right? You're not "exposing" anything to Westerners who have been lied to or any of the nonsensical ranting you've engaged in.
You are the villain here. An apologist for a government that has a history of engaging in exactly the kinds of activities which you laid at the feet of the Western nations that you claimed are "bullying" the poor Russian government.
Kanluwen wrote: Actually? It IS an "invasion" when those tank crews are saying that they were ordered to go.
You understand, in any case, that you are not the hero in this thread right? You're not "exposing" anything to Westerners who have been lied to or any of the nonsensical ranting you've engaged in.
You are the villain here. An apologist for a government that has a history of engaging in exactly the kinds of activities which you laid at the feet of the Western nations that you claimed are "bullying" the poor Russian government.
Oh, so you an american lawbringer, who decide who is evil and should be punished?
Point at some country and saying "they are evil! they are orcs! we shoud make humanitarian bombing on them to purify by fire and turn them into democracy".
You feel yourself a sacred inquisitor, or maybe even God?
I won't speak now about war crimes which committed the USA. but don't forget: Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
Both of us are ordinary citizens who can be not agree with the our governments, but both of us aren't interested in actions against the our countries.
please, no gloating
Were the fuelers and ammo haulers that supported his tanks movement to the Ukraine and combat in the Ukraine also crewed by folks who deserted? How about the maintenance assets? How about the comms networks set up for them? Were those established by deserters as well?
Amazing your country can't stop some troop from not only stealing his tank but from traveling all the way to the Ukraine along with the combat support and combat service support required to get there and then fight once there.
If you are so sure that there the Russian troops are at war, go to Donetsk. Not to Kiev, where they will feed you with lie. you will see that there civilians dying That humanitarian escorts - the only source of food and medicine there. not matters, sent from the west of Ukraine or from Russia. and the militia with volunteers exist there for chasteners didn't kill people whom they hate and of course, you won't find the Russian troops there
Kanluwen wrote: Actually? It IS an "invasion" when those tank crews are saying that they were ordered to go.
You understand, in any case, that you are not the hero in this thread right? You're not "exposing" anything to Westerners who have been lied to or any of the nonsensical ranting you've engaged in.
You are the villain here. An apologist for a government that has a history of engaging in exactly the kinds of activities which you laid at the feet of the Western nations that you claimed are "bullying" the poor Russian government.
Oh, so you an american lawbringer, who decide who is evil and should be punished?
Point at some country and saying "they are evil! they are orcs! we shoud make humanitarian bombing on them to purify by fire and turn them into democracy".
You feel yourself a sacred inquisitor, or maybe even God?
I won't speak now about war crimes which committed the USA. but don't forget: Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
Both of us are ordinary citizens who can be not agree with the our governments, but both of us aren't interested in actions against the our countries.
please, no gloating
I love how you attack the poster instead of the argument.
What the United States has or has not done is not relevant to this thread nor this discussion. What Russia has done and is doing? That's relevant.
I really want to hammer this home so posters can see:
This kind of blatant ignorance? This is the mentality of the Russians I've had the sincere displeasure of having met. They feel like THEY are the victims of the world stage, that somehow THEY deserve to be a superpower again.
So please. Tell me what "actions against Russia" necessitated the covert redeployment of Russian troops into Ukraine? How about "actions against Russia" by Georgia in 2008?
What argument? You found one dismissed tankist, who went there, because someone said "we are going to fight ukrainians" (which is based only on rumors) with probably some tank (again, just rumors).
What the United States has or has not done is not relevant to this thread nor this discussion.
Why not? USA supports one side of conflict in Ukraine. I don't know, than this help will end. What if suddenly again will arrange chaos and then will leave like they did before.
What Russia has done and is doing? That's relevant.
Russia is not participating in Ukraine conflict. some unclear volunteers aren't count. Just like serbians, french volunters, one american
This kind of blatant ignorance? This is the mentality of the Russians I've had the sincere displeasure of having met. They feel like THEY are the victims of the world stage, that somehow THEY deserve to be a superpower again.
No, Russia want multipolar world. "Russian superpower" is media cliche, like "Soviet tanks invasion".
How about "actions against Russia" by Georgia in 2008
Freakazoitt wrote: Threatened by destroying peacekeepers unit and killing ossetians? You know about 2008 only from "yellow" press and troll bloggers?
Peacekeepers which, according to Georgian police, opened fire on them first?
And yes, they were "killing Ossetians". Ossetia was in the midst of a pretty nasty secession from the country of Georgia. Ossetians were killing Georgians too, y'know.
Russia retroactively granting citizenship to Ossetians does not mean that they had any leg to stand on for their invasion in any case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: It was threatened by Georgia almost becoming NATO. Buffer zones are important.
Except that wasn't why Russia invaded Georgia, now was it?
No, they were coming to LIBERATE Ossetia from their cruel Georgian Oppresors, comrade!
Kanluwen wrote: Actually? It IS an "invasion" when those tank crews are saying that they were ordered to go.
You understand, in any case, that you are not the hero in this thread right? You're not "exposing" anything to Westerners who have been lied to or any of the nonsensical ranting you've engaged in.
You are the villain here. An apologist for a government that has a history of engaging in exactly the kinds of activities which you laid at the feet of the Western nations that you claimed are "bullying" the poor Russian government.
Oh, so you an american lawbringer, who decide who is evil and should be punished?
Point at some country and saying "they are evil! they are orcs! we shoud make humanitarian bombing on them to purify by fire and turn them into democracy".
You feel yourself a sacred inquisitor, or maybe even God?
I won't speak now about war crimes which committed the USA. but don't forget: Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
Both of us are ordinary citizens who can be not agree with the our governments, but both of us aren't interested in actions against the our countries.
please, no gloating
Except that wasn't why Russia invaded Georgia, now was it?
No, they were coming to LIBERATE Ossetia from their cruel Georgian Oppressors, comrade!
Except that Ossetia already was independent (of Georgia, not so much from Russia), they were actually defending it.
Ossetia's independence was recognized by Russia, not Georgia or the rest of the world.
Doesn't matter, Ossetia was de facto independent and recognized by Russia, the local power.
No, what doesn't matter is that Ossetia with backing from Russia CLAIMED it was independent.
If Minnesota withdrew from the United States with Canada's backing, it doesn't mean that Minnesota is its own nation.
Of course no, because America and it's military. But sadly for Georgia, it isn't the local power, Russia is.
The point.
You missed it.
Are you sure your flag shouldn't read Russia instead of Mexico?
Can you please refrain from accusing everybody that disagrees with you of being Russian? Its rude.
And I think you missed his point.
Sure, if a region withdraws from a country with another nation's backing (Ossetia and Russia) it doesn't become its own state recognised under international law. But it does become a de facto independent "rogue" State, if no one is willing to enforce said international law and stop them seceding.
Theres a saying that goes... "Might makes Right".
I prefer my own version... "Might does not make right, but it does make Right irrelevant".
Russia is able to do this because no one has the power to stop them. International law doesn't mean anything when you have a powerful enough military to ignore it. Same goes for USA/UK and the Iraq War (arguably an illegal war).
Are you sure your flag shouldn't read Russia instead of Mexico?
Let's put an example involving Mexico. Less than 2 hundred years ago there was a Mexican state called Texas. Then it's population claimed that they wanted to become independent. Now, 2 wars latter they are part of the US. Lets go a little more back in time. Once upon a time the US, Mexico and the rest of the continent were part of the European empires, then they claimed freedom! and viva la Independencia!, a lot of people died and someone with wooden teeth became president.
Here, Ossetia claimed independence and Georgia claime the territory. And then Russia happened. The moral of the story? Ossetia had something to back their claim and Georgia didn't. And before you mention it, the rest of the world doesn't count as they didn't lift a finger to help Georgia.
Russia is not participating in Ukraine conflict. some unclear volunteers aren't count. Just like serbians, french volunters, one american
Except when they're taking heavy equipment, in large amounts, that requires extensive logistical support to keep in the field. Either the Russian Federation has lost control of its armed forces and military units and logistical support elements are acting autonomously (which I doubt, the Russian military has not shown that kind of ill discipline or lack of control in living memory), or they're being actively ordered into the conflict.
So either Russia's military is facing extreme issues of discipline and command meltdownn with active duty soldiers abandoning their units without orders and taking Russian Federation military equipment with them (in which case, *EVERYONE* should be very worried), or they're being ordered to go.
One indicates issues of severe corruption, incompetence, and a failing of the state of the Russian Federation (which I don't think anyone wants to admit nor really have any basis for believing), the other indicates the active participation of the Russian Federation in the conflict.
There really aren't any other conclusions if one's admitting to soldiers leaving their units to go fight, particularly when they're bringing things like vehicles with them.
Anyone tracking the quantity of arty/rocket munitions getting to the rebels?
Hint: They've shot through a LOT more than you could justify as having been captured from Ukrainian forces or made in the zones they hold. Tons and tons more.
Maybe that handful of volunteers snuck it across the borders in their pockets.
The other issue is that the Russian border is close enough that Russian artillery units inside Russia can fire into many of the conflict areas without ever having to cross into Ukraine themselves. All they need is to get someone with a cell phone and is capable of relaying coordinates into a proper position, and then Russian artillery on the other side of the border is entirely capable of bringing fire down on many of the areas where fighting occurred.
Freakazoitt wrote: What argument? You found one dismissed tankist, who went there, because someone said "we are going to fight ukrainians" (which is based only on rumors) with probably some tank (again, just rumors).
Actually he is currently receiving full pay for having been on duty while in the Ukraine, according to the Russian press. He actually somewhat concerned that they would claim they dismissed him while he was there, but.... they didn't.
Oh, and they were given medals 'For Military Valor':
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: Definitely there are Russian troops in Ukraine. The question is how many.
Based on the tankers statements, about a battalion worth. According to the tankers, the battalion split into companies to cross the boarder, 10 tanks, three BMPs, a medical MTLB and 5 Ural trucks with ammo in each group. This is corroborated by video taken of Russian tanks entering Donbass some still bearing the while square tactical marking of the 5th.
Here are two tanks photographed in Donbass. you may notice that the white square on the back of the turret has been painted over.... .badly.
Oh I can tell horror stories about that. Stories that had potentially career ending implications as the events were happening.
Remember, kids, the baron's special recipe! 2 parts wheat flour, 1 part RDX. For a bagel that can double as a breaching charge. And with military grade coffee, you'll never taste the plastic explosives.
Kanluwen wrote:And yes, they were "killing Ossetians". Ossetia was in the midst of a pretty nasty secession from the country of Georgia. Ossetians were killing Georgians too, y'know.
Russia retroactively granting citizenship to Ossetians does not mean that they had any leg to stand on for their invasion in any case.
You think, georgians was allowed to kill ossetians in 2008, because they killed some georgians 15 years before? No!
sadly, you gon't unersteand georgian
they saying "shoot em all", "shoot every people"
No, they were coming to LIBERATE Ossetia from their cruel Georgian Oppresors, comrade!
Isn't it true? Georogians was stopped. Not only in Ossetia territory, but chased in Georgia too... a little bit. The goal of russian action was to stop them from devastating Ossetia. Nothing else.
Ossetia's independence was recognized by Russia, not Georgia or the rest of the world.
Georgia promised to not fight against Ossetia, but broke their promise. to destroy de-facto independence of Ossetia and to return it under Georgian control. They were hoped, that NATO will support them against Russia. That's why NATO presence is bringing disbalance in the world and instability. Without NATO, Saakashvilli wouldn't attack at all.
Tyran wrote:Definitely there are Russian troops in Ukraine. The question is how many.
One full Chairborn division.
Vaktathi wrote:The other issue is that the Russian border is close enough that Russian artillery units inside Russia can fire into many of the conflict areas without ever having to cross into Ukraine themselves. All they need is to get someone with a cell phone and is capable of relaying coordinates into a proper position, and then Russian artillery on the other side of the border is entirely capable of bringing fire down on many of the areas where fighting occurred.
well, it is only the theoretical assumption
BaronIveagh wrote:
It looks like train transportation marks. It should be same for Russia and Ukraine, as they succedors of USSR.
Does Russia still have national service? I'm always amazed that so many Russians who post about Ukraine and elsewhere are so au fait with Russian and former Soviet Bloc military markings on vehicles.
The two-year conscription term in force since 1967 continued unchanged after the Soviet Union dissolved until the mid-2000s. In 2006, the Russian government and Duma gradually reduced the term of service to 18 months for those who will be conscripted in 2007 and to one year from 2008 and to drop some legal excuses for non-conscription from the law (such as non-conscription of rural doctors and teachers, of men who have a child younger than 3 years, etc.) from 1 January 2008. Also full-time students graduated from civil university and having military education will be free from conscription from 1 January 2008.
Beats unemployment I guess, and means there's always a ton of guys at the ready to go make a showing whenever needed. The indoctrination's just a bonus.
If the official stance is that Russia is not involved then any servicemen captured will be abandoned whatever the truth of the matter, they could be imprisoned as criminals not combatants which loses many privileges. It must be hard in the Russian army, they've always treated their men as disposable.
So Russia went into Crimea to protect ethnic Russians, but covers up details of Russian Service Personnel killed in Crimea and disowns those captured...
Weird, I thought that Russian was quite positive to their so called volunteers. Admitedly taking any sort of official action at all to retrieve them would imply that they had a hand in sending them of course. It also points out that the weight of evidence the other side developers, including having actual soldiers admitting they were sent by the government, doesn't matter one bit to the Kremlin.
Naturally the official statement isn't going to be reflective of what's actually going on. I can imagine those prisoners will be transferred over at some point as part of a ceasefire deal. They're saying to world that they don't care about the "volunteers", meanwhile telling the troops that they have their full backing and another few divisions will be along next week.
I'd like to hear the sentiments of Russian soldiers on the matter. They're either saying "heh, will that won't be me!", or moaning to no end (well depending on if their commander's within earshot). I think that they just lifted up random border regiments and told them to go off to war. Though there will of course be the diehards (particularly units which served in Chechnya and Georgia were picked and well...), I doubt many of those guys are seeing this as anything other than work, and work without the security isn't something to be happy about.
I'll read the novels about this in a decade and see what the soldiers actually had to say. Probably a lot of "we just did what we were told and didn't ask too many questions", "yeah it was crap, but what'cha gonna do?".
It looks like train transportation marks. It should be same for Russia and Ukraine, as they succedors of USSR.
No.
Oh, and let me ask, how many Buryats live in Donbass?
And the guys who just can't be bothered. 5th armored patches on, truck with the white square behind them.
If I wasn't Movement Coordinator I would say those white "squares" were Battalion identification marking. Though the white "square" would be where I would duck tape (100 mph tape) trans packet/TCN/sequence number
I think the square's just a common symbol for motorized infantry units, on its own in the case of the 5th, or mixed in with other symbols as per other units. Those were some of them recorded as of that post I made last year, though you'll probably find a comprehensive list of all the different insignia now if you Google it. =P
No sane person is denying Russia is in Ukraine. That ship sailed a long time ago. It's come down to more bizzare talking points like "well there aren't that many Russians" or "it's ok as long as there's some kind of plausible deniability".
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Does Russia still have national service? I'm always amazed that so many Russians who post about Ukraine and elsewhere are so au fait with Russian and former Soviet Bloc military markings on vehicles.
That may be because Soviet and modern Russian military markings are not as consistent like Western markings. it is usually whatever the regimental commander prefers that gets painted on. The Russian military is not always as well organised as Shoigu would like.
Wyrmalla wrote: Weird, I thought that Russian was quite positive to their so called volunteers. Admitedly taking any sort of official action at all to retrieve them would imply that they had a hand in sending them of course. It also points out that the weight of evidence the other side developers, including having actual soldiers admitting they were sent by the government, doesn't matter one bit to the Kremlin.
Naturally the official statement isn't going to be reflective of what's actually going on. I can imagine those prisoners will be transferred over at some point as part of a ceasefire deal. They're saying to world that they don't care about the "volunteers", meanwhile telling the troops that they have their full backing and another few divisions will be along next week.
A few divisions? Do you know how many men there are in a division? The entire Russian military has just 6 divisions. So where are these hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers in Ukraine? What are they doing there? Eating salo? They are clearly not fighting in any case. Just to remind you, not every small group of soldiers is a division.
Iron_Captain wrote: A few divisions? Do you know how many men there are in a division? The entire Russian military has just 6 divisions.
A "division", as it's commonly understood to most of us, is typically 10-20 thousand troops, the Russian army has far more than 5-6 "divisions" in this sense,the modern Russian army is typically described as being roughly 23-30 divisions in strength, though since 2010 they're organized into 43-48 "Brigade" sized groups from what I understand, organized into a total of 11 "Armies" each composed of 3-4 of the new "brigade" sized forces, spread over 4 military districts.
EDIT: for comparison, the modern German army, about 1/4 the size of the Russian army, has IIRC 3 divisions and a number of smaller independent groups that have enough troops to make another 2-4 between them, so a total of 5-7 divisions worth of troops, which is about 1/4 as many as Russia has, so that's pretty proportional. The US army has IIRC 21 divisions (3 for training) and another 22 independent brigades and regiments. The US Marine Corps has an additional 4 divisions.
Vaktathi wrote: A "division", as it's commonly understood to most of us, is typically 10-20 thousand troops, the Russian army has far more than 5-6 "divisions" in this sense,the modern Russian army is typically described as being roughly 23-30 divisions in strength, though since 2010 they're organized into 43-48 "Brigade" sized groups from what I understand, organized into a total of 11 "Armies" each composed of 3-4 of the new "brigade" sized forces, spread over 4 military districts.
It can get confusing though because they mix them up into tactical battalions these days. So, the above white square might signify that particular battalion.
Vaktathi wrote: A "division", as it's commonly understood to most of us, is typically 10-20 thousand troops, the Russian army has far more than 5-6 "divisions" in this sense,the modern Russian army is typically described as being roughly 23-30 divisions in strength, though since 2010 they're organized into 43-48 "Brigade" sized groups from what I understand, organized into a total of 11 "Armies" each composed of 3-4 of the new "brigade" sized forces, spread over 4 military districts.
It can get confusing though because they mix them up into tactical battalions these days. So, the above white square might signify that particular battalion.
Indeed, and modern armies seem to, in general, be moving away from "divisional" sized elements, with Russian and NATO armies all fielding lots of brigade and regimental sized independent formations and fewer things running in "divisional" sized elements.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Does Russia still have national service? I'm always amazed that so many Russians who post about Ukraine and elsewhere are so au fait with Russian and former Soviet Bloc military markings on vehicles.
That may be because Soviet and modern Russian military markings are not as consistent like Western markings. it is usually whatever the regimental commander prefers that gets painted on. The Russian military is not always as well organised as Shoigu would like.
So disorganized in fact that single soldiers can up and leave with all their gear. Hell whole units can desert with no repercussions. Not only that its apparently such an issue that no formal statement that I'm aware of (not that I really care to check obviously) has been made by the Kremlin on the matter of all that top of the line hardware and millions of pounds worth of armour and logistical tech. For a country with such a poor economy you'd think the government would be up in arms about all that defense expenditure which has been stolen by thousands of deserters. Even worse on top of the theft they still have these soldiers on their payroll, despite being deserters, and are still shilling out for the satellite network, etc, that these men are using as they fight a war on behalf of Russia. Indeed dire straights for the Russian military and government. I can't see them surviving a scandal of this size, with all the incompetence and corruption being laid bare for the world to see.
...That is the thing though. Apparently the schmucks who buy into all that bull about volunteers are somehow fine with the idea that the system could be so broken. Que some nonsense/ joke response to this.
Wyrmalla wrote: Weird, I thought that Russian was quite positive to their so called volunteers. Admitedly taking any sort of official action at all to retrieve them would imply that they had a hand in sending them of course. It also points out that the weight of evidence the other side developers, including having actual soldiers admitting they were sent by the government, doesn't matter one bit to the Kremlin.
Naturally the official statement isn't going to be reflective of what's actually going on. I can imagine those prisoners will be transferred over at some point as part of a ceasefire deal. They're saying to world that they don't care about the "volunteers", meanwhile telling the troops that they have their full backing and another few divisions will be along next week.
A few divisions? Do you know how many men there are in a division? The entire Russian military has just 6 divisions. So where are these hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers in Ukraine? What are they doing there? Eating salo? They are clearly not fighting in any case.
Just to remind you, not every small group of soldiers is a division.
...It was a joke.
I hardly imagine the Russians are deploying their full forces to just that one war. Hell they're fighting a few right now, though yes Ukraine's the largest. Most of the units seen in the conflict are those from out in the sticks, but they're clearly backing them up with better lads and equipment. There's probably a source with more accurate numbers out there, though I can picture that the Russians had a good few thousand men at least in country at the height of the conflict. Now they'e consolidating and letting the separatists take the brunt of the conflict, but its obvious that they still have a significant number of troops there (and no I mean on top those in occupied Crimea).
Well if there are no radio transmission intercept coordinating these units which would mean they are using land lines and cells phones.
Actually they might have a version of our SINGARS to
Why wouldn't they be using just the regular gear that their issued with? They lifted everything else. The Russians were never trying to cover up their presence, it so obvious and their arguments so thin that they're presumably just carrying on as normal with how they conduct themselves (bar obviously covering up any insignia and taking the soldier's documents). They can use outside logistics all they want, receive flak for it, and then the government just comes in later and says "yes we were providing that, but its fine because we're admitting to it now, even though you all new about that months ago".
Aye though, the soldiers are still using their phones to go on Twitter, so I can imagine that any bases that they have in country are acting as hosts (...that is if the coverage isn't crap). They're so close to their Russian bases that they could possibly use those connections too to ping the higher ups, though how secure that is questionable. The internet in that part of the country's presumably a bit patchy now as IIRC a load of operators pulled out though, not that any military units would be dumb enough to use a civilian connection to pass orders over.
Their equipment, vehicles, uniforms, and more likely their personnel issue weapons are "sterile"
I've done this on a smaller scale but if I am killed and they manage to get my blood they can identify me (and every other current US S/M) by DNA. I highly doubt the Russians military is even close to that identification
It generally sounds like Russian forces aren't there necessarily in huge numbers, but rather specialist roles and to basically form the core around which specific conventional actions (like taking Debaltseve) are conducted. Very much like the early US role in Vietnam
It also sounds like cell phones are playing a large role on both sides, and I know there was a video (I *think*on VICE) where Ukrainians were talking about a Russian they'd captured who'd been coordinating artillery, and using a cell phone to do so. In an unconventional conflict, this makes a lot of sense. Neither side really has great capabilities to intercept those, conventional radio equipment would be very easily spotted, and the cell equipment itself is disposable and easy to use to directly contact someone else (like an artillery battery commander).
Vaktathi wrote: It generally sounds like Russian forces aren't there necessarily in huge numbers, but rather specialist roles and to basically form the core around which specific conventional actions (like taking Debaltseve) are conducted. Very much like the early US role in Vietnam
It also sounds like cell phones are playing a large role on both sides, and I know there was a video (I *think*on VICE) where Ukrainians were talking about a Russian they'd captured who'd been coordinating artillery, and using a cell phone to do so. In an unconventional conflict, this makes a lot of sense. Neither side really has great capabilities to intercept those, conventional radio equipment would be very easily spotted, and the cell equipment itself is disposable and easy to use to directly contact someone else (like an artillery battery commander).
That is pretty spot on. If the Russian military was deployed in large numbers, the conflict would look very different from how it now looks. If Russian soldiers are active in Ukraine, it is more likely in small groups to provide a professional core to the seperatist forces. It is not like Donbass has any shortage of volunteers willing to fight (grievances against the government in Kiev go pretty deep there). Russian forces would also be handy to ensure the seperatists don't do anything 'stupid', and remove troublesome local commanders.
Vaktathi wrote: A "division", as it's commonly understood to most of us, is typically 10-20 thousand troops, the Russian army has far more than 5-6 "divisions" in this sense,the modern Russian army is typically described as being roughly 23-30 divisions in strength, though since 2010 they're organized into 43-48 "Brigade" sized groups from what I understand, organized into a total of 11 "Armies" each composed of 3-4 of the new "brigade" sized forces, spread over 4 military districts.
It can get confusing though because they mix them up into tactical battalions these days. So, the above white square might signify that particular battalion.
Indeed, and modern armies seem to, in general, be moving away from "divisional" sized elements, with Russian and NATO armies all fielding lots of brigade and regimental sized independent formations and fewer things running in "divisional" sized elements.
Most was broken down into brigades, but the Russian army still has 6 active divisions. The Taman and Kantemir divisions have even been reactivated again to restore the 1st Tank Army.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russian forces would also be handy to ensure the seperatists don't do anything 'stupid'
What, like shooting down another airliner?
I think that is more the responsibility of the airlines, by not flying over a warzone. If you go into a area that is known to be dangerous, and you get shot down, that is your own fault.
But yes, accidentally killing civilians is probably one of those stupid things that the seperatists are trying to avoid (and cover up if it does happen). Propaganda is very important for them, and if it is shown they are just as brutal as the Ukrainian government, they'd probably lose a lot of support.
I think that is more the responsibility of the airlines, by not flying over a warzone. If you go into a area that is known to be dangerous, and you get shot down, that is your own fault.
Ah, another spot on my Dakka bingo card filled, much obliged!
Grey Templar wrote: He does make a good point. Flying over an active warzone, which we know to be covered by SAMs and other air combat, is pretty damn stupid.
Why was MH17, a civilian airliner, flying over a war zone?
Grey Templar wrote: He does make a good point. Flying over an active warzone, which we know to be covered by SAMs and other air combat, is pretty damn stupid.
Yes. Still doesn't mean that the entire blame, or even most of it IMO, rests on them. I think you're entitled to expect people not to shoot at civilian airliners.
Grey Templar wrote: He does make a good point. Flying over an active warzone, which we know to be covered by SAMs and other air combat, is pretty damn stupid.
Yes. Still doesn't mean that the entire blame, or even most of it IMO, rests on them. I think you're entitled to expect people not to shoot at civilian airliners.
Tyran wrote: Well, they believed it was a military plane.
And my daughter believes in Santa Claus.
Neither has any bearing on the fact they shot it down and then tried to cover it up/deny it. Or the fact that it clearly was NOT flying a military profile or squawking anything but civilian codes.
Tyran wrote: The problem is that there are military planes that look like airliners.
They have IFF transponders however that anti-aircraft units (at least those utilizing missile batteries) should be able to detect and identify. Someone fethed up basically. Both the US and Soviet Union accidentally shot down airliners in the 80's (an Iranian one in the case of the former, South Korean in the latter) that would not have occurred if proper IFF identification had been followed.
I'm guessing that, if it was a land based missile battery operated by, or in support of, the Separatists, the crew are only ever going to be found by someone with a shovel.
Vaktathi wrote: A "division", as it's commonly understood to most of us, is typically 10-20 thousand troops, the Russian army has far more than 5-6 "divisions" in this sense,the modern Russian army is typically described as being roughly 23-30 divisions in strength, though since 2010 they're organized into 43-48 "Brigade" sized groups from what I understand, organized into a total of 11 "Armies" each composed of 3-4 of the new "brigade" sized forces, spread over 4 military districts.
It can get confusing though because they mix them up into tactical battalions these days. So, the above white square might signify that particular battalion.
Indeed, and modern armies seem to, in general, be moving away from "divisional" sized elements, with Russian and NATO armies all fielding lots of brigade and regimental sized independent formations and fewer things running in "divisional" sized elements.
Most was broken down into brigades, but the Russian army still has 6 active divisions. The Taman and Kantemir divisions have even been reactivated again to restore the 1st Tank Army.
Yeah I heard about the reactivation of the 1st tank army, but I don't think the general public has too much information on their composition and deployment
"Comrade. If you see on this screen a big white blip it means your tracking a aircraft"
"Da Comrade"
"Comrade. If you see this light indicator go steady on it means the system is locked on."
"Da Comrade"
"Comrade. After visually confirming the light indicator is steady on in saying the tracking radar system has locked onto target your next action is to press this button"
"Da Comrade"
"By pressing this button after ensuring you have a steady light indicator the entire vehicle will shake, rattle, and roar as a missile will fly off the rails in back of the vehicle"
"Shake, Rattle, and Roar Comrade?"
"Comrade I am sorry. I made a funny and we're not here for that. Disregard and omit that from your written report later."
"Daaaa Comrade."
"Comrade. After firing the missile your crew will have to immediately move to one of three locations that has been determined for you."
"Da Comrade"
"Any questions?"
"Yes I have one. The can of spray paint Andre...."
"QUIET COMRADE! No names. As for the spray paint its for some discoloration on the vehicle at certain location."
What is there about Mukachevo?
Russian media presents it as a second front opening. But for me it's just a criminal gang violence.
Also surprised by the Praviy Sector, which also inflates the situation as a "second front".
Looks like Russia is getting ready to provide close air support for the 'Separatists'. or, have the pilots 'borrowed' the Backfires that are currently being deployed to Crimea?
BaronIveagh wrote: Looks like Russia is getting ready to provide close air support for the 'Separatists'. or, have the pilots 'borrowed' the Backfires that are currently being deployed to Crimea?
In the late 1980s, the Tu-22M3 was based in Crimea, at the Vesyoloye base and the now disused airfield at Oktyabrskoye. Both were run by Soviet naval air regiments.
Bombers in Crimea? That is crazy. Why would they station long-range bombers so close to the border? Doesn't that take away the advantage of being "long-range" bomber?
Pretty much makes the Black Sea dangerous for NATO naval forces and can slam NATO airbase in Turkey (Incirlik AB)
Edit
Damn its anti shipping to
Sucker can reach into the Med
Edit II
In January 2013, reports emerged that China had signed a purchase agreement for the production and delivery of 36 Tu-22M3, under the Chinese designation of H-10; many components are to be manufactured domestically in China under a technology transfer agreement with Russia and Tupolev.[21] Sales of the Russian-built Raduga Kh-22 long-range anti-ship missile and the fleet's intended use as a maritime strike platform have also been speculated upon.[22] Rosoboronexport has reportedly denied any sales or negotiations with China regarding the Tu-22M
Iron_Captain wrote: Bombers in Crimea? That is crazy. Why would they station long-range bombers so close to the border? Doesn't that take away the advantage of being "long-range" bomber?
Moving your long range bomber closer means it can fly farther. With this honestly, don't look at Ukraine. Look at the surrounding regions and ask where Russia wants to go after the Ukraine that that airfield gives them.
Iron_Captain wrote: Bombers in Crimea? That is crazy. Why would they station long-range bombers so close to the border? Doesn't that take away the advantage of being "long-range" bomber?
Gives them an even longer range (less distance to travel) and allows threat projection into areas they couldn't previously?
Crimea is also relatively defensible from a conventional standpoint, and having those bombers there would really be taking advantage of that sweet strategic placing.
Political considerations aside, Crimea is a great place for a bomber base.
Did the Russians secure much in the way of hardware from the Ukrainians when they invaded? I'm given to believe that they've just let the Seperatists use a lot of it, but I'm wondering if anythings going back to Russia? Those ships and planes in the bases for instance? IIRC the Ukrainians had some of their armour plants in the area that's now Russian controlled too (one of the reasons why the optics on newer tanks being produced aren't up to scratch). There's quite a few modernizing projects being carried out by the Ukrainians on their old Soviet gear, which I'd be thinking the Russians would be interested in having for themselves, if only to know what the competition's doing (and hey if they wouldn't use it themselves the Ukrainians have been selling them quite well on the foreign market).
If they wanted that I'm sure they could have used some Spies to get that information. Or just bribed a Ukrainian official to give them some of the gear.
Iron_Captain wrote: Bombers in Crimea? That is crazy. Why would they station long-range bombers so close to the border? Doesn't that take away the advantage of being "long-range" bomber?
Gives them an even longer range (less distance to travel) and allows threat projection into areas they couldn't previously?
It also gives them longer time on station and quicker turn around time for sorties into the Ukraine...
Iron_Captain wrote: Bombers in Crimea? That is crazy. Why would they station long-range bombers so close to the border? Doesn't that take away the advantage of being "long-range" bomber?
Gives them an even longer range (less distance to travel) and allows threat projection into areas they couldn't previously?
It also gives them longer time on station and quicker turn around time for sorties into the Ukraine...
From a tactical viewpoint it is very daft to put long range bombers in Crimea.....if your goal is supporting the Ukrainian insurrection. However, if you look at it from a strategic stand point it is incredibly smart. You now have bombers in relatively short range of vast swathes of Europe, the Black Sea and the Med.
I think the army should sell more of its surplus domestically without Demilling it. We can't let the Russians have all the orky looting and converting to themselves.
Its a bit of a joke (of many) how easy it is to veto things at the UN. "Hey we want to investigate X country over this matter. Oh damn that country, one out of many, just vetoed us doing that so now we can't".
Wyrmalla wrote: Its a bit of a joke (of many) how easy it is to veto things at the UN. "Hey we want to investigate X country over this matter. Oh damn that country, one out of many, just vetoed us doing that so now we can't".
Only 5 countries have veto power. That is already quite an improvement over the original League of Nations where every member had veto power. Those 5 countries are the ones who set up the UN in the first place, and they gave themselves veto power to ensure the UN can not be used against its own creators. I don't think it is a joke, it makes a lot of sense, altough I can very well imagine countries without veto power don't like it.
Wyrmalla wrote: Its a bit of a joke (of many) how easy it is to veto things at the UN. "Hey we want to investigate X country over this matter. Oh damn that country, one out of many, just vetoed us doing that so now we can't".
Only 5 countries have veto power. That is already quite an improvement over the original League of Nations where every member had veto power. Those 5 countries are the ones who set up the UN in the first place, and they gave themselves veto power to ensure the UN can not be used against its own creators. I don't think it is a joke, it makes a lot of sense, altough I can very well imagine countries without veto power don't like it.
I think the problem that some folks have, is that all it takes to veto something is ONE veto vote, on a council of multiple members.
When the topic is the wrong doing of one member and that member can torpedo the whole thing with their veto that makes the system rather bent. Of course this topic isn't at the face of it about Russia, but they're heavily invested and one of the major parties involved in the incident are their proxy. If it were to come down to simple majority ruling then perhaps it'd be better. However in that case then you have the issue of calling the whole system's integrity into account. As it is though right now one country can hold everyone else to ransom as it likes, though I suppose that's what other organisations like NATO are for.
Wyrmalla wrote: When the topic is the wrong doing of one member and that member can torpedo the whole thing with their veto that makes the system rather bent. Of course this topic isn't at the face of it about Russia, but they're heavily invested and one of the major parties involved in the incident are their proxy. If it were to come down to simple majority ruling then perhaps it'd be better. However in that case then you have the issue of calling the whole system's integrity into account. As it is though right now one country can hold everyone else to ransom as it likes, though I suppose that's what other organisations like NATO are for.
Majority ruling would be better only if all parties were truly neutral, otherwise the outcome is still the same, except heavily biased towards the West as there are three Western and only two non-Western nations on the council. Indeed the West already has NATO to advance the national interests of its members, it doesn't need to have the UN as well. The UN is not there as a vehicle of Western interests, it is there to serve as a platform for cooperation and negotiation between the world's great powers in order to try and prevent conflict. The veto power is necessary to make the UN function. The League of Nations has shown that such an organisation is doomed to fail unless all great powers in the world participate. And the great powers refused (especially the US and USSR) to particpate without having veto power to ensure the UN could not be used against them.
Wyrmalla wrote: When the topic is the wrong doing of one member and that member can torpedo the whole thing with their veto that makes the system rather bent. Of course this topic isn't at the face of it about Russia, but they're heavily invested and one of the major parties involved in the incident are their proxy. If it were to come down to simple majority ruling then perhaps it'd be better. However in that case then you have the issue of calling the whole system's integrity into account. As it is though right now one country can hold everyone else to ransom as it likes, though I suppose that's what other organisations like NATO are for.
Majority ruling would be better only if all parties were truly neutral, otherwise the outcome is still the same, except heavily biased towards the West as there are three Western and only two non-Western nations on the council. Indeed the West already has NATO to advance the national interests of its members, it doesn't need to have the UN as well. The UN is not there as a vehicle of Western interests, it is there to serve as a platform for cooperation and negotiation between the world's great powers in order to try and prevent conflict.
The veto power is necessary to make the UN function. The League of Nations has shown that such an organisation is doomed to fail unless all great powers in the world participate. And the great powers refused (especially the US and USSR) to particpate without having veto power to ensure the UN could not be used against them.
Wyrmalla wrote: When the topic is the wrong doing of one member and that member can torpedo the whole thing with their veto that makes the system rather bent. Of course this topic isn't at the face of it about Russia, but they're heavily invested and one of the major parties involved in the incident are their proxy. If it were to come down to simple majority ruling then perhaps it'd be better. However in that case then you have the issue of calling the whole system's integrity into account. As it is though right now one country can hold everyone else to ransom as it likes, though I suppose that's what other organisations like NATO are for.
Majority ruling would be better only if all parties were truly neutral, otherwise the outcome is still the same, except heavily biased towards the West as there are three Western and only two non-Western nations on the council. Indeed the West already has NATO to advance the national interests of its members, it doesn't need to have the UN as well. The UN is not there as a vehicle of Western interests, it is there to serve as a platform for cooperation and negotiation between the world's great powers in order to try and prevent conflict. The veto power is necessary to make the UN function. The League of Nations has shown that such an organisation is doomed to fail unless all great powers in the world participate. And the great powers refused (especially the US and USSR) to particpate without having veto power to ensure the UN could not be used against them.
But why would Russia veto this?
They went along with an earlier resolution that called for an independent investigation, but they felt the tribunal as proposed was a political tool of Washington rather than a proper part of the ongoing independent investigation. Churkin himself said yesterday said also that a tribunal like this is something that shouldn't have come for the Security Council in the first place, because it is not about a threat to international peace and security, and that setting up tribunals for aviation incidents is not normally a matter for the Security Council.
Though it doesn't seem suspicious at all when one country out of, what was it ...fifteen, vetos it? Its like you just happening to lose the combination for a safe filled with incriminating paperwork just as the police want access to it (or rather given all the roadblocks that the Russians have put up against this in the past, like setting the safe and then the building on fire, though we're not at the attacking the police and shooting yourself just yet). Calling it all a Washington conspiracy just stinks of that aggravating stance that the Russians just love to take of them being the little country that everyone's just out to get.
Churkin himself said yesterday said also that a tribunal like this is something that shouldn't have come for the Security Council in the first place, because it is not about a threat to international peace and security, and that setting up tribunals for aviation incidents is not normally a matter for the Security Council.
Most 'aviation incidents' are not the use of a SAM against a passenger jet.
When else have the Russians vetoed a UN resolution about an airliner shoot down? (Hint: Think 1983 KAL shoot down...)
Churkin himself said yesterday said also that a tribunal like this is something that shouldn't have come for the Security Council in the first place, because it is not about a threat to international peace and security, and that setting up tribunals for aviation incidents is not normally a matter for the Security Council.
Most 'aviation incidents' are not the use of a SAM against a passenger jet.
When else have the Russians vetoed a UN resolution about an airliner shoot down? (Hint: Think 1983 KAL shoot down...)
If there wasn't a tribunal for the Iranian Flight 655, there shouldn't be a tribunal for this.
Churkin himself said yesterday said also that a tribunal like this is something that shouldn't have come for the Security Council in the first place, because it is not about a threat to international peace and security, and that setting up tribunals for aviation incidents is not normally a matter for the Security Council.
Most 'aviation incidents' are not the use of a SAM against a passenger jet.
When else have the Russians vetoed a UN resolution about an airliner shoot down? (Hint: Think 1983 KAL shoot down...)
If there wasn't a tribunal for the Iranian Flight 655, there shouldn't be a tribunal for this.
Did the US veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 616?
Churkin himself said yesterday said also that a tribunal like this is something that shouldn't have come for the Security Council in the first place, because it is not about a threat to international peace and security, and that setting up tribunals for aviation incidents is not normally a matter for the Security Council.
Most 'aviation incidents' are not the use of a SAM against a passenger jet.
When else have the Russians vetoed a UN resolution about an airliner shoot down? (Hint: Think 1983 KAL shoot down...)
If there wasn't a tribunal for the Iranian Flight 655, there shouldn't be a tribunal for this.
Did the US veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 616?
Churkin himself said yesterday said also that a tribunal like this is something that shouldn't have come for the Security Council in the first place, because it is not about a threat to international peace and security, and that setting up tribunals for aviation incidents is not normally a matter for the Security Council.
Most 'aviation incidents' are not the use of a SAM against a passenger jet.
When else have the Russians vetoed a UN resolution about an airliner shoot down? (Hint: Think 1983 KAL shoot down...)
Russia did not veto the resolution about the Korean airliner (which was also very different because it was about condemning the USSR, not about launching an independent investigation) as Russia was not even in the Security Council at that time. Soviet Union ≠ Russian Federation.
The US did not block resolution 616 same as Russia did not block resolution 2166. Both were resolutions just about an independent investigation, which is completely different from the resolution just vetoed by Russia. No one was ever persecuted for the shooting down of Iran Air 655, nor has the US ever apologised. Had a resolution about a tribunal to punish those responsible for the Iranian airliner comer for the Council, the US would have certainly vetoed it. Besides that, all these incidents are very different from each other, and thus it is not right to compare them.
Finally, in amount of vetos, the US has vetoed far more resolutions than everyone else combined since 1991. Russia uses its veto only rarely.
They visit DNR, Ukrainian Army, and Right Sector front line positions, and basically everyone says the same thing "the ceasefire is nonexistent, we're being shelled with heavier weapons than what we're using, we try to restrain ourselves, yadda yadda". If they didn't tell you who was who, you certainly wouldn't be able to figure it out from what most of them are saying.
The positions that VICE visits come under fire on both sides of the line, and extensive damage to civilians is evident on both sides.
Looks like France will be keeping the Vladivostok and Sevastopol, and reimbursing Russia to the tune of ~$1.3 Billion.
It's good that the issue was settled amicably, but that's going to be awkward for both sides there. It'll certainly make doing business with France a lot more suspect for many nations, and Russia will now have to wait likely a decade or more for replacement vessels of similar capability (particularly if domestically built) and go through an entirely new acquisition & training process and deal with the operational gap in what they were expecting to have available in the coming years.
Looks like France will be keeping the Vladivostok and Sevastopol, and reimbursing Russia to the tune of ~$1.3 Billion.
It's good that the issue was settled amicably, but that's going to be awkward for both sides there. It'll certainly make doing business with France a lot more suspect for many nations, and Russia will now have to wait likely a decade or more for replacement vessels of similar capability (particularly if domestically built) and go through an entirely new acquisition & training process and deal with the operational gap in what they were expecting to have available in the coming years.
I don't think it'll adversely affect business with France too much. Just don't invade your neighbour before you have your warships and you're fine.
Russia Uses Army of 'Trolls' to Sway Sentiment Online
Putin's keyboard operatives "assert the offending bloggers are CIA spies, professional photoshoppers, forgers, Russia haters, hokhols (a derogatory expression for Ukrainians) -- perhaps even insane," Gregory wrote in July. "These trolls keep busy by poking holes in the evidence, and the more absurd, the better (false facts, photoshopped images). Their job is to raise doubts and cause confusion."
As Russian President Vladimir Putin's forces took over Ukraine's Crimean peninsula in early 2014, the interim Ukrainian government was debating whether or not to fight back against the "little green men" Russia had deployed. But the message from the Barack Obama administration was clear: avoid military confrontation with Moscow.
The White House's message to Kiev was advice, not an order, U.S. and Ukrainian officials have recently told us, and was based on a variety of factors. There was a lack of clarity about what Russia was really doing on the ground. The Ukrainian military was in no shape to confront the Russian Spetsnaz (special operations) forces that were swarming on the Crimean peninsula. Moreover, the Ukrainian government in Kiev was only an interim administration until the country would vote in elections a few months later. Ukrainian officials told us that other European governments sent Kiev a similar message.
But the main concern was Russian President Vladimir Putin.
As U.S. officials told us recently, the White House feared that if the Ukrainian military fought in Crimea, it would give Putin justification to launch greater military intervention in Ukraine, using similar logic to what Moscow employed in 2008 when Putin invaded large parts of Georgia in response to a pre-emptive attack by the Tbilisi government. Russian forces occupy two Georgian provinces to this day.
Looking back today, many experts and officials point to the decision not to stand and fight in Crimea as the beginning of a Ukraine policy based on the assumption that avoiding conflict with Moscow would temper Putin's aggression. But that was a miscalculation. Almost two years later, Crimea is all but forgotten, Russian-backed separatist forces are in control of two large Ukrainian provinces, and the shaky cease-fire between the two sides is in danger of collapsing.
"Part of the pattern we see in Russian behavior is to test and probe when not faced with pushback or opposition," said Damon Wilson, the vice president for programming at the Atlantic Council. "Russia's ambitions grow when they are not initially challenged. The way Crimea played out, Putin had a policy of deniability, there could have been a chance for Russia to walk away."
When Russian special operations forces, military units and intelligence officers seized Crimea, it surprised the U.S. government. Intelligence analysts had briefed Congress 24 hours before the stealth invasion, saying the Russian troop buildup on Ukraine's border was a bluff. Ukraine's government -- pieced together after President Viktor Yanukovych fled Kiev for Russia following civil unrest -- was in a state of crisis. The country was preparing for elections and its military was largely dilapidated and unprepared for war.
There was a debate inside the Kiev government as well. Some argued the nation should scramble its forces to Crimea to respond. As part of that process, the Ukrainian government asked Washington what military support the U.S. would provide. Without quick and substantial American assistance, Ukrainians knew, a military operation to defend Crimea could not have had much chance for success.
"I don't think the Ukrainian military was well prepared to manage the significant challenge of the major Russian military and stealth incursion on its territory," said Andrew Weiss, a Russia expert and vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment, told us. This was also the view of many in the U.S. military and intelligence community at the time.
There was also the Putin factor. In the weeks and months before the Crimea operation, Russia's president was stirring up his own population about the threat Russian-speakers faced in Ukraine and other former Soviet Republics.
"They did face a trap," said the Atlantic Council's Wilson, who was the senior director for Europe at the National Security Council when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. "Any Ukrainian violent reaction to any of these unknown Russian speakers would have played into the narrative that Putin already created, that Ukraine's actions threaten Russian lives and he would have pretext to say he was sending Russian forces to save threatened Russians."
The White House declined to comment on any internal communications with the Ukrainian government. A senior administration official told us that the U.S. does not recognize Russia's occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea, and pointed to a series of sanctions the U.S. and Europe have placed on Russia since the Ukraine crisis began.
"We remain committed to maintaining pressure on Russia to fulfill its commitments under the Minsk agreements and restore Ukraine's territorial integrity, including Crimea," the senior administration official said.
Ever since the annexation of Crimea in March, 2014, there have been a group of senior officials inside the administration who have been advocating unsuccessfully for Obama to approve lethal aid to the Ukrainian military. These officials have reportedly included Secretary of State John Kerry, his top Europe official, Victoria Nuland, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and General Philip Breedlove, the supreme allied commander for NATO.
Obama has told lawmakers in private meetings that his decision not to arm the Ukrainians was in part due to a desire to avoid direct military confrontation with Russia, one Republican lawmaker who met with Obama on the subject told us. The U.S. has pledged a significant amount of non-lethal aid to the Ukrainian military, but delivery of that aid has often been delayed. Meanwhile, Russian direct military involvement in Eastern Ukraine has continued at a high level.
Even former Obama administration Russia officials acknowledge that Ukraine's decision last year to cede Crimea to Moscow, while making sense at the time, has also resulted in more aggression by Putin.
"Would a devastating defeat in Crimea serve the interest of the interim government? Probably not," said Michael McFaul, who served as ambassador to Russia under Obama and is now a scholar at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. But nonetheless, McFaul said, the ease with which Putin was able to take Crimea likely influenced his decision to expand Russia's campaign in eastern Ukraine: "I think Putin was surprised at how easy Crimea went and therefore when somebody said let's see what else we can do, he decided to gamble.”
The Obama administration, led on this issue by Kerry, is still pursuing a reboot of U.S.-Russia relations. After a long period of coolness, Kerry's visit to Putin in Sochi in May was the start of a broad effort to seek U.S.-Russian cooperation on a range of issues including the Syrian civil war. For the White House, the Ukraine crisis is one problem in a broader strategic relationship between two world powers.
But for the Ukrainians, Russia's continued military intervention in their country is an existential issue, and they are pleading for more help. While many Ukrainians agreed in early 2014 that fighting back against Russia was too risky, that calculation has now changed. The Ukrainian military is fighting Russian forces elsewhere, and Putin is again using the threat of further intervention to scare off more support from the West. If help doesn't come, Putin may conclude he won't pay a price for meddling even further.
The thing I hate most about that kind of propaganda articles, is how it pretends that this fething war is not a civil war and how it talks about "the Ukrainians" as if they all share the same opinion about this, rather than the entire country being torn apart over support or dissaproval of the new Kiev government. But in the West, it is all about this fictional Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and Russia is the cause for all of Ukraine's problems.
It would have been better if the Maidan regime had tried to fight back. At least the war would have been over quickly then.
Iron_Captain wrote: The thing I hate most about that kind of propaganda articles, is how it pretends that this fething war is not a civil war and how it talks about "the Ukrainians" as if they all share the same opinion about this, rather than the entire country being torn apart over support or dissaproval of the new Kiev government. But in the West, it is all about this fictional Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and Russia is the cause for all of Ukraine's problems.
It would have been better if the Maidan regime had tried to fight back. At least the war would have been over quickly then.
"... the quantity of pro-Kremlin trolling on this topic … which has been documented extensively since 2012 as a real and insidious threat to online communities of idea and debate, has rendered commenting on these articles all but meaningless, and a worthless exercise in futility and frustration for anyone not already being mind-controlled by the Kremlin."
Iron_Captain wrote: The thing I hate most about that kind of propaganda articles, is how it pretends that this fething war is not a civil war and how it talks about "the Ukrainians" as if they all share the same opinion about this, rather than the entire country being torn apart over support or dissaproval of the new Kiev government. But in the West, it is all about this fictional Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and Russia is the cause for all of Ukraine's problems.
It would have been better if the Maidan regime had tried to fight back. At least the war would have been over quickly then.
"... the quantity of pro-Kremlin trolling on this topic … which has been documented extensively since 2012 as a real and insidious threat to online communities of idea and debate, has rendered commenting on these articles all but meaningless, and a worthless exercise in futility and frustration for anyone not already being mind-controlled by the Kremlin."
Iron_Captain wrote: The thing I hate most about that kind of propaganda articles, is how it pretends that this fething war is not a civil war and how it talks about "the Ukrainians" as if they all share the same opinion about this, rather than the entire country being torn apart over support or dissaproval of the new Kiev government. But in the West, it is all about this fictional Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and Russia is the cause for all of Ukraine's problems.
It would have been better if the Maidan regime had tried to fight back. At least the war would have been over quickly then.
"... the quantity of pro-Kremlin trolling on this topic … which has been documented extensively since 2012 as a real and insidious threat to online communities of idea and debate, has rendered commenting on these articles all but meaningless, and a worthless exercise in futility and frustration for anyone not already being mind-controlled by the Kremlin."
Keep on telling yourself that it's because of "Western propaganda" and not because of your established posting history(3111 posts, 1334 [43%] of which are in the Off Topic forum--with fifteen pages worth of posts being in this thread alone)
The continuing insistence you have that this is strictly a Ukrainian civil war with absolutely no Russian interference is what makes people think you're a pro-Russian troll.
CptJake wrote: Or at least has been duped by the pro Russian trolls.
I wouldn't say "duped".
"Duping" requires someone to have been willing to see the opposite side from the beginning. Filter posts strictly by Iron_Captain in this thread and you see a very interesting trend.
Kanluwen wrote: Keep on telling yourself that it's because of "Western propaganda" and not because of your established posting history(3111 posts, 1334 [43%] of which are in the Off Topic forum--with fifteen pages worth of posts being in this thread alone)
The continuing insistence you have that this is strictly a Ukrainian civil war with absolutely no Russian interference is what makes people think you're a pro-Russian troll.
I joined up before the crisis even started, because I like 40k, not for the OT. But I was born and grew up in Crimea, so this whole crisis is very close to me. I even have family fighting in this war. I don't think any of you has. It is only natural that I became so active in a thread about something that is very important to me. And through this thread, I also discovered the fun that is OT, and now OT is my favourite subsection of Dakka. Anyways, if a civil war broke out wherever you grew up and a thread got started about it on Dakka, I am sure you'd be active in that as well.
Also, if you had ever bothered to actually read the posts I made, you would have noticed that I never denied Russian interference in Ukraine. It is just that in Western media, Russia's role in the crisis is ridiculously inflated and the fact that the war in Ukraine is much more of a civil war rather than a Russian invasion is constantly downplayed or conveniently ignored.
Perhaps we have a couple of employees of this organisation here.
I don't know what is more worrying: That so many Westerners actually seem to think every person with pro-Russian sentiments must have been paid by the Russian government or that so many Westerners are apparently so brainwashed by their propaganda that they accept stories like this without critical analysis. So for your information, Russia is not the only one manipulating the internet: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/russia-troll-factory-kremlin-cyber-army-comparisons Now maybe we have a few GCHQ operatives here?
Kanluwen wrote: Keep on telling yourself that it's because of "Western propaganda" and not because of your established posting history(3111 posts, 1334 [43%] of which are in the Off Topic forum--with fifteen pages worth of posts being in this thread alone)
The continuing insistence you have that this is strictly a Ukrainian civil war with absolutely no Russian interference is what makes people think you're a pro-Russian troll.
I joined up before the crisis even started, because I like 40k, not for the OT.
Actually?
Euromaidan protests began November 21st, 2013. You joined November 23rd, 2013.
Not saying you are a Russian troll, buuuuuut...we also had some threads discussing the Euromaidan protests and various political dissidence going on in Russia at the time.
But I was born and grew up in Crimea, so this whole crisis is very close to me.
It's funny that you're supposedly now 15(despite your first OT thread post being 12/25/2013 and to quote, you were "14"), living in(according to the flag you're posting from) the Netherlands...yet this whole crisis is "very close to you"?
I've lived in the same place my whole life and I don't have anywhere near as much of an attachment to it as you seem to have put on a place where you might have lived anywhere from 10-12 years(the timeframe where you would actually start to remember things to the point to have an emotional attachment begins at ages 3-5).
] I even have family fighting in this war. I don't think any of you has.
Appeal to emotion. Interesting.
It is only natural that I became so active in a thread about something that is very important to me. And through this thread, I also discovered the fun that is OT, and now OT is my favourite subsection of Dakka. Anyways, if a civil war broke out wherever you grew up and a thread got started about it on Dakka, I am sure you'd be active in that as well.
Maybe. Maybe not.
But stop calling it a damn civil war, because as has been shown to you time and time again--it isn't. It's a state-sponsored(if not facilitated) insurgency at this point.
Also, if you had ever bothered to actually read the posts I made, you would have noticed that I never denied Russian interference in Ukraine. It is just that in Western media, Russia's role in the crisis is ridiculously inflated and the fact that the war in Ukraine is much more of a civil war rather than a Russian invasion is constantly downplayed or conveniently ignored.
Funny that, because while you've never denied "Russian interference in the Ukraine"--you've also made a point to post garbage like "the ethnic Russians in Crimea are genuinely afraid of the new government in Kiev", the same crap that got shoveled to justify Russian deployments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Yes, the idea that Iron Captain is somehow a professional troll on the Kremlin's payroll is idiotic to the point of it being a conspiracy theory.
And yet, some stuff actually starts to line up neatly.
Not saying it's 100% "OMG WE'VE CRACKED THE CODE!" but really now, is it that difficult to believe considering the fact that this "troll factory" doesn't just generate content but also comment on it?
The only thing Iron Captain is guilty of is bias. Understandable, given that he has a personal stake in this being Russian and coming from Crimea.
Oh come on. Guy says he's "Half-Russian".
I can say I'm Half-Elvish and hail from Lothlorien, it doesn't make it true.
While I disagree with Iron Captain very much on this subject, that is not sufficient reason to go around accusing him of being a secret Russian Internet troll spy agent... w/e. You can disagree with his posts just fine without insinuating they're anything more than his own thoughts.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Yes, the idea that Iron Captain is somehow a professional troll on the Kremlin's payroll is idiotic to the point of it being a conspiracy theory.
And yet, some stuff actually starts to line up neatly.
Not saying it's 100% "OMG WE'VE CRACKED THE CODE!" but really now, is it that difficult to believe considering the fact that this "troll factory" doesn't just generate content but also comment on it?
LordofHats wrote: While I disagree with Iron Captain very much on this subject, that is not sufficient reason to go around accusing him of being a secret Russian Internet troll spy agent... w/e. You can disagree with his posts just fine without insinuating they're anything more than his own thoughts.
Which is what's being done--except in the instances where he goes out of his way to talk about "Western propaganda".
After all, he's not just a secret Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent--he's a 15 year old Secret Half-Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent who lives in the Netherlands.
But stop calling it a damn civil war, because as has been shown to you time and time again--it isn't. It's a state-sponsored(if not facilitated) insurgency at this point.
Are the two mutually exclusive?
A Civil War is still a Civil War even with foreign entities backing the various sides.
Frankly Ukraine seems like its becoming a proxy war between Russia and NATO. Both sides have an agenda here.
But stop calling it a damn civil war, because as has been shown to you time and time again--it isn't. It's a state-sponsored(if not facilitated) insurgency at this point.
Are the two mutually exclusive?
A Civil War is still a Civil War even with foreign entities backing the various sides.
A civil war is a civil war until you have those foreign entities not just "backing the various sides" but providing personnel for those sides.
Frankly Ukraine seems like its becoming a proxy war between Russia and NATO. Both sides have an agenda here.
But only one side has troops on the ground fighting and dying.
LordofHats wrote: While I disagree with Iron Captain very much on this subject, that is not sufficient reason to go around accusing him of being a secret Russian Internet troll spy agent... w/e. You can disagree with his posts just fine without insinuating they're anything more than his own thoughts.
Which is what's being done--except in the instances where he goes out of his way to talk about "Western propaganda".
After all, he's not just a secret Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent--he's a 15 year old Secret Half-Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent who lives in the Netherlands.
Wtf is it with this personal vendetta you have against him?
secret internet troll spy? Seriously?
As for "Western Propaganda". BOTH sides have propaganda regarding Ukraine - we're just more sophisticated at it.
But stop calling it a damn civil war, because as has been shown to you time and time again--it isn't. It's a state-sponsored(if not facilitated) insurgency at this point.
Are the two mutually exclusive?
A Civil War is still a Civil War even with foreign entities backing the various sides.
A civil war is a civil war until you have those foreign entities not just "backing the various sides" but providing personnel for those sides.
Frankly Ukraine seems like its becoming a proxy war between Russia and NATO. Both sides have an agenda here.
But only one side has troops on the ground fighting and dying.
I'll let you figure out which one.
We're providing training, funding, material and intelligence to the Kiev government and military. We might not be sending our own troops (because no western government could ever do that and hope to get re-elected) but we are very much involved.
Seems to me that a whole lot of roubles have been spent broadcasting this notion throughout the American media. Ukraine has been playing NATO and Russia off of each other for twenty years or more. As a matter of its own foreign policy, Ukraine was leaning further toward NATO and this alarmed Russia -- seeing Ukraine as a satellite vassal -- to the point of invasion.
There is a holdover leftist lobby in the US that will bend over backwards to apologize for anything Russia does, including rhetorical gymnastics to turn a story about Russian imperialism into a story about American imperialism.
LordofHats wrote: While I disagree with Iron Captain very much on this subject, that is not sufficient reason to go around accusing him of being a secret Russian Internet troll spy agent... w/e. You can disagree with his posts just fine without insinuating they're anything more than his own thoughts.
Which is what's being done--except in the instances where he goes out of his way to talk about "Western propaganda".
After all, he's not just a secret Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent--he's a 15 year old Secret Half-Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent who lives in the Netherlands.
Wtf is it with this personal vendetta you have against him?
secret internet troll spy? Seriously?
As for "Western Propaganda". BOTH sides have propaganda regarding Ukraine - we're just more sophisticated at it.
I understand that sarcasm isn't really easy to detect via the Internet, but dangit I thought that one would have been easy to pick up on.
We're providing training, funding, material and intelligence to the Kiev government. We might not be sending our own troops (because no western government could ever do that and hope to get re-elected) but we are very much involved.
And I'm not denying that we're involved or that there are agendas--but again, it's very clear where the agendas lie.
On one side you have a democratically elected government(Kiev) being backed by the Western government, on the other side you have a separatist movement that reportedly kept voters away at gunpoint and refused to recognize the results of those elections being backed by Russia.
Manchu wrote: There is a holdover leftist lobby in the US that will bend over backwards to apologize for anything Russia does, including rhetorical gymnastics to turn a story about Russian imperialism into a story about American imperialism.
I'm of the opinion its both.
The conflict in Ukraine is a geopolitical tug of war. NATO and the EU wants to expand their influence eastwards, Russia wants to keep what little influence it still has and if possible, regain lost influence.
And INB4 someone calls me a Kremlin Troll. B**** please. I don't watch or read any Russian media, not even Russia Today. The biggest influence on my opinion of Russia and Ukraine is the Mail On Sunday writer Peter Hitchens.
Seems to me that a whole lot of roubles have been spent broadcasting this notion throughout the American media. Ukraine has been playing NATO and Russia off of each other for twenty years or more. As a matter of its own foreign policy, Ukraine was leaning further toward NATO and this alarmed Russia -- seeing Ukraine as a satellite vassal -- to the point of invasion.
Here's how I see it. Ukraine gave up it's own nukes on the assurrances from US, UK and Russia that it's own territorial integrity and political independence would be protected.
Apparently, that agreement seems to be pissed on.
*shrugs*
There is a holdover leftist lobby in the US that will bend over backwards to apologize for anything Russia does, including rhetorical gymnastics to turn a story about Russian imperialism into a story about American imperialism.
LordofHats wrote: While I disagree with Iron Captain very much on this subject, that is not sufficient reason to go around accusing him of being a secret Russian Internet troll spy agent... w/e. You can disagree with his posts just fine without insinuating they're anything more than his own thoughts.
Which is what's being done--except in the instances where he goes out of his way to talk about "Western propaganda".
After all, he's not just a secret Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent--he's a 15 year old Secret Half-Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent who lives in the Netherlands.
Wtf is it with this personal vendetta you have against him?
secret internet troll spy? Seriously?
As for "Western Propaganda". BOTH sides have propaganda regarding Ukraine - we're just more sophisticated at it.
I understand that sarcasm isn't really easy to detect via the Internet, but dangit I thought that one would have been easy to pick up on..
I interpreted it as hyperbole.
My facepalm over the "internet russian spy troll" comment was prompted by how fething immature your personal attacks on him are getting.
You might not think he's a literal "kremlin russian secret spy troll" but you clearly do think hes a troll, and have been obnoxiously loud and vocal on that. Whereas my impression is that he's simply strongly opinionated and naturally biased towards the country he identifies most with (Russia).
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The biggest influence on my opinion of Russia and Ukraine is the Mail On Sunday writer Peter Hitchens.
Well that explains it. Hitchens believes Russia "naturally" dominates the Ukraine and has compared Russian interests in Ukraine to US interests in New Mexico and Southern California. Oddly, it is not lost on him that California and New Mexico are part of the US. Again, he's relying on a "natural dominance" appeal to geography. Nevermind the people who live on a certain piece of land, their history, their rights to self-determination, etc. In Hitchens's mind, Ukraine is a much a part of the Russian Empire as New Mexico is a part of the United States.
And he goes around telling other people they're out of touch!
Hitchens also uses the whole thing as a way to snipe at the European Union and particularly Berlin. I also suspect he is trying to get a rise out his usual ideological enemies by criticizing us hated American Imperialists.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The biggest influence on my opinion of Russia and Ukraine is the Mail On Sunday writer Peter Hitchens.
Well that explains it. Hitchens believes Russia "naturally" dominates the Ukraine and has compared Russian interest in Ukraine to US interests in New Mexico and Souther California. Oddly, it is not lost on him that California and New Mexico are part of the US. Again, he's relying on a "natural dominance" appeal to geography. Nevermind the people who live on a certain piece of land, their history, their rights to self-determination, etc. In Hitchens's mind, Ukraine is a much a part of the Russian Empire as New Mexico is a part of the United States.
And he goes around telling other people they're out of touch!
California and New Mexico?
My recollection is that he referred to Canada and the actual Mexico.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Again, he's relying on a "natural dominance" appeal to geography. Nevermind the people who live on a certain piece of land, their history, their rights to self-determination, etc.
Since when has that ever stopped America when it came to America's own "natural geographical dominance"?
Kanluwen wrote: Keep on telling yourself that it's because of "Western propaganda" and not because of your established posting history(3111 posts, 1334 [43%] of which are in the Off Topic forum--with fifteen pages worth of posts being in this thread alone)
The continuing insistence you have that this is strictly a Ukrainian civil war with absolutely no Russian interference is what makes people think you're a pro-Russian troll.
I joined up before the crisis even started, because I like 40k, not for the OT.
Actually?
Euromaidan protests began November 21st, 2013. You joined November 23rd, 2013.
Not saying you are a Russian troll, buuuuuut...we also had some threads discussing the Euromaidan protests and various political dissidence going on in Russia at the time.
I was barely paying attention to the protests back then. Looking back at my first post, I joined up to talk about how totally awesome I thought Space Wolves and Iron Hands were.
But I was born and grew up in Crimea, so this whole crisis is very close to me.
It's funny that you're supposedly now 15(despite your first OT thread post being 12/25/2013 and to quote, you were "14"), living in(according to the flag you're posting from) the Netherlands...yet this whole crisis is "very close to you"?
I've lived in the same place my whole life and I don't have anywhere near as much of an attachment to it as you seem to have put on a place where you might have lived anywhere from 10-12 years(the timeframe where you would actually start to remember things to the point to have an emotional attachment begins at ages 3-5).
I don't think it is strange to be attached to the place where you grew up. 10 years is a very long time. Just because you don't have it doesn't mean others don't feel it. I have a lot of friends in the area and we used to go back there quite often (not so often anymore since the crisis, unfortenately). And seeing as that the war directly affects people I know and care very much about, I think it is fair to say this whole crisis is a lot closer to me than it is to most of you.
I can say I'm Half-Elvish and hail from Lothlorien, it doesn't make it true.
Yes, but unlike Elves, Russians are not mythical beings from a novel. Welcome to the real world.
What I meant when I said that I was half Russian is that I have one Russian and one Dutch parent. I don't see what is so weird about that.
Manchu wrote: Again, he's relying on a "natural dominance" appeal to geography. Nevermind the people who live on a certain piece of land, their history, their rights to self-determination, etc.
Since when has that ever stopped America when it came to America's own "natural geographical dominance"?
Lamest tu quoque I have read all week, not least because by making this "argument" you are effectively admitting the invasion of Ukraine is a matter of Russian imperialist aggression.
LordofHats wrote: While I disagree with Iron Captain very much on this subject, that is not sufficient reason to go around accusing him of being a secret Russian Internet troll spy agent... w/e. You can disagree with his posts just fine without insinuating they're anything more than his own thoughts.
Which is what's being done--except in the instances where he goes out of his way to talk about "Western propaganda".
After all, he's not just a secret Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent--he's a 15 year old Secret Half-Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent who lives in the Netherlands.
Wtf is it with this personal vendetta you have against him?
secret internet troll spy? Seriously?
As for "Western Propaganda". BOTH sides have propaganda regarding Ukraine - we're just more sophisticated at it.
I think it is a case of Russian propaganda being made to appeal to Russians, and Western propaganda to appeal to Westerners. Therefore Russian propaganda usually calls on emotion whereas Western propaganda calls on rationality and thus indeed needs to be more subtle.
But stop calling it a damn civil war, because as has been shown to you time and time again--it isn't. It's a state-sponsored(if not facilitated) insurgency at this point.
Are the two mutually exclusive?
A Civil War is still a Civil War even with foreign entities backing the various sides.
A civil war is a civil war until you have those foreign entities not just "backing the various sides" but providing personnel for those sides.
I think you don't know what a civil war is. The US and other Western powers fought in the Russian Civil War. Does that mean it is suddenly not a civil war anymore? Was the Spanish Civil War not a civil war? I shall quote from Wikipedia: "A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or country,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united state." Whether foreign powers are also involved does not matter.
Kanluwen wrote:
LordofHats wrote: While I disagree with Iron Captain very much on this subject, that is not sufficient reason to go around accusing him of being a secret Russian Internet troll spy agent... w/e. You can disagree with his posts just fine without insinuating they're anything more than his own thoughts.
Which is what's being done--except in the instances where he goes out of his way to talk about "Western propaganda".
After all, he's not just a secret Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent--he's a 15 year old Secret Half-Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent who lives in the Netherlands.
Actually, I am just a completely normal and boring guy who goes to school and just so happens to have been born in Sevastopol and have a Russian father. I could only wish I was a super secret troll agent. My life would be so much interesting. It would also be nice if I could get paid for these posts here. So if anyone has the contact details of this supposed 'troll factory', let me know.
Manchu wrote: Lamest tu quoque I have read all week, not least because by making this "argument" you are effectively admitting the invasion of Ukraine is a matter of Russian imperialist aggression.
Which of course it is ...
Just an side question, but why would imperialism be bad? Isn't it the natural order of things? (note: this does not mean I approve imperialism or anything, I am just interested in the discussion)
Manchu wrote: Again, he's relying on a "natural dominance" appeal to geography. Nevermind the people who live on a certain piece of land, their history, their rights to self-determination, etc.
Since when has that ever stopped America when it came to America's own "natural geographical dominance"?
Lamest tu quoque I have read all week, not least because by making this "argument" you are effectively admitting the invasion of Ukraine is a matter of Russian imperialist aggression.
Which of course it is ...
How can I admit something that I have never denied?
I refer you to my previous post.
Manchu wrote: There is a holdover leftist lobby in the US that will bend over backwards to apologize for anything Russia does, including rhetorical gymnastics toturn a story about Russian imperialism into a story about American imperialism.
I'm of the opinion its both.
The conflict in Ukraine is a geopolitical tug of war. NATO and the EU wants to expand their influence eastwards, Russia wants to keep what little influence it still has and if possible, regain lost influence.
Manchu wrote: And he goes around telling other people they're out of touch!
No, he doesn't. He quite frequently admits and laments that the Left Wing of British politics has won...to the point that our very definitions of Left Wing and Right Wing shifted to the Left.
He's under no delusions that his Anglican Christian, traditional Conservative outlook is popular and "in touch".
Hell, I don't even agree with him on everything (I'm atheist, he's Christian) but on Russia his arguments strike me as very sensible.
Let's not get too hung up on semantics. Here's an example to help you understand what Kanluwen seems to be pointing out: if the US Civil War had been the same kind of "civil war" as what is going on in Ukraine, the Confederacy would have been organized by British people, funded and equipped by the British government, and Confederate troops would have been British redcoats dressed up in gray uniforms and trying to put on Southern accents. Oh and the goal of the Confederacy would have been to put the US under the control of Queen Victoria.
So you would agree that certain countries have a natural right to politically and (if need be) militarily dominate other countries as a matter of geography?
Let's not get too hung up on semantics. Here's an example to help you understand what Kanluwen seems to be pointing out: if the US Civil War had been the same kind of "civil war" as what is going on in Ukraine, the Confederacy would have been organized by British people, funded and equipped by the British government, and Confederate troops would have been British redcoats dressed up in gray uniforms and trying to put on Southern accents. Oh and the goal of the Confederacy would have been to put the US under the control of Queen Victoria.
Eh not completely correct, Russia's goal isn't annexation of Ukraine, but rather to destroy the possibility of it joining NATO.
Manchu wrote: So you would agree that certain countries have a natural right to politically and (if need be) militarily dominate other countries as a matter of geography?
Depends on the point of view, Crimeans for example would say that the Russian annexation was great for them.
Let's not get too hung up on semantics. Here's an example to help you understand what Kanluwen seems to be pointing out: if the US Civil War had been the same kind of "civil war" as what is going on in Ukraine, the Confederacy would have been organized by British people, funded and equipped by the British government, and Confederate troops would have been British redcoats dressed up in gray uniforms and trying to put on Southern accents. Oh and the goal of the Confederacy would have been to put the US under the control of Queen Victoria.
So you would agree that certain countries have a natural right to politically and (if need be) militarily dominate other countries as a matter of geography?
Morality has nothing to do with it.
No, countries do not have a right dominate other countries. But they can and they do, when it's in their interest. Russia does it. America does it.
Now -- would you agree that certain countries have a natural right to politically and (if need be) militarily dominate other countries as a matter of geography?
Also considering you don't think geography supports a right to dominate the Ukraine, what do you find persuasive about Hitchens's POV?
That Russia has a geopolitical and national security need to stop NATO, (a military alliance hostile to Russia and which was founded to unite Europe against it) absorbing countries on its border. The Warsaw pact was created as a buffer against further invasions from western Europe following WW 2. But now Russia is back at square 1, increasingly vulnerable to invasion from Europe.
If we all just recognised this, and accept that in the interests of avoiding a future ww 3, we might have to actually compromise on areas where our interests (expanding NATO and the EU eastwards) conflict with Russia's interests (securing its borders), we might actually avoid a ww 3.
NATO was created to resist the influence of the USSR. So here again we have this bodyman Hitchens brings up: he keeps saying that Russia is not the USSR. Fine, but neither is NATO an anti-Russian coalition.
And who exactly in Western Europe is going to invade Russia???
Manchu wrote: NATO was created to resist the influence of the USSR. So here again we have this bodyman Hitchens brings up: he keeps saying that Russia is not the USSR. Fine, but neither is NATO an anti-Russian coalition.
Of course it is. That's it's raison d'etre. NATO was founded to unite Europe against the USSR. It should have been disbanded when the USSR dissolved - the existential threat that instigated its founding was no more.
And who exactly in Western Europe is going to invade Russia???
But wait, western Europe and the United states are providing non lethal gear, and medic training to ukranian soldiers. That makes it okay for russia to send in troops and machinery to help the rebels. /s
Russia wanted Crimean. So it took it. It wants to dominate Ukraine. So Russian agents and soldiers are killing Ukrainians.
There is no self-defense excuse. There is no geographical excuse. This is just blatant Russian aggression.
Silly questions begat silly answers.
In the event of an actual war. WE would invade. The members of NATO. America. Britain. Germany. Etc. That's what happens in a war, you invade the enemy when you have the upper hand, unless pinnacle peace first. And yes, Europe's armies are minimal right now, but a lot can change over the next 50 years. And the EU is actively trying to pool national military resources to form a common EU military.
Russia wants Crimea because it's critical to its geopolitical security. When the former government friendly to Russia was overthrown, it's important strategic bases in Crimea were threatened. So they annexed Crimea to secure them.
Ustrello wrote: But wait, western Europe and the United states are providing non lethal gear, and medic training to ukranian soldiers. That makes it okay for russia to send in troops and machinery to help the rebels. /s
Right and this one time, Napoleon invaded and this other time some Germans did so ... so ...
What war??? The same hypothetical one every rogue nation is constantly using to justify their violent aggression.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: When the former government friendly to Russia was overthrown, it's important strategic bases in Crimea were threatened. So they annexed Crimea to secure them.
Makes sense. If you Brits elect a government hostile to us, we'll keep this strategy in mind.
Ustrello wrote: But wait, western Europe and the United states are providing non lethal gear, and medic training to ukranian soldiers. That makes it okay for russia to send in troops and machinery to help the rebels. /s
We're training their soldiers, not just medics. And we're providing intelligence.
And before the conflict Ukraine was in the process of negotiating to join NATO and the EU. Russia wants to prevent that.
This ain't difficult to grasp.
And like I said, no it doesn't make it "ok". But it's cause and effect. Don't want the effect? Don't create the cause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Surely you have learned from Hitchens that Russia is not the USSR? They're completely different, comrade how you say dood.
Russia wanted Crimean. So it took it. It wants to dominate Ukraine. So Russian agents and soldiers are killing Ukrainians.
There is no self-defense excuse. There is no geographical excuse. This is just blatant Russian aggression.
I think I hashed this one out recently with Iron_Captain and managed to break down the 'Russian' perspective. To copypaste
Ketara wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue here is that NATO member states are free to pursue independent foreign policies whilst under the umbrella protection of NATO. And Russia feels that that's somewhat unfair (to put it simplistically).
For example, Estonia can choose to cut trade to Russia overnight, and Russia has no way of responding bar similar economic methods. Poland can decide to impound a Russian military ship in their waters. If Kazkhstan goes to hell, and France suddenly decides to land troops, Russia cannot intervene against those troops without worrying about NATO getting involved. If Belarus joins NATO, Russia might have trouble stopping it from joining the EU later on to Russia's economic disadvantage.
In such a way, Russia's foreign policy options are curtailed, because it cannot interfere militarily in any situation which might involve a NATO member. So whilst NATO in and of itself is not a direct threat to Russia (due to the nukes), when more and more of Russia's neighbours sign up to it, Russia's foreign policy powers are increasingly reduced. Primarily because Russia's standing in the world and its ability to influence events is based upon its military, unlike the US or GB, who have more economic and diplomatic levers to pull. Also unlike the US and GB, Russia's influence is also limited to those countries which border it, due to its lack of international trade or distance fighting capabilities.
Therefore NATO 'encirclement' as you put it, whilst it poses no direct military threat to Russia (thanks to the nukes), does indirectly diminish Russia's power and standing.
From a Western perspective, the desire of Russia to still be a member of the big boys club quite simply isn't a good enough reason for the humanitarian and moral issues caused by the interference in Ukraine. From Putin's perspective, feth humanitarian reasons, and he works to a different moral chart.
Ustrello wrote: But wait, western Europe and the United states are providing non lethal gear, and medic training to ukranian soldiers. That makes it okay for russia to send in troops and machinery to help the rebels. /s
We're training their soldiers, not just medics. And we're providing intelligence.
And before the conflict Ukraine was in the process of negotiating to join NATO and the EU. Russia wants to prevent that.
This ain't difficult to grasp.
And like I said, no it doesn't make it "ok". But it's cause and effect. Don't want the effect? Don't create the cause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Surely you have learned from Hitchens that Russia is not the USSR? They're completely different, comrade how you say dood.
.
Oh look, a mod spamming.
Implying ukraine had a chance to actually join NATO, also seeing as how the last NATO expansion was six years ago and the last border country to join NATO was in 2004. Oh but lets not forget that Georgia has basically been stonewalled from joining NATO to make russia feel better.
Oh man our training must be really helping so much that russia needs to send in elements of its army to deflect the newly trained Ukrainian soldiers, who totally aren't beat down tired and under armed.
Ustrello wrote: But wait, western Europe and the United states are providing non lethal gear, and medic training to ukranian soldiers. That makes it okay for russia to send in troops and machinery to help the rebels. /s
Right and this one time, Napoleon invaded and this other time some Germans did so ... so ...
What war??? The same hypothetical one every rogue nation is constantly using to justify their violent aggression.
I'm sure people said something like this before WW1.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: When the former government friendly to Russia was overthrown, it's important strategic bases in Crimea were threatened. So they annexed Crimea to secure them.
Makes sense. If you Brits elect a government hostile to us, we'll keep this strategy in mind.
Manchu wrote: So Russia has to learn how to do talk to its neighbors without brandishing the stick?
Oh how terrible!
To sum up: to remain a hooligan, Russia must engage in some hooliganism. Well, you can't fault the logic.
Hey, if you work in pure geopolitical terms, it makes sense. It also makes sense if you work on the assumption that Russia needs to remain strong to safeguard its own people.
It's only when you work in Western humanitarianism (and that from the last forty years specifically) that it becomes ludicrous. And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.
Manchu wrote: So Russia has to learn how to do talk to its neighbors without brandishing the stick?
Oh how terrible!
To sum up: to remain a hooligan, Russia must engage in some hooliganism. Well, you can't fault the logic.
Hey, if you work in pure geopolitical terms, it makes sense. It also makes sense if you work on the assumption that Russia needs to remain strong to safeguard its own people.
It's only when you work in Western humanitarianism (and that from the last forty years specifically) that it becomes ludicrous. And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.
Indeed. Our monumental feth up in Iraq (and now our ongoing feth ups in Libya, Syria and Iraq again) completely destroyed my idealism and faith in my country and Europe as "the good humanitarian guys".
We are the people who lecture Russia for its crimes in Ukraine and human rights abuses, yet cover up our programs of torture and extraordinary rendition. Who support a disorganized rabble of Syrian rebels, many of them radicalized extremists , and some of whom evolve into ISIS. Who encouraged and directly supported the overthrow of Gadaffi, creating a power vacuum that has partly enabled the current Mediterranean migrant crisis. Who practice mass surveillance of our own societies, sometimes illegally.
Look if you miss a point, don't just assume it's because someone is trolling you. There is zero threat of any invasion from the West. Yet pro-Russian propaganda equates the EU with Nazism.
Look if you miss a point, don't just assume it's because someone is trolling you. There is zero threat of any invasion from the West. Yet pro-Russian propaganda equates the EU with Nazism.
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear your point over the sound of your shoulders shrugging and failing to actually make it.
The threat exists, because the capability to do so exists. The fact that we're unlikely to exercise that capability today doesn't change the fact that we can and might do it 10 or 20 years in the future should the situation worsen, and thats what worries the Kremlin.
Ketara wrote: And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.
I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.
Canada has an army, I propose that we build the Atlantic wall mk2. Except that is stretches the entire border of the US and Canada, because I expect them to invade us. I also propose the Bering straight wall, to protect Alaska from Russian invasion from Siberia.
Indeed. Our monumental feth up in Iraq (and now our ongoing feth ups in Libya, Syria and Iraq again) completely destroyed my idealism and faith in my country and Europe as "the good humanitarian guys".
We are the people who lecture Russia for its crimes in Ukraine and human rights abuses, yet cover up our programs of torture and extraordinary rendition. Who support a disorganized of Syrian rebels, many of them radicalized extremists , and some of whom evolve into ISIS. Who encouraged and directly supported the overthrow of Gadaffi, creating a power vacuum that has partly enabled the current Mediterranean migrant crisis. Who practice mass surveillance of our own societies, sometimes illegally.
See, this is where I disagree.
Yes, our governments work to the same book as the Russians. They'd be terrible Governments if they didn't. I mean, can you imagine a government infused with a righteous zeal that they know what is morally best for the rest of the world and its population? You'd be looking at a new wave of imperialism/colonialism. As things stand, our professional politicians are all trained to view the world in terms of realpolitik to a large extent, and that's no bad thing.
The difference here, is that the people, generally speaking, hold their Governments to account. We stomp and shout when the Government gets too big for its boots, and when it starts doing things like Guantanamo and Iraq, regardless of the effectiveness. When you combine that with the fact that our politicians are still ultimately raised as citizens of our countries, and thus have a certain level of our humanitarian morality inculcated into them, you have states that ARE capable of operating within the realms of realpolitik, but not following it through to its logical extremes. And that, I would argue, is the difference between us and Russia.
Ketara wrote: And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.
I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.
I'm hardly in that position. But to change things, one must first understand their root causes. Simply decrying Russian actions as being 'bad' without seeking to understand why they behave the way they do, and in what sense those beliefs could be justified makes a rapprochement impossible.
Ketara wrote: And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.
I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.
Oh, so you're saying we don't torture our prisoners? We don't imprison people without trial? We don't interfere in countries we have no business being for the purpose of regime change, leaving a chaotic power vacuum in our wake? We don't support radicalized extremists when it suits us, then make a U turn when that policy backfires?
Pure nonsense. The fact that a neighboring power has a military at most justifies a defense budget. It cannot justify invasion.
But its not just "a military power". Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.
And again, I've never said that what Russia's invasion is morally justified. Its not. Nor was our invasion of Iraq morally justified.
I'm saying its a predictable reaction to our actions.
Ketara wrote: Simply decrying Russian actions as being 'bad' without seeking to understand why they behave the way they do, and in what sense those beliefs could be justified makes a rapprochement impossible.
Explanation is not justification. I get that Russia has always seen and still see its immediate western neighbors as vassal states. I get that it has always seen and still sees Germany as its natural enemy. I don't think these views are justified.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.
Again -- Russia either is or is not the USSR. NATO was created to resist Soviet aggression. The quickest way for NATO to cease existing is for Russia to join. If Russia would let go of its imperialistic worldview (which characterized pre-Soviet and Soviet era Moscow) something along these lines would not be impossible.
Ustrello wrote: We must protect the ethnic Americans from the Ultra-nationalist fascist Russian government.
I'm hardly in that position. But to change things, one must first understand their root causes. Simply decrying Russian actions as being 'bad' without seeking to understand why they behave the way they do, and in what sense those beliefs could be justified makes a rapprochement impossible.
Thats what I'm trying to say. Just not as eloquently.
Ketara wrote: And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.
I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.
Oh, so you're saying we don't torture our prisoners? We don't imprison people without trial? We don't interfere in countries we have no business being for the purpose of regime change, leaving a chaotic power vacuum in our wake? We don't support radicalized extremists when it suits us, then make a U turn when that policy backfires?
Pure nonsense. The fact that a neighboring power has a military at most justifies a defense budget. It cannot justify invasion.
But its not just "a military power". Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.
And again, I've never said that what Russia's invasion is morally justified. Its not. Nor was our invasion of Iraq morally justified.
I'm saying its a predictable reaction to our actions.
So is that why Georgia was offered membership into NATO? oh wait...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.
Again -- Russia either is or is not the USSR. NATO was created to resist Soviet aggression. The quickest way for NATO to cease existing is for Russia to join. If Russia would let go of its imperialistic worldview (which characterized pre-Soviet and Soviet era Moscow) something along these lines would not be impossible.
Ustrello wrote: We must protect the ethnic Americans from the Ultra-nationalist fascist Russian government.
And their Nazi puppetmasters in Berlin!
Glory to the October revolution, 1945 best year of my life
NATO in the late 90s and early 2000s had already ceased to be an "anti-Soviet" alliance. It had in the wake of the collapse of Yugoslavia, switched itself into a peacekeeping force. Beyond that, it's purpose was becoming further limited to "if we're all allied together then we won't shoot each other" organization. By the mid 2000s it honestly looked like NATO was going to die all on its own as political positions in Europe continued downgrading NATO facilities. Then Georgia happened and everyone freaked out, especially when Russia's response when offered NATO membership was "sorry but we want to rebuild our Empire and joining NATO just won't work with that."
So yeah. Russia is kind of barking up the wrong tree if it wants to blame anyone else for the quasi-revitalization of NATO.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.
Again -- Russia either is or is not the USSR. NATO was created to resist Soviet aggression. The quickest way for NATO to cease existing is for Russia to join. If Russia would let go of its imperialistic worldview (which characterized pre-Soviet and Soviet era Moscow) something along these lines would not be impossible.
Ustrello wrote: We must protect the ethnic Americans from the Ultra-nationalist fascist Russian government.
And their Nazi puppetmasters in Berlin!
Theres no way in hell that we'd ever let Russia join. A large country like Russia joining would instantly diminish the influence of some of the bigger members like Britain, France and Germany, upsetting the balance.
And as I understand it Russia tried that in the 90's. We ignored their efforts and continued expanding NATO.
Ketara wrote: Simply decrying Russian actions as being 'bad' without seeking to understand why they behave the way they do, and in what sense those beliefs could be justified makes a rapprochement impossible.
Explanation is not justification. I get that Russia has always seen and still see its immediate western neighbors as vassal states. I get that it has always seen and still sees Germany as its natural enemy. I don't think these views are justified.
Russia, alas, does not have to justify its views to you, or to anyone else, and objectively speaking, your view is inherently no better than theirs. The historical dialectic will see it triumph or fail regardless.
I personally believe that what we are seeing here is ultimately Russia's death throes as an imperial power. It might take another fifty years and half a dozen border skirmishes like this, but raw military force is no match for the EU, NATO, and China, in the same way that the monarchism had to eventually bow out. As a cultural/social construct, Russia is working to an outmoded model once again, and will either evolve, adapt, or perish.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.
Again -- Russia either is or is not the USSR. NATO was created to resist Soviet aggression. The quickest way for NATO to cease existing is for Russia to join. If Russia would let go of its imperialistic worldview (which characterized pre-Soviet and Soviet era Moscow) something along these lines would not be impossible.
Ustrello wrote: We must protect the ethnic Americans from the Ultra-nationalist fascist Russian government.
And their Nazi puppetmasters in Berlin!
Theres no way in hell that we'd ever let Russia join. A large country like Russia joining would instantly diminish the influence of some of the bigger members like Britain, France and Germany, upsetting the balance.
And as I understand it Russia tried that in the 90's. We ignored their efforts and continued expanding NATO.
Except it has been floated that russia join NATO by NATO members in the past. But russia has shot it down each time with one particular quote "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions"
Ketara wrote: Simply decrying Russian actions as being 'bad' without seeking to understand why they behave the way they do, and in what sense those beliefs could be justified makes a rapprochement impossible.
Explanation is not justification. I get that Russia has always seen and still see its immediate western neighbors as vassal states. I get that it has always seen and still sees Germany as its natural enemy. I don't think these views are justified.
Russia, alas, does not have to justify its views to you, or to anyone else, and objectively speaking, your view is inherently no better than theirs. The historical dialectic will see it triumph or fail regardless.
I personally believe that what we are seeing here is ultimately Russia's death throes as an imperial power. It might take another fifty years and half a dozen border skirmishes like this, but raw military force is no match for the EU, NATO, and China, in the same way that the monarchism had to eventually bow out. As a cultural/social construct, Russia is working to an outmoded model once again, and will either evolve, adapt, or perish.
It'd be nice if we can avoid a direct conflict with Russia in the meantime...
Ketara wrote: Russia, alas, does not have to justify its views to you, or to anyone else
Sure it does. Obviously not to me personally but to the West. And not as a matter of staving off some war, either, as I'm sure you appreciate, but rather to maintain economic relations. Russians are spending money in the West for PR.
Ketara wrote: And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.
I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.
Dear Manchu, I think you may be horribly misinformed about Russia. Sure it has its faults and it is no Scandinavian welfare paradise, but it is far from tyrannical, and with a government actively fighting corruption I would not call it a kleptocracy either. Russia in the 90's was a kleptocracy, but Putin put a very definite (and violent) stop to that. That is not to say corruption is gone in Russia, quite the contrary, but the situation today is a huge improvement over even 5 years ago, let alone the 90's.
And while crimes by the Western governments do not excuse crimes by the Russian government, when one criminal calls the other out on his criminal acts, he is highly unlikely to be taken seriously. Nobody likes hypocrites.
More like, appeals to hypocrisy convince superficial thinkers. By the way, every tyrant cracks down on corruption as a main priority. It is called, eliminating the competition.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.
Again -- Russia either is or is not the USSR. NATO was created to resist Soviet aggression. The quickest way for NATO to cease existing is for Russia to join. If Russia would let go of its imperialistic worldview (which characterized pre-Soviet and Soviet era Moscow) something along these lines would not be impossible.
Ustrello wrote: We must protect the ethnic Americans from the Ultra-nationalist fascist Russian government.
And their Nazi puppetmasters in Berlin!
Theres no way in hell that we'd ever let Russia join. A large country like Russia joining would instantly diminish the influence of some of the bigger members like Britain, France and Germany, upsetting the balance.
And as I understand it Russia tried that in the 90's. We ignored their efforts and continued expanding NATO.
Except it has been floated that russia join NATO by NATO members in the past. But russia has shot it down each time with one particular quote "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions"
Well, the USSR actually asked to join NATO when it was first created, but the Western powers (Well, just the US to be specific) rejected this.
Also, Russia joining NATO is just extremely unrealistic. It is never going to happen unless either NATO or the Russian people change radically.
More like, appeals to hypocrisy convince superficial thinkers. By the way, every tyrant cracks down on corruption as a main priority. It is called, eliminating the competition.
Not every tyrant cracks down on corruption, and neither is everyone who cracks down on corruption a tyrant.
Ketara wrote: And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.
I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.
Dear Manchu, I think you may be horribly misinformed about Russia. Sure it has its faults and it is no Scandinavian welfare paradise, but it is far from tyrannical, and with a government actively fighting corruption I would not call it a kleptocracy either. Russia in the 90's was a kleptocracy, but Putin put a very definite (and violent) stop to that. That is not to say corruption is gone in Russia, quite the contrary, but the situation today is a huge improvement over even 5 years ago, let alone the 90's.
And while crimes by the Western governments do not excuse crimes by the Russian government, when one criminal calls the other out on his criminal acts, he is highly unlikely to be taken seriously. Nobody likes hypocrites.
you realize that America and the rest of the Western powers never annexed Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan right? yeah mistakes were made but Russia took it to a whole new extreme by replicating hitlers actions pre WWII.
Yes they do. Or at least they all say that's what they're doing when they set up show trials for their political enemies, strip them of their wealth (goes where?), and imprison/execute them.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.
Again -- Russia either is or is not the USSR. NATO was created to resist Soviet aggression. The quickest way for NATO to cease existing is for Russia to join. If Russia would let go of its imperialistic worldview (which characterized pre-Soviet and Soviet era Moscow) something along these lines would not be impossible.
Ustrello wrote: We must protect the ethnic Americans from the Ultra-nationalist fascist Russian government.
And their Nazi puppetmasters in Berlin!
Theres no way in hell that we'd ever let Russia join. A large country like Russia joining would instantly diminish the influence of some of the bigger members like Britain, France and Germany, upsetting the balance.
And as I understand it Russia tried that in the 90's. We ignored their efforts and continued expanding NATO.
Except it has been floated that russia join NATO by NATO members in the past. But russia has shot it down each time with one particular quote "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions"
Well, the USSR actually asked to join NATO when it was first created, but the Western powers (Well, just the US to be specific) rejected this.
Also, Russia joining NATO is just extremely unrealistic. It is never going to happen unless either NATO or the Russian people change radically.
More like, appeals to hypocrisy convince superficial thinkers. By the way, every tyrant cracks down on corruption as a main priority. It is called, eliminating the competition.
Not every tyrant cracks down on corruption, and neither is everyone who cracks down on corruption a tyrant.
They asked in 1954, NATO was formed in 1949. Also showing a willingness ≠ asking for membership, plus Molotov most likely would of used that as a way to disrupt NATO. As shown by forcing America to an observer status and stop the formation of the EDC.
Ketara wrote: And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.
I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.
Dear Manchu, I think you may be horribly misinformed about Russia. Sure it has its faults and it is no Scandinavian welfare paradise, but it is far from tyrannical, and with a government actively fighting corruption I would not call it a kleptocracy either. Russia in the 90's was a kleptocracy, but Putin put a very definite (and violent) stop to that. That is not to say corruption is gone in Russia, quite the contrary, but the situation today is a huge improvement over even 5 years ago, let alone the 90's.
And while crimes by the Western governments do not excuse crimes by the Russian government, when one criminal calls the other out on his criminal acts, he is highly unlikely to be taken seriously. Nobody likes hypocrites.
you realize that America and the rest of the Western powers never annexed Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan right? yeah mistakes were made but Russia took it to a whole new extreme by replicating hitlers actions pre WWII.
Replicating Hitler's actions? Sure... Anyone who annexes a strategically important part of enemy territory is Hitler, right?
Afaik, Putin has not been rounding up Jews or sending political opponents to death camps, so I would be more careful with such comparisons.
Ketara wrote: And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.
I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.
Dear Manchu, I think you may be horribly misinformed about Russia. Sure it has its faults and it is no Scandinavian welfare paradise, but it is far from tyrannical, and with a government actively fighting corruption I would not call it a kleptocracy either. Russia in the 90's was a kleptocracy, but Putin put a very definite (and violent) stop to that. That is not to say corruption is gone in Russia, quite the contrary, but the situation today is a huge improvement over even 5 years ago, let alone the 90's.
And while crimes by the Western governments do not excuse crimes by the Russian government, when one criminal calls the other out on his criminal acts, he is highly unlikely to be taken seriously. Nobody likes hypocrites.
you realize that America and the rest of the Western powers never annexed Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan right? yeah mistakes were made but Russia took it to a whole new extreme by replicating hitlers actions pre WWII.
Replicating Hitler's actions? Sure... Anyone who annexes a strategically important part of enemy territory is Hitler, right?
Afaik, Putin has not been rounding up Jews or sending political opponents to death camps, so I would be more careful with such comparisons.
Freeing the ethnic Russians suffering in Crimea.....any of this sounding fething familiar? All we need now is for some ridiculous British PM to make a horribly timed speech about Peace in our Time and we're there.
Ketara wrote: And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.
I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.
Dear Manchu, I think you may be horribly misinformed about Russia. Sure it has its faults and it is no Scandinavian welfare paradise, but it is far from tyrannical, and with a government actively fighting corruption I would not call it a kleptocracy either. Russia in the 90's was a kleptocracy, but Putin put a very definite (and violent) stop to that. That is not to say corruption is gone in Russia, quite the contrary, but the situation today is a huge improvement over even 5 years ago, let alone the 90's.
And while crimes by the Western governments do not excuse crimes by the Russian government, when one criminal calls the other out on his criminal acts, he is highly unlikely to be taken seriously. Nobody likes hypocrites.
you realize that America and the rest of the Western powers never annexed Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan right? yeah mistakes were made but Russia took it to a whole new extreme by replicating hitlers actions pre WWII.
Replicating Hitler's actions? Sure... Anyone who annexes a strategically important part of enemy territory is Hitler, right? Afaik, Putin has not been rounding up Jews or sending political opponents to death camps, so I would be more careful with such comparisons.
Just assassinating political rivals
When did he do so? The vast majority of Putin's rivals, especially the influential ones, are still alive and kicking.
No such thing happens in Russia. Homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. This so-called 'anti-gay law' only banned public advertising of homosexuality to kids. Homosexuality is still fully legal, as evidenced by the gay clubs in virtually every Russian town. That is not to say Russia is not homophobic, but that is on the street level. There is no official policy set by Putin that manages the killings of gay people. You are just being ridiculous here.
Stripping people of their wealth and forcing them into house arrest.
For legitimate crimes. This happens in the West too.
Ghazkuul wrote:Freeing the ethnic Russians suffering in Crimea.....any of this sounding fething familiar? All we need now is for some ridiculous British PM to make a horribly timed speech about Peace in our Time and we're there.
Crimea had nothing to do with the suffering of ethnic Russians. Crimeans had been calling for a Russian annexation ever since they got seperated, but Putin always conveniently ignored them. The annexation of Crimea was purely out of geopolitical motives
Ustrello wrote:Oppressing the tartars, letting herr kadryov..I mean kadryov run wild in chechnya
Tatars are not opressed at all. Quite the contrary, they are an old and respected element of Russian society. They even got their own republic, and their language and culture etc. enjoys special protection and official status in both Tatarstan and Crimea. And Kadyrov is only allowed to run wild because quite frankly he is the only thing that keeps Chechnya stable. Kadyrov sure as hell is a lot better than the radical islamic terrorists that came before him.
Also, I am not aware Hitler opressed Tatars or stabilised Chechnya.
Crimeans were not calling for annexation by Russia. Russia citizens who moved to Crimea during the Soviet Union were calling for it. Try again 15 year old.
Ghazkuul wrote: Crimeans were not calling for annexation by Russia. Russia citizens who moved to Crimea during the Soviet Union were calling for it. Try again 15 year old.
It's that supposed to be an argument? They have been living there for the last 70+ years, they are Crimean.
Iron_Captain wrote: Homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. This so-called 'anti-gay law' only banned public advertising of homosexuality to kids.
You believe it is possible for gay people to enjoy rights equal to heterosexuals in a country which is so homophobic that its government not only believes there is a such thing as "gay propaganda" but also that gay people are directing "gay propaganda" at children and that it is so harmful that it must be illegalized. I don't think you have really thought this through.
Iron_Captain wrote: Homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. This so-called 'anti-gay law' only banned public advertising of homosexuality to kids.
You believe it is possible for gay people to enjoy rights equal to heterosexuals in a country which is so homophobic that its government not only believes there is a such thing as "gay propaganda" but also that gay people are directing "gay propaganda" at children and that it is so harmful that it must be illegalized. I don't think you have really thought this through.
In paper yes. In practice no, although the problem is less the government and more the quite large homophobic population.
Tyran wrote: They have been living there for the last 70+ years, they are Crimean.
I don't think "Crimean" is an ethnicity, unless you mean Tartars. "Russian" and "Ukranian" are, however. And ethnic Russians have lived there for much longer than 70 years. But it hardly matters. The referendum was bald-faced fraud.
Tyran wrote: the problem is less the government and more the quite large homophobic population.
As an American, you can't fool me like that -- I understand how government institutions collude with prejudice to perpetuate it. We actually think and talk about this quite a lot in the US, around the issue of civil rights and racism.
Tyran wrote: They have been living there for the last 70+ years, they are Crimean.
I don't think "Crimean" is an ethnicity, unless you mean Tartars. "Russian" and "Ukranian" are, however. And ethnic Russians have lived there for much longer than 70 years. But it hardly matters. The referendum was bald-faced fraud.
Everyone that has gone to Crimea or has contact with their residents knows that Crimea always was and is very pro-Russia.
The fact that the West has imposed sanctions on Crimea shows that even they know that Crimea willingly joined Russia, otherwise they would be massive douches by sanctioning victims.
Tyran wrote: the problem is less the government and more the quite large homophobic population.
As an American, you can't fool me like that -- I understand how government institutions collude with prejudice to perpetuate it. We actually think and talk about this quite a lot in the US, around the issue of civil rights and racism.
The thing is the sheer size of the group, 85% of Russians oppose same sex marriage. As a culture they don't like homosexuals and that is going to be reflected on the government, which is part of the same culture.
Tyran wrote: the West has imposed sanctions on Crimea
Could you explain in detail what you mean? A sanction is leveled by a government against natural and legal persons (e.g., states). As far as the West is concerned, Crimea is a region. EDIT: I think I see what you mean, blocking investment in and trade through Crimea. This would I think technically be a sanction against Russia (which in reality controls the region).
Tyran wrote: they would be massive douches by sanctioning victims
This requires more focus. Sanctions impact people administrated by a sanctioned government, so in that sense they are "victims" of sanctioning -- but of course the actual issue is that the state is being sanctioned rather than the people. There is another piece of propaganda floating around in certain leftist circles here in the US that we should not levy sanctions, for example against Iran, because it hurts Iranians. But this is a nonsense argument: the point is to contain the sanctioned nation including by undermining its credibility and effectiveness in the eyes of the people over whom it claims authority. To wit, it is supposed to hurt the people. The deeper issue is whether nations should inflict punishments on one another as a matter of diplomacy. But that is line of thought is more than a little precious in a thread about Russia invading the Ukraine and seizing its territory in response to a Ukranian revolution sympathetic to the West.
Tyran wrote: The thing is the sheer size of the group, 85% of Russians oppose same sex marriage. As a culture they don't like homosexuals and that is going to be reflected on the government, which is part of the same culture.
Sure, in this country, the government was almost entirely white at a time when white people generally assumed black people were inferior. So we had a racist government and we had racist laws. And even then, people claimed that black people had the same rights and white people, which was just as false as somebody claiming gay people have the same rights as straight people in Russia today.
Tyran wrote: the West has imposed sanctions on Crimea
Could you explain in detail what you mean? A sanction is leveled by a government against natural and legal persons (e.g., states). As far as the West is concerned, Crimea is a region. EDIT: I think I see what you mean, blocking investment in and trade through Crimea. This would I think technically be a sanction against Russia (which in reality controls the region).
Tyran wrote: they would be massive douches by sanctioning victims
This requires more focus. Sanctions impact people administrated by a sanctioned government, so in that sense they are "victims" of sanctioning -- but of course the actual issue is that the state is being sanctioned rather than the people. There is another piece of propaganda floating around in certain leftist circles here in the US that we should not levy sanctions, for example against Iran, because it hurts Iranians. But this is a nonsense argument: the point is to contain the sanctioned nation including by undermining its credibility and effectiveness in the eyes of the people over whom it claims authority. To wit, it is supposed to hurt the people. The deeper issue is whether nations should inflict punishments on one another as a matter of diplomacy. But that is line of thought is more than a little precious in a thread about Russia invading the Ukraine and seizing its territory in response to a Ukranian revolution sympathetic to the West.
Tyran wrote: The thing is the sheer size of the group, 85% of Russians oppose same sex marriage. As a culture they don't like homosexuals and that is going to be reflected on the government, which is part of the same culture.
Sure, in this country, the government was almost entirely white at a time when white people generally assumed black people were inferior. So we had a racist government and we had racist laws. And even then, people claimed that black people had the same rights and white people, which was just as false as somebody claiming gay people have the same rights as straight people in Russia today.
But then simply sanction Russia, no need to sanction Crimea.
When most of the population isn't pro-gay (at best), then most of the people in the government aren't going to be pro-gay (at best). Yes it doesn't excuse the government, but fixing the government is kinda impossible if you don't fix the society first, which is a low and tedious process.
Tyran wrote: But then simply sanction Russia, no need to sanction Crimea.
Crimea is a region. It cannot be the subject of a sanction. The government of Russia is being sanctioned for illegally invading and seizing Crimea. The substance of the sanction is preventing US companies from doing business in the region, which would by default be under Russian auspices and therefore be tantamount to the US ignoring Russia's aggression.
Tyran wrote: But then simply sanction Russia, no need to sanction Crimea.
Crimea is a region. It cannot be the subject of a sanction. The government of Russia is being sanctioned for illegally invading and seizing Crimea. The substance of the sanction is preventing US companies from doing business in the region, which would by default be under Russian auspices and therefore be tantamount to the US ignoring Russia's aggression.
So because Russians were sent into Crimea about 70 years ago by the Soviets they are Crimean and deserve to be treated that way? does that mean that Israeli's have the same rights? I mean they've been their for thousands of years and a lot more came back to Israel back in the 40s so ???
Ghazkuul wrote: So because Russians were sent into Crimea about 70 years ago by the Soviets they are Crimean and deserve to be treated that way? does that mean that Israeli's have the same rights? I mean they've been their for thousands of years and a lot more came back to Israel back in the 40s so ???
To be fair, while there are parallels, there are also some major differences between these two situations.
Russia, in it's various forms (be it Imperial Russia, the USSR, etc), has also shed a whole lot of blood over Crimea, between the 1850's and 1940's, the peninsula, and the city of Sevastopol in particular, has a somewhat intensely nationalistic symbolism, much the way say, Pearl Harbor or the Alamo do. The Alamo is actually possibly a great parallel, an outpost of a nascent Imperialist power (in a land not indigenous to said power) in the mid 19th century, bravely holding but ultimately falling to foreign foes and serving as something of a lightning rod around which nationalistic ideals formed (only Sevastopol did it again in the 1940's).
Ghazkuul wrote: So because Russians were sent into Crimea about 70 years ago by the Soviets they are Crimean and deserve to be treated that way? does that mean that Israeli's have the same rights? I mean they've been their for thousands of years and a lot more came back to Israel back in the 40s so ???
Are you arguing that Israel shouldn't exist? That argument may had validity 70 years ago but not now.
Freakazoitt wrote: Putin said, Crimea question is closed. So, all your arguings are useless
I don't think anybody thought an internet discussion thread on a toy soldiers forum was ever going to change anything...
Now, Putin can say whatever he wants, what really makes the discussion closed is that nobody cares to go to war over it. Nobody ever expects Crimea to go back to Ukraine, however, the violation of the Budapest memorandum by the Russian Federation in regards to the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine has put brakes on the dismantling of European armies that had been going on for 20 years, while the decline in oil & gas revenues and cost of absorption of Crimea have been rather painful for the Russian economy.
Ghazkuul wrote: Crimeans were not calling for annexation by Russia. Russia citizens who moved to Crimea during the Soviet Union were calling for it. Try again 15 year old.
Ah well, it is shown once more that you can't expect most Americans to know anything about history outside of the US of A, so allow me to give you a short lesson: Crimea, once a Byzantine colony, was conquered by the Russians in the 10th century. In the ancient Greek city of Khersones (the ruins of which are right in the middle of Sevastopol), Vladimir the Great, ruler of Rus' then converted himself and his people to Christianity (which is one of the reasons Sevastopol is such a significant city to Russians). Russian rule over Crimea lasted for 3 centuries (note: that is longer than the entire existence of the US), until ancient Rus' was destroyed in the Mongol invasions of the 13th century. Crimea was conquered by the Mongols and was settled by several Turkic vassal peoples of the Mongols, who would later become the Tatars. The Russian inhabitants were enslaved. After the Mongols were defeated and driven from Russian in the 14th century, the Tatars formed an independent kingdom named the Crimean Khanate. The Tatars were slave traders, and led many raids into Ukraine and southern Russia. The Muscovite Tsardom and the Cossacks waged almost constant war against the Tatars, until 1783 they were conquered by Catherine the Great. The ancient city of Khersones, which had been destroyed by the Mongols, was rebuilt as Sevastopol and settled by Russians (as were most Crimean cities during the Russian empire). During WW2, most Tatars sided with the Nazis, for which Stalin had them deported to Kazakhstan (this shifted the ethnic balance from being about 50% Russian and 50% Tatar to almost exclusively Russian). Crimea remained a part of Russia until it was given to Ukraine in 1954 as a gift by the Soviet leader, Krushchev. (Since both countries were part of the Soviet Union, this did not really made make of a difference at the time.). During this period, many Ukrainians settled in Crimea also. In 1991, Ukraine became independent, which greatly upset most ethnic Russian Crimeans, who have never quite accepted this. (several polls conducted show that a majority of Crimeans considered Crimea to be Russian territory even before the crisis.) They attempted to gain independence or join Russia several times (which was usually solved by the Ukrainian government by giving Crimea more autonomy) before finally being succesful in 2014, with Russian aid.
As you can see, Russia has a history in Crimea that goes back long before the Soviet Union. There was very little settlement of Russians in Crimea in the Soviet period (most immigrants in that period were Ukrainian, and most immigrants in the post-Soviet period were Tatars) Most ethnic Russians in Crimea are descended from people who moved there after Crimea became part of the Russian Empire. Of all ethnic groups in Crimea, the Russians are the oldest. Russians lived in Crimea before Tatars or Ukrainians even existed as a people.
Ghazkuul wrote: Crimeans were not calling for annexation by Russia. Russia citizens who moved to Crimea during the Soviet Union were calling for it. Try again 15 year old.
Ah well, it is shown once more that you can't expect most Americans to know anything about history outside of the US of A, so allow me to give you a short lesson:
Crimea, once a Byzantine colony, was conquered by the Russians in the 10th century. In the ancient Greek city of Khersones (the ruins of which are right in the middle of Sevastopol), Vladimir the Great, ruler of Rus' then converted himself and his people to Christianity (which is one of the reasons Sevastopol is such a significant city to Russians). Russian rule over Crimea lasted for 3 centuries (note: that is longer than the entire existence of the US), until ancient Rus' was destroyed in the Mongol invasions of the 13th century. Crimea was conquered by the Mongols and was settled by several Turkic vassal peoples of the Mongols, who would later become the Tatars. The Russian inhabitants were enslaved. After the Mongols were defeated and driven from Russian in the 14th century, the Tatars formed an independent kingdom named the Crimean Khanate. The Tatars were slave traders, and led many raids into Ukraine and southern Russia. The Muscovite Tsardom and the Cossacks waged almost constant war against the Tatars, until 1783 they were conquered by Catherine the Great. The ancient city of Khersones, which had been destroyed by the Mongols, was rebuilt as Sevastopol and settled by Russians (as were most Crimean cities during the Russian empire). During WW2, most Tatars sided with the Nazis, for which Stalin had them deported to Kazakhstan (this shifted the ethnic balance from being about 50% Russian and 50% Tatar to almost exclusively Russian). Crimea remained a part of Russia until it was given to Ukraine in 1954 as a gift by the Soviet leader, Krushchev. (Since both countries were part of the Soviet Union, this did not really made make of a difference at the time.). During this period, many Ukrainians settled in Crimea also. In 1991, Ukraine became independent, which greatly upset most ethnic Russian Crimeans, who have never quite accepted this. (several polls conducted show that a majority of Crimeans considered Crimea to be Russian territory even before the crisis.) They attempted to gain independence or join Russia several times (which was usually solved by the Ukrainian government by giving Crimea more autonomy) before finally being succesful in 2014, with Russian aid.
As you can see, Russia has a history in Crimea that goes back long before the Soviet Union. There was very little settlement of Russians in Crimea in the Soviet period (most immigrants in that period were Ukrainian, and most immigrants in the post-Soviet period were Tatars) Most ethnic Russians in Crimea are descended from people who moved there after Crimea became part of the Russian Empire. Of all ethnic groups in Crimea, the Russians are the oldest. Russians lived in Crimea before Tatars or Ukrainians even existed as a people.
So it actually belongs to the Greeks then? If we're playing the "we were there first card". Or the Romans, Goths, Huns and Bulgars. They were all there before anyone vaguely 'Russian' turned up.
Oh and hey let's not forget the part where Crimea was then given to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954, but I guess if they decide to drop communism, and your Union falls apart, that allows you to ignore any of the things that were agreed upon, during that period of time right?
On a completely irrelevant note, finally got past that 500 post mark, it's been a wonderful 5/6 years.
Ghazkuul wrote: Crimeans were not calling for annexation by Russia. Russia citizens who moved to Crimea during the Soviet Union were calling for it. Try again 15 year old.
Ah well, it is shown once more that you can't expect most Americans to know anything about history outside of the US of A, so allow me to give you a short lesson:
Crimea, once a Byzantine colony, was conquered by the Russians in the 10th century. In the ancient Greek city of Khersones (the ruins of which are right in the middle of Sevastopol), Vladimir the Great, ruler of Rus' then converted himself and his people to Christianity (which is one of the reasons Sevastopol is such a significant city to Russians). Russian rule over Crimea lasted for 3 centuries (note: that is longer than the entire existence of the US), until ancient Rus' was destroyed in the Mongol invasions of the 13th century. Crimea was conquered by the Mongols and was settled by several Turkic vassal peoples of the Mongols, who would later become the Tatars. The Russian inhabitants were enslaved. After the Mongols were defeated and driven from Russian in the 14th century, the Tatars formed an independent kingdom named the Crimean Khanate. The Tatars were slave traders, and led many raids into Ukraine and southern Russia. The Muscovite Tsardom and the Cossacks waged almost constant war against the Tatars, until 1783 they were conquered by Catherine the Great. The ancient city of Khersones, which had been destroyed by the Mongols, was rebuilt as Sevastopol and settled by Russians (as were most Crimean cities during the Russian empire). During WW2, most Tatars sided with the Nazis, for which Stalin had them deported to Kazakhstan (this shifted the ethnic balance from being about 50% Russian and 50% Tatar to almost exclusively Russian). Crimea remained a part of Russia until it was given to Ukraine in 1954 as a gift by the Soviet leader, Krushchev. (Since both countries were part of the Soviet Union, this did not really made make of a difference at the time.). During this period, many Ukrainians settled in Crimea also. In 1991, Ukraine became independent, which greatly upset most ethnic Russian Crimeans, who have never quite accepted this. (several polls conducted show that a majority of Crimeans considered Crimea to be Russian territory even before the crisis.) They attempted to gain independence or join Russia several times (which was usually solved by the Ukrainian government by giving Crimea more autonomy) before finally being succesful in 2014, with Russian aid.
As you can see, Russia has a history in Crimea that goes back long before the Soviet Union. There was very little settlement of Russians in Crimea in the Soviet period (most immigrants in that period were Ukrainian, and most immigrants in the post-Soviet period were Tatars) Most ethnic Russians in Crimea are descended from people who moved there after Crimea became part of the Russian Empire. Of all ethnic groups in Crimea, the Russians are the oldest. Russians lived in Crimea before Tatars or Ukrainians even existed as a people.
So it actually belongs to the Greeks then? If we're playing the "we were there first card". Or the Romans, Goths, Huns and Bulgars. They were all there before anyone vaguely 'Russian' turned up.
Oh and hey let's not forget the part where Crimea was then given to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954, but I guess if they decide to drop communism, and your Union falls apart, that allows you to ignore any of the things that were agreed upon, during that period of time right?
On a completely irrelevant note, finally got past that 500 post mark, it's been a wonderful 5/6 years.
If Greeks, Romans, Goths, Huns or Bulgars still lived in Crimea, that might have been a valid argument.
And while legally, the Russian re-annexation of Crimea is of course illegal since Crimea was legally made part of Ukraine by the 1954 administrative action of the Supreme Soviet and subsequently by the 1992 Crimean constitution (which was forced on the Republic of Crimea by Ukraine), I say that morally, the will of the Crimean people triumphs over the decisions of a dictatorial regime and a constitution agreed upon under threat. (also, the whole principle of annexation and military force tends to kinda trump any laws)
If the legal position should prevail over the will of the people, then the US (and the Netherlands and many other places) would have no right to exist.
Could you please explain to me how a democratically elected president who hadn't been in office more then a handful of months was a dictatorial regime?
Ghazkuul wrote: Could you please explain to me how a democratically elected president who hadn't been in office more then a handful of months was a dictatorial regime?
I'm thinking that smacks of BS.
The Soviet Union did not have a democratically elected president. The interim-government that got Ukraine into this current mess also was not democratically elected, but that is a different matter. Poroshenko was democratically elected, except by the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts where the vast majority of people was unable to vote due to the war.
If Greeks, Romans, Goths, Huns or Bulgars still lived in Crimea, that might have been a valid argument.
And while legally, the Russian re-annexation of Crimea is of course illegal since Crimea was legally made part of Ukraine by the 1954 administrative action of the Supreme Soviet and subsequently by the 1992 Crimean constitution (which was forced on the Republic of Crimea by Ukraine), I say that morally, the will of the Crimean people triumphs over the decisions of a dictatorial regime and a constitution agreed upon under threat. (also, the whole principle of annexation and military force tends to kinda trump any laws)
If the legal position should prevail over the will of the people, then the US (and the Netherlands and many other places) would have no right to exist.
So how did the satellite state, threaten the USSR into giving it Crimea? Or did the elected governments in Ukraine from 1991 onwards, threaten Russia into letting them keep it? Or did the peoples of Crimea not want to leave the USSR when it was handed over, and if they did, why did they wait until the vaguely 'anti' Russian government get elected to decide they needed to be up in arms and 'cede' from Ukrainian control.
Secondly, your basically saying that it's okay as long as you win your annexation fights, to take land nowadays? So if I decided to annex Yorkshire for the greater glory of Scotland, that's fine as long as I have the military force to do so, and there's nothing anyone can do legally to stop me, as military force trumps law?
Finally, of course 'we were there first/ we have people of X descent living there' isn't a valid argument. Otherwise Ireland would own large chunks of the world due to the (probably incorrect) assumption that there are more people of known Irish descent living outside of Ireland than in it. Which leads me back to, does Ireland (if it had the military force to do so) get to annex these areas?
I can't speak for the whole world but I can tell you that the USA has about 35 Million people who claim at least partial Irish heritage, which is something like 7 times the population of Ireland. So technically Ireland should invade here first
Ghazkuul wrote: I can't speak for the whole world but I can tell you that the USA has about 35 Million people who claim at least partial Irish heritage, which is something like 7 times the population of Ireland. So technically Ireland should invade here first
If Greeks, Romans, Goths, Huns or Bulgars still lived in Crimea, that might have been a valid argument. And while legally, the Russian re-annexation of Crimea is of course illegal since Crimea was legally made part of Ukraine by the 1954 administrative action of the Supreme Soviet and subsequently by the 1992 Crimean constitution (which was forced on the Republic of Crimea by Ukraine), I say that morally, the will of the Crimean people triumphs over the decisions of a dictatorial regime and a constitution agreed upon under threat. (also, the whole principle of annexation and military force tends to kinda trump any laws) If the legal position should prevail over the will of the people, then the US (and the Netherlands and many other places) would have no right to exist.
So how did the satellite state, threaten the USSR into giving it Crimea? Or did the elected governments in Ukraine from 1991 onwards, threaten Russia into letting them keep it? Or did the peoples of Crimea not want to leave the USSR when it was handed over, and if they did, why did they wait until the vaguely 'anti' Russian government get elected to decide they needed to be up in arms and 'cede' from Ukrainian control.
Secondly, your basically saying that it's okay as long as you win your annexation fights, to take land nowadays? So if I decided to annex Yorkshire for the greater glory of Scotland, that's fine as long as I have the military force to do so, and there's nothing anyone can do legally to stop me, as military force trumps law?
Finally, of course 'we were there first/ we have people of X descent living there' isn't a valid argument. Otherwise Ireland would own large chunks of the world due to the (probably incorrect) assumption that there are more people of known Irish descent living outside of Ireland than in it. Which leads me back to, does Ireland (if it had the military force to do so) get to annex these areas?
The spelling and grammar
Russia didn't care about annexing Crimea until this whole mess because the previous Ukrainian government was fine with Russia having it's military base there.
And sadly force does trump laws because there isn't an organisation capable of enforcing them, the UN was an attempt to that but it has been practically useless.
there's probably a pun along the lines of " a cut above" or something here.
It will be an excellent weapon for the Spetsnaz:
Now that our axes are of larger and flyings further, the fashist-liberast terrorist will fear us even more!
Freakazoitt wrote: 3000 Ukrainians gathered at parlament. One "Svoboda" or "Ukrops" radical throwed grenade at guards, 15 injured.
No idea what they want again.
Probably the same things they always want. The parliament voted about decentralisation of regions. The banderites seem not to want that for some reason. These people just have no place in a democracy.
I hate to point this out, but democracy does, however unfortunately, include these guys. I don't know how they do it in Russia, but part of democracy is not silencing the dissenting voices. No matter how idiotic they might be. (There's just not enough Polonium to go around.)
On the up side, it's clear that Nazis are not running the Ukraine. Otherwise they would not be protesting outside about what the Ukraine is doing.
100 guards injured, 1 died at parlament events. One National Guard lost legs. Protesters left unharmed,
"Svoboda" radicals responsible for throwing grenade, explosives, smoke, flyers and spraying gas. But they said, it's all government's provocation.
Freakazoitt wrote: Poroshenko said, that Russia resposible for events at parlament.
Poroshenko announced, that Russia is enemy number one,
Poroshenko asked discounts for gas from Russia.
And asked Russia to help with release ukrainian prisoner in Afghanistan.
Schizophrenia?
Nah, he is just being pragmatic. Apart from bombing civilians, Poroshenko is not all that bad. He has to try and appease both the banderites and pro-Russian Ukrainians at the same time.
Oh derp, I misread that completely. A Banderite is a (far) right-wing Ukrainian follower of the ideas of Ukranian nationalist Stepan Bandera, I read it as "bandite" and thus made a bad joke about the pro-Russian side being bandits.
Yeah, banderite was originally the name for followers of Stepan Bandera, a pro-nazi Ukrainian nationalist leader of WW2.
But nowadays it is just a nickname for all Ukrainian nationalists. The opposite nickname for pro-Russian nationalists is vatnik.
These far right Ukrainian nationalist groups. Svoboda? Are they like the Ukrainian equivalent of the IRA and UVF? Are they paramilitaries, or just fringe political parties?
Has it been confirmed that the person responsible for the grenade attack on the Police was a member or sympathiser of one of these groups?
I don't think Svoboda is equal to IRA. Svoboda known for agitations, meeteengs, nazi ideas and some fightings but not shooting.
Right Sector is something like IRA.
Has it been confirmed that the person responsible for the grenade attack on the Police was a member or sympathiser of one of these groups?
It was an Svoboda radical. But Svoboda didn't planned to use grenade. Probably, it was direct order from Tyagnibok to that person.
The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council revised the country’s military doctrine Wednesday, defining Russia as the country’s adversary and laying out a long-term path toward NATO membership. At the meeting, the council backed plans to abandon its previous status as being against moving closer to the European Union and "to resume the strategic course on Euro-Atlantic integration," according to a report in Sputnik, a Russian state news site.
"The new military doctrine of Ukraine determines the Russian Federation as the country's military adversary and defines conditions for the liberation of temporary occupied territories of Ukraine," the council said in a statement.
At the Security Council meeting, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said the doctrine "not only officially establishes the Russian Federation as Ukraine's military opponent, but states the task of relocating military units and creating the necessary military infrastructure in the eastern and southern regions."
The new doctrine is expected to be signed by Poroshenko in the coming days.
Oleg Tyagnibok is the leader of Svoboda. He is known for his support of Bandera and the UPA, radical anti-semitism, anti-communism, russophobia and the many controversies he has been involved in. In short, he is the Zhirinovsky of Ukraine.
The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council revised the country’s military doctrine Wednesday, defining Russia as the country’s adversary and laying out a long-term path toward NATO membership. At the meeting, the council backed plans to abandon its previous status as being against moving closer to the European Union and "to resume the strategic course on Euro-Atlantic integration," according to a report in Sputnik, a Russian state news site.
"The new military doctrine of Ukraine determines the Russian Federation as the country's military adversary and defines conditions for the liberation of temporary occupied territories of Ukraine," the council said in a statement.
At the Security Council meeting, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said the doctrine "not only officially establishes the Russian Federation as Ukraine's military opponent, but states the task of relocating military units and creating the necessary military infrastructure in the eastern and southern regions."
The new doctrine is expected to be signed by Poroshenko in the coming days.
No, NATO rules don't even allow it. The Ukrainians know this, and they also know that any serious move to joining NATO would be the end of Ukraine. Such public 'doctrines' are usually just propaganda for the most part.
Oleg Tyagnibok is the leader of Svoboda. He is known for his support of Bandera and the UPA, radical anti-semitism, anti-communism, russophobia and the many controversies he has been involved in. In short, he is the Zhirinovsky of Ukraine.
The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council revised the country’s military doctrine Wednesday, defining Russia as the country’s adversary and laying out a long-term path toward NATO membership. At the meeting, the council backed plans to abandon its previous status as being against moving closer to the European Union and "to resume the strategic course on Euro-Atlantic integration," according to a report in Sputnik, a Russian state news site.
"The new military doctrine of Ukraine determines the Russian Federation as the country's military adversary and defines conditions for the liberation of temporary occupied territories of Ukraine," the council said in a statement.
At the Security Council meeting, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said the doctrine "not only officially establishes the Russian Federation as Ukraine's military opponent, but states the task of relocating military units and creating the necessary military infrastructure in the eastern and southern regions."
The new doctrine is expected to be signed by Poroshenko in the coming days.
No, NATO rules don't even allow it. The Ukrainians know this, and they also know that any serious move to joining NATO would be the end of Ukraine. Such public 'doctrines' are usually just propaganda for the most part.
so why exactly would joining NATO be the end of the Ukraine?
Oleg Tyagnibok is the leader of Svoboda. He is known for his support of Bandera and the UPA, radical anti-semitism, anti-communism, russophobia and the many controversies he has been involved in. In short, he is the Zhirinovsky of Ukraine.
The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council revised the country’s military doctrine Wednesday, defining Russia as the country’s adversary and laying out a long-term path toward NATO membership. At the meeting, the council backed plans to abandon its previous status as being against moving closer to the European Union and "to resume the strategic course on Euro-Atlantic integration," according to a report in Sputnik, a Russian state news site.
"The new military doctrine of Ukraine determines the Russian Federation as the country's military adversary and defines conditions for the liberation of temporary occupied territories of Ukraine," the council said in a statement.
At the Security Council meeting, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said the doctrine "not only officially establishes the Russian Federation as Ukraine's military opponent, but states the task of relocating military units and creating the necessary military infrastructure in the eastern and southern regions."
The new doctrine is expected to be signed by Poroshenko in the coming days.
No, NATO rules don't even allow it. The Ukrainians know this, and they also know that any serious move to joining NATO would be the end of Ukraine. Such public 'doctrines' are usually just propaganda for the most part.
so why exactly would joining NATO be the end of the Ukraine?
Because Russia will not and cannot allow it? Putin would rather drop all pretence by launching an all out invasion and occupation of Ukraine, than risk Ukraine joining NATO.
Russia helped instigate a rebellion and sent Russian troops (the numbers of which are debatable) to annex Crimea, fight the Ukrainian army and maintain Russian influence in the east; simply because a pro-Russian government was overthrown and replaced with a pro Western government. What do you think he'll do to prevent Ukraine joining a continent wide military alliance hostile to Russia?
so why exactly would joining NATO be the end of the Ukraine?
Because Putin et al have been playing the old 'great enemy' card to distract Russians from problems at home. if the Ukraine joined NATO, Putin would fin himself in a position where he would have to go to war or look weak.
Oleg Tyagnibok is the leader of Svoboda. He is known for his support of Bandera and the UPA, radical anti-semitism, anti-communism, russophobia and the many controversies he has been involved in. In short, he is the Zhirinovsky of Ukraine.
The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council revised the country’s military doctrine Wednesday, defining Russia as the country’s adversary and laying out a long-term path toward NATO membership. At the meeting, the council backed plans to abandon its previous status as being against moving closer to the European Union and "to resume the strategic course on Euro-Atlantic integration," according to a report in Sputnik, a Russian state news site.
"The new military doctrine of Ukraine determines the Russian Federation as the country's military adversary and defines conditions for the liberation of temporary occupied territories of Ukraine," the council said in a statement.
At the Security Council meeting, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said the doctrine "not only officially establishes the Russian Federation as Ukraine's military opponent, but states the task of relocating military units and creating the necessary military infrastructure in the eastern and southern regions."
The new doctrine is expected to be signed by Poroshenko in the coming days.
No, NATO rules don't even allow it. The Ukrainians know this, and they also know that any serious move to joining NATO would be the end of Ukraine. Such public 'doctrines' are usually just propaganda for the most part.
so why exactly would joining NATO be the end of the Ukraine?
First of all because a large part of the Ukrainian population does not support it. Ukraine joining NATO could push many in Eastern and Southern Ukraine from supporting the government to supporting seperatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass.
Secondly because Russia won't have it. If they make a serious move, Russia will likely invade and annex parts, if not most of Ukraine. Putin has openly stated he will do this, there is no backing down for him anymore.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: NATO is only hostile to Russia because Russia has been acting so belligerently since the fall of the Soviet Union.
And Russia has only been acting so belligerently because it is threatened by NATO.
First of all because a large part of the Ukrainian population does not support it. Ukraine joining NATO could push many in Eastern and Southern Ukraine from supporting the government to supporting seperatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass.
Secondly because Russia won't have it. If they make a serious move, Russia will likely invade and annex parts, if not most of Ukraine. Putin has openly stated he will do this, there is no backing down for him anymore.
Crimea already said it's not part of Ukraine, so why should Ukraine care what they say?
You can't have it both ways.
Kanluwen wrote: NATO is only hostile to Russia because Russia has been acting so belligerently since the fall of the Soviet Union.
And Russia has only been acting so belligerently because it is threatened by NATO.
Right, because NATO are the ones which have consistently been doing things like having armed bombers fly into Russian airspace?
Oh wait. That's Russia into the airspace of NATO countries. My bad!
Russia(and the super-patriotic Russian nationalists) think that a country that does not belong to them trying to join NATO is NATO being belligerent.
First of all because a large part of the Ukrainian population does not support it. Ukraine joining NATO could push many in Eastern and Southern Ukraine from supporting the government to supporting seperatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass.
Secondly because Russia won't have it. If they make a serious move, Russia will likely invade and annex parts, if not most of Ukraine. Putin has openly stated he will do this, there is no backing down for him anymore.
Crimea already said it's not part of Ukraine, so why should Ukraine care what they say?
You can't have it both ways.
I'm not sure you read what he said correctly. Iron Captain is saying that if Ukraine joined NATO, many people could support separatist movements, in the same way that many in Crimea supported separatist movements before it was annexed.
I really fail to see how Russia can say with a straight face that NATO is threatening. Its a collection of small countries who only barely rival Russia in military might, and they have the disadvantage of not being a unified force. And the less they get poked, the less unified they will be.
Its like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Say NATO is threatening you, invade a buffer state, NATO responds to the posturing by buffing its defenses.
First of all because a large part of the Ukrainian population does not support it. Ukraine joining NATO could push many in Eastern and Southern Ukraine from supporting the government to supporting seperatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass.
Secondly because Russia won't have it. If they make a serious move, Russia will likely invade and annex parts, if not most of Ukraine. Putin has openly stated he will do this, there is no backing down for him anymore.
Crimea already said it's not part of Ukraine, so why should Ukraine care what they say?
You can't have it both ways.
I'm not sure you read what he said correctly. Iron Captain is saying that if Ukraine joined NATO, many people could support separatist movements, in the same way that many in Crimea supported separatist movements before it was annexed.
No, I read what he said correctly.
I just chose to ignore it, because the government in Ukraine was elected by the people of Ukraine. The only non-voter participation came from areas controlled by the separatists, which allowed the separatists and Russia to claim that the Ukrainian government was not really "the will of the people!".
And let's not pretend for a moment that the "separatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass" weren't instigated by Russian forces and later justified as "defending the ethnic population". Most of us have been in this thread long enough to know that's exactly what happened, just like it did in Georgia and South Ossetia.
Oleg Tyagnibok is the leader of Svoboda. He is known for his support of Bandera and the UPA, radical anti-semitism, anti-communism, russophobia and the many controversies he has been involved in. In short, he is the Zhirinovsky of Ukraine.
The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council revised the country’s military doctrine Wednesday, defining Russia as the country’s adversary and laying out a long-term path toward NATO membership. At the meeting, the council backed plans to abandon its previous status as being against moving closer to the European Union and "to resume the strategic course on Euro-Atlantic integration," according to a report in Sputnik, a Russian state news site.
"The new military doctrine of Ukraine determines the Russian Federation as the country's military adversary and defines conditions for the liberation of temporary occupied territories of Ukraine," the council said in a statement.
At the Security Council meeting, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said the doctrine "not only officially establishes the Russian Federation as Ukraine's military opponent, but states the task of relocating military units and creating the necessary military infrastructure in the eastern and southern regions."
The new doctrine is expected to be signed by Poroshenko in the coming days.
No, NATO rules don't even allow it. The Ukrainians know this, and they also know that any serious move to joining NATO would be the end of Ukraine. Such public 'doctrines' are usually just propaganda for the most part.
so why exactly would joining NATO be the end of the Ukraine?
First of all because a large part of the Ukrainian population does not support it. Ukraine joining NATO could push many in Eastern and Southern Ukraine from supporting the government to supporting seperatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass.
Secondly because Russia won't have it. If they make a serious move, Russia will likely invade and annex parts, if not most of Ukraine. Putin has openly stated he will do this, there is no backing down for him anymore.
Which is concerning because an open invasion of a European state by another would very easily spark a wider war, especially with Ukraine's neighbors being intensely concerned about Russian actions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: NATO is only hostile to Russia because Russia has been acting so belligerently since the fall of the Soviet Union.
And Russia has only been acting so belligerently because it is threatened by NATO.
I'm still wondering what NATO did that was so threatening. NATO isn't coercing anyone into NATO by force, if other nations want to join NATO, it's their choice, and often has to overcome opposition from other NATO members. Likewise, NATO, as a military power, was weakening for years, Europe was finally drawing down its armies after many lifetimes of strife, some were even dropping things like Tanks entirely. Europe had never been so poorly prepared for war when the Ukraine crisis started. All Russia had to do was not rock the boat and that would have continued.
Hell, the possibility for Russia to join NATO was even brought up at several points, all actively rebuffed by Russia since Russia couldn't be the boss and Russia will enter into coalitions where it gets to be the boss, and this was openly stated by Russia's envoy to NATO.
Claiming NATO was threatening is somewhat silly in that context.
First of all because a large part of the Ukrainian population does not support it. Ukraine joining NATO could push many in Eastern and Southern Ukraine from supporting the government to supporting seperatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass. Secondly because Russia won't have it. If they make a serious move, Russia will likely invade and annex parts, if not most of Ukraine. Putin has openly stated he will do this, there is no backing down for him anymore.
Crimea already said it's not part of Ukraine, so why should Ukraine care what they say?
You can't have it both ways.
I'm not sure you read what he said correctly. Iron Captain is saying that if Ukraine joined NATO, many people could support separatist movements, in the same way that many in Crimea supported separatist movements before it was annexed.
No, I read what he said correctly. I just chose to ignore it, because the government in Ukraine was elected by the people of Ukraine. The only non-voter participation came from areas controlled by the separatists, which allowed the separatists and Russia to claim that the Ukrainian government was not really "the will of the people!".
And let's not pretend for a moment that the "separatist movements like happened in Crimea and Donbass" weren't instigated by Russian forces and later justified as "defending the ethnic population". Most of us have been in this thread long enough to know that's exactly what happened, just like it did in Georgia and South Ossetia.
People voting for Poroshenko does not mean that they want to join NATO. Also, I reccomend you read something about South Ossetia and Abkhazia, or even speak to someone who lives there. Saying that the seperatist movements of the Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples were instigated by Russian forces blatantly ignores their centuries of struggle against the Georgians and the previous war in the 90's. Also, if you had ever been to Crimea, or even followed the news from there, you would have known that it did not need any instigation. Crimea declared independence even before the first Russians showed up. Russia just took advantage of this development and moved in. In Donbass, it is the same. People there feel connected to Russia, and never had much love for the West. It may come as a surprise to you, but not everyone in the world likes the West or wants to join it.
Really, it is this complete and utter lack of knowledge about the peoples of Eastern Europe combined with the age old way of viewing Russia as evil and the West as always right which leads to the eternal conflict between the West and Russia. For some reason people in the West can't comprehend that there is actually people out there that would prefer Russia over the West, so they always go: "Putin did it!" 'The Kremlin is behind it!' on every single thing. The West should stop poking its nose in places it does not belong. Whether it is Africa, Asia, the Middle East or Eastern Europe, they inevitably mess things up and cause a huge lot of bloodshed in the process.
Right, because NATO are the ones which have consistently been doing things like having armed bombers fly into Russian airspace?
Oh wait. That's Russia into the airspace of NATO countries. My bad!
Russia(and the super-patriotic Russian nationalists) think that a country that does not belong to them trying to join NATO is NATO being belligerent.
Belgrade says ''hi''.
Only a fool would believe that having a hostile military alliance with a history of violence and invasion at the border is not somehow a threat. Especially not if you are a nation with a very, very long history of being invaded by pretty much everyone.
Sosna tageter, wind detector, Contact-5 armour. But It also might be ukrainian T-72UMG. Or something between them,
