Jihadin wrote: 30 March it seems the people are voting for their future. If Crimea military units not under lockdown are holding in place and letting two Brigades operate unhinder on a 50 mile stretch of M17 then we..as in US/EU/New Ukraine Government is in the wrong for trying to take aggressive action against Russia doing what we in the US military call "Force Protection".....makes you wonder how many military units not around the area of operation just sat back and watch. There are way more then just three military bases being mention here.
With commanders defecting left and right, I'm not surprised their just sitting back and watching. What the hell else are they supposed to do? The government is in shambles, their CoC is in shambles, the best they can do is keep their bases secure and wait for a structure to be set up.
Well there is another option "melt away when no one's looking."
Jihadin wrote: 30 March it seems the people are voting for their future. If Crimea military units not under lockdown are holding in place and letting two Brigades operate unhinder on a 50 mile stretch of M17 then we..as in US/EU/New Ukraine Government is in the wrong for trying to take aggressive action against Russia doing what we in the US military call "Force Protection".....makes you wonder how many military units not around the area of operation just sat back and watch. There are way more then just three military bases being mention here.
With commanders defecting left and right, I'm not surprised their just sitting back and watching. What the hell else are they supposed to do? The government is in shambles, their CoC is in shambles, the best they can do is keep their bases secure and wait for a structure to be set up.
Well there is another option "melt away when no one's looking."
I'm glad that they aren't doing that. As long as they are still under arms, Russia has to tread lightly (relatively speaking).
Being Putin a former KGB minister the "Force Protection" cover and the subtle framework of getting Crimea to himself is.....would make a Vulcan Intelligence officer cry
Crimea with 60 days is his
Eastern Ukraine with majority heavy industries and ore in 6-8 months
You know how everyone keeps talkin bout how gakky the Russian military is and how the morale sucks, etc. etc. etc? Well, the Russian military isn't really like that anymore... the Ukrainian military? Yeah, its still very much like that. We're talking like only a small handful of its planes are airworthy, only a handful of its ships are seaworthy, ammo shortages all over the place, most personnel are barely trained conscript types, etc. They aren't fighting back because it would be suicide to do so, especially since the average soldiers salary is half that of the nations already pitifully low average salary...
Jihadin wrote: Putin.....would make a Vulcan Intelligence officer cry.
Sig. worthy!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: You know how everyone keeps talkin bout how gakky the Russian military is and how the morale sucks, etc. etc. etc? Well, the Russian military isn't really like that anymore... the Ukrainian military? Yeah, its still very much like that. We're talking like only a small handful of its planes are airworthy, only a handful of its ships are seaworthy, ammo shortages all over the place, most personnel are barely trained conscript types, etc. They aren't fighting back because it would be suicide to do so.
chaos0xomega wrote: You know how everyone keeps talkin bout how gakky the Russian military is and how the morale sucks, etc. etc. etc? Well, the Russian military isn't really like that anymore... the Ukrainian military? Yeah, its still very much like that. We're talking like only a small handful of its planes are airworthy, only a handful of its ships are seaworthy, ammo shortages all over the place, most personnel are barely trained conscript types, etc. They aren't fighting back because it would be suicide to do so, especially since the average soldiers salary is half that of the nations already pitifully low average salary...
I read the other day that the IISS examined their makeup, and more or less came to the conclusion that only about 130,000 of the 160,000 regulars are anywhere near battle-readiness, and they barely have enough spare uniforms and weaponry to equip a third of their reserves. How true that is, I naturally couldn't say though.
Chaos. I mention earlier their military units are manned by individuals from the district the unit is located in. So basically the soon to be announce Crimean Military unit is composed of troops from the area. Be cost effective to since there be little funding spent on sending mass groups of non Crimea troops back to Ukraine
Ketara wrote: Old bean, this is a discussion board for friendly debate. Considering you've done nothing less than accuse me in steady succession of 'distorting your arguments', 'acting in bad faith', and various other unsavoury things, I genuinely think you need to get a grip. You're actually not responding to a single thing I've said, or the main point I made, which was:-
I agree that yes, what you say can be regarded as technically and legally correct. But then many other absurdities also have to be regarded as technically and legally correct. Therefore I consistently regard the initial point over the Crimean Governments ability to invite in foreign troops as irrelevant and pointless in reality, in the exact same way that both you and I would regard the technicalities of the Russian troop movement agreement as being irrelevant and pointless to the situation on the ground.
Well dear chap, I would not have to resort to pointing out your actions had you not engaged in the manner of conduct which you chose. You have agreed with my central point, and then continued to be contrary seemingly for it's own sake. I'm not quite certain how that advances polite debate.
Ketara wrote: If you don't care to engage with my primary point, that's fine. But the ad hominems don't really get you anywhere in polite debate.
Ad hominem? I would be most obliged if you could detail these alleged ad hominems. With specifics. Given your conduct thus far invoking "polite debate" is a tad brazen.
Ketara wrote: For your future browsing pleasure/personal satisfaction on the agreement I mentioned earlier though, since it seems you needed me to google for you:-
Many thanks for actually substantiating your argument guv'nor. However;
- your first link states the following;
"Russia-Ukraine Military Base Agreement(1997) – Russia has headquartered its Black Sea naval fleet in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol for over two centuries. In recent years, the two countries have operated under a lease agreement that requires Moscow to apprise Kiev of all troop movements to and from the base, a condition Russia has breached, according to Ukrainian officials."
Sadly it does not include the text of the treaty, but it does mention troop movements "to and from the base". It does not say that the troops may be deployed outside of the bases as is the current situation
- concerning your second link;
"Commenting on Osavolyuk's statements, former commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Adm. Vladimir Kormoyedov said that according to bilateral agreements, the Russian Navy may deploy up to 25,000 personnel and up to 100 combat and support vessels at naval facilities in Ukraine."
Fascinating. It states that Russia may deploy troops at naval facilities. It makes no mention of troops (who are not appropriately attired per the Geneva Convention) being present outside the bases and on the streets in Crimea.
- on your third link, was there some point you wanted to make in directing me to a 181 page book? Would it have been much easier to facilitate polite discussion had you quoted the relevant part, reference the page number, and then provided that link? If your point is that Russia can base troops on the shore then that point is not being debated. That is after all the function of the naval facilities. The problem arises when the troops are no longer in their bases, but are instead deployed inland and in a position of occupation.
chaos0xomega wrote: You know how everyone keeps talkin bout how gakky the Russian military is and how the morale sucks, etc. etc. etc? Well, the Russian military isn't really like that anymore... the Ukrainian military? Yeah, its still very much like that. We're talking like only a small handful of its planes are airworthy, only a handful of its ships are seaworthy, ammo shortages all over the place, most personnel are barely trained conscript types, etc. They aren't fighting back because it would be suicide to do so, especially since the average soldiers salary is half that of the nations already pitifully low average salary...
I read the other day that the IISS examined their makeup, and more or less came to the conclusion that only about 130,000 of the 160,000 regulars are anywhere near battle-readiness, and they barely have enough spare uniforms and weaponry to equip a third of their reserves. How true that is, I naturally couldn't say though.
In any case, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the previous secretary-general of NATO said in an interview on Dutch television today that the EU is a military dwarf compared to Russia and that Putin knows this. http://nos.nl/artikel/618261-minister-liever-geen-sancties.html
Dreadclaw, Ketara...relax...the new government apparently are not going to honor the prior agreements over the Sevastopol Naval Station. The new government have not made a statement saying it will do so. As far as Putin is seeing it he's losing a asset that he poured money into A valuable strategic asset. Everything he's doing if you look at a road map of Crimea and look at confirm positions of Russian troops is securing a logistical line to Sevastopol He;s going to need both airfields, supply ships (what little there are of his there) and a 50 mile stretch of highway to maintain current operation of the base. Crimea leaning towards being Russian again is a added bonus
That's a thing that's been rankling my feathers. They are not properly attired. They are not in a Russian uniform, so if combat were to take place, they would be considered illegal combatants.
Well dear chap, I would not have to resort to pointing out your actions had you not engaged in the manner of conduct which you chose. You have agreed with my central point, and then continued to be contrary seemingly for it's own sake. I'm not quite certain how that advances polite debate.
No.
For the third (or fourth?) time, I pointed out that yes, your central point could be regarded as technically correct. But when you apply the identical logic used to reach that 'technically correct' conclusion to parallel scenarios, on both a smaller scale (i.e., the Kiev administration), and the larger scale (the history of the world), it becomes quickly apparent that it falls apart into the absurd. Which you yourself agreed with. I simply worked it in reverse, so that you would follow the reasoning, and thus be able to see why raising the 'technical legalities' was absurd. It's a fairly standard debating technique, where you lead the other fellow logically from one point to the next, so as to show them the conclusion.
You can call it debating it in bad faith, misrepresenting what you say, etcetc until the day the Texan wiener dogs come for us all. But ultimately, you actually haven't been able to do anything other than say that my logic is absurd. Which I agree with, because that was kind of the point. Because it was the same logic you were initially applying, which was absurd.
Ad hominem? I would be most obliged if you could detail these alleged ad hominems. With specifics. Given your conduct thus far invoking "polite debate" is a tad brazen.
My conduct? Namely, being friendly and trying to tone it down? Mate, if you could highlight all these terrible things I've done that you're busy accusing me of, that would absolutely wonderful. Considering your intense hunger for verse and chapter, I'm sure you'll be able to detail it a way that does it justice.
As for the links, I'll post the two most relevant parts in copypasta for you, since that seems to have been passed over too.
Russia-Ukraine Military Base Agreement(1997) – Russia has headquartered its Black Sea naval fleet in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol for over two centuries. In recent years, the two countries have operated under a lease agreement that requires Moscow to apprise Kiev of all troop movements to and from the base, a condition Russia has breached, according to Ukrainian officials.
Commenting on Osavolyuk's statements, former commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Adm. Vladimir Kormoyedov said that according to bilateral agreements, the Russian Navy may deploy up to 25,000 personnel and up to 100 combat and support vessels at naval facilities in Ukraine.
"If Russia decides to rotate its naval assets within the agreed limits, we must inform Kiev about this decision, but we do not have to wait for Ukraine's permission," Kormoyedov said.
In other words, to re-affirm it, and substantiate my original point, Russia needed only notify the Government that it was moving troops between bases. Whilst there is some disagreement over whether or not the Government could refuse permission, there is an agreement in place which facilitates the moving of soldiers in the region without seeming to specify time limits or routes.
I suppose you could try and say, 'Aha! But these are not absolute specifics! Where is the exact wording? EH? YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT WITHOUT EXACT SOURCES!' But then again, this is an internet discussion. We've already discussed the UK/US commitment to the Ukraine without needing to examine the original document. We're also discussing Russian troop movements without having seen them with our own eyes. I hate to get all rationalist here, but at some point, you need to accept that you're on the internet, and not everything requires eighty five footnotes and citations for 'polite discussion'.
There's also the minor fact that it is a ridiculous argument, but that's because it was meant to highlight how absurd being 'technically/legal correct at times can be. Like y'know, when referring to how:-
if a Government falls apart, and is for all intents and purposes non-existent, nobody who was ruled by that now defunct government is legally allowed to make a new one, even if they're doing it democratically?
chaos0xomega wrote: You know how everyone keeps talkin bout how gakky the Russian military is and how the morale sucks, etc. etc. etc? Well, the Russian military isn't really like that anymore... the Ukrainian military? Yeah, its still very much like that. We're talking like only a small handful of its planes are airworthy, only a handful of its ships are seaworthy, ammo shortages all over the place, most personnel are barely trained conscript types, etc. They aren't fighting back because it would be suicide to do so, especially since the average soldiers salary is half that of the nations already pitifully low average salary...
I read the other day that the IISS examined their makeup, and more or less came to the conclusion that only about 130,000 of the 160,000 regulars are anywhere near battle-readiness, and they barely have enough spare uniforms and weaponry to equip a third of their reserves. How true that is, I naturally couldn't say though.
In any case, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the previous secretary-general of NATO said in an interview on Dutch television today that the EU is a military dwarf compared to Russia and that Putin knows this. http://nos.nl/artikel/618261-minister-liever-geen-sancties.html
Oh certainly. We spend all our money on social welfare and whatnot.
The problem is that if Putin keeps up crusades like this, he'll spur the rest of us into re-arming. Most likely of all, would be Germany. It's a fine line to walk. If he just takes Crimea then keeps the lid on his ambitions for another eight years and waits for another opportunity, nothing will happen though.
djones520 wrote: That's a thing that's been rankling my feathers. They are not properly attired. They are not in a Russian uniform, so if combat were to take place, they would be considered illegal combatants.
Something that I've mentioned a few times, that no one has countered.
chaos0xomega wrote: You know how everyone keeps talkin bout how gakky the Russian military is and how the morale sucks, etc. etc. etc? Well, the Russian military isn't really like that anymore... the Ukrainian military? Yeah, its still very much like that. We're talking like only a small handful of its planes are airworthy, only a handful of its ships are seaworthy, ammo shortages all over the place, most personnel are barely trained conscript types, etc. They aren't fighting back because it would be suicide to do so, especially since the average soldiers salary is half that of the nations already pitifully low average salary...
I read the other day that the IISS examined their makeup, and more or less came to the conclusion that only about 130,000 of the 160,000 regulars are anywhere near battle-readiness, and they barely have enough spare uniforms and weaponry to equip a third of their reserves. How true that is, I naturally couldn't say though.
In any case, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the previous secretary-general of NATO said in an interview on Dutch television today that the EU is a military dwarf compared to Russia and that Putin knows this. http://nos.nl/artikel/618261-minister-liever-geen-sancties.html
Oh certainly. We spend all our money on social welfare and whatnot.
The problem is that if Putin keeps up crusades like this, he'll spur the rest of us into re-arming. Most likely of all, would be Germany. It's a fine line to walk. If he just takes Crimea then keeps the lid on his ambitions for another eight years and waits for another opportunity, nothing will happen though.
Alternatively, more of Eastern Ukraine may decide to secede following the referendum Crimea is having on the 30th March. That way, Putin could control even more of Ukraine without any further military involvement.
He may well do just that. I think he's just taking slowly, it one step at a time, seeing what resistance he runs into, and making sure he doesn't leave anything to chance. Putin is a slick operator, you have to give him credit for that, if nothing else.
The Germans are probably the most fanatically anti-war people in Europe though. For reals. Living here, I would be amazed if they made any moves militarily.
It's pretty scary, what is going on. I hope it can all be resolved without violence in some manner, because the thought of an actual armed conflict between Russia and the US/EU is terrifying.
I also think the EU would need a substantial amount of time to re-arm and consider their options, because at the moment you'd just have individual member states acting- considering the EU as a whole as a military unit is not sensible in my view, because we're not unified in that way at all.
Let's just hope for all our sakes that this can be solved through means other than open conflict. I think best case scenario is that Crimea gets absorbed, realistically, but with this treaty calling for defence of Ukraine's boarders it does make one worry about the potential knock on effects.
The main problem with the West at the moment, is that it's all they really care to do. As I said earlier, America has no real leverage with Moscow. Europe does have leverage, but we choose not to use it, because it would throw our own economies into turmoil.
I find it interesting that Putin's working so hard to try and keep the markets stable, even if he isn't succeeding very well. He knows all too well that if we get into economic problems, it'll make us more willing to take a harder line with Russia, as we'll have less to lose.
Da Boss wrote: The Germans are probably the most fanatically anti-war people in Europe though. For reals. Living here, I would be amazed if they made any moves militarily.
If Russia started swallowing up the Baltic states again, I think they'd get around it pretty sharpish. The Germans have had a cultural thing about the 'barbarian from the East' for a very long time now. And with the US receding, they'd feel they had no choice. They'd probably try and implement it on an EU scale though, to make it feel like it was more generalised as opposed to just them re-arming.
Da Boss wrote: The Germans are probably the most fanatically anti-war people in Europe though. For reals. Living here, I would be amazed if they made any moves militarily.
It's pretty scary, what is going on. I hope it can all be resolved without violence in some manner, because the thought of an actual armed conflict between Russia and the US/EU is terrifying.
I also think the EU would need a substantial amount of time to re-arm and consider their options, because at the moment you'd just have individual member states acting- considering the EU as a whole as a military unit is not sensible in my view, because we're not unified in that way at all.
Let's just hope for all our sakes that this can be solved through means other than open conflict. I think best case scenario is that Crimea gets absorbed, realistically, but with this treaty calling for defence of Ukraine's boarders it does make one worry about the potential knock on effects.
I think France and Britain are really the only two countries of the EU who have relatively serious military capabilities right now. And that is unsettling.
"Obama said that Russia's military moves in Crimea violated international law, adding that "no country has a right to send in troops to another country unprovoked.""
Its a changing world, the USA is not the only country who will get away with putting armed boots on the ground in other countries
putin knows this.. say what you will about the guy, but he is smart, calculating and patient. He knows that if the international community can put up with vietnam, bay of pigs, iraq, iraq part 2, afghanistan, ect ect ect, then they can put up with a "crimea" as well
the international community will complain and moan, but if they didnt do anything about the last 60 years of unilateral USA led invations into sovereing nations, then they wont do anything about russia going into a country that asked them to go in.
at this point the Ukrainian government is just as legit as the crimean one, if the UKrain can have a revolution and make up a totally new government, then so can the crimeans, its a two way street.
CNN has also now just admitted that the ultimatum never actually happened, its on the front page at the moment
Da Boss wrote: The Germans are probably the most fanatically anti-war people in Europe though. For reals. Living here, I would be amazed if they made any moves militarily.
It's pretty scary, what is going on. I hope it can all be resolved without violence in some manner, because the thought of an actual armed conflict between Russia and the US/EU is terrifying.
I also think the EU would need a substantial amount of time to re-arm and consider their options, because at the moment you'd just have individual member states acting- considering the EU as a whole as a military unit is not sensible in my view, because we're not unified in that way at all.
Let's just hope for all our sakes that this can be solved through means other than open conflict. I think best case scenario is that Crimea gets absorbed, realistically, but with this treaty calling for defence of Ukraine's boarders it does make one worry about the potential knock on effects.
Well, I think no matter what, one of the effects of this is all the old Soviet client states are going to begin a military buildup and up the anti-Russian rhetoric. Whether or not Western Europe sees the writing on the wall and follows suit is a different story. The make or break moment for the EU and NATO will occur within the next decade I think, when Putin challenges a state thats a member of one or the other (or both) organizations, and the rest of the group will have to decide if they are willing to stand up to harder treaty obligations or not.
Ketara wrote: For the third (or fourth?) time, I pointed out that yes, your central point could be regarded as technically correct. But when you apply the identical logic used to reach that 'technically correct' conclusion to parallel scenarios, on both a smaller scale (i.e., the Kiev administration), and the larger scale (the history of the world), it becomes quickly apparent that it falls apart into the absurd. Which you yourself agreed with. I simply worked it in reverse, so that you would follow the reasoning, and thus be able to see why raising the 'technical legalities' was absurd. It's a fairly standard debating technique, where you lead the other fellow logically from one point to the next, so as to show them the conclusion.
You can call it debating it in bad faith, misrepresenting what you say, etcetc until the day the Texan wiener dogs come for us all. But ultimately, you actually haven't been able to do anything other than say that my logic is absurd. Which I agree with, because that was kind of the point. Because it was the same logic you were initially applying, which was absurd.
When you take someone's argument which is very specific and apply it to circumstances that it was never intended to then;
1) That is bad faith
2) You are distorting my words to arrive an an illogical conclusion far removed from the point being made.
If it is your intention to continue to reduce arguments to absurdity for the goal of point scoring then I will leave you to it. I have said on occasion too numerous to mention that my comments are specific. If you want a discussion on the wider topic of what happens in various other local, regional, national, or international scenarios then perhaps you could create a thread for that purpose.
Ketara wrote: My conduct? Namely, being friendly and trying to tone it down? Mate, if you could highlight all these terrible things I've done that you're busy accusing me of, that would absolutely wonderful. Considering your intense hunger for verse and chapter, I'm sure you'll be able to detail it a way that does it justice.
You mean after fueling the fire, continuing to distort my words, and then being condescending you finally thought to try another approach? I have provided examples, namely your comments that have been quoted above that I have objected to.
And examples of the alleged ad hominems please. I would be much obliged if you substantiated your unfounded accusation.
Ketara wrote: As for the links, I'll post the two most relevant parts in copypasta for you, since that seems to have been passed over too.
Russia-Ukraine Military Base Agreement(1997) – Russia has headquartered its Black Sea naval fleet in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol for over two centuries. In recent years, the two countries have operated under a lease agreement that requires Moscow to apprise Kiev of all troop movements to and from the base, a condition Russia has breached, according to Ukrainian officials.
Commenting on Osavolyuk's statements, former commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Adm. Vladimir Kormoyedov said that according to bilateral agreements, the Russian Navy may deploy up to 25,000 personnel and up to 100 combat and support vessels at naval facilities in Ukraine.
"If Russia decides to rotate its naval assets within the agreed limits, we must inform Kiev about this decision, but we do not have to wait for Ukraine's permission," Kormoyedov said.
In other words, to re-affirm it, and substantiate my original point, Russia needed only notify the Government that it was moving troops between bases. Whilst there is some disagreement over whether or not the Government could refuse permission, there is an agreement in place which facilitates the moving of soldiers in the region without seeming to specify time limits or routes.
It is not that I glossed over your links. It was just that your links did not support what you had said. Yes the agreement permits Russia to station troops within naval bases (the streets of Crimea are not naval bases). Yes, the agreement permits the transit of troops. At no stage did I dispute that. What I do dispute is the following; deploying troops on the streets of Crimea and establishing foot patrols is not transit between bases. Nor is it stationing troops at naval bases per the agreement. Any attempt to claim otherwise would be a significant distortion of the facts and would fly in the face of conventional wisdom and logic.
Ketara wrote: I suppose you could try and say, 'Aha! But these are not absolute specifics! Where is the exact wording? EH? YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT WITHOUT EXACT SOURCES!' But then again, this is an internet discussion. We've already discussed the UK/US commitment to the Ukraine without needing to examine the original document. We're also discussing Russian troop movements without having seen them with our own eyes. I hate to get all rationalist here, but at some point, you need to accept that you're on the internet, and not everything requires eighty five footnotes and citations for 'polite discussion'.
There's also the minor fact that it is a ridiculous argument, but that's because it was meant to highlight how absurd being 'technically/legal correct at times can be. Like y'know, when referring to how
Imagine someone commenting about the legality of Russian troops being deployed wanting to know if they have that lawful right. The nerve. Especially when someone else is trying to argue the technicalities of an agreement he has never seen.
What I would say is that the is a significant difference between transporting troops, and deploying them. In fact I have consistently said that. You instead refer to some agreement the specifics of which you have never laid eyes upon, as some sort of magical proof that the Russians can deploy troops on the streets of Crimea because they have permission to move troops from one base to the next. Any reasonable person can see the monumental difference between transit and deployment.
The only ridiculous argument being put forward is, with respect, your own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: The Germans are probably the most fanatically anti-war people in Europe though. For reals. Living here, I would be amazed if they made any moves militarily.
It's pretty scary, what is going on. I hope it can all be resolved without violence in some manner, because the thought of an actual armed conflict between Russia and the US/EU is terrifying.
I also think the EU would need a substantial amount of time to re-arm and consider their options, because at the moment you'd just have individual member states acting- considering the EU as a whole as a military unit is not sensible in my view, because we're not unified in that way at all.
Let's just hope for all our sakes that this can be solved through means other than open conflict. I think best case scenario is that Crimea gets absorbed, realistically, but with this treaty calling for defence of Ukraine's boarders it does make one worry about the potential knock on effects.
I thought, correct me if I am wrong, that the German Constitution prohibited aggressive military acts and only permitted the deployment of the military in defense of the nation.
"Nobody will give Crimea away. ... There are no grounds for the use of force against civilians and Ukrainians, and for the entry of the Russian military contingent," he said. "Russia never had any grounds and never will."
Ukraine's shaky new government has mobilized troops and called up military reservists.
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, released from jail last week, asked the international community for help.
"I am asking all the world, personally every world leader, to use all the possibilities in order to avoid Ukraine losing Crimea," she told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in an interview.
If they have a democratic referendum, and decide to secede, what choice do the new regime have?
And the phrase highlighted in red genuinely worries me.
Da Boss wrote: The Germans are probably the most fanatically anti-war people in Europe though. For reals. Living here, I would be amazed if they made any moves militarily.
It's pretty scary, what is going on. I hope it can all be resolved without violence in some manner, because the thought of an actual armed conflict between Russia and the US/EU is terrifying.
Why is it scary. What media are you reading where this is a potential issue? I'll admit that historically its Democratic presidents that start US involvement in wars, but we're not going to get involved at all. Absent strongly worded letters and some face saving nonsense that will be it. All of Ukraine could go by...meh. It stops at Poland.
if I were in Lithuania, Latvia etc. though, I'd plan on leaving inthe next three years.
Mate, if you honestly see having a friendly debate on Dakka as 'fueling the fire', you really need to take a chill pill. I think I'll take the jump here on this little exchange, because you really don't seem to be able to calm either your rhetoric or yourself, let alone respond in a logical and consistent fashion.
I genuinely hope whatever ruined your day gets better, you have a pleasant week at work, and we can have a different, more productive debate sometime in the future.
Nobody will give Crimea away. ... There are no grounds for the use of force against civilians and Ukrainians, and for the entry of the Russian military contingent," he said. "Russia never had any grounds and never will."
That just justified Putin securing Sevastopol Naval Station and the Black Sea Fleet "New" government not going to honor the agreements to Sevastopol
Civilians and Ukrainians? Typo?
Ketara wrote: Mate, if you honestly see having a friendly debate on Dakka as 'fueling the fire', you really need to take a chill pill. I think I'll take the jump here on this little exchange, because you really don't seem to be able to calm either your rhetoric or yourself, let alone actually respond in a logical and consistent fashion.
I genuinely hope whatever ruined your day gets better, you have a pleasant week at work, and we can have a different, more productive debate sometime in the future.
Nothing has ruined my day, thank you for asking. My responses have been consistent, clear, and logical thank you very much. The rebuttals I have read..... not so much
Buddy, I genuinely hope that you are able to substantiate whatever point you make next time and don't have to resort to distortions, leaps of logic, and unfounded accusations to progress polite discussion or friendly debate
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Why is it scary. What media are you reading where this is a potential issue? I'll admit that historically its Democratic presidents that start US involvement in wars, but we're not going to get involved at all. Absent strongly worded letters and some face saving nonsense that will be it. All of Ukraine could go by...meh. It stops at Poland.
if I were in Lithuania, Latvia etc. though, I'd plan on leaving inthe next three years.
If I had a similar agreement with the US as they did with the Ukraine I'd be nervous
Did anyone require more proof as to why the Crimeans are afraid of Kiev's new regime? http://rt.com/news/ukraine-nationalists-fears-video-674/ It is because those kinds of people are involved in it. Similiar groups massacred the Poles in western Ukraine in the 1940's, and now many ethnic Russians are afraid they are next to ethnically cleansed, considering the hatred towards Russians in much of the western Ukraine.
Now I am not saying that is what is going to happen, but many ethnic Russians do feel that the new regime is very hostile towards them, and therefore many of them would prefer to join Russia. http://rt.com/news/ukrainians-leave-russia-border-452/ And lets be honest, the new regime's actions until now have not been particularly friendly towards Russians.
The Soviet predeccessor to the KGB executed the Polish officers. I don't know what nonsense you're on about. Is Putin spamming the internetz now with more than his manly chesticles?
Frazzled wrote: The Soviet predeccessor to the KGB executed the Polish officers. I don't know what nonsense you're on about. Is Putin spamming the internetz now with more than his manly chesticles?
The regime that's been in power for about a week, and which saw Russia invade the nation within days?
Couldn't imagine why they'd be hostile to Russia...
One of their first action when in power was to cancel a law that allowed Russian to be used as an official language in regions with a significant Russian minority.
Also, if you can't imagine why they'd be hostile to Russia, you probably don't know all the history behind it.
Frazzled wrote: The Soviet predeccessor to the KGB executed the Polish officers. I don't know what nonsense you're on about. Is Putin spamming the internetz now with more than his manly chesticles?
The regime that's been in power for about a week, and which saw Russia invade the nation within days?
Couldn't imagine why they'd be hostile to Russia...
One of their first action when in power was to cancel a law that allowed Russian to be used as an official language in regions with a significant Russian minority.
Also, if you can't imagine why they'd be hostile to Russia, you probably don't know all the history behind it.
70 years of political, economic, and religious repression by the Soviets can really make a country hate you. The Holodomor killed 2.4-7.5 million Ukrainians. I can see why they wouldn't like Russia.
Could you explain to me what the Katyn massacre has to do with this?
Care to explain what yours does?
Ukraine is an independent country. I'm as surprised as you but they are. Just because there are people who speak Russian there - so what? There are English speakers all over the place. That doesn't mean the UK go around and invade any country it wants.
So Poland has called for an emergency meeting of NATO for article four consultations.
Canada and Poland have the balls to actually do something beyond harsh words, hopefully they can spur the rest of NATO to do something more than giving Putin a stern talking to.
Also I forget who said it but there was a big post a couple pages ago about how awesome the new Russian army is and how much better than Europe it is and all that. I encourage you to go read some articles written by observers to the fighting in Georgia. The Russian army bumbled through that conflict just like it did in Chechnya. Their airforce had trouble with close air support and deliver of precision guided munitions. Communication between ground and air units was nonexistent. Russian army units were slow to react to operational changes and the general conduct of their conscript soldiers was terrible.
EmilCrane wrote: So Poland has called for an emergency meeting of NATO for article four consultations.
Canada and Poland have the balls to actually do something beyond harsh words, hopefully they can spur the rest of NATO to do something more than giving Putin a stern talking to.
LIKE WHAT?
WHY?
The Ukraine is not NATO. It was formerly in the USSR to begin with. It has nothing to do with the US.
Also I forget who said it but there was a big post a couple pages ago about how awesome the new Russian army is and how much better than Europe it is and all that. I encourage you to go read some articles written by observers to the fighting in Georgia. The Russian army bumbled through that conflict just like it did in Chechnya. Their airforce had trouble with close air support and deliver of precision guided munitions. Communication between ground and air units was nonexistent. Russian army units were slow to react to operational changes and the general conduct of their conscript soldiers was terrible.
SO WHAT?
The US and USSR er Russia going to war will lead to a nuke war. What part of several hundred million dead do you not get?
crimea was part of russia until 1954... russia gave it to the ukraine, which at that time was a loya USSR state, as a show of good will, as it has been a VITAL port for 200 years for russia.
russia had treaties allowing its movement of troops in this area up until the Ukrainian revolution in the last few months.
this revolutionary government, that is not recognized by many ukrainians, unilarterally tore up a treaty with russia regarding their access to their only warm water port.
the russians notably, dont recognize this tearing up of their treaty, and put boots on the ground on ther strategic location,
just as the USA would do in panama if something happened there along the lines of what happened in the ukraine
Last I checked, the Ukrainians did absolutely nothing to threaten the base at Sevastopol (which btw is not their only warm water port by any means whatsoever), the treaty they tore up was a gas purchase, etc.
Frazzled wrote: LIKE WHAT?
WHY?
The Ukraine is not NATO. It was formerly in the USSR to begin with. It has nothing to do with the US.
SO WHAT?
The US and USSR er Russia going to war will lead to a nuke war. What part of several hundred million dead do you not get?
I CAN POST IN ALL CAPS TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously though, how about for starters NATO can let Russia know its not ok to invade others parts of nations simply because you don't like them.
I wasn't referring to a US-Russia confrontation, I was answering assertions that Russia's military was superior to NATO. Nothing wrong with a bit of academic discussion is there?
EmilCrane wrote: So Poland has called for an emergency meeting of NATO for article four consultations.
Canada and Poland have the balls to actually do something beyond harsh words, hopefully they can spur the rest of NATO to do something more than giving Putin a stern talking to.
LIKE WHAT?
WHY?
The Ukraine is not NATO. It was formerly in the USSR to begin with. It has nothing to do with the US.
Also I forget who said it but there was a big post a couple pages ago about how awesome the new Russian army is and how much better than Europe it is and all that. I encourage you to go read some articles written by observers to the fighting in Georgia. The Russian army bumbled through that conflict just like it did in Chechnya. Their airforce had trouble with close air support and deliver of precision guided munitions. Communication between ground and air units was nonexistent. Russian army units were slow to react to operational changes and the general conduct of their conscript soldiers was terrible.
SO WHAT?
The US and USSR er Russia going to war will lead to a nuke war. What part of several hundred million dead do you not get?
We still have a mutual defense pact that we signed with the Ukrainians, or do treaty agreements mean nothing to you as well? I'm not saying we go to war with them, but if Putin wants to play geo-political power games then we should too. Put the missile defense shield back in Poland and Czech. Increase NATO membership - up to and including countries in Russia's sphere of influence. Kick them out of the G8 and close the Bosphorus to all Russian shipping. See how much good their port in the black sea does them when they can't go anywhere. For God's sake get the Europeans to spend a nickel on defense.
Frazzled wrote: LIKE WHAT?
WHY?
The Ukraine is not NATO. It was formerly in the USSR to begin with. It has nothing to do with the US.
SO WHAT?
The US and USSR er Russia going to war will lead to a nuke war. What part of several hundred million dead do you not get?
I CAN POST IN ALL CAPS TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pfft I WAS TYPING IN ALL CAPS BEFORE THERE WERE TYPEWRITERS!
Seriously though, how about for starters NATO can let Russia know its not ok to invade others parts of nations simply because you don't like them.
Again, how do you proposed they do that? Why?
I wasn't referring to a US-Russia confrontation, I was answering assertions that Russia's military was superior to NATO. Nothing wrong with a bit of academic discussion is there?
The US is NATO. The other countries are to add cool accents. Except for the British. They're tough, because the are fortified by Nutella and Haggis.
We still have a mutual defense pact that we signed with the Ukrainians, or do treaty agreements mean nothing to you as well?
Honestly, treaties mean nothing to me.
I'm not saying we go to war with them, but if Putin wants to play geo-political power games then we should too. Put the missile defense shield back in Poland and Czech. Increase NATO membership - up to and including countries in Russia's sphere of influence. Kick them out of the G8 and close the Bosphorus to all Russian shipping. See how much good their port in the black sea does them when they can't go anywhere. For God's sake get the Europeans to spend a nickel on defense.
The US is done. Let Europe do it, just count us out. The US has no compelling state interest here other than watch it on TV with brats and beer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: Closing the Bosphorous and blockading Russia really would start a war, though.
Evidently thats a minor detail.
Frankly Europe should care less too. Unless you're Ukraine or one of the Baltics - so what? Lets assume Mother Russia sucks them all back up. Sucks to be them, but again, so what?
Real sanctions, including ones from Europe. Put the missile defense shield back in eastern Europe. Move some more naval assets to the med, maybe do some exercises in Germany or Poland. I don't like the idea that NATO is just going to take this lying down.
You say that the US has no interests in Ukraine, that true, they do not. However letting one country walk its military into another sets a dangerous precedent.
We still have a mutual defense pact that we signed with the Ukrainians, or do treaty agreements mean nothing to you as well?
Honestly, treaties mean nothing to me.
I'm not saying we go to war with them, but if Putin wants to play geo-political power games then we should too. Put the missile defense shield back in Poland and Czech. Increase NATO membership - up to and including countries in Russia's sphere of influence. Kick them out of the G8 and close the Bosphorus to all Russian shipping. See how much good their port in the black sea does them when they can't go anywhere. For God's sake get the Europeans to spend a nickel on defense.
The US is done. Let Europe do it, just count us out. The US has no compelling state interest here other than watch it on TV with brats and beer.
In fantasy Frazzled land, treaties mean nothing. That's cool. I guess we should let anyone use chemical weapons, bomb civilian targets, use biological weapons, build as many nukes as they want, invade other countries at will, and kill weiner dogs in their millions. MILLIONS.
I'm a twelve year veteran of the United States Army - four of those years in Iraq. I have no wish to go to war with Russia, but if you welch on your promises, then we'll be seeing more war in the future, not less.
Real sanctions, including ones from Europe. Put the missile defense shield back in eastern Europe. Move some more naval assets to the med, maybe do some exercises in Germany or Poland. I don't like the idea that NATO is just going to take this lying down.
You say that the US has no interests in Ukraine, that true, they do not. However letting one country walk its military into another sets a dangerous precedent.
What precedent? It happens all the time in history. Thats why we have this big old defense budget and all the nukes so other countries can't do that to us.
Real sanctions, including ones from Europe. Put the missile defense shield back in eastern Europe. Move some more naval assets to the med, maybe do some exercises in Germany or Poland. I don't like the idea that NATO is just going to take this lying down.
You say that the US has no interests in Ukraine, that true, they do not. However letting one country walk its military into another sets a dangerous precedent.
What precedent? It happens all the time in history. Thats why we have this big old defense budget and all the nukes so other countries can't do that to us.
Right, and those times are miserable times for millions of people - not that I expect you to care.
Could you explain to me what the Katyn massacre has to do with this?
Care to explain what yours does?
Ukraine is an independent country. I'm as surprised as you but they are. Just because there are people who speak Russian there - so what? There are English speakers all over the place. That doesn't mean the UK go around and invade any country it wants.
Thats the same argument Hitler used.
Godwin for the win!!!
Sure! Radical nationalist groups in the Ukraine have ethnically cleansed non-Ukrainians before, and in an unlikely worst-case scenario they could do it to the ethnic Russians as well.
I mentioned it to show that Ukrainian nationalists are really not nice people and that you should not mess with them. Many ethnic Russians in the Ukraine are afraid of them now that they have a say in government, and that is one of the reasons for this whole crisis.
Could you explain to me what the Katyn massacre has to do with this?
Care to explain what yours does?
Ukraine is an independent country. I'm as surprised as you but they are. Just because there are people who speak Russian there - so what? There are English speakers all over the place. That doesn't mean the UK go around and invade any country it wants.
Thats the same argument Hitler used.
Godwin for the win!!!
Sure! Radical nationalist groups in the Ukraine have ethnically cleansed non-Ukrainians before, and in an unlikely worst-case scenario they could do it to the ethnic Russians as well.
I mentioned it to show that Ukrainian nationalists are really not nice people and that you should not mess with them. Many ethnic Russians in the Ukraine are afraid of them now that they have a say in government, and that is one of the reasons for this whole crisis.
Putin couldn't give two feths about the people in Crimea. This is all geo-political power games. The "repression of ethnic Russians" is just a convenient (and extremely flimsy) excuse.
Could you explain to me what the Katyn massacre has to do with this?
Care to explain what yours does?
Ukraine is an independent country. I'm as surprised as you but they are. Just because there are people who speak Russian there - so what? There are English speakers all over the place. That doesn't mean the UK go around and invade any country it wants.
Thats the same argument Hitler used.
Godwin for the win!!!
Sure! Radical nationalist groups in the Ukraine have ethnically cleansed non-Ukrainians before, and in an unlikely worst-case scenario they could do it to the ethnic Russians as well. I mentioned it to show that Ukrainian nationalists are really not nice people and that you should not mess with them. Many ethnic Russians in the Ukraine are afraid of them now that they have a say in government, and that is one of the reasons for this whole crisis.
Putin couldn't give two feths about the people in Crimea. This is all geo-political power games. The "repression of ethnic Russians" is just a convenient (and extremely flimsy) excuse.
It is not just an excuse by Putin (altough it is very convenient). I know many people in the Crimea personally (I lived in Sevastopol until 2008), and most of them are very worried about this new regime. Also a law obliging Russia to protect ethnic Russians abroad was already signed in 2000, far before this crisis. Russia does care for ethnic Russians.
Also; an interesting development in the question whether the Russian involvement is legal or not. It appears that the legally still president Yanukovich has asked for the Russian support himself: http://rt.com/news/churkin-unsc-russia-ukraine-683/
Could you explain to me what the Katyn massacre has to do with this?
Care to explain what yours does?
Ukraine is an independent country. I'm as surprised as you but they are. Just because there are people who speak Russian there - so what? There are English speakers all over the place. That doesn't mean the UK go around and invade any country it wants.
Thats the same argument Hitler used.
Godwin for the win!!!
Sure! Radical nationalist groups in the Ukraine have ethnically cleansed non-Ukrainians before, and in an unlikely worst-case scenario they could do it to the ethnic Russians as well.
I mentioned it to show that Ukrainian nationalists are really not nice people and that you should not mess with them. Many ethnic Russians in the Ukraine are afraid of them now that they have a say in government, and that is one of the reasons for this whole crisis.
Putin couldn't give two feths about the people in Crimea. This is all geo-political power games. The "repression of ethnic Russians" is just a convenient (and extremely flimsy) excuse.
It is not just an excuse by Putin (altough it is very convenient). I know many people in the Crimea personally (I lived in Sevastopol until 2008), and most of them are very worried about this new regime.
Also a law obliging Russia to protect ethnic Russians abroad was already signed in 2000, far before this crisis. Russia does care for ethnic Russians.
Also; an interesting development in the question whether the Russian involvement is legal or not. It appears that the legally still president Yanukovich has asked for the Russian support himself: http://rt.com/news/churkin-unsc-russia-ukraine-683/
So... being worried about what a new government *might* do is reason enough to invade? Let's be absolutely clear here. The new government was in power for less than a week before Russia invades. They didn't even have time to find the toilets in their new offices much less repress 30% of the Ukrainian population.
Interesting reading. I don't see this turning into a shooting war. No one wants that. Russia wants the Crimea, the US and EU want to avoid getting dragged in.
Iron Captain do you have any sources other than RT? RT is a self proclaimed English news site that brings Russian views on world news. It's a nice counterpoint to some western sites but basing all your information on it is a bit much.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: So... being worried about what a new government *might* do is reason enough to invade? Let's be absolutely clear here. The new government was in power for less than a week before Russia invades. They didn't even have time to find the toilets in their new offices much less repress 30% of the Ukrainian population.
I agree with you on that. But it is one of the reasons why ethnic Russians started protesting, and that was one of the reasons Russia invaded. The primary goal is to turn Crimea in either an independent state or a part of Russia, thusly securing this strategically important area for Russian interests, no matter how the new government in Kiev turns out. I should also be noted that one of the first actions of the new regime was to cancel a law allowing the use of Russian as a second official language, and there are several other (perceived) anti-russian laws in the making. It goes without question that the new regime is less friendly towards ethnic Russians than the old.
EmilCrane wrote: Iron Captain do you have any sources other than RT? RT is a self proclaimed English news site that brings Russian views on world news. It's a nice counterpoint to some western sites but basing all your information on it is a bit much.
Yes, I also read other Russian and Ukrainian sites and I get my Western information mostly from Dutch sites, but as they are not in English, I can't really post them here. I also watch the BBC and read the CNN site sometimes, but other people already take care of posting links to there. So I post links to RT.
easysauce wrote: crimea was part of russia until 1954... russia gave it to the ukraine, which at that time was a loya USSR state, as a show of good will, as it has been a VITAL port for 200 years for russia.
And whilst we're at it, lets carry on the claim that the Crimea belongs to Russia because there's a Russian majority in it, or at least, let's overlook that there was a Tatar majority there, until Stalin forcibly relocated most of the Tatar people from the Crimea to die in various gulags and work camps across the Soviet empire.
There's been a 'Russian People' there instead of a Ukrainian Tatar majority for all of about 70 years. That's all. This claim to national reintegration is hogwash.
So... being worried about what a new government *might* do is reason enough to invade? Let's be absolutely clear here. The new government was in power for less than a week before Russia invades. They didn't even have time to find the toilets in their new offices much less repress 30% of the Ukrainian population.
The first thing they did was abolish the status of the Russian language.
They started repressing 30% of the Ukrainian population before they even found the toilets in their new offices.
easysauce wrote: crimea was part of russia until 1954... russia gave it to the ukraine, which at that time was a loya USSR state, as a show of good will, as it has been a VITAL port for 200 years for russia.
And whilst we're at it, lets carry on the claim that the Crimea belongs to Russia because there's a Russian majority in it, or at least, let's overlook that there was a Tatar majority there, until Stalin forcibly relocated most of the Tatar people from the Crimea to die in various gulags and work camps across the Soviet empire.
There's been a 'Russian People' there instead of a Ukrainian Tatar majority for all of about 70 years. That's all. This claim to national reintegration is hogwash.
I agree with you but in Central Europe you will just go insane trying to figure out which "national" group belongs where. The sad truth is that possession and military might are 9/10ths of the law which is why so many people have been displaced or killed there since nationalism became the "in" thing instead of multiple groups co-existing (in somewhat frustrating fashion) under nobility that didn't care what "nation" you belonged to as long as you fulfilled your particular function and didn't cause trouble.
Nationalist and/or ethnic sentiments remain unresolved in so many areas of Central Europe that we really don't want a new wave of nationalist sentiment. The Hungarians, Romanians, and Poles, for example, have a lot of population overlap. Also, the Russians are correct that some of the protesters in Kiev belong to groups that you and I do not want to associate with. However, someone's earlier claim that 50% of the protest supporters are ultra-right wing (AKA National Socialists by a new name) is very far fetched.
So... being worried about what a new government *might* do is reason enough to invade? Let's be absolutely clear here. The new government was in power for less than a week before Russia invades. They didn't even have time to find the toilets in their new offices much less repress 30% of the Ukrainian population.
The first thing they did was abolish the status of the Russian language.
They started repressing 30% of the Ukrainian population before they even found the toilets in their new offices.
It's now been vetoed, but the bill was one of their first actions once they assumed command.
The Hungarians, Romanians, and Poles, for example, have a lot of population overlap. Also, the Russians are correct that some of the protesters in Kiev belong to groups that you and I do not want to associate with. However, someone's earlier claim that 50% of the protest supporters are ultra-right wing (AKA National Socialists by a new name) is very far fetched.
Hungary and Poland have exceedingly good relations... as for other central/eastern european nations... well, the Treaty of Trianon sure was a bitch...
Jebus..Putin has literally everyone River Dancing to his tune.
He took the moral high ground on protecting ethnic Russians....any of the actual mayhem of protest occur in Crimea?
He took "Force Protection" to a whole new level....not on a playing field..league...planet....a different plane of existence. Two airfields, 50 mile stretch of highway...three Ukraine army post locked down....ferry crossing at Kerch. Just with two Brigades plus some change..
He not discussing crap with everyone out of Russia and everyone listening to the chest thumbing, accusation, and economic threats from the US/EU He's not even responding to threats of aggression from the new Ukraine government
His troops are non hostile.seeing lots of pics and video's of unloaded AK's now.or "Weapon Green"
His troops I'm sure is more terrified of screwing it up then actual lead exchange.
Being so non passive aggressive in securing Sevastopol Naval Base landed him Crimea. OMG.its Russia version of..dare I say it..Reagan....
The relative peace in the last 20 years or so (last one is Bosian War?)... is unusual for Europe.
Yes! it would be about time we started bashing each other's heads in again! The next French-German war is long overdue! Come on Germany, are you really sure you don't want Alsace-Lorraine? Sure? Alsace-Lorraine is a really nice place you know, full of beer, bratwurst and alsatians. And the best thing is that it rightfully belongs to Germany! It is filled with ethnic Germans who would love to be liberated by the German Fatherland and forced to wear Lederhosen! What are you waiting for, it is just there for the taking!
Iron_Captain wrote:
It is not just an excuse by Putin (altough it is very convenient). I know many people in the Crimea personally (I lived in Sevastopol until 2008), and most of them are very worried about this new regime.
Also a law obliging Russia to protect ethnic Russians abroad was already signed in 2000, far before this crisis. Russia does care for ethnic Russians.
Was this around the same time the Russian government passed laws that made it legal to murder dissidents within Russia and abroad? Just because Russia decides something is legal now doesn't mean it's legal for them to do what they like in other people's countries and ignore boarders and the laws of other lands. Putin only respected the sovereignty of Ukraine while a Russian puppet was in power.
Reverse can be said about US/EU with the current "puppet" now in Ukraine. Was not Ywhateverhisfreakingnameisinrussiannoideahowtosayitletalonespellit elected by the people? The agreements made with the US and EU approved by him and his cabinet? Its "double standards". Why is Ukraine hollering about involving US/EU due to our agreement while they ignore Russia agreement with Sevastopol.
30 Mar is when the people in Crimea decide to go "Putin" or strong ties with "Putin" IE US territory Will the US/EU recognize the elected leaders of Crimea or ignore them?
Crimea is lost and all the US/EU can do is condemn and sanction Putin/Russia. They need to start thinking ahead and avoiding losing the eastern half of Ukraine and its heavy industries there to another version of Crimea that Putin/Russia will support
Edit
I would laugh my butt off literally if he looked dead straight into the media camera's, on a carrier and say
"Mission Accomplish"
actually the Carrier we don't need...white stallion will do..
easysauce wrote: crimea was part of russia until 1954... russia gave it to the ukraine, which at that time was a loya USSR state, as a show of good will, as it has been a VITAL port for 200 years for russia.
And whilst we're at it, lets carry on the claim that the Crimea belongs to Russia because there's a Russian majority in it, or at least, let's overlook that there was a Tatar majority there, until Stalin forcibly relocated most of the Tatar people from the Crimea to die in various gulags and work camps across the Soviet empire.
There's been a 'Russian People' there instead of a Ukrainian Tatar majority for all of about 70 years. That's all. This claim to national reintegration is hogwash.
I dont think you understand... it does matter what the people living there are, and what they think, despite your brash dismissal of the relevance of simple demographics.
crimea should be allowed to decide its own fate, not bow to whatever kiev tells them to do, weather you or I personally like the side they choose, they have a right to self determination.
and what Crimea has actually said, is that they want autonomy from the ukraine and closer ties to russia.
Its also interesting to note that in Russia's 2013 Foreign Policy "Concept" they condemned "responsibility to protect" and advocated sovereign democracy and different paths to development. Just as long as that sovereign democracy is Russian Sovereign Democracy and those paths to development lead to the Kremlin right?
Its very clear that high minded ideals and the rule of law and national sovereignty have gone out the window in this situation.
Referring back to the moneynews article, China and Russia want to stop using the dollar to trade in oil (not a good thing for the dollar, especially when there are so many of them). And Syria and Iran are on board. And if China is involved, North Korea will be in. Notice a pattern?
EmilCrane wrote: So Poland has called for an emergency meeting of NATO for article four consultations.
Canada and Poland have the balls to actually do something beyond harsh words, hopefully they can spur the rest of NATO to do something more than giving Putin a stern talking to.
Hahahahahahaha.
No, but seriously, the Poles might actually be for real. They've impressed the hell out of me the last ten years or so.
The relative peace in the last 20 years or so (last one is Bosian War?)... is unusual for Europe.
Yes! it would be about time we started bashing each other's heads in again! The next French-German war is long overdue! Come on Germany, are you really sure you don't want Alsace-Lorraine? Sure? Alsace-Lorraine is a really nice place you know, full of beer, bratwurst and alsatians. And the best thing is that it rightfully belongs to Germany! It is filled with ethnic Germans who would love to be liberated by the German Fatherland and forced to wear Lederhosen! What are you waiting for, it is just there for the taking!
Hah! Very funny! We both know Germany isn't going to do anything like that in the near future given their, now, pacifist approach. German speaking peoples in Austria, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and South Tyrol have separate national destinies. I don't think any of them are agitating for serious changes because most of them have it pretty good. Personally, I hope nationalist/ethnic agendas lose their energy so that people stop killing and abusing each other for really stupid reasons.
Grey Templar wrote: Putin is obviously one of Creed's ancestors while Obama is one of Abaddon's
I thought Bush would be Abaddon's as he's the one who did all the coalition gathering stuff before his invasions. That's sorta like organizing a great crusade, isn't it?
Grey Templar wrote: Putin is obviously one of Creed's ancestors while Obama is one of Abaddon's
I thought Bush would be Abaddon's as he's the one who did all the coalition gathering stuff before his invasions. That's sorta like organizing a great crusade, isn't it?
Which is the chaos god of empty threats, again?
Gargauth I think is the one that fits the bill the closest. He is the deity of betrayal, cruelty, political corruption and powerbrokers.
easysauce wrote:I dont think you understand... it does matter what the people living there are, and what they think, despite your brash dismissal of the relevance of simple demographics.
crimea should be allowed to decide its own fate, not bow to whatever kiev tells them to do, weather you or I personally like the side they choose, they have a right to self determination.
and what Crimea has actually said, is that they want autonomy from the ukraine and closer ties to russia.
I seem to recall an area of Canada that wants closer ties to France...
And I seem to remember quite a large war being fought in the usa when some of the states wanted to break away...
easysauce wrote:I dont think you understand... it does matter what the people living there are, and what they think, despite your brash dismissal of the relevance of simple demographics.
crimea should be allowed to decide its own fate, not bow to whatever kiev tells them to do, weather you or I personally like the side they choose, they have a right to self determination.
and what Crimea has actually said, is that they want autonomy from the ukraine and closer ties to russia.
I seem to recall an area of Canada that wants closer ties to France...
And I seem to remember quite a large war being fought in the usa when some of the states wanted to break away...
Not to mention an area of the UK that wants to hold a referendum on independence, but what is the relevance of this?
The people of Crimea should be allowed to determine their own future. They should be allowed to have their referendum and become independent or part of Russia if they want to.
easysauce wrote:I dont think you understand... it does matter what the people living there are, and what they think, despite your brash dismissal of the relevance of simple demographics.
crimea should be allowed to decide its own fate, not bow to whatever kiev tells them to do, weather you or I personally like the side they choose, they have a right to self determination.
and what Crimea has actually said, is that they want autonomy from the ukraine and closer ties to russia.
I seem to recall an area of Canada that wants closer ties to France...
And I seem to remember quite a large war being fought in the usa when some of the states wanted to break away...
Not to mention an area of the UK that wants to hold a referendum on independence, but what is the relevance of this?
The people of Crimea should be allowed to determine their own future. They should be allowed to have their referendum and become independent or part of Russia if they want to.
The point being that there are a lot of people in a lot of places not getting what they want. Indeed, a lot of wars have been fought over who rules who.
And where is the limit set? I think my house would be quite cool as an independent country. Should I be able to break away frim the rest of the UK?
Not to mention an area of the UK that wants to hold a referendum on independence, but what is the relevance of this?
The people of Crimea should be allowed to determine their own future. They should be allowed to have their referendum and become independent or part of Russia if they want to.
They should.
But surely the Russians should wait until after the Crimea has decided to become part of Russia before having troops moved in though... Just sayin'
More the point of what about all the other Eastern European countries with Russian populations? Should they all just split off and join Russia now that this is happening (or should Russia just go in and take that land?). Like's been mentioned, you can't just claim land because the people there have the same ethnic background as you, otherwise we'd be seeing borders being redrawn all over the world.
What if the Crimean Legislation invited them in know full well the vote was going pro-Comrade Putin....
edit
MOSCOW (AP) — Russia's state-controlled natural gas giant Gazprom says it will cancel a price discount for natural gas supplies to Ukraine.
Gazprom chief Alexei Miller said Tuesday in televised remarks that Ukraine has accumulated a $1.5-billion debt for Russian gas supplies. He added at a meeting with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev that Gazprom will cancel a price rebate for Ukraine starting April 1.
Russia offered the discounted price and a $15-billion bailout to Ukraine in December following President Viktor Yanukovych's decision to ditch a pact with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia.
Ukraine and US/EU better start thinking fast or lose the other half of the country. That's diabolical thinking on dumping the western half of Ukraine on the US/EU to support financialy, logisticaly, and economicaly (SP)
Iron_Captain wrote: Not to mention an area of the UK that wants to hold a referendum on independence, but what is the relevance of this?
The people of Crimea should be allowed to determine their own future. They should be allowed to have their referendum and become independent or part of Russia if they want to.
EmilCrane wrote: So Poland has called for an emergency meeting of NATO for article four consultations.
Canada and Poland have the balls to actually do something beyond harsh words, hopefully they can spur the rest of NATO to do something more than giving Putin a stern talking to.
Hahahahahahaha.
No, but seriously, the Poles might actually be for real. They've impressed the hell out of me the last ten years or so.
Poland is cool. They're tired of being the battleground for empires.
The gist of it seems to be that a peaceful and mutually resolution would have to involve an agreement by both sides (EU and US, and Russia) to stop interfering in Ukraine and to help prop up its economy. The West must give up on trying to recruit Ukraine into NATO. The alternatives could be far worse.
In my (entirely layman) opinion...This whole mess is the West's fault for pushing too hard for Ukraine to join NATO and EU, eroding Russia's sphere of influence even further, making it panic and lash out. Historically Russia has feared European invasion, hence all the puppet nations between Russia and Western Europe that it used as buffer states to distance itself from the West. Now many of those buffer states have been absorbed into NATO and/or the EU, and the "old enemy" (as Russia sees it) is now advancing right up to Russia's own borders. Upset the balance of power, and you risking making a country panic and do something stupid.
We'd probably have better West-East relations if NATO and the EU hadn't been agressively expanding by absorbing eastern european nations over the last two and a half decades. Those nations should ideally be neutral, and try to maintain positive relations with both sides.
This strikes me as being somewhat reminiscent of Germany between the two world wars. You have a nation that lost a "War" (WW1 / the Cold War), was severely weakened, and was excessively punished by the Victors (Versaille and the heavy sanctions and reparations; and the victorious West's enthusiastic and agressive expansion of EU and NATO into Eastern Europe). Humiliated and punished, the defeated party is angry and looking for payback.
I think this is creating conditions that could potentially spark WW3, or at best a second Cold War. Syria, Iran, North Korea, those are all factors that are contributing to this atmosphere.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I think this is creating conditions that could potentially spark WW3, or at best a second Cold War. Syria, Iran, North Korea, those are all factors that are contributing to this atmosphere.
A good analysis. I agree for the most part. However, I can't resist being a bit snarky so....
WW3? Everyone KNOWS that is going to erupt over those disputed islands between China and Japan!
Now with that out of the way, this whole thing feels like a moment from post-Napoleanic War Greta Power diplomacy. We better get the Concert of Europe back together on this one. Where's Bismarck when you need him?
Iron_Captain wrote: Not to mention an area of the UK that wants to hold a referendum on independence, but what is the relevance of this? The people of Crimea should be allowed to determine their own future. They should be allowed to have their referendum and become independent or part of Russia if they want to.
No one is saying that there shouldn't be a referendum, The issue for most people is the occupation being carried out by Russia.
Those soldiers are necessary for that referendum to happen. The Ukrainian authorities would've never allowed Crimea to secede. Now that Crimea is protected by Russian soldiers, the referendum about independence is possible and can happen without fear of disturbances and radical groups.
Now that Russwian troops are there will this be up to the usual gulag standard of electoral voting from USSR/Russian elections? I can see the ballot now
Vote for Crimea joining Mother Russia
1) Yes
2) Not no
Iron_Captain wrote: Not to mention an area of the UK that wants to hold a referendum on independence, but what is the relevance of this?
The people of Crimea should be allowed to determine their own future. They should be allowed to have their referendum and become independent or part of Russia if they want to.
No one is saying that there shouldn't be a referendum, The issue for most people is the occupation being carried out by Russia.
Those soldiers are necessary for that referendum to happen. The Ukrainian authorities would've never allowed Crimea to secede. Now that Crimea is protected by Russian soldiers, the referendum about independence is possible and can happen without fear of disturbances and radical groups.
Of course, because the only way to ensure that democracy truly works is by breaking your own treaties, international law and invading independent countries in undeclared acts of war... Everybody knows that!
Iron_Captain wrote: Not to mention an area of the UK that wants to hold a referendum on independence, but what is the relevance of this?
The people of Crimea should be allowed to determine their own future. They should be allowed to have their referendum and become independent or part of Russia if they want to.
No one is saying that there shouldn't be a referendum, The issue for most people is the occupation being carried out by Russia.
Those soldiers are necessary for that referendum to happen. The Ukrainian authorities would've never allowed Crimea to secede. Now that Crimea is protected by Russian soldiers, the referendum about independence is possible and can happen without fear of disturbances and radical groups.
So why not ask a neutral third party to intervene? It's rather unsuitable for a party that stands to gain from one of the possible outcomes of the referrendum to "guarantee the safety" of said referendum.
Iron_Captain wrote: Not to mention an area of the UK that wants to hold a referendum on independence, but what is the relevance of this? The people of Crimea should be allowed to determine their own future. They should be allowed to have their referendum and become independent or part of Russia if they want to.
No one is saying that there shouldn't be a referendum, The issue for most people is the occupation being carried out by Russia.
Those soldiers are necessary for that referendum to happen. The Ukrainian authorities would've never allowed Crimea to secede. Now that Crimea is protected by Russian soldiers, the referendum about independence is possible and can happen without fear of disturbances and radical groups.
So why not ask a neutral third party to intervene? It's rather unsuitable for a party that stands to gain from one of the possible outcomes of the referrendum to "guarantee the safety" of said referendum.
Note to Europe: this is what freedom looks like when you have no nuclear weapons, because the US took them away.
Just to play the Devil's Advocate, fixed.
When did the US take Europe's nukes? was there a store sale I missed?
Didn't you sign that one thingie with Ukraine in return for them returning their nukes to Russia?
EDIT: Just saying, if there's one lesson Iran, North Korea and other states that want to keep others out will learn from this, it's that they've been right all along: might makes right.
Frazzled wrote: Now that Russwian troops are there will this be up to the usual gulag standard of electoral voting from USSR/Russian elections? I can see the ballot now
Vote for Crimea joining Mother Russia
1) Yes
2) Not no
lol that was funny, but really, we cannot just blanket over the fact that russia has been asked to come into crimea (also for those interested, I did research the unmarked uniforms on the people present in crimea, they are part of the crimean local forces (yes lots of them are russian speakers/ethnic russians, because lots and lots of crimeans are russian)
they actually do want independence, and have wanted it for a long time... they have voted time and time again against joining the EU, and were forced to join the ukraine in the first place.
they were already an autonomous state and have already tried to strengthen ties to russia before all this happened...
we cannot just look at this with our "west is best" goggles on... both sides have LEGITIMATE support from the population, and the country is genuinely divided in that the vast majority of the crimeans really do want to split off and do their own thing, or join russia.
just because some violent revolution supported by the west over through the duly elected leader (who was elected by the east supporting areas) doesnt mean the eastern ukrainians have to recognize it as legitimate.
all the "but russia is bad mkay" talk conveniently ignores the neo nazi bedfellows that have been made on the wests side... it is not a trivial % of the revolution as some would like to white wash it.
"Composition of the Coalition Government
We are not dealing with a transitional government in which Neo-Nazi elements integrate the fringe of the coalition, formally led by the Fatherland party.
The Cabinet is not only integrated by the Svoboda and Right Sector (not to mention former members of defunct fascist UNA-UNSO), the two main Neo-Nazi entities have been entrusted with key positions which grant them de facto control over the Armed Forces, Police, Justice and National Security."
"Andriy Parubiy [right] co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda) was appointed Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU). (Рада національної безпеки і оборони України), a key position which overseas the Ministry of Defense, the Armed Forces, Law Enforcement, National Security and Intelligence. The RNBOU is central decision-making body. While it is formally headed by the president, it is run by the Secretariat with a staff of 180 people including defense, intelligence and national security experts.
Parubiy was one of the main leaders behind the Orange Revolution in 2004. His organization was funded by the West. He is referred to by the Western media as the “kommandant” of the EuroMaidan movement. Andriy Parubiy together with party leader Oleh Tyahnybok is a follower of Ukrainian Nazi Stepan Bandera, who collaborated in the mass murderer of Jews and Poles during World War II. "
the people above are marching to celebrate mass murder, during the orange revolution.. one of the central leaders of this is Andriy Parubiy, who is now the revolutionary appointed Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee a key position for defence, armed forces, law enforcement, national security and intelligence. Tell me, does that sounds like the kind of person you want to support unequivocally?
strange bed fellows indeed, yet western media totally ignores how seriously ingrained this new ultra right neo nazi party really is in this revolution.
there will never be a solution so long as the western "revolutionaries" keep telling the east to go suck it and do as they say... you cannot just oust an elected leader and then start telling the regions that elected that leader what to do, and call their cries for independence "illegitimate" when the legitimacy of your own revolution hasnt been ratified by them. if "pro west" ukrain gets to do whatever it wants, then so does "pro east" ukraine
That agreement was made before the "new" government took over. If we as in the US/EU honor that agreement then they, being the new government, most honor its agreement with Russia.
Part of the Russian agreement was inform Ukraine of troops movements to and from Sevastopol Since the government went soup sandwich what started off as securing and ensuring a logistical lifeline in a 50 mile land route pretty much escalated into Crimea pretty much announcing breaking ties to Ukraine and Putin moving maybe two Light Infantry division in
Edit
Have mercy on me Mr. Putin I misspelled your name wrong....
Spelled Rutin
Actually I am rooting for him. If he pulls this off with at least Crimea going to him without firing a shot....itsits....Godly with lots of white Stalliones
Jihadin wrote: What if the Crimean Legislation invited them in know full well the vote was going pro-Comrade Putin....
edit
MOSCOW (AP) — Russia's state-controlled natural gas giant Gazprom says it will cancel a price discount for natural gas supplies to Ukraine.
Gazprom chief Alexei Miller said Tuesday in televised remarks that Ukraine has accumulated a $1.5-billion debt for Russian gas supplies. He added at a meeting with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev that Gazprom will cancel a price rebate for Ukraine starting April 1.
Russia offered the discounted price and a $15-billion bailout to Ukraine in December following President Viktor Yanukovych's decision to ditch a pact with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia.
Ukraine and US/EU better start thinking fast or lose the other half of the country. That's diabolical thinking on dumping the western half of Ukraine on the US/EU to support financialy, logisticaly, and economicaly (SP)
Its even more diabolical when you realize that its a win/win for Russia. They are basically going to take the most economically viable and productive portions of the country for themselves, and then dump the remainder on our doorstep with no means to support itself, etc. and then on top of that, Ukraine will still be saddled with ALL of the debt it owes Russia, except it will have even less means to pay it back... That means the west will have to keep Ukraine on life support indefinitely, or else it will default, collapse economically (and then politically) and Russia will use that as pretext to take the rest of the country for itself.
Those soldiers are necessary for that referendum to happen. The Ukrainian authorities would've never allowed Crimea to secede. Now that Crimea is protected by Russian soldiers, the referendum about independence is possible and can happen without fear of disturbances and radical groups.
Uh huh, and you know this how? Answer: You don't. Now, if Kiev actually somehow attempted to prevent Crimea from holding the referendum and/or seceding, it would be a different story entirely. Kiev made no such moves whatsoever.
Didn't you sign that one thingie with Ukraine in return for them returning their nukes to Russia?
That was the Russians taking Ukraines nukes away, the US AND THE UK signed it as guarantors of Ukrainian sovereignty so that Ukraine would still have a strategic deterrent to future Russian aggression in the form of (nuclear armed) allies. In other words, it was "Ukraine cedes control of Russias nuclear weapons within Ukrainian borders to Russia, with the understanding that the United States and the United Kingdom guarantee Ukrainian national security."
Note to Europe: this is what freedom looks like when you have no nuclear weapons, because the US took them away.
Just to play the Devil's Advocate, fixed.
When did the US take Europe's nukes? was there a store sale I missed?
Didn't you sign that one thingie with Ukraine in return for them returning their nukes to Russia?
EDIT: Just saying, if there's one lesson Iran, North Korea and other states that want to keep others out will learn from this, it's that they've been right all along: might makes right.
That doesn't equate with our taking them. The RUssians would have taken them anyway.
Think at the time when nukes were involve was everyone was concern on positive control of them. Everyone thinking at that time to if Russia was going to come back it would announce itself by massive armed troop movements with lots of lead and HE heading westward.
Best word I can describe so far being used is passive intimidation by Russian forces
Note to Europe: this is what freedom looks like when you have no nuclear weapons, because the US took them away.
Just to play the Devil's Advocate, fixed.
When did the US take Europe's nukes? was there a store sale I missed?
Didn't you sign that one thingie with Ukraine in return for them returning their nukes to Russia?
EDIT: Just saying, if there's one lesson Iran, North Korea and other states that want to keep others out will learn from this, it's that they've been right all along: might makes right.
That doesn't equate with our taking them. The RUssians would have taken them anyway.
The US and the UK did, however, sign the treaty. Treaties are meant to be honoured, no?
Frazzled wrote: Now that Russwian troops are there will this be up to the usual gulag standard of electoral voting from USSR/Russian elections? I can see the ballot now
Vote for Crimea joining Mother Russia
1) Yes
2) Not no
lol that was funny, but really, we cannot just blanket over the fact that russia has been asked to come into crimea (also for those interested, I did research the unmarked uniforms on the people present in crimea, they are part of the crimean local forces (yes lots of them are russian speakers/ethnic russians, because lots and lots of crimeans are russian)
they actually do want independence, and have wanted it for a long time... they have voted time and time again against joining the EU, and were forced to join the ukraine in the first place.
they were already an autonomous state and have already tried to strengthen ties to russia before all this happened...
we cannot just look at this with our "west is best" goggles on... both sides have LEGITIMATE support from the population, and the country is genuinely divided in that the vast majority of the crimeans really do want to split off and do their own thing, or join russia.
just because some violent revolution supported by the west over through the duly elected leader (who was elected by the east supporting areas) doesnt mean the eastern ukrainians have to recognize it as legitimate.
all the "but russia is bad mkay" talk conveniently ignores the neo nazi bedfellows that have been made on the wests side... it is not a trivial % of the revolution as some would like to white wash it.
"Composition of the Coalition Government
We are not dealing with a transitional government in which Neo-Nazi elements integrate the fringe of the coalition, formally led by the Fatherland party.
The Cabinet is not only integrated by the Svoboda and Right Sector (not to mention former members of defunct fascist UNA-UNSO), the two main Neo-Nazi entities have been entrusted with key positions which grant them de facto control over the Armed Forces, Police, Justice and National Security."
"Andriy Parubiy [right] co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda) was appointed Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU). (Рада національної безпеки і оборони України), a key position which overseas the Ministry of Defense, the Armed Forces, Law Enforcement, National Security and Intelligence. The RNBOU is central decision-making body. While it is formally headed by the president, it is run by the Secretariat with a staff of 180 people including defense, intelligence and national security experts.
Parubiy was one of the main leaders behind the Orange Revolution in 2004. His organization was funded by the West. He is referred to by the Western media as the “kommandant” of the EuroMaidan movement. Andriy Parubiy together with party leader Oleh Tyahnybok is a follower of Ukrainian Nazi Stepan Bandera, who collaborated in the mass murderer of Jews and Poles during World War II. "
the people above are marching to celebrate mass murder, during the orange revolution.. one of the central leaders of this is Andriy Parubiy, who is now the revolutionary appointed Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee a key position for defence, armed forces, law enforcement, national security and intelligence. Tell me, does that sounds like the kind of person you want to support unequivocally?
strange bed fellows indeed, yet western media totally ignores how seriously ingrained this new ultra right neo nazi party really is in this revolution.
there will never be a solution so long as the western "revolutionaries" keep telling the east to go suck it and do as they say... you cannot just oust an elected leader and then start telling the regions that elected that leader what to do, and call their cries for independence "illegitimate" when the legitimacy of your own revolution hasnt been ratified by them. if "pro west" ukrain gets to do whatever it wants, then so does "pro east" ukraine
easy... I wouldn't buy into the whole "neo-nazi" thing here... seems like it's propaganda.
A great number of protest organizers across Ukraine are Jewish intellectuals: artists, teachers, and academics among others, of varying ages. On Monday, Vadym Rabynovych, the president of the Ukrainian Jewish Congress and owner of the TV channel Jewish News 1, issued a statement characterizing the protesters’ relationship to the Jewish community as “tolerant and peaceful” and suggesting that claims to the contrary are merely provocations. Many prominent Jews have come out in support of the Maidan movement, among them the oligarch Victor Pinchuk, the journalist Vitaly Portnikov, and the artist Alexander Roitburd. My friend and colleague Anatoliy Kerzhner wrote to me of the pointed inclusion of Jewish events on the Maidan platform: Rabbi Hillel Cohen of one of the city’s Orthodox synagogues offered a prayer for peace, the Pushkin Klezmer Band performed Yiddish songs, and scholars lectured about Ukrainian Jewish history.
Some Ukrainian-born Jews who have emigrated to Israel and served in its army have returned to Kiev in order to help the cause by putting their military experience into practice. “Either ethnicity is not important to this struggle yet, or it is not important in general,” my friend Yury Yakubov, a 30-year-old designer from Kharkiv, told me. Moreover, a number of Ukrainian immigrants in Israel have voiced their support of the Maidan. A 10-minute YouTube video shows a string of candid speeches in Russian and Ukrainian by Ukrainian-Israelis in support of Ukraine’s ability to join the European Union as an independent nation. Another video pairs a Ukrainian rap song celebrating independence with images of Ukrainian Israelis holding signs in support of the Maidan.
States (nations) rarely like doing other things that risk their security, when they sign a bill it is more for publicity.
Like the Nuclear disarmament and also why we have increased weapons technology for missiles in the united states, because that would threaten the Russians, and the russians would then build more nuclear missiles to balance that threat out.
Though that is the realist version of seeing the world.
Security is something extremely important to these countries. They only honor them if the other's security is decreased and they become less of a threat.
Russian forces though deployed out totally passive. No blood loss. No loss of life. Its military operation was conducted by two brigades at most. We have a legal rep from Crimea saying they do not recognize the "new" government in Kiev. People decide on 30 Mar, Putin legal rep saying protection of ethnic Russians is reason for troop deployment there, Kerch ferry crossing is seized. Two additional Russian light division is moved in Russia took the moral high ground in UN. US/EU is thinking in the now. Putin thinking 1-20 years down the road.
The New Ukraine government is responding by calling up its reserves and prepping military units for a possible confrontation with Russian unit. No one else, US/EU, have even consider putting boots on ground.
Pretty much we're looking like bad guys and Putin coming out golden looking like a actual Peace Keeper
Whembly... it most certainly is NOT propaganda... confirmed leaders of the neo nazi movement are 100% factually now appointed to the positions I listed, this can be confirmed as fact quite easily.
just because there are lots of jews in the ukraine doesnt mean there are no neo nazis... in fact it gives the nazis someone to hate/scapgoat to swell their ranks.
feel free to fact check, but its easy enough to confirm the reality that people like:
Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector delegation in the parliament, has been appointed Parubiy’s deputy Secretary of the RNBOU
Oleh Makhnitsky of the Svoboda party to the position of prosecutor-general of Ukraine.
Andriy Parubiy [right] co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda) was appointed Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee
and it goes on and on, but for berevities sake i will stop there, as I honestly dont expect many westerners to see through the wests propaganda any more then I expect the easterners to see through the eastern propaganda.
easysauce wrote: Whembly... it most certainly is NOT propaganda... confirmed leaders of the neo nazi movement are 100% factually now appointed to the positions I listed, this can be confirmed as fact quite easily.
just because there are lots of jews in the ukraine doesnt mean there are no neo nazis... in fact it gives the nazis someone to hate/scapgoat to swell their ranks.
feel free to fact check, but its easy enough to confirm the reality that people like:
Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector delegation in the parliament, has been appointed Parubiy’s deputy Secretary of the RNBOU
Oleh Makhnitsky of the Svoboda party to the position of prosecutor-general of Ukraine.
Andriy Parubiy [right] co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda) was appointed Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee
and it goes on and on, but for berevities sake i will stop there, as I honestly dont expect many westerners to see through the wests propaganda any more then I expect the easterners to see through the eastern propaganda.
Okay... okay!
Are we expecting something out of Mein Kampf with these parties?
easysauce wrote: Whembly... it most certainly is NOT propaganda... confirmed leaders of the neo nazi movement are 100% factually now appointed to the positions I listed, this can be confirmed as fact quite easily.
just because there are lots of jews in the ukraine doesnt mean there are no neo nazis... in fact it gives the nazis someone to hate/scapgoat to swell their ranks.
feel free to fact check, but its easy enough to confirm the reality that people like:
Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector delegation in the parliament, has been appointed Parubiy’s deputy Secretary of the RNBOU
Oleh Makhnitsky of the Svoboda party to the position of prosecutor-general of Ukraine.
Andriy Parubiy [right] co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda) was appointed Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee
and it goes on and on, but for berevities sake i will stop there, as I honestly dont expect many westerners to see through the wests propaganda any more then I expect the easterners to see through the eastern propaganda.
Okay... okay!
Are we expecting something out of Mein Kampf with these parties?
o.O
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me. There's some rather unsavory types involved, to say the least.
The danger here is that if we don't do anything, what happens to our other treaties?
Taiwan?
NATO?
Doesn't out wordmean anything?
Hopefully not. It would be awesome if they all said we need to leave in the next three years. But we need Korea to make us leave too.
Then, as the immortal bard once said: Free at last free at last God Almighty we are free at last.
I mean, just look at kiev during the inital protest months ago...
notice all that blue+yellow flagging?
thats the neo nazi party... its far more widespread then you are saying it is...
and while I dont expect it to lead to the holocaust part two just yet,
there are some supremely screwed up people (read neo nazis) in some very powerfull positions in the military, law enforcement, and judicial branches of ukraine now, it certainly doesnt bode well for their future actions.
Putin/Russia will smoke the US. He seal of the strait with Turkey protecting the Black Sea Fleet. We've limited land exposure of Russia shoreline in the Pacific. He can accept mass loss of life in defending the Motherland first on US aggression to really get the people behind him while the US mentality cannot accept it. Besides he go after the Alaskan oil fields and pipeline damaging them and accepting the loss of aircrafts and crew to accomplish that after wards. He shut off the flow of natural gas and oil to everything west to really put Western and eastern Europe in a bind....Well it be what I would do in his shoe's..I avoid the Alaska King crab fleet. They do not want to interrupt the next season of "Dangerous Catch"....oh and the gold fields to..I've a feeling he like's the kid trying to hit 1K ounce of gold
easysauce wrote: I mean, just look at kiev during the inital protest months ago...
notice all that blue+yellow flagging?
thats the neo nazi party... its far more widespread then you are saying it is...
and while I dont expect it to lead to the holocaust part two just yet,
there are some supremely screwed up people (read neo nazis) in some very powerfull positions in the military, law enforcement, and judicial branches of ukraine now, it certainly doesnt bode well for their future actions.
So... if you're a protester waving the Ukrainian flag or the EU flag, you're suddenly a neo-nazi?
Jihadin wrote: Putin/Russia will smoke the US. He seal of the strait with Turkey protecting the Black Sea Fleet. We've limited land exposure of Russia shoreline in the Pacific. He can accept mass loss of life in defending the Motherland first on US aggression to really get the people behind him while the US mentality cannot accept it. Besides he go after the Alaskan oil fields and pipeline damaging them and accepting the loss of aircrafts and crew to accomplish that after wards. He shut off the flow of natural gas and oil to everything west to really put Western and eastern Europe in a bind....Well it be what I would do in his shoe's..I avoid the Alaska King crab fleet. They do not want to interrupt the next season of "Dangerous Catch"....oh and the gold fields to..I've a feeling he like's the kid trying to hit 1K ounce of gold
Shadow a tanker or container ship with a fairly quite sub. Torp one or two then say major shipping lanes into american ports are mined. drop a few mine like objects and watch as markets crash and governments reel as ships stay in port.
Feth up the Panama canal while he's at it.
Sponsor a few terrorist atrocities at airports or on airlines.
Paralizes a nation whilst he is pretty much safe from military intervention barring a politically suicidal full invasion.
Frazzled wrote:Now that Russwian troops are there will this be up to the usual gulag standard of electoral voting from USSR/Russian elections? I can see the ballot now
Vote for Crimea joining Mother Russia 1) Yes 2) Not no
Please stop the ignorance. This is not the Soviet Union anymore. You are only making a fool of yourself.
Obviously the ballot would like: Should the glorious nation of Crimea free itself from the fascists in Kiev and re-join the sacred Motherland? 1) Yes, death to fascist scum! 2) Yes, all hail our Soviet Motherland! 3) Yes, and I am a dirty fascist spy and traitor to the glorious Motherland and I deserve to rot in the mines of Vorkuta for all eternity.
Those soldiers are necessary for that referendum to happen. The Ukrainian authorities would've never allowed Crimea to secede. Now that Crimea is protected by Russian soldiers, the referendum about independence is possible and can happen without fear of disturbances and radical groups.
So why not ask a neutral third party to intervene? It's rather unsuitable for a party that stands to gain from one of the possible outcomes of the referrendum to "guarantee the safety" of said referendum.
What third party did you have in mind? I am sure the Kurds, Tibetans and all those other people wanting independence would love to know.
d-usa wrote:So the US version would be:
Texas doesn't like Obama and always talks about leaving the union.
Mexico sends their army and surrounds all federal bases.
Mexican president says "it's to protect all our latino nationals there and to let Texas vote to leave the US".
And everything is Kosher and on the up-and-up?
No it would be:
A discontented group of people supported by radical nationalist groups (let's say the Klu Klux Klan etc.) disposes Obama and sets up a new government. President Obama and the local government in Texas ask Mexico to send troops to Texas in order to let Texas hold a referendum on independence in peace without fear of being threatened by the new anti-latino regime in Washington. Mexico sends their army and surrounds all federal bases. Mexican president says "it's to protect all our latino nationals there and to let Texas vote to leave the US". Russia and China become outraged and start threatening with sanctions unless the Mexican soldiers withdraw.
The situation is really not as black and white as Western governments and media like to paint it.
Those soldiers are necessary for that referendum to happen. The Ukrainian authorities would've never allowed Crimea to secede. Now that Crimea is protected by Russian soldiers, the referendum about independence is possible and can happen without fear of disturbances and radical groups.
Uh huh, and you know this how? Answer: You don't. Now, if Kiev actually somehow attempted to prevent Crimea from holding the referendum and/or seceding, it would be a different story entirely. Kiev made no such moves whatsoever.
I know this because I actually know what parties are involved here. Kiev has prevented Crimean independence in the past, and the new Ukrainian government has been very clear that they will not allow Crimea to secede under any circumstances. They said this loud and clear, you should have known that.
easysauce wrote: I mean, just look at kiev during the inital protest months ago...
notice all that blue+yellow flagging?
thats the neo nazi party... its far more widespread then you are saying it is...
and while I dont expect it to lead to the holocaust part two just yet,
there are some supremely screwed up people (read neo nazis) in some very powerfull positions in the military, law enforcement, and judicial branches of ukraine now, it certainly doesnt bode well for their future actions.
So... if you're a protester waving the Ukrainian flag or the EU flag, you're suddenly a neo-nazi?
That is nonsense yes, not everyone with a Ukrainian flag is neo-nazi and those with European flags absolutely aren't. Those with red flags are supporters of UDAR, the party of Vitaly Klitschko. The Red-Black flags could be anarchists. The neo-nazis are the ones with blue flags with a yellow hand on it.
The military (in the US at least, can't say the same about Ukraine because I don't know) is sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. So, in that scenario you outlined, the AMERICAN military would step in to protect against the KKK and fight against their coup, and if they didn't, then thats an indicator that the military is either divided on the issue or (for whatever reason) in agreement with the KKK. In that situation, Mexico has no business (despite what the elected government may say) stepping into the mix, because we are our own guarantors of security and it is an internal matter (I.E. - a civil war), not one that should involve any of our neighbors.
Lets shift your scenario a bit. Say North Korea saw massive protests, the military sat idly by, and Kim Jong Un's government is deposed and a new pro-unification government is installed. By your reasoning, the Chinese and/or South Korean government should send troops into North Korea, and help Kim Jong Un's technically legitimate (though not necessarily by choice) government return to power...
total nonsense, pay no attention to the people with SS symbols and swastika tattoos...
Svoboda is not a nazi party, they just want to hug everyone and give them kittens!
if you had any brains, you would know that THIS is the ukraine flag (in the picture i mentioned)
and this is the flag of the neo nazi party (renamed Svoboda) chrikey thats a long line of people supporting neo-nazism!
which is very prolific in the protest pictures... I mentioned...
also notice, that the public supporters of the neo nazi party, waving its flag, are not being run out of town by the people next to them... so while not being neo-nazi themselves, they sure are not complaining about who they are allying with.
seriously, your ability to totally ignore what is right in front of you is astounding.
"In October 2012, Svoboda joined a formal coalition with the centre-right Batkivshchyna and UDAR parties to form the parliament's collective opposition, now a majority."
UDAR isnt exactly a shining example either, they are in a coalition with the openly neo nazi party of svoboda
which is very prolific in the protest pictures... I mentioned...
also notice, that the public supporters of the neo nazi party, waving its flag, are not being run out of town by the people next to them... so while not being neo-nazi themselves, they sure are not complaining about who they are allying with.
seriously, your ability to totally ignore what is right in front of you is astounding.
Chaos. Don't go down that road.
1. Is it an unlawful order?
2. Is it a lawful order?
3. Deploying combat troops on home turf is a no no for possible combat operations
4. The status "American" goes out the window when one starts shooting at troops because now that individual is a "threat"
5. What's the chances of it actually occurring? Think deep and broad on it and not shallow over it.
The military (in the US at least, can't say the same about Ukraine because I don't know) is sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. So, in that scenario you outlined, the AMERICAN military would step in to protect against the KKK and fight against their coup, and if they didn't, then thats an indicator that the military is either divided on the issue or (for whatever reason) in agreement with the KKK. In that situation, Mexico has no business (despite what the elected government may say) stepping into the mix, because we are our own guarantors of security and it is an internal matter (I.E. - a civil war), not one that should involve any of our neighbors.
Legally, it shouldn't. But legally, the US was also not allowed to attack Libya. We both know that major world powers only stick to international laws as long as those laws suit them. That is just the way it is and we can't change it, so it is little use complaining about it.
chaos0xomega wrote: Lets shift your scenario a bit. Say North Korea saw massive protests, the military sat idly by, and Kim Jong Un's government is deposed and a new pro-unification government is installed. By your reasoning, the Chinese and/or South Korean government should send troops into North Korea, and help Kim Jong Un's technically legitimate (though not necessarily by choice) government return to power...
That would be a completely different scenario that has nothing to do with the scenario outlined in my post or the one in the Ukraine as in your scenario there are no radical groups nor an ethnic minority that wants to become independent, and you add an external power that wants to restore a deposed former dictator, which was not the case in both aforementioned scenarios.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Guess what flag, other than the one you meant, is blue and yellow?
Guess what flag, other than the one you meant, is blue and yellow?
I guess its too much to presume that when I am talking about neo nazis, I would be talking about their yellow+blue flag...
my bad for expecting Dakka OT to do the spoon feeding themselves I guess.
the point still stands,
the neo naxi party has plenty of flags there, so does UDAR, they are both in a coalition, and no one waving a Ukrainian flag is chasing away anyone with a neo nazi flag.
all those yellow blue hand flags are neo naz and the red white ones from udar i (udar and svoboda are in a coalition, a neo nazi coalition if you will) and no one is asking them to leave, so that is tacit acceptance at least.
Guess what flag, other than the one you meant, is blue and yellow?
I guess its too much to presume that when I am talking about neo nazis, I would be talking about their yellow+blue flag...
my bad for expecting Dakka OT to do the spoon feeding themselves I guess.
the point still stands,
the neo naxi party has plenty of flags there, so does UDAR, they are both in a coalition, and no one waving a Ukrainian flag is chasing away anyone with a neo nazi flag.
all those yellow blue hand flags and red white ones from udar are neo nazi (udar and svoboda are in a coalition) and no one is asking them to leave, so that is tacit acceptance at least.
If you're talking about an image with several different blue and yellow flags, saying that all the yellow and blue flags are being waved by nazis is the height of sloppyness.
so now that you have had your say about my lack of professional quality reporting over my non paid position of "guy who has to spoon feed what flag is what to dakka"
what are the actual thoughts on the large # of neo nazi flags, as well as neo nazi coalition members in UDAR(red flags), and the fact that no one of any flag is publicly denouncing their involvement in the revolution, nor their being appointed to high ranking positions.
how many people have to wave the equivalent of swastika flags in a revolution before you go "hmmmmm, those guys waving swasticas might be an issue, maybe dont appoint them to high levels of government?"
Can you imagine the political impact if Putin points that out on media. "Hey Obama...Kerry....those are um..hate to break it to you.Those are Neo Nazis your supporting as new government and also the 1 billion dollar funding you just authorized to assist them.."
I rather go kick a cow pile on a warm hot humid day then get slap with that
easysauce wrote: so now that you have had your say about my lack of professional quality reporting over my non paid position of "guy who has to spoon feed what flag is what to dakka"
what are the actual thoughts on the large # of neo nazi flags, as well as neo nazi coalition members in UDAR(red flags), and the fact that no one of any flag is publicly denouncing their involvement in the revolution, nor their being appointed to high ranking positions.
how many people have to wave the equivalent of swastika flags in a revolution before you go "hmmmmm, those guys waving swasticas might be an issue, maybe dont appoint them to high levels of government?"
Well, the issue here is that you're saying the blue and yellow flags... the predominant flags in that picture are these:
Notice the colors?
The flag you are referring to with the 3 fingered hand or whatever? There are only FOUR of them in that entire photo (that I can see), when you're saying "notice all the blue and yellow flagging" and 4 or 5 out of the 2 dozen plus (I stopped counting) blue and yellow flags are that flag... well, what the hell did you expect the response to be?
easysauce wrote: so now that you have had your say about my lack of professional quality reporting over my non paid position of "guy who has to spoon feed what flag is what to dakka"
what are the actual thoughts on the large # of neo nazi flags, as well as neo nazi coalition members in UDAR(red flags), and the fact that no one of any flag is publicly denouncing their involvement in the revolution, nor their being appointed to high ranking positions.
how many people have to wave the equivalent of swastika flags in a revolution before you go "hmmmmm, those guys waving swasticas might be an issue, maybe dont appoint them to high levels of government?"
The flag you are referring to with the 3 fingered hand or whatever? There are only FOUR of them in that entire photo (that I can see), when you're saying "notice all the blue and yellow flagging" and 4 or 5 out of the 2 dozen plus (I stopped counting) blue and yellow flags are that flag... well, what the hell did you expect the response to be?
There is 5 of them, actually. And you didn't really answer his question, you are just making a point out of nothing, you are evading the question.
Also, from the second picture he posted you can really see there are a lot of neo-nazis involved.
I was actually following along with what Easysauce was going with....yellow clench fist should have been clarified much better Easy. I got your back...way back. like um way way way back nice rifle I have recently acquired
Jihadin wrote: Can you imagine the political impact if Putin points that out on media. "Hey Obama...Kerry....those are um..hate to break it to you.Those are Neo Nazis your supporting as new government and also the 1 billion dollar funding you just authorized to assist them.."
I rather go kick a cow pile on a warm hot humid day then get slap with that
Jihadin wrote: I was actually following along with what Easysauce was going with....yellow clench fist should have been clarified much better Easy. I got your back...way back. like um way way way back nice rifle I have recently acquired
Not a clenched fist! A right hand with the thumb touching the little finger and the three remaining fingers pointed upwards! You need to clarify much better.
Jihadin wrote: Can you imagine the political impact if Putin points that out on media. "Hey Obama...Kerry....those are um..hate to break it to you.Those are Neo Nazis your supporting as new government and also the 1 billion dollar funding you just authorized to assist them.."
I rather go kick a cow pile on a warm hot humid day then get slap with that
yeah, I am not sure the blow back would be very bad, apparently a lot of Dakka is OK with neo nazi involvement in this revolution,and if thats an indicator of general US sentiment... I am truely afraid of what kind of evils people will ignore.
, at least 20% of flags in this picture have the yellow+blue fist on their flag, either as the neo-natzi party flag, or the ukraine flag with the neo-nazi fist on top of it. There plenty more are the co aligned UDAR in red, bringing the % up.
one or two flags is a fringe group... but when its a very visable, and identifiable part of the people there, and when prominent neo-nazi party leaders get such important appointations, it means something is WRONG.
Seriously, how many neo-nazis waving neo-swastikas does it take before some people go "hmmmm, maybe these guys waving swastikas are not the best people to be appointed to positions of power via violent revolution"
would you be happily protesting along side people waving swastikas? I know I would not.
if you can only count 5 hands on flags in this picture... you are seriously missing things... there are plenty, and while I cannot enhance the zoom, lots of the "ukrainian" flags have the fist super imposed on it, as well as the UDAR red flags being in a coalition with the neo nazis as wel..
The national-socialists were democratically elected, and you'd have to be pretty stupid to go "sorry guys, but 20% of you are very right won't so we are going to let Russia have all of you because Russia has zero history of ethnic cleansing and suppression."
I'm seriously thinking he's also going to come out with the eastern half of the Ukraine to. Its win-win for him He got sanction by the US/EU and watch the natural gas flow ease up into western nations..
Jihadin wrote: Can you imagine the political impact if Putin points that out on media. "Hey Obama...Kerry....those are um..hate to break it to you.Those are Neo Nazis your supporting as new government and also the 1 billion dollar funding you just authorized to assist them.."
I rather go kick a cow pile on a warm hot humid day then get slap with that
yeah, I am not sure the blow back would be very bad, apparently a lot of Dakka is OK with neo nazi involvement in this revolution,and if thats an indicator of general US sentiment... I am truely afraid of what kind of evils people will ignore.
, at least 20% of flags in this picture have the yellow+blue fist on their flag, either as the neo-natzi party flag, or the ukraine flag with the neo-nazi fist on top of it. There plenty more are the co aligned UDAR in red, bringing the % up.
one or two flags is a fringe group... but when its a very visable, and identifiable part of the people there, and when prominent neo-nazi party leaders get such important appointations, it means something is WRONG.
Seriously, how many neo-nazis waving neo-swastikas does it take before some people go "hmmmm, maybe these guys waving swastikas are not the best people to be appointed to positions of power via violent revolution"
would you be happily protesting along side people waving swastikas? I know I would not.
if you can only count 5 hands on flags in this picture... you are seriously missing things... there are plenty, and while I cannot enhance the zoom, lots of the "ukrainian" flags have the fist super imposed on it, as well as the UDAR red flags being in a coalition with the neo nazis as wel..
There are more nationalist flags, that is sure, but there are only 5 official Svoboda (that name is horribly ironic) flags. And no gak on UDAR, those are pretty decent folk. They are in alliance with the the neo-nazis, but they themselves are nice people. I do agree with and appreciate what you are saying though. I am having a pretty hard time trying to convince some people here that many of the people involved in the new regime are the kind of people you should run away from really fast. Ukrainian nazis have massacred non-Ukrainians before, I do not think it is beyond them to do it again.
While I agree that there are significant numbers of militant neo-nazis involved in the Maidan and that the US media is incorrectly oversimplifying events and actors, I disagree with any contention that the neo-nazis make up a sizeable proportion of the overall Ukrainian population.
Russia is correct that the current Ukrainian government is not legally legitimate. The interim government is on thin legal ground at this point and only a plebiscite will restore legitimacy. Putin is less correct to claim a high threat to the people in Ukraine that self-identify as Russian, but he's probably justified at this point in some effort to secure Russian bases and Russian people in the Crimea until things settle down. However, seizing government buildings, airports, and threatening Ukrainians is not as well justified.
The big question is whether Russia will try to permanently separate Crimea or all of eastern Ukraine. My guess is that Putin will seek to do this even though it is not a technically legal move because the Crimean peninsula is too important and probably never should have been given to the Ukrainian SSR. That was a stupid move by Khruschev.
Iron...
I didn't know about the Neo Nazi being involve in the protest or in the new government positions they are in. Yes elections are coming but they might still retain their position. Public backlash will occur against Obama and Kerry is some media starts pointing it out. Having Putin pointing it out is icing on the cake on his side.
as the picture I posted is actually cutting off some... more iconic symbols that were present at the rally.
here is a video, so this is a government building that was just taken over by members of the revolution,
first thing they do is hang nazi (not neo nazi, NAZI) flags, and confederate flags, right up beside the neo nazi flag.
"“There are lots of Nationalists here, including Nazis,” the anti-fascist continued. “They came from all over Ukraine, and they make up about 30% of protesters.”
some estimates are as low as 10%, some as high as 45%... personally I think 10%+ is a huge deal.
Some people seem to think they ALL have to be neo nazis, or at least some # bigger then what is confirmed to exists, for it to be a problem.
lets just put some historical context into the mix, dakka bingo get ready for nazi germany/hitler reference
"When it came to power in 1933, the Nazi Party had over 2 million members" at that time the population of germany was 65 362 115, that is only 2,000,000/65 362 115 = about 3%
UDAR is not nice guys... nice guys dont play with nazis... you are judged by the company you keep... so nazis, pedophilles, ect are all things that one should avoid associating with in this day and age.
"In the Ukrainian parliament, where Svoboda holds an unprecedented 37 seats, " out of 450... thats almost 10% of seats...
JB wrote: While I agree that there are significant numbers of militant neo-nazis involved in the Maidan and that the US media is incorrectly oversimplifying events and actors, I disagree with any contention that the neo-nazis make up a sizeable proportion of the overall Ukrainian population.
Russia is correct that the current Ukrainian government is not legally legitimate. The interim government is on thin legal ground at this point and only a plebiscite will restore legitimacy. Putin is less correct to claim a high threat to the people in Ukraine that self-identify as Russian, but he's probably justified at this point in some effort to secure Russian bases and Russian people in the Crimea until things settle down. However, seizing government buildings, airports, and threatening Ukrainians is not as well justified.
The big question is whether Russia will try to permanently separate Crimea or all of eastern Ukraine. My guess is that Putin will seek to do this even though it is not a technically legal move because the Crimean peninsula is too important and probably never should have been given to the Ukrainian SSR. That was a stupid move by Khruschev.
Have an exalt! I couldn't agree more with you!
But the next Russian-German war is long overdue.
Is Germany really sure it does not want Crimea? Sure? Crimea is a pretty nice place you know. Great climate, beautiful lanscape, great beaches and full of Russian soldiers! And the best part is that Germany has conquered it in the past! Are you sure you didn't like it there? Ethnic Germans lived in Crimea in the past, ethnic Germans could live there again... Just think about it! A Crimea filled with Lederhosen! Das ist doch wunderbar? Sure you don't want Crimea?
That's actually about right in just about every country.
yeah... and nazi germany only had 3% wackos...
we all know how well that turned out.
and it just 10% that are part of this particular Svoboda neo nazi party too, there are half a dozen other groups like trident, right sector, ect that are not included in this figure.
Eastern Ukraine gone in six month. Everyone still hyped on the change over and US/EU is to committed now into the new government. Obama and Kerry has to know about the Neo's in positions of authority...Putin not backing the new government has now much improve in my perception
Totalwar's thread didn't make it, but he's not wrong in that this thread has really gone off the rails for the last few pages. Since this is kind of important we should maybe try and make a community effort to minimize digression, and yes I know that's super hypocritical coming from a serial threadjacker like myself. As a show of good faith I will post a newsy link.
Near Simferopol, Ukraine (CNN) -- In the wake of Russia's invasion of Crimea, the mood here Tuesday was tense, but the streets appeared eerily calm.
Ukraine's Crimea region has become the flashpoint in a geopolitical crisis that has embroiled London, Washington, the United Nations and NATO.
In the days since they crossed the border into this strategically important peninsula on the Black Sea, Russian forces have surrounded 10 Ukrainian military bases -- 16,000 troops in the past week, according to Ukrainian officials.
There has been no fighting -- or loss of life -- but there were ample signs of preparation.
The situation in Simferopol, Crimea's regional capital, is almost surreal. Rumor, confusion and outlandish claims mix freely -- and reality is difficult to pin down. On the surface, the capital seems undisturbed. Shops are open, people sit in cafes, the buses and trams are running normally.
And then there are pockets -- especially around the parliament and other Crimean government buildings -- where the discord hangs in the air.
These places have moved firmly into the pro-Russian camp, where the Russian and Crimean flags are flying and the yellow-and-blue flag of Ukraine is not. Knots of men, most of them burly, middle-aged and chain-smoking, gather outside the buildings recently taken over by pro-Russian parties. They say they are defending the rights of Russians in a country led by people they see as ultranationalist Ukrainians. They say they relish the prospect of a referendum this month that could see Crimea "decoupled" from Ukraine.
On the streets appears a truckload of men in uniform, not Ukrainian, for sure, but not identifiably Russian. They are close to Ukrainian military compounds, where troops remain inside, largely out of sight.
Similar standoffs are playing out around barracks and bases in far-flung corners of Crimea. Here, there has been no violence. Instead, the hint of camaraderie among fellow soldiers can be discerned.
People anxiously await what comes next But among Ukrainians and Tatars, a predominantly Muslim group, living here, there is a sense of foreboding, one that most of them are reluctant to express. There are no pro-Kiev demonstrations, perhaps for fear of the consequences. And so people go on living their lives as best they can, waiting anxiously for what comes next.
About 12 miles (20 kilometers) southeast of Simferopol, about 100 Russian soldiers at a Ukrainian military base were digging in against a backdrop of rolling hills, They parked their troop-moving vehicles, excavated a series of mini trenches in the dirt and erected mess tents.
Apparently oblivious to the international tensions over Russia's moves, they were carrying on civil conversations with Ukrainian soldiers and moving about freely.
It all appeared fairly friendly. The Russian soldiers treated their presence as nothing special, even as it made nearby residents uncomfortable.
Much of the tension here stems from generations of heritage and tradition. Ethnic Russians have lived in Crimea for centuries, and many of the current generation look upon Moscow's forces as friendly protectors.
What's happening? Depends on whom you ask That view may not be shared by many of those Crimean residents with Ukrainian roots.
This unease manifests itself in small ways. On one side, wives of Ukrainian soldiers complained it would be difficult for their husbands to swear allegiance to pro-Russian leadership when they had already done so to Kiev. On the other, residents sometimes approached Russian soldiers and shook their hands — slapping them on the back in signs of support.
The Russian soldiers seemed to be trying to keep it low-key. Their uniforms bore no Russian army insignia that might inflame anti-Russian Ukrainians.
Standoff near air base But forces remained poised to react to the slightest provocation. As more than 100 unarmed Ukrainian soldiers tried Tuesday morning to return to Belbek Air Base, a Ukrainian military base north of Sevastopol, Russian forces fired warning shots over their heads.
Video shot by one of the Ukrainian soldiers showed the Ukrainians continuing to move forward. In the video, a Russian, holding his weapon, orders them to halt their advance: "I have orders; I will shoot you in the legs if you come any further."
The Ukrainian commander responded that they had no weapons and that the Russians were in control.
The two sides then negotiated, and 15 of the Ukrainian soldiers were granted passage onto the base.
The commander told CNN he had been ordered to surrender the base by noon, but the deadline passed without incident.
He said he had been told to sign a document swearing allegiance to the local government, but he was unwilling to do so and continued to take orders from Kiev.
On the road to the base, pro-Russian civilians blocked the entrance to journalists. On the other side of a barricade stood Ukrainian soldiers. Beyond them, at the main entrance to the base, were Russian soldiers, CNN was told.
The commander said he had tried to speak through an intermediary with the Russian forces to arrange a meeting to defuse the situation but had not succeeded.
The base's structure complicated the situation -- it is home not only to Ukrainian service members but also to their families.
And even the source of much of the tension was uncertain. One Ukrainian military commander said he had received anonymous phone calls threatening him and his family if he did not surrender to Russian forces.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has yet to acknowledge the forces here are even Russian, but a commander of troops -- who are wearing Russian uniforms without identifying insignia and driving vehicles bearing Russian plates -- was frank. He told CNN he came from a Russian city near Crimea and had been dispatched by his commanding officer from Sevastopol to a ferry port on the eastern side of the Crimean peninsula.
A different feel in Kiev The mood was different hundreds of miles away in Ukraine's capital of Kiev, which is more European in its location and self-image. Protesters waved posters depicting caricatures of Putin and declared their willingness to fight against Russian forces, if necessary.
The newly installed, pro-European interim central government is shaky, at best. Ousted President Viktor Yanukovych fled more than a week ago in the wake of protests in Kiev's Independence Square, where snipers from nearby rooftops killed scores of demonstrators.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrived Tuesday in Kiev and surveyed a makeshift memorial to the dead before meeting with the Ukrainian interim administration about the Russian incursion and a promised $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to help the country rebuild its shattered economy.
Flowers and flags marked the spot of the killings. One person left a poem that read, "Mother, I'm sorry I had to go. I was shot by the police because I couldn't turn back."
A crisis in Crimea is the last thing the new government needs -- and residents want.
"The amount of propaganda Russia has poured onto Ukraine is hard to comprehend," said Maia Mikhaluk, a freelance photographer and Christian ministry worker in Ukraine. "Putting troops on Ukrainian land is going to bring the very opposite result from what Putin expected: I believe it's uniting Ukraine."
Russian state-run TV offered a different view, blaming the crisis on far-right radicals aided by the West.
Russian news reports note that Ukrainians had called for a ban on teaching the Russian language in schools. That proposed ban has been rescinded, but the reports created an emotional reaction among Russians.
“No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.”
If I was there I would shove that flag up his fat arse. Makes me sick listening to nationalists spewing hate and trying to start a war which could get tens of thousands killed. I guess people just love their songs and rags so much they're willing to risk the lives of so manypeople just to make a point and gesture.Scum.
So you would be willing to turn warning shots into killing shots?. Notice the officer on Ukraine side pretty much put his men in check? No one else notice the crew serve weapon mounted on the truck in the back ground Nor the squad on the left flank of the Ukrainians? I'm going to assume the sknny guy talking to the officer is either a NCO or an officer. So an officer talked to an officer or an NCO talked to the officer Both had a good handle on their troops
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10675146/Ukraine-Russian-troops-fire-warning-shots-at-Crimea-airbase.html Wow, what a beautiful example of how the Western media can corrupt things sometimes. They immediatly start dragging Russia into it again, making it seem like Russia is the agressor. The units involved where not Russian soldiers, they were Crimeans, Ukrainian army defectors. Most of the units at Belbek Air Base defected a few days ago. Also, the negotiations went peaceful and some of the Ukrainians were even allowed to return to the base.
If I was there I would shove that flag up his fat arse. Makes me sick listening to nationalists spewing hate and trying to start a war which could get tens of thousands killed. I guess people just love their songs and rags so much they're willing to risk the lives of so manypeople just to make a point and gesture.Scum.
So you would be willing to turn warning shots into killing shots?. Notice the officer on Ukraine side pretty much put his men in check? No one else notice the crew serve weapon mounted on the truck in the back ground Nor the squad on the left flank of the Ukrainians? I'm going to assume the sknny guy talking to the officer is either a NCO or an officer. So an officer talked to an officer or an NCO talked to the officer Both had a good handle on their troops
From what's reported, the Russians were backed up by snipers, machine guns, and kalashnikovs.
Only someone who was truly sadistic would lead men he had no control over into that, and considering how tense everything currently is, only a fool would have some gung-ho cretin in charge of the firepower.
Iron_Captain wrote: Those soldiers are necessary for that referendum to happen. The Ukrainian authorities would've never allowed Crimea to secede. Now that Crimea is protected by Russian soldiers, the referendum about independence is possible and can happen without fear of disturbances and radical groups.
If there was a need for peace keeping forces to be deployed (which you, again, have yet to prove) then it would be best achieved by deploying a multi-national force under UN auspices. In short; not someone with a vested interest in the results of the referendum
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So why not ask a neutral third party to intervene? It's rather unsuitable for a party that stands to gain from one of the possible outcomes of the referrendum to "guarantee the safety" of said referendum.
A cynic might say that this move prevents the people returning the wrong result...... from the Russian perspective
Simple response... send some Aegis ships in the Mediterranean.
Won't help against the missile that was just tested. The Topol-M was designed specifically to be able to evade all existing anti-missile systems
Because every time we design something it works perfectly...
He's only like 12, he doesn't know any better...
I am 14 and that has nothing to do with it. The Topol-M's evasion capabillities have been succesfuly tested a number of times. Of course it may not work everytime, but it is probably going to work often enough to be effective.
If they defected, that means that they are no longer Ukrainian soldiers, but Russian soldiers...
Crimean. They are Crimean soldiers. The Crimean government has set up its own armed forces and navy with Russian support. They may support Russia, but they are not Russian soldiers.
Anyone else less concerned about how far this could go? Putin isn't a zealot. He and his inner circle enjoy all the money they make too much to risk serious conflict. He wants minor conflict to feed the need for national pride that keeps his people in line.
$64 question. What ECM did they use against it.......anyone remember the Russian "sparklers" they provided Iraq to interfere with laser designated targets? OIF
I have wondered for days about those no-insignia troops. I mean, they obviously seem like Russians. It's the simplest explanation, and occam's razor and all...
On the other hand, Russia says they are simply militias with Russian equipment. If they were actually Spetznaz or whatever undercover, doesn't this seem a little... subtle for Russia? I mean, that doesn't seem to be their way, as of recent. Or ever.
Ouze wrote: I have wondered for days about those no-insignia troops. I mean, they obviously seem like Russians. It's the simplest explanation, and occam's razor and all...
On the other hand, Russia says they are simply militias with Russian equipment. If they were actually Spetznaz or whatever undercover, doesn't this seem a little... subtle for Russia? I mean, that doesn't seem to be their way, as of recent. Or ever.
It is easy to tell the uniforms apart. the modern ones are Russians, the older uniforms are Crimeans.
Ouze wrote: I have wondered for days about those no-insignia troops. I mean, they obviously seem like Russians. It's the simplest explanation, and occam's razor and all...
On the other hand, Russia says they are simply militias with Russian equipment. If they were actually Spetznaz or whatever undercover, doesn't this seem a little... subtle for Russia? I mean, that doesn't seem to be their way, as of recent. Or ever.
"Sterile" uniform
in another country
No way to confirm
No way to deny
No way to prove
No Identity
No name
No unit
you have pictures and video's but no proof
Someone in government know who it is
Cannot confirm unless you get the individual Geneva Card...then its in play.
Jihadin wrote: "Sterile" uniform
in another country
No way to confirm
No way to deny
No way to prove
No Identity
No name
No unit
you have pictures and video's but no proof
Someone in government know who it is
Cannot confirm unless you get the individual Geneva Card...then its in play.
Jihadin wrote: "Sterile" uniform
in another country
No way to confirm
No way to deny
No way to prove
No Identity
No name
No unit
you have pictures and video's but no proof
Someone in government know who it is
Cannot confirm unless you get the individual Geneva Card...then its in play.
So does this make them unlawful combatants?
Legally, yes, as a uniform needs to have insignia identifying the combatant.
the Dachau Trials, the issue of whether the donning of enemy uniforms to approach the enemy without drawing fire was within the laws of war was established under international humanitarian law at the trial in 1947 of the planner and commander of Operation Greif, Otto Skorzeny. Skorzeny was found not guilty by an American military tribunal of a crime by ordering his men into action in American uniforms. He had passed on to his men the warning of German legal experts, that if they fought in American uniforms, they would be breaking the laws of war, but they probably were not doing so just by wearing American uniforms. During the trial, a number of arguments were advanced to substantiate this position and that the German and U.S. military seem to be in agreement on it. In its judgement, the tribunal noted that the case did not require that the tribunal make findings other than those of guilty or not guilty, so consequently, no safe conclusion could be drawn from the acquittal of all accused.[4]
Nothing. What I do take exception to though is the de facto invasion of one sovereign state by another.
It. is. not. an. invasion. Russian troops have been there for quite some time, and the defecting crimeans only add to the #.
Ukraine’s statement at the UN that 16,000 Russian soldiers have been deployed to Crimea has caused a frenzy among Western media which chooses to ignore that those troops have been there since the late 1990s in accordance with a Kiev-Moscow agreement.
Western media describes the situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as if a full-scale Russian invasion were under way, with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea” and “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia's invasion of Crimea?”
It seems they have chosen to simply ignore the fact that those Russian troops have been stationed in Crimea for over a decade.
Russia’s representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, reminded on Tuesday that the deal surrounding the Black Sea Fleet allows Russia to station a contingent of up to 25,000 troops in Ukraine. However, US and British media have mostly chosen to turn a deaf ear.
Nothing. What I do take exception to though is the de facto invasion of one sovereign state by another.
It. is. not. an. invasion. Russian troops have been there for quite some time, and the defecting crimeans only add to the #.
Ukraine’s statement at the UN that 16,000 Russian soldiers have been deployed to Crimea has caused a frenzy among Western media which chooses to ignore that those troops have been there since the late 1990s in accordance with a Kiev-Moscow agreement.
Western media describes the situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as if a full-scale Russian invasion were under way, with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea” and “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia's invasion of Crimea?”
It seems they have chosen to simply ignore the fact that those Russian troops have been stationed in Crimea for over a decade.
Russia’s representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, reminded on Tuesday that the deal surrounding the Black Sea Fleet allows Russia to station a contingent of up to 25,000 troops in Ukraine. However, US and British media have mostly chosen to turn a deaf ear.
Maybe to prevent someone stupid to start a shooting situation..I know of one Ukraine Army post under lockdown that like 15-20 south of Simperofol A mech unit More so to keep the airfield operation from being disturbed. Anyone else have the new loactions?
the ukraine has no authority anymore in crimea since the government was violently overthrown recently...
crimea has said its had enough, it didnt want to leave the ussr, and it declared its own intent to separate, and asked for russians to help as they duly hold a referendum.
if the pro west camp in ukraine can over through a duly elected pro east president elected by the pro eastern people there,
then the pro eastern people can tell the new pro west government appointed by this violent revolution they dont recognize them.
if violence was justified to for one side in the initial revolution,
then why is a bloodless deploying of troops (at crimeas request) while a referendum is called NOT justified?
seems better then more blood on the streets as in kiev. let the crimeans decide for themselves at the ballot box.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So why not ask a neutral third party to intervene? It's rather unsuitable for a party that stands to gain from one of the possible outcomes of the referrendum to "guarantee the safety" of said referendum.
A cynic might say that this move prevents the people returning the wrong result...... from the Russian perspective
What's up with all the threads we agree in recently? We need to stop that and go back to fighting!
Doesn't the US need the gas itself? Also, exporting it by ship would be rather expensive, and I doubt those ships could supply enough gas to fuel a large country like Ukraine.
Nothing. What I do take exception to though is the de facto invasion of one sovereign state by another.
It. is. not. an. invasion. Russian troops have been there for quite some time, and the defecting crimeans only add to the #.
Ukraine’s statement at the UN that 16,000 Russian soldiers have been deployed to Crimea has caused a frenzy among Western media which chooses to ignore that those troops have been there since the late 1990s in accordance with a Kiev-Moscow agreement.
Western media describes the situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as if a full-scale Russian invasion were under way, with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea” and “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia's invasion of Crimea?”
It seems they have chosen to simply ignore the fact that those Russian troops have been stationed in Crimea for over a decade.
Russia’s representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, reminded on Tuesday that the deal surrounding the Black Sea Fleet allows Russia to station a contingent of up to 25,000 troops in Ukraine. However, US and British media have mostly chosen to turn a deaf ear.
Then why are the Ukrainian bases surrounded?
To prevent the Ukrainian soldiers there from interfering in Crimean/Russian business. It is technically not an invasion, as an invasion consists of 'aggressively entering territory controlled by another geopolitical entity' (wow, I learn so much new words on Wikipedia ) and the Russian soldiers were already there, neither are they very agressive, as no one has been killed yet. It is more of a military occupation than an invasion.
Last Friday US President Barrack Hussein Obama, the "leader of the free world", a titled gratefully no longer applied extensively in public, gave a press briefing on the situation in Ukraine before taking off for the weekend to play golf or paint pictures of dogs or whatever it is American presidents do over the weekend. US President Obama's statement was typically empty of substance as was all of the empty rhetoric leading up to what was to have been the invasion of Syria and as one American commentator put it a "vacuous, inexact, and tendentious statement full of the "usual bromides about respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and democratic future of Ukraine." The statement however was typical of the US and their stance of "either you are with us or against us" when it comes to invading and overthrowing the governments of country after country.
Newspeak as a Replacement for Truth
When it comes to the statements regarding the situation in Ukraine by US President Barrack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and all of the "allies" and media outlets that serve as the US government's private-lock-step-newspeak-echo-chamber: the outright bald faced lies, cavernous omissions, acidic hypocrisy, double standards exponentially growing with each new fabrication, saber-rattling bellicose war rhetoric and twisting of facts and logic, have been so blatant, egregious and patently glib fabrications that it is enough to cause the thinking person's brain to curdle up into a little lumpy mass quivering in terror somewhere in a dark corner inside their heads as they perhaps question their own connection to reality.
Anti-Russian Media Hysteria
The hysteria in the West surrounding Ukraine and the movement of Russian troops into the former Russian territory of Crimea to protect the millions of Russians there, is being fueled by the media and driven and directed by officials in the US corporate/government controlled media. During such a time of escalated tensions in the past some of the American people and people living in surrogate countries such as the UK may have looked toward their leaders, and in particular to the US President, for direction, information and most importantly "leadership" during such times.
However this is no longer the case and the US and western masses, who are already disillusioned, disgusted and disenchanted with their leaders and their media, will find little solace or truth coming from the US White House and unfortunately most of them already know that. Not to add insult to injury, after all Americans in reality really have no choice in who runs their country anymore and they know that better than anyone else, but a recent commentary I wrote titled "Obama: the 'hypocrite-in-chief' threatens Russia" received more than the usual responses and attacks yet no one defended Obama or seemed to take issue with my play on his "Commander in Chief" title.
The Statement: Obama's Obfuscation, Omissions and Lies
Obama: "The Ukrainian people deserve the opportunity to determine their own future. Together with our European allies, we have urged an end to the violence and encouraged Ukrainians to pursue a course in which they stabilize their country, forge a broad-based government..."
Apparently for US/NATO/EU the "Ukrainian people" does not include the Russian speaking population, the Jews and all of the other minorities that have been excluded from the new Maidan-neo-nazi-mob-selected-US-puppet-government. They obviously have no right to determine their future. As for calling for an end to the violence? Obama has left out the fact that it is the US which is directly responsible for the violence and the coup in Ukraine. Which additionally takes the Ukrainian people out of the equation for self-determination.
Obama: "… and we've made clear that they can be part of an international community's effort to support the stability and success of a united Ukraine going forward, which is not only in the interest of the people of Ukraine and the international community, but also in Russia's interest."
The arrogance and of the phrase "we have made it clear that Russia can be a part…" sounds like the "master of the world" speaking from an alternative reality and completely denies the reality that Ukraine is literally in Russia's backyard and direct US meddling in Ukraine has brought about the destruction of a country that is the birthplace of Russian civilization. His use of the phrase "going forward" follows the entire US Government policy of "not looking back" which is just an attempt to escape responsibility for all of the crimes, death and destruction that the US Government has brought about on the world and the American people themselves. When the American people are all homeless in the street or living in FEMA camps I wonder how much they will want to hear "we should not look back". Sanctimoniously adding Russia to the list of countries that he allows to have an interest in Ukraine shows that the US thinks Ukraine is now theirs. They stole it and want to keep it. However this will never stand.
Obama: "… we are now deeply concerned by reports of military movements taken by the Russian Federation inside of Ukraine. Russia has a historic relationship with Ukraine, including cultural and economic ties, and a military facility in Crimea, but any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing, which is not in the interest of Ukraine, Russia, or Europe."
Of course the planners in Washington, the Pentagon and NATO are concerned, they are used to acting with impunity and invading any country they want and overthrowing any leader they want. They have spent over $5 billion dollars on their neo-nazi coup d'état of Ukraine and they do not want anyone to interfere, especially until, as Victoria Nuland put it, "everything is glued together". He ignores the religious, ethnic and language ties but that is understandable from pure ignorance, however talk about sovereignty, coming from the US which has destroyed or killed the leaders of almost 80 countries is what I imagine it would be like listening to hitler talking about human rights violations against Jews.
The rest is almost too much to even read and is making me nauseous but I will responsibly go over it for you dear reader. He continues talking about Russian forces being asked to ensure stability in Crimea and protect the substantial Russian speaking population, something they have done without a single shot being fired, as if it is an invasion. The same propaganda that the US used when the USSR was asked to maintain peace in Afghanistan.
Obama: "… It would represent a profound interference in matters that must be determined by the Ukrainian people. It would be a clear violation of Russia's commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty and borders of Ukraine, and of international laws. And just days after the world came to Russia for the Olympic Games, it would invite the condemnation of nations around the world.
Again hearing a war criminal and the leader of a country that has illegally invaded and destroyed almost 80 countries and who signs off on a weekly drone assassination list of innocent people around the world, and one who believes he is above international law, chide Russia which has insisted on and followed international law for decades is just too much.
He does however mention the Olympics, under the cover of which the US moved 2 warships into the Black Sea but he does not mention that the US coup in Ukraine was organized just like the Georgia/US backed invasion of South Ossetia. Apparently for the CIA the Olympics is a good cover for invading countries.
Obama: "… the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine."
This is a direct threat and an insult to the Russian people and the Russian President and all of the people who welcomed Russian Forces in the Crimea. But I am sure the US has gone insane with jealousy after their failure at the Olympics and because their soldiers and mercenary killers have never been welcomed with flowers by anyone. Again Obama excludes Russia, Crimea, China and anyone else from the "international community".
Obama: "…The events of the past several months remind us of how difficult democracy can be in a country with deep divisions. But the Ukrainian people have also reminded us that human beings have a universal right to determine their own future."
What Obama means by "democracy" is in fact US hegemony and control, make no mistake. If he stands behind his words that "human beings have a universal right to determine their own future" then perhaps tomorrow the US will finally pull out of all of the countries it is currently occupying either by force and as a hegemon and once and for all stop meddling in countries all over the world. Also, apparently for Obama the Russian speaking population of Crimea do not count as people. How else to interpret that?
Obama: "…And we will continue to keep all of you in the press corps and the American people informed as events develop."
Has he informed and explained to the American people the real reasons why the US staged a coup in Ukraine and why he is supporting neo-nazis who are calling for the killing of Jews, Blacks and Russians? Has he informed the American people why the US has spent $5 billion in Ukraine when he can not even provide them with elementary health care? Can he explain why his foreign policy establishment is controlled by rabid Russo-phobes who have gone completely off the reservation? Can he explain why Russia, acountry which lost up to 40 million people defeating the Nazis, should allow neo-nazis to kill and slaughter Russians in Ukraine? And lastly can he please tell the American people and the people of the world, finally and once and for all why the US/NATO really need to annex Ukraine and what is the real purpose of NATO's global expansion? I am sure we would all like to know.
State Department Lies
Finally this quote dated March 4, 2014 by John Kerry: "America is proud to be more engaged than ever, and, I believe, is playing as critical a role, perhaps as critical as ever, in pursuit of peace, prosperity, and stability in various parts of the world."
Yes America is playing a critical role in "peace, prosperity and stability". America is preventing it almost everywhere it may appear. Even in their own country with its divisive politics and decimated population.
"Peace, prosperity and stability"?! Tell that to the people of Ukraine whose country the US/CIA/NATO/EU has thrown into chaos and destroyed under the pretext of a delay in signing an EU economic agreement.
Tell that also to the people of Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guam, Guatemala, Haiti, Hawaii, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Uruguay, USSR, Venezuela, Vietnam, Virgin Islands, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zaire (Congo). Countries where the US has organized coups, killed leaders and invaded. I am sure they will have a different point of view.
As for the "liar-in-chief"? Let's add "historical-revisionist-ommisionist-in-chief" to his title. He earned it.
Oh well, there you go then. Issue settled, as long as it's just a military occupation I don't know what anyone is getting worried about.
Anyhow, it's a shame that so much of this debate has been taken over by nonsense, from both sides. Because trying to make any kind of claim that Russia is attempting anything other than a land grab is just silly, but on the other side I'm not convinced the smartest response is to assume a brinkmanship position until Russia backs down. Because Russia is betting, with good reason, that the West will back down, because war is expensive and the Crimea is worthless. And to the Ukraine, the region is worth than useless - it receives vastly more federal dollars than it pays back.
I mean, if Russia wants it, let them have it. They can have Tasmania and South Australia as well.
I mean, of course sovereign borders are a serious thing and we can't just let Russia occupy a region. That makes the West look as weak as it actually is, and we can't have that. So what's needed is to begin now framing the conversation in terms of making Russia acknowledge the rights of the Crimeans and blah de blah, moving towards Crimea being an independant state (that Russia is responsible for propping up).
Anyhow, it's a shame that so much of this debate has been taken over by nonsense, from both sides. Because trying to make any kind of claim that Russia is attempting anything other than a land grab is just silly, but on the other side I'm not convinced the smartest response is to assume a brinkmanship position until Russia backs down. Because Russia is betting, with good reason, that the West will back down, because war is expensive and the Crimea is worthless. And to the Ukraine, the region is worth than useless - it receives vastly more federal dollars than it pays back.
I mean, if Russia wants it, let them have it. They can have Tasmania and South Australia as well.
I made an argument similar to yours on page 10, and it was ignored. Clearly, we should not let interesting discussion get in the way of rants about Obama, Cold War-ish rants about Russia, or generalized extensions of the US hawk/dove conflict. Indeed, the hilarious part is that many posters here seem to be roughly as concerned with Ukrainian sovereignty as Vladimir Putin.
Though, on the plus side, no one has Chamberlained the thread. Though, granted, I haven't read the last 10 pages.
I mean, of course sovereign borders are a serious thing and we can't just let Russia occupy a region. That makes the West look as weak as it actually is, and we can't have that. So what's needed is to begin now framing the conversation in terms of making Russia acknowledge the rights of the Crimeans and blah de blah, moving towards Crimea being an independant state (that Russia is responsible for propping up).
Yeah, until the Ukraine requests military aid no state has legitimate cause to intervene in a military fashion.
dogma wrote: I made an argument similar to yours on page 10, and it was ignored. Clearly, we should not let interesting discussion get in the way of rants about Obama, Cold War-ish rants about Russia, or generalized extensions of the US hawk/dove conflict. Indeed, the hilarious part is that many posters here seem to be roughly as concerned with Ukrainian sovereignty as Vladimir Putin.
Its generally a good sign when posts get ignored in threads like this. It's a strong indicator that they're sensible
Though, on the plus side, no one has Chamberlained the thread. Though, granted, I haven't read the last 10 pages.
I'll admit I've only skimmed the thread. Lot of repetition.
We also forget that Ukraine is Russia's main gateway for fueling Europe with natural gas. The tax revenues for the exports go back to Russia, and without a leader that favors Russia over the EU, that revenue decreases or ceases altogether. The same could be argued for Syria. There is an extreme economic incentive to keep Ukraine in favor of Russia... and separating the nation into east and west is probably how Putin will attempt to do it if he can't keep his puppet in power while the neo-nazi's protest him.
You know what Obama should be doing instead of even speaking about Putin's geopolitical power play? Find a way to make the wars for oil obsolete and Putin's child's play shine for what it is. It's a fools errand, that continues to collapse the credibility of the UN and have it implode upon itself. UN peace keepers can hardly even go into Syria to give aid anymore. The scary version of what Putin is doing, is accelerating the powerful and wealthy to galvanize the UN into something resembling a world power in its own right.
One domino closer to a one world power. Year by year we will get closer and these events will keep placing dominos.
Oh well, there you go then. Issue settled, as long as it's just a military occupation I don't know what anyone is getting worried about.
If there needs to be a peace keeping force to oversee elections and referenda on divisions of state it should be an international one to be as unbiased as possible, not solely by one with a strongly vested interest and that is currently waving its dick around by launching ICBM test.
Well, this is over now I should think. At least, in terms of what Russia is after. If Putin had been planning on moving over that border, he wouldn't have dispersed the army group on it. So he's decided to hedge his bets, keep the Crimea, and wait for the next opportunity to expand again.
It's quite sensible really. The West has yet to pledge anything serious in the way of support to the Ukraine, but if the tanks roll over the border, that might change. The US administration can have a dignified backout (We stopped Russia invading the Eastern Ukraine with our harsh words!), no serious sanctions will be taken towards Russia (as the takeover of Crimea was bloodless and somewhat democratic), and Putin has his new somewhat autonomous province and boosts his popularity at home. Win/win for everyone except the Ukrainians.
What's more, the EU and US have only pledged a token few billion to the Ukraine, so we won't even have to bail out the new Government particularly.
The only real potential spanner in the works now is if that idiot John Kerry gets carried away and tries to conclude some kind of military pact with the new Ukrainian government. If he gets permission to base missiles or an American army base there, or tries to sign a mutual defence pact, Russia will HAVE to invade.
easysauce wrote: It. is. not. an. invasion. Russian troops have been there for quite some time, and the defecting crimeans only add to the #.
Ukraine’s statement at the UN that 16,000 Russian soldiers have been deployed to Crimea has caused a frenzy among Western media which chooses to ignore that those troops have been there since the late 1990s in accordance with a Kiev-Moscow agreement.
Western media describes the situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as if a full-scale Russian invasion were under way, with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea” and “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia's invasion of Crimea?”
It seems they have chosen to simply ignore the fact that those Russian troops have been stationed in Crimea for over a decade.
Russia’s representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, reminded on Tuesday that the deal surrounding the Black Sea Fleet allows Russia to station a contingent of up to 25,000 troops in Ukraine. However, US and British media have mostly chosen to turn a deaf ear.
Have we not already established that they can station 25K troops at naval bases, and can transit between the bases. Actually being on the streets and performing patrols is somewhat different to what the treaty allows
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: To prevent the Ukrainian soldiers there from interfering in Crimean/Russian business. It is technically not an invasion, as an invasion consists of 'aggressively entering territory controlled by another geopolitical entity' (wow, I learn so much new words on Wikipedia ) and the Russian soldiers were already there, neither are they very agressive, as no one has been killed yet. It is more of a military occupation than an invasion.
So you're now happy to say that it is an occupation? At least that is more honest than "peacekeeping". Although the definition you give for an invasion is actually pretty relevant here as the Russians have 'aggressively entering territory controlled by another geopolitical entity' - whether you like it or not Crimea is currently a part of the Ukraine, and will continue to be a part of it until a referendum states otherwise. Surrounding military bases is a hostile act, the implicit threat is that if the soldiers stationed there step outside then there will be consequences.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: If there needs to be a peace keeping force to oversee elections and referenda on divisions of state it should be an international one to be as unbiased as possible, not solely by one with a strongly vested interest and that is currently waving its dick around by launching ICBM test.
And that I believe is the line that the US and Western powers take. That balances their obligations between keeping Ukraine's territorial sovereignty, and Crimea's right to self determination.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: Well, this is over now I should think. At least, in terms of what Russia is after. If Putin had been planning on moving over that border, he wouldn't have dispersed the army group on it. So he's decided to hedge his bets, keep the Crimea, and wait for the next opportunity to expand again.
It's quite sensible really. The West has yet to pledge anything serious in the way of support to the Ukraine, but if the tanks roll over the border, that might change. The US administration can have a dignified backout (We stopped Russia invading the Eastern Ukraine with our harsh words!), no serious sanctions will be taken towards Russia (as the takeover of Crimea was bloodless and somewhat democratic), and Putin has his new somewhat autonomous province and boosts his popularity at home. Win/win for everyone except the Ukrainians.
What's more, the EU and US have only pledged a token few billion to the Ukraine, so we won't even have to bail out the new Government particularly.
The only real potential spanner in the works now is if that idiot John Kerry gets carried away and tries to conclude some kind of military pact with the new Ukrainian government. If he gets permission to base missiles or an American army base there, or tries to sign a mutual defence pact, Russia will HAVE to invade.
I agree with you completely. Crimea becoming a part of Russia is at this stage a forgone conclusion, the response from US/EU has been lackluster at best (which may be no bad thing)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Oh well, there you go then. Issue settled, as long as it's just a military occupation I don't know what anyone is getting worried about.
Anyhow, it's a shame that so much of this debate has been taken over by nonsense, from both sides. Because trying to make any kind of claim that Russia is attempting anything other than a land grab is just silly, but on the other side I'm not convinced the smartest response is to assume a brinkmanship position until Russia backs down. Because Russia is betting, with good reason, that the West will back down, because war is expensive and the Crimea is worthless. And to the Ukraine, the region is worth than useless - it receives vastly more federal dollars than it pays back.
I mean, if Russia wants it, let them have it. They can have Tasmania and South Australia as well.
I mean, of course sovereign borders are a serious thing and we can't just let Russia occupy a region. That makes the West look as weak as it actually is, and we can't have that. So what's needed is to begin now framing the conversation in terms of making Russia acknowledge the rights of the Crimeans and blah de blah, moving towards Crimea being an independant state (that Russia is responsible for propping up).
Dear Lord, I'm agreeing with Seb, Ketara, and Walrus all in one thread
Kiev, Ukraine (CNN) -- Western powers increased pressure on Russia Wednesday to talk to the new government in Kiev, in a bid to de-escalate tensions over Russia's military intervention in Ukraine's Crimea region.
The diplomatic maneuvers come as world leaders meet in Paris for talks that were intended to focus on Lebanon. Instead, Ukraine will likely dominate the agenda.
Russian forces remain in effective control of Crimea, a Black Sea peninsula where Russia has a huge naval base, in a tense standoff with Ukrainian forces loyal to the new interim government in Kiev.
Russia has been warned that possible sanctions will be on the agenda when EU leaders meet Thursday if no progress is made in ending the high-stakes showdown.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov are due to have talks.
But UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said what happens at the EU meeting on sanctions "will be partly determined by Russia's willingness to sit down with Ukraine."
If no progress can be made on de-escalating the situation, then there will be "costs and consequences," he said.
"It will be a test this afternoon of whether Russia is prepared to sit down with Ukraine. And we will strongly recommend that they do so."
Hague's comments came after he, Kerry and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Deshchytsia discussed their next steps ahead of Lavrov's expected arrival in the French capital.
Kerry reminded Moscow that it had, like Washington and London, signed an agreement in 1994 when Ukraine agreed to give up nuclear weapons "to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine."
This means there are "very clear legal obligations that are at risk in this," he said.
The Kremlin earlier threatened to hit back if the European Union does levy sanctions against Russia.
Russian lawmakers are drafting a law that will allow Russia to confiscate assets belonging to U.S. and European companies if it faces sanctions.
Andrei Klishas, a senior lawmaker in the upper house, said the bill "would offer the president and government opportunities to defend our sovereignty from threats," state news agency RIA Novosti reported.
The tit-for-tat threats are the latest in a war of words over Russia's military intervention in Ukraine's southern Crimea region.
On Tuesday, a defiant Russian President Vladimir Putin denied Russian troops were in Crimea but reserved the right to take military action to protect the safety of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
He also slammed the interim government, which replaced ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, a Russian ally, as illegitimate.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius set out a very different point of view Wednesday as he declared that sanctions could be on the cards.
"The invasion of one country into another is contrary to all international laws. We must return to dialogue and to bear in mind that Ukraine should work with Russia and the EU," he said via Twitter.
"We cannot accept, we members of the international community, a country that invades another."
On Tuesday, Kerry accused Russia of making up reasons for intervention in Ukraine, saying "not a single piece of credible evidence supports any one of these claims."
Diplomatic efforts
NATO members are set to meet with Russia's ambassador to the alliance Wednesday, amid concerns that the crisis could spread, and Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt will meet with his Danish and Norwegian counterparts in Ukraine's capital, Kiev, he said on Twitter.
EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso announced in Brussels Wednesday the EU would would offer an aid package worth 11 billion euro to Ukraine. He said the package was "designed to assist a committed, inclusive and reforms oriented" Ukrainian government.
Barroso confirmed on Twitter that the aid package would consist "of immediate short and medium term measures offering trade, economic, technical and financial assistance to #Ukraine."
During his visit to Kiev on Tuesday, Kerry announced the United States will give Ukraine's new government a $1 billion loan guarantee. Senior U.S. administration officials told CNN this would help insulate the Ukrainian economy from the effects of reduced energy subsidies from Russia.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is trying to construct what a senior U.S. administration official characterized as an "off-ramp" for Putin by having international observers in Crimea to ensure ethnic Russians' rights aren't violated.
President Barack Obama floated this idea in a call Saturday with Putin, and he and Merkel talked about it Tuesday.
Lavrov, speaking in Madrid Wednesday morning, showed no signs of budging from the position taken by Putin a day earlier.
The Russian foreign minister said the crisis had begun when the international community failed to react to the anti-government protests that preceded Yanukovych's ouster.
"There was a military coup and the legitimate president was removed by methods which were not in the constitution or legislation," Lavrov said.
"If we are so lenient to the people who are trying to govern our neighbor, everyone must realize a bad example can be spread and there shouldn't be any double standards."
Lavrov repeated Putin's denial that Russian troops are in control in Crimea, saying that the troops in question are "self-defense" forces over whom Russia has no control.
Decisions on whether international observers should be sent into Ukraine are for leaders in the country to make, he said. He pointed out that the newly installed pro-Russian government in Crimea does not see the authorities in Kiev as legitimate.
"This problem is multi-faceted. In order to calm the situation down everyone must act in accordance with the law," he said.
Stability fears
Tuesday's diplomatic efforts bore little fruit. But some observers saw a positive sign in Putin ordering Russian troops who were on mass military exercises close to the border with Ukraine back to their bases.
No violence has yet erupted in Crimea, where Russian troops currently control military bases and key installations, but the situation remains volatile.
Andriy Parubiy, secretary of Ukraine's Security and Defense Council, told reporters in Kiev Wednesday that the situation in Crimea was more calm than it was a day earlier.
Parubiy said Russian forces had not made any new military gains on the peninsula but warned of the danger of new attempts by pro-Russian protesters to take over government buildings in eastern and southern Ukraine.
Warning shots were fired by the Russia side during a confrontation at a military base near the port of Sevastopol Tuesday with Ukrainian forces, before the situation was defused.
Iron_Captain wrote: I am 14 and that has nothing to do with it. The Topol-M's evasion capabillities have been succesfuly tested a number of times. Of course it may not work everytime, but it is probably going to work often enough to be effective.
It has lots to do with it, since unless you're a child prodigy you lack the engineering and science knowledge requisite to actually assess the performance of something like the Topol-M. It has been tested, yes, but only against Russian anti-missile equipment. Russian/American/Israeli, etc. anti-missile systems are all different, just because it works against Russian equipment, doesn't necessarily mean it will work against American equipment.
Crimean. They are Crimean soldiers. The Crimean government has set up its own armed forces and navy with Russian support. They may support Russia, but they are not Russian soldiers.
Only a few pages ago you were going on about how Crimeans are (ethnic) Russians, etc. Any way you slice it, they are still technically Russian soldiers, even if they aren't necessarily soldiers of the Russian Federation.
There really should be a minimum age to post in the OT.
Don't be mean, he's young, that doesn't mean he's automatically wrong.
I have wondered for days about those no-insignia troops. I mean, they obviously seem like Russians. It's the simplest explanation, and occam's razor and all...
On the other hand, Russia says they are simply militias with Russian equipment. If they were actually Spetznaz or whatever undercover, doesn't this seem a little... subtle for Russia? I mean, that doesn't seem to be their way, as of recent. Or ever.
Have you ever seen militiamen driving down the road in a column of BMPs? They might not be Russian troops (to clarify: troops from the Russian Federation), but they were certainly equipped by them, so my question to you is: does it really make a difference?
"Sterile" uniform
in another country
No way to confirm
No way to deny
No way to prove
No Identity
No name
No unit
you have pictures and video's but no proof
Someone in government know who it is
Cannot confirm unless you get the individual Geneva Card...then its in play.
Again, have you ever seen militiamen driving a column of APCs down a road before? All irrelevant at that point, they sure as gak aren't an 'independent' force, they are either equipped by the Russians or they are Russians.
Western media describes the situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as if a full-scale Russian invasion were under way, with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea” and “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia's invasion of Crimea?”
It seems they have chosen to simply ignore the fact that those Russian troops have been stationed in Crimea for over a decade.
The difference is that those troops were STATIONED in the Crimea, now they are DEPLOYED there, as in, they are out and about with uniforms and equipment conducting some sort of military operation.
Maybe to prevent someone stupid to start a shooting situation..I know of one Ukraine Army post under lockdown that like 15-20 south of Simperofol A mech unit More so to keep the airfield operation from being disturbed. Anyone else have the new loactions?
I hate to break it to you but I don't think Russia is really doing the whole "keep the base lifeline" thing/keep airfield operations undisturbed. Sevastopol has its own airport under Russian control at Kacha... beyond that, Sevastopol is resupplied by sea via the Russian port at Novorossiysk.
Doesn't the US need the gas itself? Also, exporting it by ship would be rather expensive, and I doubt those ships could supply enough gas to fuel a large country like Ukraine.
We have extra, but it would be pretty stupid, I agree.
We also forget that Ukraine is Russia's main gateway for fueling Europe with natural gas. The tax revenues for the exports go back to Russia, and without a leader that favors Russia over the EU, that revenue decreases or ceases altogether. The same could be argued for Syria. There is an extreme economic incentive to keep Ukraine in favor of Russia... and separating the nation into east and west is probably how Putin will attempt to do it if he can't keep his puppet in power while the neo-nazi's protest him.
See, the problem with this assumes that Ukraine has a stable economy and is capable of surviving without this sort of deal with Russia... it doesn't and it can't. Any way you slice it, Ukraine is still going to have to give Russia sweetheart deals like this in order to function at all financially (which even with those deals in place, it can't), so this argument isn't really practical.
Sounds like he was stopped and intimidated by "pro-Russia militants". Looks like they let him go but pro-russia demonstrators are still following him around.
Iron_Captain wrote: I am 14 and that has nothing to do with it. The Topol-M's evasion capabillities have been succesfuly tested a number of times. Of course it may not work everytime, but it is probably going to work often enough to be effective.
It has lots to do with it, since unless you're a child prodigy you lack the engineering and science knowledge requisite to actually assess the performance of something like the Topol-M. It has been tested, yes, but only against Russian anti-missile equipment. Russian/American/Israeli, etc. anti-missile systems are all different, just because it works against Russian equipment, doesn't necessarily mean it will work against American equipment.
Unless you are a rocket scientist, specialised in intercontinental missiles and missile interception technology you too lack the necessary knowledge, so I would say that age is still irrelevant.
Crimean. They are Crimean soldiers. The Crimean government has set up its own armed forces and navy with Russian support. They may support Russia, but they are not Russian soldiers.
Only a few pages ago you were going on about how Crimeans are (ethnic) Russians, etc. Any way you slice it, they are still technically Russian soldiers, even if they aren't necessarily soldiers of the Russian Federation.
That is due to a deficiency in the English language. Russian has two different words for 'Russian'. The first word (rossiyskiy) means a citizen of the Russian Federation and includes all the non-Russian peoples living in Russia. The second word (russkiy) purely refers to those who are ethnically Russian. So you can be Russian without being Russian. Because both words translate to 'Russian' in English, i might get them mixed up sometimes. I apologize.
But yes, those soldiers were ethnic Russians, but not soldiers of the Russian Federation, which is an important difference. They didn't wear Russian uniforms and spoke with a distinctive Crimean accent. They were Crimean soldiers equipped with Russian vehicles and weapons.
I have wondered for days about those no-insignia troops. I mean, they obviously seem like Russians. It's the simplest explanation, and occam's razor and all...
On the other hand, Russia says they are simply militias with Russian equipment. If they were actually Spetznaz or whatever undercover, doesn't this seem a little... subtle for Russia? I mean, that doesn't seem to be their way, as of recent. Or ever.
Have you ever seen militiamen driving down the road in a column of BMPs? They might not be Russian troops (to clarify: troops from the Russian Federation), but they were certainly equipped by them, so my question to you is: does it really make a difference?
Legally, yes as supplying equipment is different from directly participating in a conflict.
Western media describes the situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as if a full-scale Russian invasion were under way, with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea” and “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia's invasion of Crimea?”
It seems they have chosen to simply ignore the fact that those Russian troops have been stationed in Crimea for over a decade.
The difference is that those troops were STATIONED in the Crimea, now they are DEPLOYED there, as in, they are out and about with uniforms and equipment conducting some sort of military operation.
Still, it is technically a occupation, not an invasion. The Western media just uses the word invasion because it sounds more agressive.
Unless you are a rocket scientist, specialised in intercontinental missiles and missile interception technology you too lack the necessary knowledge, so I would say that age is still irrelevant.
You'd be surprised how often people round here have more knowledge than the occasional bod doing a wiki search. I've no idea as to chaosxomega's real life position/status/age, but I know Seaward works as a military pilot. I've got a postgraduate degree in War Studies with an offer for a PHD in Defence Studies, & Dogma registers somewhere on the academic spectrum as well (although I can't quite remember the exact field).
It started off securing two airfields and a 50 mile stretch of M17 to secure a logistic. Everything else just "escalated" into Putin favor
Crimea is gone. The local government there does not recognize the heretics in Kiev
US/EU need to really get on the ball and make a serious impact on Ukraine economy or else "He who rides a majestic white Stallione" has the eastern half of the country going for him/Russia in about six months
Ukraine lost the discount natural gas supply from Russia...whatever the petrol giant that was supplying it. Septemeber rolls around and that Siberian winter rolling in..Coldest ten days of my life and I was in a southern region...."Winter s coming" is no joke there
Only thing missing so far is the Massive Military Parades down Red Square.
Now we know how the Russian viewed us after winning the Cold War and Russia taking a lead
Unless you are a rocket scientist, specialised in intercontinental missiles and missile interception technology you too lack the necessary knowledge, so I would say that age is still irrelevant.
You'd be surprised how often people round here have more knowledge than the occasional bod doing a wiki search. I've no idea as to chaosxomega's real life position/status/age, but I know Seaward works as a military pilot. I've got a postgraduate degree in War Studies with an offer for a PHD in Defence Studies, & Dogma registers somewhere on the academic spectrum as well (although I can't quite remember the exact field).
But how old are they? I think that's the point that's trying to be made. Back yourself up on experience and/or knowledge. Don't write someone off because they're 14, write them off if they're 14 AND they make gakky posts.
Jihadin wrote: Only thing missing so far is the Massive Military Parades down Red Square.
The parade is scheduled for 9 may. Parades are always scheduled for 9 may.
As a side note: In 2010 they actually had American and British (and Ukrainian) soldiers in the parade. I don't think such a thing could happen again now
(The Ukrainians march at 29:50, the British and Americans are close behind)
Iron_Captain wrote: Unless you are a rocket scientist, specialised in intercontinental missiles and missile interception technology you too lack the necessary knowledge, so I would say that age is still irrelevant.
Well, I have a degree in Industrial Engineering, which included coursework in aerodynamics, aerostructures, and rocket propulsion amongst other things (I was originally studying aerospace engineering but switched 3/4 of the way through) and I have a degree in Joint Military Studies, which included coursework specifically about weapons systems... so, while I might not be a subject matter expert, I am FAR more knowledgeable than you are about this.
That is due to a deficiency in the English language. Russian has two different words for 'Russian'. The first word (rossiyskiy) means a citizen of the Russian Federation and includes all the non-Russian peoples living in Russia. The second word (russkiy) purely refers to those who are ethnically Russian. So you can be Russian without being Russian. Because both words translate to 'Russian' in English, i might get them mixed up sometimes. I apologize.
And I learned something new today.
I've got a postgraduate degree in War Studies with an offer for a PHD in Defence Studies, & Dogma registers somewhere on the academic spectrum as well (although I can't quite remember the exact field).
UPDATE* estonian foreign minister confirms that leaked conversation about kiev sniper is authentic.
from the tape below,
“And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [Bogomolets] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,” the Estonian FM stressed.
Ashton reacted to the information by saying: “Well, yeah…that’s, that’s terrible.”
“So that she then also showed me some photos she said that as a medical doctor she can say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened,” Paet said.
Olga Bogomolets was the main doctor for the Maidan mobile clinic when protests turned violent in Kiev. She treated the gravely injured and helped organized their transportation to neighboring countries, who had expressed a willingness to treat those with severe wounds. From the outset, Olga blamed the injuries and deaths on snipers. She turned down the position of Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine for Humanitarian Affairs offered by the coup-appointed regime.
“There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition,” Urmas Paet said during the conversation.
“I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh,” Ashton answered.
The call took place after Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet visited Kiev on February 25, following the peak of clashes between the pro-EU protesters and security forces in the Ukrainian capital.
Paet also recalled his conversation with a doctor who treated those shot by snipers in Kiev. She said that both protesters and police were shot at by the same people.
So, the question is, were they hired by a faction within the protesters, or did Mr. Putin see an opportunity to cause some trouble and insert some spetsnaz for covert operations?
chaos0xomega wrote: So, the question is, were they hired by a faction within the protesters, or did Mr. Putin see an opportunity to cause some trouble and insert some spetsnaz for covert operations?
I would guess that Pravyi Sektor is behind it. It would be very much like them to snipe some people. There would be little point for Putin to send in Spetsnaz at that there, considering the risk attached to that and the fact that Yanukovich's guys were already on the job.
chaos0xomega wrote: So, the question is, were they hired by a faction within the protesters, or did Mr. Putin see an opportunity to cause some trouble and insert some spetsnaz for covert operations?
Couldn't have been us? We couldn't have seen it as a chance to get a Russian loyal out of office? My mind went to Russia at first too but after a second I realized that the US is more likely to be involved than anybody.
chaos0xomega wrote: So, the question is, were they hired by a faction within the protesters, or did Mr. Putin see an opportunity to cause some trouble and insert some spetsnaz for covert operations?
I would guess that Pravyi Sektor is behind it. It would be very much like them to snipe some people. There would be little point for Putin to send in Spetsnaz at that there, considering the risk attached to that and the fact that Yanukovich's guys were already on the job.
Yeah, because the former KGB agent would never engage in something like a false flag operation or anything...
Jihadin wrote: Watch it Scruffy..the Crash Axe aka Pilot Adjustment tool is within reach..
An MTP is the crew dog's best friend in the pilot world. You know that, I know that, and besides, what are you gonna do? Split my skull in the middle of a max power check?
Jihadin wrote: Watch it Scruffy..the Crash Axe aka Pilot Adjustment tool is within reach..
An MTP is the crew dog's best friend in the pilot world. You know that, I know that, and besides, what are you gonna do? Split my skull in the middle of a max power check?
I did use to get squirted by a water bottle when I was a new PI whenever the crew chief didn't like what I was doing (boost off). Just made CW3 yesterday actually. it's kind of crazy. When I joined Dakka (way back in 2003) I was known as Pvt_Scruffy. Changed my name when I made SGT. Realized it was stupid to keep changing my name every time I got promoted.
Whoa...he's in Crimea which pretty much declared for Putin/Russia. Not even recognizing the new government in Kiev..and we're escalating by moving 6 F-15's and a KC135 tanker....he stops flow of natural gas into Ukraine and Europe...50% Ukraine and 30% Europe usage...wonder how loud the screaming be to pull back those seven aircrafts...Holy Crap...Putin going to de escalate by limiting the flow of natural gas..
easysauce wrote: UPDATE* estonian foreign minister confirms that leaked conversation about kiev sniper is authentic.
from the tape below,
“And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [Bogomolets] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,” the Estonian FM stressed.
Ashton reacted to the information by saying: “Well, yeah…that’s, that’s terrible.”
“So that she then also showed me some photos she said that as a medical doctor she can say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened,” Paet said.
Olga Bogomolets was the main doctor for the Maidan mobile clinic when protests turned violent in Kiev. She treated the gravely injured and helped organized their transportation to neighboring countries, who had expressed a willingness to treat those with severe wounds. From the outset, Olga blamed the injuries and deaths on snipers. She turned down the position of Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine for Humanitarian Affairs offered by the coup-appointed regime.
“There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition,” Urmas Paet said during the conversation.
“I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh,” Ashton answered.
The call took place after Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet visited Kiev on February 25, following the peak of clashes between the pro-EU protesters and security forces in the Ukrainian capital.
Paet also recalled his conversation with a doctor who treated those shot by snipers in Kiev. She said that both protesters and police were shot at by the same people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEgJ0oo3OA8
So it was the same type of bullet. Does that mean the same caliber? A metallurgical match? Similar striation on the bullets from their journey down the barrel? The statement is too vague for my liking.
If it is the same caliber that really does not mean a lot. The Russians and Ukrainians (all factions) use the same firearms for the most part, and I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have similar doctrines concerning marksmanship.
chaos0xomega wrote: So, the question is, were they hired by a faction within the protesters, or did Mr. Putin see an opportunity to cause some trouble and insert some spetsnaz for covert operations?
I would guess that Pravyi Sektor is behind it. It would be very much like them to snipe some people. There would be little point for Putin to send in Spetsnaz at that there, considering the risk attached to that and the fact that Yanukovich's guys were already on the job.
Yeah, because the former KGB agent would never engage in something like a false flag operation or anything...
No, Putin loves that kind of cloak and dagger work, he is surely not afraid to set up false flag operations, but I simply don't see what Putin would gain here. It makes more sense that Pravyi Sektor was behind it. The Estonian minister said that the coalition was behind it and the new regime is unwilling to investigate it, which is an obvious sign. If there would've been even the slightest suspicion of Russian involvement, I am sure they'd investigate the hell out of it.
Also, since we are accusing Putin, it could just as well have been the US, they are not afraid of false flag operations either.
yeah... the coalition is impeding the investigation, not really a sign of innocence,
and putin had nothing to gain by it,
its more the rash kind of tactic that Id expect considering some of the leaders of this revolution.
from cnn http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/opinion/stanley-hillary-clinton-hitler/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 "The Russians have asserted, quite accurately, that the revolution that overthrew a pro-Russian, democratically elected leader has resulted in the elevation of Russophobe fascists into key government positions. For example, the new secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council is Andriy Parubiy -- co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (SNPU).
Another creator of the SNPU is Oleh Tyahnybok, a high-profile leader of the Kiev protests who has blamed Ukraine's problems on a Jewish conspiracy run out of Moscow. Ukraine's new deputy secretary of national security is Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector group, which regards Tyahnybok as a soft liberal and which flies the old flag of the Ukrainian Nazi collaborators at its rallies.``
Another member of state-funded Russia Today made waves on Wednesday -- not by standing behind Moscow, as the news network is wont to do, but by bucking it.
From the anchor chair, Liz Wahl closed a show -- as seen in video which she later tweeted -- talking about the "ethical and moral challenges" she faces working for Russia Today, also known as RT.
She spoke of being from a family who fled to America to escape Soviet forces during the 1956 Hungarian revolution, being the daughter of a U.S. military veteran and being the partner of a physician who works at a U.S. military base.
"And that is why, personally, I cannot be part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin," Wahl said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"I'm proud to be an American and believe in disseminating the truth," she added. "And that is why, after this newscast, I'm resigning."
Not that she would've necessarily lasted much longer, after her comments. In a statement, RT said, "When a journalist disagrees with the editorial position of his or her organization, the usual course of action is to address those grievances with the editor, and, if they cannot be resolved, to quit like a professional."
"But when someone makes a big public show of a personal decision, it is nothing more than a self-promotional stunt," said the network.
Talking Wednesday night to CNN's Anderson Cooper, Wahl said the idea she did this "for personal gain ... couldn't be farther from the truth." She said she'd "hesitated to speak on this for a while for fear of repercussion," but decided to act now based on her belief "the propagandist nature of RT (had come) out in full force" over its coverage of the Ukraine crisis.
"RT is not about the truth; it's about promoting a Putinist agenda," Wahl told CNN. "And I can tell you firsthand, it's about bashing America."
Wahl, who characterizes herself as a Filipina-Hungarian-American and RT America correspondent on her Twitter feed, became the second personality from Russia Today to defiantly, publicly challenge the government that effectively signs their paychecks.
Her resignation announcement didn't explicitly mention the crisis in Ukraine, though she mentioned it later in her CNN interview. Backed by Western diplomats, officials in that Eastern European nation claim that Russian troops have violated their sovereignty by effectively invading the Crimean peninsula.
Putin, meanwhile, has denied sending any more of his country's troops into the country, or that any of the up to 25,000 troops who are stationed there have played any part in the standoff, according to the state-run RIA Novosti news agency.
But that situation is central to RT's coverage, which leans toward Moscow's point of view. On Wednesday, for instance, its website featured stories with headlines such as "Kiev snipers hired by Maidan leaders," "'Cold War stereotypes': Russia condemns NATO plan" and "Questions on Ukraine the West chooses not to answer."
Two days ago, another RT personality -- Abby Martin -- referred directly to "Russia's military occupation of Crimea" while seemingly going off this pro-Russia script at the end of her "Breaking the Set" program.
"I can't stress enough how strongly I am against any state intervention in a sovereign nation's affairs," said Martin, a California native who, like Wahl, is based in Washington. "What Russia did is wrong."
While Martin refused to "defend military aggression," she didn't leave RT.
In fact, she returned to the air the following night and wasn't even reprimanded, according to the network. As RT noted in a statement, Martin called it "kind of a sad commentary that" -- while she's regularly spoken out against military intervention -- "my only criticism of Russia's actions was picked up" by the media.
On Wednesday night, Wahl said she'd recently become upset over portions of one of her interviews being cut, what she called a "very dangerous" segment on neo-Nazi elements among the Ukrainian opposition and "very, very loaded" questions being planted by RT's management.
"I felt that I could no longer work here and go on television and tell the American people that this is what's happening and have it pose as news," Wahl said. "It's something that I don't feel comfortable with."
Both Wahl and Martin's remarks shined a spotlight on what exactly RT is -- in terms of its purpose and its viewpoint, especially for its U.S.-based, English-language programming.
The Russian foreign ministry's website points to the network as a top media source. And the Columbia Journalism Review says it is best "known as an extension of former President Vladimir Putin's confrontational foreign policy."
In its statement on Martin, the network said that "RT journalists and hosts are free to express their own opinions."
What makes Martin's comments different from those of Wahl, according to RT, is that the former "spoke in the context of her own talk show, to the viewers who have been tuning in for years to hear her opinions on current events, the opinions that most media did not care about until two days ago."
"For years, Ms. Martin, has been speaking out against U.S. military intervention only to be ignored by the mainstream news outlets," RT added. "But with that one comment, branded as an act of defiance, she became an overnight sensation."
The network then seemed to suggest that Wahl -- who cheered Martin as "my girl" after her commentary -- paid attention to all the hoopla.
"It is a tempting example to follow," RT said.
Wahl said many who do follow the lead of network management -- the senior members of which are in Moscow -- are young, "inexperienced" and "eager to please" their bosses.
"Eventually, you learn what management likes, what management dislikes," she said. "... They kind of make sure the narrative is delivered in one way or another."
I’d also raise our gasoline tax, put in place a carbon tax and a national renewable energy portfolio standard — all of which would also help lower the global oil price (and make us stronger, with cleaner air, less oil dependence and more innovation). You want to frighten Putin? Just announce those steps.
Oh well, there you go then. Issue settled, as long as it's just a military occupation I don't know what anyone is getting worried about.
If there needs to be a peace keeping force to oversee elections and referenda on divisions of state it should be an international one to be as unbiased as possible, not solely by one with a strongly vested interest and that is currently waving its dick around by launching ICBM test.
Maybe my sarcasm wasn't as clear as I'd assumed, but I was basically just making fun of an attempt to distinguish between an invasion and a military occupation.
But yes, I agree that for any occupation force to be legitimate, it must be there at the request of both the international community and the nation that controls the region. What Russia has done is as legitimate as if the US troops in Darwin took over the town.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: Well, this is over now I should think. At least, in terms of what Russia is after. If Putin had been planning on moving over that border, he wouldn't have dispersed the army group on it. So he's decided to hedge his bets, keep the Crimea, and wait for the next opportunity to expand again.
It's quite sensible really. The West has yet to pledge anything serious in the way of support to the Ukraine, but if the tanks roll over the border, that might change. The US administration can have a dignified backout (We stopped Russia invading the Eastern Ukraine with our harsh words!), no serious sanctions will be taken towards Russia (as the takeover of Crimea was bloodless and somewhat democratic), and Putin has his new somewhat autonomous province and boosts his popularity at home. Win/win for everyone except the Ukrainians.
The Ukraine has been swinging back and forth on joining NATO for a long time now, afraid of antagonising Russia (and the pro-Russia elements within the country). Guess what this move is going to do?
So it doesn't make any sense to see this move by Russia as step one on a series of occupations. Instead, it's reflective of Russia losing power and influence - unable to keep their man as president, Russia is instead doing what it must to secure their naval base.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Wouldn't it be funny is Sanction is about to be imposed on Russia. That Putin goes ahead and seize all assets of the US/EU first
Putin and his friends have a lot more money dropped in to investments in the West than anyone has invested in Russia. The story of Russia post USSR is one of wealth filtering up to the oligarchs, and then being squirreled away overseas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Then Putin will call that bluff and lower the flow of natural gas to eastern and western Europe Whembly
Yep, that's exactly what prevents the West taking serious action against Russia about this.
Does anyone else remember when the pipeline was put in, and lots of people made lots of noise about it economically hardwiring the West to a regime that was still despotic. Because I remember reading that at the time and thinking it was a good point, but that there was also a lot to be said for closer economic ties being used to improve relations and grow both economies, so I ended up undecided. Well I guess that debate is well and truly settled now.
Ketara wrote: Well, this is over now I should think. At least, in terms of what Russia is after. If Putin had been planning on moving over that border, he wouldn't have dispersed the army group on it. So he's decided to hedge his bets, keep the Crimea, and wait for the next opportunity to expand again.
It's quite sensible really. The West has yet to pledge anything serious in the way of support to the Ukraine, but if the tanks roll over the border, that might change. The US administration can have a dignified backout (We stopped Russia invading the Eastern Ukraine with our harsh words!), no serious sanctions will be taken towards Russia (as the takeover of Crimea was bloodless and somewhat democratic), and Putin has his new somewhat autonomous province and boosts his popularity at home. Win/win for everyone except the Ukrainians.
The Ukraine has been swinging back and forth on joining NATO for a long time now, afraid of antagonising Russia (and the pro-Russia elements within the country). Guess what this move is going to do?
So it doesn't make any sense to see this move by Russia as step one on a series of occupations. Instead, it's reflective of Russia losing power and influence - unable to keep their man as president, Russia is instead doing what it must to secure their naval base.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Putin's been sitting in his evil genius chair stroking fluffy white cats planning world domination.
No. The man's an opportunist. He notes political turmoil/instability along his borders, plans very carefully, and then makes a net gain for Russian territory/influence. He's not foolish enough to roll the tanks in just because he likes the look of a place, he knows that would only have ultimately negative long term consequences for him, his economy, and his international relations. But snipping off little pieces of land to create new buffer states here and there? If he doesn't judge the risk too great, he'll take it.
The Eastern Ukraine was an extra prize to be seized if it looked like he could do it without causing too many problems. But at the same time, it was an objective that could be quickly abandoned/surrendered if necessary to help consolidate earlier gains (namely, the Crimea). The Russian naval base was the paramount objective, as you yourself stated.
Ketara wrote: You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Putin's been sitting in his evil genius chair stroking fluffy white cats planning world domination.
Now that you say it, he does sorta look like a Bond villain, doesn't he?
Ketara wrote: The Eastern Ukraine was an extra prize to be seized if it looked like he could do it without causing too many problems. But at the same time, it was an objective that could be quickly abandoned/surrendered if necessary to help consolidate earlier gains (namely, the Crimea). The Russian naval base was the paramount objective, as you yourself stated.
Agreed. But I think the main point to emphasise is that this is not so much opportunism from Putin, as the end of Russia's ability to exert strong political influence on the Ukraine, leading it to exert direct force to make sure the most basic of its objectives are maintained.
Ketara wrote: The Eastern Ukraine was an extra prize to be seized if it looked like he could do it without causing too many problems. But at the same time, it was an objective that could be quickly abandoned/surrendered if necessary to help consolidate earlier gains (namely, the Crimea). The Russian naval base was the paramount objective, as you yourself stated.
Agreed. But I think the main point to emphasise is that this is not so much opportunism from Putin, as the end of Russia's ability to exert strong political influence on the Ukraine, leading it to exert direct force to make sure the most basic of its objectives are maintained.
Not so much opportunism as necessity.
That depends on your perspective. Global politics have a habit of flipping on their head every thirty years or so. The wheel turns, the historical dialectic comes into play, and systems and influences shuffle back and forth. I'm not convinced that this is necessarily, 'the end of of Russia's political influence' on Ukraine, regardless of the Crimea. It should be remembered that Yanukovych was legally elected into power, and regardless of whether or not he was able to keep that power, the electoral base which put him there still exists, and still has an exceedingly strong pro-Russian basis.
I would not be surprised if, for example, the US and EU made lots of very nice speeches about supporting the Ukraine economically over the next week, and then only followed through with the most token support. Things like that then have a habit of leading to a public opinion/influence backlash as people feel betrayed, leaving a gap for Mr Putin to step back in. I'm not predicting that this will happen mind you, but merely emphasising how things like 'influence' are very intangible and shift regularly if one takes a mid to long term view.
I know that the Chinese tend to take a mid-long term approach to their military, social, and economic planning for example. Culturally, they find the way the West rushes into things quite astonishing, and they tend to feel that we lack stability and resolve to see things through hard times. The Russians are not quite as culturally indoctrinated in that approach as the Chinese, but they tend to view things from a slightly longer framework of time than the West (the joys of pervasive Marxism and long cold winter nights?). As such, I'm more likely to ascribe my former viewpoint to Putin than yours, I'm afraid.
'Tis but a matter of opinion though. Time will tell.
A referendum on the status of Crimea will be held March 16, the region’s deputy prime minister announced. Crimeans will be asked to decide if the autonomous republic stays part of Ukraine or joins Russia.
"The referendum will take place March 16," said the autonomous region’s First Deputy-Premier Rustam Temirgaliev, according to ITAR-TASS.
The new date is two weeks earlier than the one announced last week.
There will be two questions on the ballots.
“The first one: Are you in favor of Crimea becoming a constituent territory of the Russian Federation. The second one: Are you in favor of restoring Crimea’s 1992 constitution,” Temirgaliev said.
According to the 1992 constitution, the autonomous republic is part of Ukraine but has relations with Kiev, defined on the basis of mutual agreements.
Sevastopol residents will take part in the referendum, despite the city enjoying a special status and not officially being a part of Crimea, according to Sergey Shuvainikov, a Crimean MP.
“We will give Sevastopol an opportunity to have its say,” he said, as cited by RIA Novosti.
Meanwhile the Crimean MPs have unanimously voted for the region to become a part of Russia.
"To become part of the Russian Federation as its constituent territory,” says the text of the Crimean parliament’s statement, obtained by RIA Novosti.
When the decision was announced to the people outside the parliament building, they welcomed the news with cheers and screams of “Russia!”
There are currently several thousand people in front of the parliament building, according to ITAR-TASS.
The parliament has also made a decision to ask the Russian leadership to “launch the procedure of Crimea becoming part of Russia.”
Facts you need to know about Crimea and why it is in turmoil
More than half the Crimean population are Russian and use only this language for their communication.
Crimean authorities denounced the self-proclaimed government in Kiev and declared that all Ukrainian law enforcement and military deployed in the peninsula must take orders from them. The majority of troops in Crimea switched sides in favor of the local authorities.
A government minister in Kiev said they believe it would be unconstitutional for Crimea to join Russia.
Ukraine's interim Economy Minister Pavlo Sheremeta, speaking in Kiev soon after the announcement was made, said: "We're not working out what to do if Crimea joins the Russian Federation because we believe it's unconstitutional."
This keeps cracking me up. Overthrowing the current Government is as unconstitutional as it gets, but apparently the Kiev lot still have the right to lecture other people on it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The question is, what happens if they actually vote to stay in Ukraine?
It would be a serious egg-on-face moment for Putin from a public relations staind point.
But so long as the Crimean port is open for his fleet, I highly doubt he would give two flying Thunderhawks about the matter so long as his strategic objective is secured.
A Russia Today anchor quit live on air Wednesday, declaring she cannot work for a station that “whitewashes the actions of Vladimir Putin.”
So, someone who identifies as an American with strong ties to the American military (now) refuses to take money from a Russian news organization?
Shocking.
They should have hired a proper Slavic girl instead. Slavic girls are more loyal and much prettier to look at. RT posted a reaction to it here: http://rt.com/usa/rt-reacts-liz-wahl-042/
The Eastern Ukraine was an extra prize to be seized if it looked like he could do it without causing too many problems. But at the same time, it was an objective that could be quickly abandoned/surrendered if necessary to help consolidate earlier gains (namely, the Crimea). The Russian naval base was the paramount objective, as you yourself stated.
It is also strategically sound not to seize the Eastern Ukraine. If he were to do so, the remainder of the Ukraine would undoubtely join NATO at some point. Putin does not want more NATO states on his borders. Now if half of the Ukraine is still pro-Russian, the Ukrainian regime will still be unable to join NATO or EU, unless they want to have half their country to revolt.
If the eastern half split from the western half of Ukraine then it'll be a buffer state. Western Ukraine be in all soup sandwich and US/EU asset be tied up and a on apossible "2nd Greece" situation.
Jihadin wrote: If the eastern half split from the western half of Ukraine then it'll be a buffer state. Western Ukraine be in all soup sandwich and US/EU asset be tied up and a on apossible "2nd Greece" situation.
This is the most likely scenario actually. March 16 Crimea goes Commie, er Russian. The other border areas will follow too, either this year or 2016.
If I were Putin, I would.
It should be remembered that Yanukovych was legally elected into power, and regardless of whether or not he was able to keep that power
That assumes a vote actually took place rather than a fake vote and backdoor deals where the powers that be discussed who 'won' the election before hand. Election in most of the world is just a fancy word for public opinion poll (Iran, Venezuala, Russia, most Baltic states, etc etc)
The question is, what happens if they actually vote to stay in Ukraine?
They very mell might, but we can rest assurd that if things follow their usual course joining Russia will win by a landslide while everyone ion Crimea goes to the nearest bar and complains about all the losers outside who voted to join Russia missing that the entire neighborhood is probably saying the same thing.
Iron_Captain wrote: They should have hired a proper Slavic girl instead. Slavic girls are more loyal and much prettier to look at
It's somewhat depressing to see someone post that at 14.
Agreed.
Why? It may have come out wrong. I meant loyalty to Moscow. A Slavic, Russian girl would've not been as likely to turn her back on RT over disagreements with Russian policies and would thus have been a better choice. The second part was a generalisation and matter of personal preference.
I would've thought that someone of your age would be more open minded, though I really shouldn't be surprised considering your other comments in this thread.
Corpsesarefun wrote: I would've thought that someone of your age would be more open minded, though I really shouldn't be surprised considering your other comments in this thread.
You're surprised that the person who's only source thus far has been Russia Today, who complained about the bias in western media, and who has defended the invasion as merely an "occupation", wants all his news delivered by someone loyal to Moscow?
Iron_Captain wrote: They should have hired a proper Slavic girl instead. Slavic girls are more loyal and much prettier to look at
It's somewhat depressing to see someone post that at 14.
Agreed.
Why? It may have come out wrong. I meant loyalty to Moscow. A Slavic, Russian girl would've not been as likely to turn her back on RT over disagreements with Russian policies and would thus have been a better choice. The second part was a generalisation and matter of personal preference.
Well by Slavic she could have been Polish. That would have turned out way more interestingly.
Corpsesarefun wrote: I would've thought that someone of your age would be more open minded, though I really shouldn't be surprised considering your other comments in this thread.
You're surprised that the person who's only source thus far has been Russia Today, who complained about the bias in western media, and who has defended the invasion as merely an "occupation", wants all his news delivered by someone loyal to Moscow?
It is probably all the Russian propaganda I have been exposed to yes . Russia is not known for being an open-minded country, sorry to dissapoint you.
I am probably (hopefully) much more open-minded than most Russians though, considering the fact that I have lived in the West for quite some time now and also get news from other sources (RT is much more open and liberal than most Russian media btw). I just happen to actually support Putin on many points. Is that so wrong?
And if you can't see the bias in the Western media, than you are really not open-minded yourself. The West doesn't throw any less propaganda around than Russia does.
Corpsesarefun wrote: I would've thought that someone of your age would be more open minded, though I really shouldn't be surprised considering your other comments in this thread.
He is a teenage son of expatriates, probably first generation if we go by his comments, so his general view of the world is coloured by this personal reality and he just doesn't have the mental maturity to be able to distinguish truth from propaganda.
I see allot of young people like him over here, only here they are the sons of African immigrants. They grow to idolize their home country because not having had any real contact with the reasons that forced their parents to leave it they think that it is just like the place where they currently live, only "better" in some vague way.
Basically I have no idea why people like chaos0xomega or Ketara are giving any credence to his posts, he is just way too young to be discussing something like this in any meaningful way.
I think you guys should maybe stop mentioning that guys age, and just talk about his arguments instead.
Ketara wrote: I would not be surprised if, for example, the US and EU made lots of very nice speeches about supporting the Ukraine economically over the next week, and then only followed through with the most token support. Things like that then have a habit of leading to a public opinion/influence backlash as people feel betrayed, leaving a gap for Mr Putin to step back in.
I can't speak for the EU, but the last time the US abandoned support for an ally we backed against the Soviets, it ultimately worked out quite poorly for us.
I hope we employ no half-measures this time, if it comes to that.
Iron_Captain wrote: It is probably all the Russian propaganda I have been exposed to yes . Russia is not known for being an open-minded country, sorry to dissapoint you.
I am probably (hopefully) much more open-minded than most Russians though, considering the fact that I have lived in the West for quite some time now and also get news from other sources (RT is much more open and liberal than most Russian media btw). I just happen to actually support Putin on many points. Is that so wrong?
And if you can't see the bias in the Western media, than you are really not open-minded yourself. The West doesn't throw any less propaganda around than Russia does.
I'll let you get back to me with quotes saying that western media is without bias.
More liberal, yet you still want your news from a Putin loyalist...... I hope you can see the possible tension between those two statements.
Iron_Captain wrote: Why? It may have come out wrong. I meant loyalty to Moscow. A Slavic, Russian girl would've not been as likely to turn her back on RT over disagreements with Russian policies and would thus have been a better choice.
The problem there is finding one who can actually read
Iron_Captain wrote: Why? It may have come out wrong. I meant loyalty to Moscow. A Slavic, Russian girl would've not been as likely to turn her back on RT over disagreements with Russian policies and would thus have been a better choice. The second part was a generalisation and matter of personal preference.
A Russian woman*, perhaps. But Slavic? No.
*Italicization because I'm seeing Slavic misogyny creep into your argument.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: More liberal, yet you still want your news from a Putin loyalist...... I hope you can see the possible tension between those two statements.
Putin is not liberal? Than you have never seen the other political parties in Russia. Apart from 'A Just Russia' a socialist party (and the one I would vote for if I were allowed to), the only significant parties are the old Communist Party (which has an extremely catchy theme song that makes we want to vote for them ), Putin's conservative United Russia ( which has an absolute majority) and of the course the best of them all, the Russian Liberal Democratic party. Yes, Russia actually has a liberal democratic party!
This party, led by the (in)famous Zhirinovsky, wants to collectivise agriculture, reconquer the territory of the old Russian Empire and wants to create an 'ethnically pure' Greater Russia under an authoritarian leadership. It also wants to supply nukes to Iran and use the Baltic States as a dumping spot for nuclear waste.
Yay for Russian liberalism and democracy!
So really, Putin is actually quite nice and liberal by Russian standards.
In any case, it is unfortunate that my comment has been taken a lot more serious than I had anticipated, it was a bit of a joke really.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: More liberal, yet you still want your news from a Putin loyalist...... I hope you can see the possible tension between those two statements.
Putin is not liberal? Than you have never seen the other political parties in Russia. Apart from 'A Just Russia' a socialist party (and the one I would vote for if I were allowed to), the only significant parties are the old Communist Party (which has an extremely catchy theme song that makes we want to vote for them ), Putin's conservative United Russia ( which has an absolute majority) and of the course the best of them all, the Russian Liberal Democratic party. Yes, Russia actually has a liberal democratic party!
This party, led by the (in)famous Zhirinovsky, wants to collectivise agriculture, reconquer the territory of the old Russian Empire and wants to create an 'ethnically pure' Greater Russia under an authoritarian leadership. It also wants to supply nukes to Iran and use the Baltic States as a dumping spot for nuclear waste.
Yay for Russian liberalism and democracy!
So really, Putin is actually quite nice and liberal by Russian standards.
In any case, it is unfortunate that my comment has been taken a lot more serious than I had anticipated, it was a bit of a joke really.
I'm amazed that you managed to take my statement about the relative liberal leanings of Russian media, and somehow get that I was saying that Putin was not liberal.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I'm amazed that you managed to take my statement about the relative liberal leanings of Russian media, and somehow get that I was saying that Putin was not liberal.
I may have understood you wrong than, I thought you meant that Putin or Putin loyalists could not be liberal.
Also, I did not say anywhere that I wanted the news to be delivered by someone loyal to Putin. I meant that it would've been a better choice for RT (since RT is supposed to be loyal to Putin) as they would not have to go through the mess of someone resigning on television.
The Russian Navy Ochakov Kara-class cruiser was sunk last night to block the Ukrainian Navy ships deployed in Novoozerne, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence said in a press release today.
The information was confirmed by the Ukrainian military of the South Naval Base who were observing the operation.
The RF ships blocking the Ukrainian ships in Donuzlav lake in the Crimea left the zone at 23.30 p.m. (March 5).
Then, the Russian military towed their ship Ochakov to the navigating channel and filled her with water. Then, there was an explosion. The depth in this area is 9-11 m, it is possible now to observe the upper part of the ship. Therefore, the ships cannot leave the Donuzlav lake. It is needed a lot of time and costs to refloat this ship, according to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense
Ochakov was stationed in the Russian Black Sea Fleet as of 2011, however it has not been operational since the early 2000.
In 1961 the Donuzlav Lake was connected to the Black Sea by inlet, in fact turning the lake into the bay of the Black Sea. It is the largest lake of Donuzlav Tarhankut group of lakes and the deepest lake in the Crimea and in Europe.
Interestingly, Russia has done this exact thing before (blocking a narrow inlet with ships). In WWII (I think, might have been the earlier Russo-Japanese war) they blocked entry into Vladivostok's harbor by sinking their own ships.
Probably the best way to blockade the area with minimal risk of creating a military incident. No standoffs between ships, no boarding actions, just "ships in the way...".
Iron_Captain wrote: I may have understood you wrong than, I thought you meant that Putin or Putin loyalists could not be liberal.
Also, I did not say anywhere that I wanted the news to be delivered by someone loyal to Putin. I meant that it would've been a better choice for RT (since RT is supposed to be loyal to Putin) as they would not have to go through the mess of someone resigning on television.
Yeah, about that......
Iron_Captain wrote: They should have hired a proper Slavic girl instead. Slavic girls are more loyal and much prettier to look at
Iron_Captain wrote: Why? It may have come out wrong. I meant loyalty to Moscow. A Slavic, Russian girl would've not been as likely to turn her back on RT over disagreements with Russian policies and would thus have been a better choice. The second part was a generalisation and matter of personal preference.
Iron_Captain wrote: I may have understood you wrong than, I thought you meant that Putin or Putin loyalists could not be liberal. Also, I did not say anywhere that I wanted the news to be delivered by someone loyal to Putin. I meant that it would've been a better choice for RT (since RT is supposed to be loyal to Putin) as they would not have to go through the mess of someone resigning on television.
Yeah, about that......
Iron_Captain wrote: They should have hired a proper Slavic girl instead. Slavic girls are more loyal and much prettier to look at
Iron_Captain wrote: Why? It may have come out wrong. I meant loyalty to Moscow. A Slavic, Russian girl would've not been as likely to turn her back on RT over disagreements with Russian policies and would thus have been a better choice. The second part was a generalisation and matter of personal preference.
You didn't understand my comment it seems. I said (or at least tried to say) it would've been better to hire someone loyal to Moscow from RT's point of view, since they wouldn't have had this mess now. I personally couldn't care less about the whole thing or who reads the news.
Iron_Captain wrote: They should have hired a proper Slavic girl instead. Slavic girls are more loyal and much prettier to look at
Iron_Captain wrote: Why? It may have come out wrong. I meant loyalty to Moscow. A Slavic, Russian girl would've not been as likely to turn her back on RT over disagreements with Russian policies and would thus have been a better choice. The second part was a generalisation and matter of personal preference.
Iron_Captain wrote: You didn't understand my comment it seems. I said (or at least tried to say) it would've been better to hire someone loyal to Moscow from RT's point of view, since they wouldn't have had this mess now. I personally couldn't care less about the whole thing or who reads the news.
Perhaps you wrote that "from RT's point of view" bit in invisible text as I'm afraid I can't see it.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but typically the lease doesn't permit sinking ships in channels into common ports and harbors.
Am I the only one who is starting to admire this guy's iron? He would be a more worthy opponent for Nixon or Reagan than the post Bush I lot.
"Soldiers deserve soldiers, sir"
- Kurt Russell, The Soldier
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You mean you don't care so long as they are pretty, and loyal.
Yes, and she should also have a burning hatred for the US and slander and yell at the deceitful, weak liberast West at every opportunity and end each news report with 'Da zdravstvuyet tovarishch Putin!'
Really, I am not even going to respond seriously to that. I never said anything like that. I may not been 100% clear with my first (joking) comment, but I should have clarified it by now. Shall we now get on topic again?
Of course not. They are just dropping that ship there to provide a new refuge for plant and animal life, to create a new man made reef so that Nature may flourish once more.
They are just being Green.
chrikey thats a long line of people supporting neo-nazism!
