Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I disagree. First Tartus, and now Sevastopol. Plenty of leverage there, just no commitment to exploiting it.

 Seaward wrote:
I disagree. First Tartus, and now Sevastopol. Plenty of leverage there, just no commitment to exploiting it.

Not following. Expound, please?

 Ketara wrote:
Not following. Expound, please?

Putin may not be particularly fearful of American economic/diplomatic/military might, but he does deeply care about those two naval ports. Tartus definitely could have been put in jeopardy if our response to Syria hadn't essentially been, "If you like your red line, you can keep your red line." A strong hand with Tartus would have given Putin a lot more to think about if it looked like we were considering doing the same with Sevastopol. Instead, he knows the absolute most Obama will do is get up there in front of cameras and essentially lie for a while about our commitment to whatever before striking his tent and going home and telling us all we misunderstood him.

I'm still not following. What are you saying America should have done about Tartus? Blockaded it? Boarded Russian ships? Lodged a few cruise missiles in the place? I mean, what action could Obama have taken to put the Russian presence in Tartus 'in jeopardy' that wouldn't essentially be an act of war?

 Ketara wrote:
I'm still not following. What are you saying America should have done about Tartus? Blockaded it? Boarded Russian ships? Lodged a few cruise missiles in the place? I mean, what action could Obama have taken to put the Russian presence in Tartus 'in jeopardy' that wouldn't essentially be an act of war?

Pledge air support to the rebels in return for their agreement to not renew the lease once they took power, off the top of my head.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I'm still not following. What are you saying America should have done about Tartus? Blockaded it? Boarded Russian ships? Lodged a few cruise missiles in the place? I mean, what action could Obama have taken to put the Russian presence in Tartus 'in jeopardy' that wouldn't essentially be an act of war?

Pledge air support to the rebels in return for their agreement to not renew the lease once they took power, off the top of my head.

How well has US supporting rebels in the past went?

But that kind of thing wouldn't have been done openly. It would have been a secret bargain struck, and if Moscow learnt of it, the first thing they'd do is summon the US ambassador, and then tell the world of the perfidious Americans. It wouldn't have looked politically or diplomatically good for you guys however it was spun. It would look like a continuation of cold war politics through American meddling in an issue which had absolutely nothing to do with the US.

Not to mention considering that the 'rebels' consist of Islamic groups the US has spent the last decade trying to stamp out, helping them out would have been political suicide at home.

Sorry, I'm just not seeing any viable options for Obama here.

Just to bring Palin into the discussion, people are saying she predicted this years ago:


http://www.examiner.com/article/sarah-palin-predicted-the-ukraine-situation-2008

Well.. I suppose if you throw enough crap around, laws of probability dictate that some of it will have to stick ..

 Ketara wrote:
But that kind of thing wouldn't have been done openly. It would have been a secret bargain struck, and if Moscow learnt of it, the first thing they'd do is summon the US ambassador, and then tell the world of the perfidious Americans. It wouldn't have looked politically or diplomatically good for you guys however it was spun. It would look like a continuation of cold war politics through American meddling in an issue which had absolutely nothing to do with the US.

Wait, you think we've never done anything like that before and gotten away with it?

Huh. Okay.

I'm saying that it would have absolutely no bearing on this situation, and would have screwed Obama politically either way.

At least this way, the US haven't armed Osama Bin Laden Mark II.

EDIT
Also, the point you made wasn't to 'get away with it'. It would, according to you, have made the Russians more nervous and less willing to hack off the Americans in this Ukrainian instance. But as I outlined above, it either would have been kept a secret and they wouldn't have known, or it would have pissed them off even more, armed a bunch of Islamacists, and still not had any effect on their policy on this particular scenario in the Ukraine.

In other words, you can't just lump this at Obama's door. Not in a justifiable way, anyway.

 Seaward wrote:

Pledge air support to the rebels in return for their agreement to not renew the lease once they took power, off the top of my head.

And what would you argue that Obama should have done if they (the Ukrainians or the Syrians) recanted, after taking power?

Launched many airstrikes?

Putin seeks Ukraine troop deployment

Russia's President Vladimir Putin has asked his upper house of parliament to approve the deployment of Russian troops in Ukraine, the Kremlin says.

It follows discussions by the lower and upper house on ways to "stabilise" the situation in Ukraine's Crimea region, where many ethnic Russians live.

Earlier, the Ukrainian defence minister said Moscow had already deployed some 6,000 extra troops to Crimea.

Kiev has accused Moscow of deliberately trying to provoke a confrontation.

President Putin submitted the request "in connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine and the threat to the lives of Russian citizens", the Kremlin said.

He asked the upper house - which constitutionally must approve such a motion - for Russian armed forces to be used "until the normalisation of the political situation in that country".

Earlier, the newly-elected pro-Moscow leader of Crimea, Sergiy Aksyonov, appealed to Mr Putin for help to ensure peace on the peninsula - a request which the Kremlin said it would "not leave unnoticed".

'Provocation'
The request follow days of military activity in Crimea during which unidentified armed men moved in to take over the regional parliament, state television and telecommunications hubs.

Soldiers from Russia's Black Sea Fleet, which is based in Crimea, are reported to be guarding some administrative buildings and military bases.

Amid the closure of airspace over Crimea's regional capital Simferopol on Friday evening, there were unconfirmed reports that Russian planes were flying in thousands of troops.

Ukrainian Defence Minister Ihor Tenyukh said on Saturday there are now an extra 6,000 Russian troops in Crimea, alongside an additional 30 armoured vehicles.

Under the agreement governing the presence of the fleet in Crimea, the Russians must co-ordinate all troop movements outside the fleet's base with the Ukrainian authorities beforehand.

Events in Crimea have angered the new interim government in Kiev and alarmed Western leaders.

Ukraine's acting President Oleksander Turchynov accused Russia of trying to provoke Kiev into "armed conflict", but said they would not react.

US President Barack Obama has warned of the "costs" of any Russian intervention in the Ukraine.

 Ketara wrote:
I'm saying that it would have absolutely no bearing on this situation, and would have screwed Obama politically either way.

At least this way, the US haven't armed Osama Bin Laden Mark II.

I doubt very much it would have screwed him. Russia claims we made that theoretical deal, we claim we didn't. If you think that causes some massive drop in standing with our allies (who'd be perfectly well aware of it themselves, as they usually are when we mess around with Russia), I dunno what to tell you.

And arming Osama Bin Laden Mark II wouldn't have been much of a concern earlier on. The revolution didn't start radicalized, it became radicalized when the radicals proved to be the only ones willing to fight alongside the rebels.

Also, the point you made wasn't to 'get away with it'. It would, according to you, have made the Russians more nervous and less willing to hack off the Americans in this Ukrainian instance. But as I outlined above, it either would have been kept a secret and they wouldn't have known, or it would have pissed them off even more, armed a bunch of Islamacists, and still not had any effect on their policy on this particular scenario in the Ukraine.

I'm a little confused as to why we'd be concerned about pissing off the Russians when the alternative is, as we've seen, them pissing us off instead.

In other words, you can't just lump this at Obama's door. Not in a justifiable way, anyway.

I disagree.

 Ketara wrote:

Putin seeks Ukraine troop deployment

Russia's President Vladimir Putin has asked his upper house of parliament to approve the deployment of Russian troops in Ukraine, the Kremlin says.

It follows discussions by the lower and upper house on ways to "stabilise" the situation in Ukraine's Crimea region, where many ethnic Russians live.

Earlier, the Ukrainian defence minister said Moscow had already deployed some 6,000 extra troops to Crimea.

Kiev has accused Moscow of deliberately trying to provoke a confrontation.

President Putin submitted the request "in connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine and the threat to the lives of Russian citizens", the Kremlin said.

He asked the upper house - which constitutionally must approve such a motion - for Russian armed forces to be used "until the normalisation of the political situation in that country".

Earlier, the newly-elected pro-Moscow leader of Crimea, Sergiy Aksyonov, appealed to Mr Putin for help to ensure peace on the peninsula - a request which the Kremlin said it would "not leave unnoticed".

'Provocation'
The request follow days of military activity in Crimea during which unidentified armed men moved in to take over the regional parliament, state television and telecommunications hubs.

Soldiers from Russia's Black Sea Fleet, which is based in Crimea, are reported to be guarding some administrative buildings and military bases.

Amid the closure of airspace over Crimea's regional capital Simferopol on Friday evening, there were unconfirmed reports that Russian planes were flying in thousands of troops.

Ukrainian Defence Minister Ihor Tenyukh said on Saturday there are now an extra 6,000 Russian troops in Crimea, alongside an additional 30 armoured vehicles.

Under the agreement governing the presence of the fleet in Crimea, the Russians must co-ordinate all troop movements outside the fleet's base with the Ukrainian authorities beforehand.

Events in Crimea have angered the new interim government in Kiev and alarmed Western leaders.

Ukraine's acting President Oleksander Turchynov accused Russia of trying to provoke Kiev into "armed conflict", but said they would not react.

US President Barack Obama has warned of the "costs" of any Russian intervention in the Ukraine.

http://rt.com/news/russia-ukraine-approve-miltary-371/
The Russian Council of Federation (Upper House) has granted Putin permission to take 'extensive measures' to safeguard ethnic Russians in the Ukraine.

People are asking what can Obama do?

Plenty! If he would just use some imagination.

The interim Ukrainian government needs hard cash - it would take America seconds to throw them 2-3 billion bucks.

Turkey. Not the stuff you eat at thanksgiving, but the country that happens to be a NATO member, ally, and have a coastline directly opposite the Crimea.
I'm sure somebody in the Pentagon could suddenly remember that's it's long overdue for some joint US-Turkish military exercises on the black sea as part of NATO training commitments!

I'm pretty sure the US navy has a large fleet nearby in the Mediterranean.

Everybody would know it's a bullgak excuse but it's the perfect cover and it would bolster the EU and the pro-western Ukrainian government.

Do I have to think of everything for Obama!

 Seaward wrote:

I doubt very much it would have screwed him. Russia claims we made that theoretical deal, we claim we didn't. If you think that causes some massive drop in standing with our allies (who'd be perfectly well aware of it themselves, as they usually are when we mess around with Russia), I dunno what to tell you.

No. I repeat, either the Russians wouldn't have known if it was a secret, and if it wasn't, it damages America's international image.

And arming Osama Bin Laden Mark II wouldn't have been much of a concern earlier on. The revolution didn't start radicalized, it became radicalized when the radicals proved to be the only ones willing to fight alongside the rebels.

Come on. I can see the headlines now. 'OBAMA ARMS AL QAEDA'. Which would technically be true. I mean, are you seriously advocating that as a measure to counteract the Russians? I mean, its not like there was any particular need for it at that point.

I'm a little confused as to why we'd be concerned about pissing off the Russians when the alternative is, as we've seen, them pissing us off instead.

They're not pissing you off. They're playing the nation states game, and you're just not invited. Because it has nothing to do with you.

It's something of a uniquely American trait right now that Americans generally think that every single international situation calls for a US response, and that the US needs to have a 'side', and that if the American President doesn't take some sort of a stand, or it shows him off as being weak.

Here in the UK these days, our Foreign Secretary says whatever he feels he needs to say on the situation to put things to our advantage, and then we get on with doing business. We don't need to 'draw lines in the sand' over what Russia does in it's backyard, and call the Prime Minister 'weak' for not throwing his weight around in some way. We just accept that we have limited military/economic/diplomatic power, this isn't one we're going to win, and we're better off committing our limited resources/influence somewhere else that's actually relevant to our interests.

I think it's something to do with being the main world power, because the British did used to be quite similar back in the 1800's. They felt like they need to have a finger in absolutely every pie, simply on the principle that the pie was there. But we never quite took it to the extent that the USA does today. Having said that though, I suppose we never quite had the power that USA has today. /endhistoricalmusings

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
People are asking what can Obama do?

Plenty! If he would just use some imagination.

The interim Ukrainian government needs hard cash - it would take America seconds to throw them 2-3 billion bucks.

Turkey. Not the stuff you eat at thanksgiving, but the country that happens to be a NATO member, ally, and have a coastline directly opposite the Crimea.
I'm sure somebody in the Pentagon could suddenly remember that's it's long overdue for some joint US-Turkish military exercises on the black sea as part of NATO training commitments!

I'm pretty sure the US navy has a large fleet nearby in the Mediterranean.

Everybody would know it's a bullgak excuse but it's the perfect cover and it would bolster the EU and the pro-western Ukrainian government.

Do I have to think of everything for Obama!

The question though, would be 'Why?'

The interim Government is a bunch of unelected thugs, and half of them are as corrupt as Yanukovych. America has no trade interests there, and it's nowhere near America geographically. What point is there in causing strife with Russia, when there's nothing to gain and plenty to lose? Other than just doing it 'to show Russia who's boss'. Which has never really worked particularly well.

Relapse wrote:
Just to bring Palin into the discussion, people are saying she predicted this years ago:


http://www.examiner.com/article/sarah-palin-predicted-the-ukraine-situation-2008

Of course she did, she could see it from her house.

Obama could, if he wanted, work with other nations to put economic pressure on Russia to stop with the invasion stuff or be prepared to suffer unnecessary hardship should they continue. Obama doesn't even need to go through the UN to do this.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Just to bring Palin into the discussion, people are saying she predicted this years ago:

http://www.examiner.com/article/sarah-palin-predicted-the-ukraine-situation-2008

Of course she did, she could see it from her house.

You do know that line is from Saturday Night Live and not something Palin actually said, right?

 Ketara wrote:
No. I repeat, either the Russians wouldn't have known if it was a secret, and if it wasn't, it damages America's international image.

And I repeat: no, it doesn't. Who do you think would care, exactly? Russia openly backed the regime. If America were to openly back the rebels at Russia's expense, who would give a gak other than Russia?

Come on. I can see the headlines now. 'OBAMA ARMS AL QAEDA'. Which would technically be true. I mean, are you seriously advocating that as a measure to counteract the Russians? I mean, its not like there was any particular need for it at that point.

If you're unaware of when Islamic militants got involved in the Syrian revolution, I doubt we're going to come to terms on much else. Either way, I wasn't advocating arming them - which we did anyway, and nobody's complained about.

They're not pissing you off. They're playing the nation states game, and you're just not invited. Because it has nothing to do with you.

An aggressive, expansionist Russia has quite a lot to do with us, if only because we have allies in Europe that are incapable of fending for themselves against it and will inevitably turn to us to handle it if it gets bad.

It's something of a uniquely American trait right now that Americans generally think that every single international situation calls for a US response, and that the US needs to have a 'side', and that if the American President doesn't take some sort of a stand, or it shows him off as being weak.

And sometimes that happens to be true.

The interim Government is a bunch of unelected thugs, and half of them are as corrupt as Yanukovych. America has no trade interests there, and it's nowhere near America geographically. What point is there in causing strife with Russia, when there's nothing to gain and plenty to lose? Other than just doing it 'to show Russia who's boss'. Which has never really worked particularly well.

Worked out pretty well during the Cold War.

And Russia is tied to Syria. Russia is tied to Iran. Russia's needed for movement in both cases. It's preferable to negotiate with someone while the memory of their most recent smackdown at your hands is fresh, rather than while they have a string of recent victories to look back on, as is the case now. It would, in general, help reverse Obama's image as someone who says a lot of gak and never, ever backs it up, as well. Nobody worries about going up against the guy who's all talk.

The move also appears to formalize what Ukrainian officials described as an ongoing deployment of Russian troops in the strategic region of Crimea. His motion loosely refers to the "territory of Ukraine" rather than specifically to Crimea, raising the possibility that Moscow could use military force in other Russian-speaking provinces in eastern and southern Ukraine where many oppose the new authorities in Kiev.

Pretty much guessed it. Its a huge Naval Base there.

Does that mean if i got the whole of Croydon to speak Russian the Russian army would support a secession?
This idea of Russian helping out Russian speaking people is a snazzy idea...
#FreeRepublicofCroydon #FRC2014 #HelpusRussia #YOLOSWAG #Justblaze #Putinissexy

Germany tried that once...it worked....if Russia stops there then we're good. Ukraine troops in the region are not crazy enough to take on Russian military units. Who knows Crimea more likely welcome them back.

Steady jobs
Steady paycheck
Flow of Rubles into the economy
Crimea comes out ahead
Russia adds a satellite to its border including permanent control of its Naval Station there

I wasn't going to say it but I did think that...
The whole Germany tried it thing...
There's no real way to know that is what is going to happen... that said if Ukraine wanted to be rid of Crimea they could just sell it to Russia.

 Seaward wrote:

And I repeat: no, it doesn't. Who do you think would care, exactly? Russia openly backed the regime. If America were to openly back the rebels at Russia's expense, who would give a gak other than Russia?

So what you're saying is that openly proclaiming that you intend to arm one side of a Syrian civil war/provide them with direct air support to oust the Russians wouldn't bother anyone at all?

I dunno. It would dent America's image in my eyes, and I doubt I'd be alone in that. Going deliberately out of your way to antagonise another power through the use of proxies, and openly declaring it...well, essentially that's basically initiating Cold War Mk 2 there isn't it? Considering Russia wasn't doing anything to you at that time, that's basically America provoking massive violence and international discord for no immediately good reason other than 'to show those Russkis their place'.

Actions like those do have repercussions. They might not be immediate, but it would harden global perceptions even further against what is seen as 'American interference'.

An aggressive, expansionist Russia has quite a lot to do with us, if only because we have allies in Europe that are incapable of fending for themselves against it and will inevitably turn to us to handle it if it gets bad.

It's not being particularly aggressive or expansionist, when you get down to it. It's just taking advantage of an opportunity that presented itself in a piece of what used to be their country. It's not like the tanks are rolling into Finland. The UK/US invasion of Afghanistan was infinitely more aggressive than this, and I'm pretty sure we're morally alright with that one.

Oh wait. They're Russians, aren't they? Curse those evil fiends! (cue shaking fist)

And sometimes that happens to be true.

Yeah, but its really not here. Ukraine has nothing to do with you guys. You have no interests there, no assets there, no troops there, no anything really. If it was Turkey, or France, or Japan, I'd agree. Or heck, even Taiwan. But the Ukraine? It's just like Georgia all over again. Nothing to do with America.

The only reason the Americans feel they should be involved is because of fifty years of social conditioning to thwart those evil Russian plans wherever they may be.

Worked out pretty well during the Cold War.

It also brought us to the brink of nuclear armageddon several times. Forgive me if I have a different perspective.

And Russia is tied to Syria. Russia is tied to Iran. Russia's needed for movement in both cases. It's preferable to negotiate with someone while the memory of their most recent smackdown at your hands is fresh, rather than while they have a string of recent victories to look back on, as is the case now.

It also breeds resentment and a determination to overturn the status quo.

The problem with issuing ultimatums to a nuclear power is that when they break them, you have a choice. Nuclear war, or live and let live. The trick is not to issue ultimatums in the first place unless you're prepared to risk global oblivion,

 Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
No. I repeat, either the Russians wouldn't have known if it was a secret, and if it wasn't, it damages America's international image.

And I repeat: no, it doesn't.

Yes it would. Here in the Netherlands, anti-US sentiment is already pretty high because of dickish moves like that, you would just be making things worse for yourself. The majority of the world already hates the US, you don't want to lose the few allies you have left. Russia may be obsessed with its 'great power status', but so is the US. Seriously, come back to reality, the US can't really afford to piss off the rest of the world any more.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Come on. I can see the headlines now. 'OBAMA ARMS AL QAEDA'. Which would technically be true. I mean, are you seriously advocating that as a measure to counteract the Russians? I mean, its not like there was any particular need for it at that point.

If you're unaware of when Islamic militants got involved in the Syrian revolution, I doubt we're going to come to terms on much else.

The protests in Syria had islamists in it since the beginning. Islamists have been pissed at the secular Assad regime for years before the start of the protests, radical groups were involved since the beginning.
And besides that, it does not really matter when they joined in. If America had supplied weapons, those would have found their way to Al Qaeda anyways.
There is a Dutch saying that goes: 'Even a donkey does not bump into the same rock twice'. You really don't want to be more stupid than a donkey. The US has armed middle-eastern rebels to fight Russia or Russian influence before. As you probably know, the plan backfired, the rebels turned their weapons on the US and it ended up costing thousands of American lives. You really don't want that to happen again.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
They're not pissing you off. They're playing the nation states game, and you're just not invited. Because it has nothing to do with you.

An aggressive, expansionist Russia has quite a lot to do with us, if only because we have allies in Europe that are incapable of fending for themselves against it and will inevitably turn to us to handle it if it gets bad.

Your allies in Europe are not particularly fond of you and we are fine without you. So thanks for helping us out after World War 2, but we'd like to be good friends with Russia instead of having the US lead us into a new Cold War. And thanks to the EU, we really don't need the Americans for anything anymore.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
It's something of a uniquely American trait right now that Americans generally think that every single international situation calls for a US response, and that the US needs to have a 'side', and that if the American President doesn't take some sort of a stand, or it shows him off as being weak.

And sometimes that happens to be true.

Again, the only ones that think like that are the Americans. And really, you are wrong. Everything you do just makes things worse, the situation will settle down without you.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
The interim Government is a bunch of unelected thugs, and half of them are as corrupt as Yanukovych. America has no trade interests there, and it's nowhere near America geographically. What point is there in causing strife with Russia, when there's nothing to gain and plenty to lose? Other than just doing it 'to show Russia who's boss'. Which has never really worked particularly well.

Worked out pretty well during the Cold War.

Not really, actually. It has cost you a lot of money and lifes, and what have you gained?

 Seaward wrote:
And Russia is tied to Syria. Russia is tied to Iran. Russia's needed for movement in both cases. It's preferable to negotiate with someone while the memory of their most recent smackdown at your hands is fresh, rather than while they have a string of recent victories to look back on, as is the case now.

Russia is not known for being easy to negotiate with, they are already famous for being a stubborn people and they have got a huge stockpile of nukes and tanks to back their statements with, and nothing is going to change that. You make it sound like the US and Russia are at war or something like that. No matter what happens, the US will never be able to throw Russia around.

Awesome. So Russia has authorized an unwanted incursion into a sovereign state that is currently undergoing internal upheaval.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
Yeah, but its really not here. Ukraine has nothing to do with you guys. You have no interests there, no assets there, no troops there, no anything really. If it was Turkey, or France, or Japan, I'd agree. Or heck, even Taiwan. But the Ukraine? It's just like Georgia all over again. Nothing to do with America.

The only reason the Americans feel they should be involved is because of fifty years of social conditioning to thwart those evil Russian plans wherever they may be.

You're absolutely right. Well, apart from that memorandum from 1994 that was referred to earlier. The one that states that the US and Russia will uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The memorandum that Russia seems to be fragrantly ignoring.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Awesome. So Russia has authorized an unwanted incursion into a sovereign state that is currently undergoing internal upheaval.

The problem here is that Russia does not really view Ukraine as a sovereign state, and certainly not since its legitimate leaders have been overthrown in an extremist coup and there are ethnic Russians that need to be protected.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You're absolutely right. Well, apart from that memorandum from 1994 that was referred to earlier. The one that states that the US and Russia will uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The memorandum that Russia seems to be fragrantly ignoring.

Last time I checked the elected President had been ousted by a mob. A mob that booted all the members of Pariliament they didn't like, and seized control.

Technically, restoring the status quo could be seen as them meeting their obligations under that treaty. At the very least, its something that could take two lawyers a very long time to wrangle out the exact definitions/obligations of.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Awesome. So Russia has authorized an unwanted incursion into a sovereign state that is currently undergoing internal upheaval.

The problem here is that Russia does not really view Ukraine as a sovereign state, and certainly not since its legitimate leaders have been overthrown in an extremist coup and there are ethnic Russians that need to be protected.

Regardless who leads the Ukraine it is a sovereign nation, with clear international borders. Simply because you do not like the current regime does not mean that you get to ignore international law at will. Sending a military force into another country without an invitation is a clear act of aggression. It has yet to be determined that there is indeed a threat to anyone in the Crimea from the new regime. To date it is only the ethnic Russians and the Russians themselves who have put on a show of force. Perhaps others need to be protected from them.