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.

 djones520 wrote:

 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."

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 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

US problem in 6-8 months.....November elections

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.

This compares numerical size of the armies:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26421703

EDIT: To be clear, I agree with you.

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:-

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/accords-at-centre-of-ukraine-dispute/article17190784/
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20090127/119832447.html
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_582Ba-CvqcC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=Russia+Ukraine+Military+Base+Agreement+1997&source=bl&ots=CuQQDM5dh4&sig=_0IY6GQQ9xNopasz05ydv9Jl9Cw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QtEUU4aAFaiX7QasmoCYAw&ved=0CHcQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=Russia%20Ukraine%20Military%20Base%20Agreement%201997&f=false

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.

 Ketara wrote:

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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?

Its a "sterile" uniform. I am not going to defend or condemn it for I do not have a leg to stand on

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

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.

 Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

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.

Cold War been over for 20 years Obama said.....no need to get back into the mindset of re-arming.

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26426969

Looks like David Cameron was all talk as well.

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.

Actually.the countries with the most combat experience in the EU from recent deployments

United Kingdom
Poland
Germany
France....adding in the FFL

Poland though going to need a serious ramp up on armor/aircraft

 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.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/03/world/europe/ukraine-tensions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

"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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Snip

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?

 Jihadin wrote:
Its a "sterile" uniform. I am not going to defend or condemn it for I do not have a leg to stand on

What do you mean? In Iraq/Afganistan... did some of you go "sterile"?