Corpsesarefun wrote:
There really should be a minimum age to post in the OT.

 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.

 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.

 whembly wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
There really should be a minimum age to post in the OT.

Why?

Kid needs to be exposed to different viewpoints.

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So does this make them unlawful combatants?

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]

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
What do you have against Russia?

Nothing. What I do take exception to though is the de facto invasion of one sovereign state by another.

 easysauce wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
What do you have against Russia?

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.

 whembly wrote:

Then why are the Ukrainian bases surrounded?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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

 whembly wrote:
Huh... we could export more gas to help Ukraine:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/04/gop-lawmakers-urge-administration-to-counter-russia-by-boosting-gas-exports/

I know we're building a feth ton of these ships:

 whembly wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
What do you have against Russia?

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?

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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It is more of a military occupation than an invasion.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

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).

 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.

Though, on the plus side, no one has Chamberlained the thread. Though, granted, I haven't read the last 10 pages.

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It is more of a military occupation than an invasion.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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).