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.

 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.

 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.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 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:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

Well by Slavic she could have been Polish. That would have turned out way more interestingly.

There's a sausage joke in there, but I can't quite find it.

 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

Hooo boy....

Russia Sinks Ship to Block Ukrainian Navy Ships

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

You mean you don't care so long as they are pretty, and loyal.

 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.

 whembly wrote:
Hooo boy....

Not surprising, the Russians have a naval airbase there. Though I can't remember if it falls under their lease, I assume it does.

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

Yes, yes, everything Iron_Curtain says is a little disturbing. But are we taking bets yet on what country Mother Russia will reclaim next?

(Didn't Hilary do something silly involving a reset with Russia? Because that would be funny too.)

 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?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Hooo boy....

Not surprising, the Russians have a naval airbase there. Though I can't remember if it falls under their lease, I assume it does.

Sorta escalating the events eh?

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.