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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm almost tempted to let him build his own larger Russian Federation, encounter the same issues as last time, over extend his reach, and have it all come crumbling down again.

Except for all the ruined lives that will result.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Як ти смієш припускати, що я не знаю, як читати по-українськи!

Ok, so you can't read Ukrainian.

I know this because I copy-pasted your statement into Google Translate and it produced "How dare you assume that I do not know how to read in Ukrainian!", which means you typed that phrase into Google Translate in English and had it translated into Ukrainian.

Just admit that you can't read Ukrainian, and that posting an image of a document written in Ukrainian, especially absent context, was bad.

 whembly wrote:

Seriously... my twittah feed:

It wasn't your Twitter feed, it was KyivPost.

And you probably should have posted the whole article rather than a document you, and most posters, couldn't read. That is, at best, lazy.

What's up your craw?

EDIT: and no, I won't admit anything. Jesus, contribute to the fething thread instead of attacking me.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Massing troops on Russia's border strikes me as particulary aggressive.

And yet marching troops into another nation and seizing military bases and firing at international observers is totally cool with you.

I think you might be bias here.

Never said it was cool with me, I said Russia was been provoked into this by hostile behaviour on the part of EU, NATO and America.

If I'm "biased" in anyway, I'm biased against undemocratic power blocs and superpowers like like the EU, NATO and America forcing their will and intervening in sovereign nations... like America, Britain and co. have done in Iraq, Syria, Libya and countless other countries. We use drones to bomb Pakistan (a country that is supposedly a US ally) and Yemen, often causing severe "collateral damage" (I prefer Murder). Does that not violate the national sovereignty of those countries? We ignore and break international law when its convenient for us to do so to protect our own interests, then splutter in outrage when other nations like Russia (and soon China, I expect - maybe in Tawain) do the same. How do you think would your country react if Russia entered into a military alliance with Canada and Mexico? Stationed troops there to deter American expansionism and aggression?

Can you not see the hypocrisy of the West in crying foul over Ukraine's national sovereignty when we have been violating the sovereignty of nations all over the world for decades? If no, then I think YOU might be a wee bit biased yourself.

The EU and America are global powers. America is the worlds sole superpower. Russia is just a regional power, and feels threatened by the behaviour and hostility of the West, so its taking steps to defend itself against what it percieves to be a threat to its national security. We're treating Russia like we did Germany between 1918 and 1933.

This is the Stop the War Coalitions stance.

The failings of the West do not negate the failings of Russia also you're siting Libya and Syria as bad examples of Western intervention? In the former they helped the popular revolution topple Gaddafi, in the latter they chickened out and now Assad is gassing his own people. On Pakistan and Yemen, regardless of morality (very questionable IMO in terms of civilian deaths) those nations have agreements with America to help hunt terrorists, the Tribal Area of Warzistan in Pakistan is as much as part of the Afghan war as Helman Province. Iraq is such a sticky issue I'm not going to touch it. However all three are clear examples of totalitarian states whose governments I would not recognise as legitimate.

What is happening in Crimea is not the place to debate geopolitical morality of red team/blue team and a scoreboard. Russia is not running a bombing campaign against a dictatorship or intervening to stop a genocide, its annexing sovereign territory of another nation where a vocal, large minority certainly oppose them. Russia's enemy is not President-for-Life Generovich, its the popular will of the Ukrainian people. As I said in my previous post I have no doubt plenty of Crimeans welcome Russian intervention but as the ballot paper above shows, its a white wash and Putin has no interest in what the people actually want.

The issue is the people in Crimea who will be subjected to a bigoted, homophobic, corrupt dictatorship. Also the EU is not a 'world power', and Russia has kept its head down for the most part since 1991 but is still a gargantuan military and economic power.

I mean is your argument that because Washington, London and Brussels are backing the Ukrainians that specifically makes it a fight not worth having due to some quota system? If those people were backing Moscow would you switch sides?

I'm happy to accept the Western powers do plenty of crap, that they've agitated Russia but this is stuff to resolve through diplomacy, such acts of jingoism should face swift responses.

Even if I totally agreed with you, your stance is basically philosophical chin stroking, Eastern Europe is not a pie to be divided between powers. A lot of people will be effected by this.

When I heard about the anti/pro EU and NATO element of the revolution in Kiev I was wary, hoping the emotion of the situation wouldn't lead to Ukraine being rolled into the Western sphere before the people knew what was happening. My suggestion to rush Kiev into these institutions is because Russia has proven itself true to Ukraine's worst fears, a bullying jingoist happy to send tanks over the border.

On the Mexico/Canada proposition I feel the same way, it would be risky for Russia to infringe on America's traditional sphere as it would ruffle feathers but if America responded by invading Acapulco, I'd totally understand when MIGS started landing in Sonora.

Please understand, I see Russia's motivations, I'm no huge fan of many Western actions and have long been wary of EU/NATO advancement into Eastern Europe for precisely this reason but those nations have excellent cause to be wary of a dictatorship that is covering itself in Soviet nationalist nostalgia propaganda. For many older people, and political leaders in particular, things like Solidarity and Prague '68 are within living memory. Russia's traditional sphere has rarely been voluntary.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Emergency sign Ukraine into NATO, move well equipped and well trained Western troops into Ukrainian bases as part of 'shared training exercise'. Move Western fighters and bombers onto Ukrainian airfields and have them fly over Ukrainian sovereign airspace with the understanding that unmarked military units not identifying themselves are international terrorists and can be actively targeted.

Let Putin weigh the size of his balls after that.

For the sake of the argument, let's assume we did all that - though why we'd base bombers in Ukraine, I have no idea. Why do you think Putin wouldn't call that bluff? Anybody who's called any of the administration's bluffs over the past five years has gotten what they wanted. Putin especially has already kicked us around enough to know we're going to retreat when called. Culling down to a pre-World War II-sized military isn't exactly sending a resolute signal to anybody, much less an aggressive old foe.

 whembly wrote:

What's up your craw?

That you keep pretending to be capable of reading Ukrainian when you clearly cannot.

 whembly wrote:

EDIT: and no, I won't admit anything. Jesus, contribute to the fething thread instead of attacking me.

So posting an image of a ballot written in Ukrainian is contributing to a thread dominated by English speakers?

Ok.

Proper English?Queen English? New Yorker English? My Gawd Man Clarify the type of English we're suppose to be typing!!!!

 Jape wrote:


The failings of the West do not negate the failings of Russia

No, but it does expose the hypocrisy of the West and give the lie to the pretext given for our actions. This is not about the freedom and sovereignty of Ukrainians, this is about a political and economic power struggle between the East and the West over an important economic and strategic region.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

What are they really aiming for?

Left-wing warmongers, who badly want some sort of conflict with Russia over Ukraine, are a mass of contradictions.
They say they’re in favour of ‘democracy’, when in fact they are apologists for a naked coup d’etat against an elected government by an armed mob.
They say they are against interference in other countries, when they excuse the blatant intervention of foreign politicians on the side of the Kiev rabble.
They say that Crimea has no right to secede from Ukraine, when they all supported the secession of Kosovo from Serbia.
They say they are concerned about Mr Putin’s undoubtedly squalid and dishonest government. But they never complain about China, which is far more repressive and which is now trampling on the national independence of its imperial conquests in Tibet and Sinkiang.
When someone’s not consistent, they’re not telling you their real motives. Interestingly, most of the people who hate Russia also love the EU, and hate this country’s independence and traditions. That might give you a clue as to what sort of people they really are – and explain why I sympathise with Russia.

also you're siting Libya and Syria as bad examples of Western intervention? In the former they helped the popular revolution topple Gaddafi,

Yes, I am. In the former, they failed to act for decades, despite it being clear that Gadaffi was a tyrant responsible for abusing his own people and supporting terrorism such as the IRA and possibly the Lockerbie bombing. They were happy to do business with him for years, buying Libyan oil and signing trade deals so British companies could operate in Libya; but then the waves of social unrest began throughout the Middle East and all of a sudden the West was against dictators and in favour of democracy. Supporting the revolution had little to do with supporting freedom and democracy, and everything to do with saving face after decades of tolerance and inaction over a totalitarian dictator and ingratiating ourselves with the new regime.

in the latter they chickened out and now Assad is gassing his own people.

And the rebels are gassing civilians loyal to Assad using chemical weapons smuggled into the country, fighting amongst themselves as much as they do Assad and murdering civilians thorugh acts of blatant terrorism. The rebels are riddled with terrorist organisations. They're as bad as Assad, generally speaking. Correct identifying which of the myriad organisations involved are the "good guys" that deserve our support and which are extremists and terrorists hostile to our own countries and who will target us next, is next to impossible.

Just because one side is bad does not mean that the other side is good and deserving of our support.

On Pakistan and Yemen, regardless of morality (very questionable IMO in terms of civilian deaths) those nations have agreements with America to help hunt terrorists, the Tribal Area of Warzistan in Pakistan is as much as part of the Afghan war as Helman Province.

And yet IIRC the legislatures of those countries have condemned America's operation of drones in their national territory, violating ther sovereignty. I expect when they signed those agreements, they were thinking more of mutual cooperation between intelligence services and joint operations. I doubt what they had in mind was American aircraft arbitrarily dropping bombs without permission on targets in their country that kill more innocent people than terrorists.

Iraq is such a sticky issue I'm not going to touch it.

Why? Its the best example.

However all three are clear examples of totalitarian states whose governments I would not recognise as legitimate.

There are many other illegitimate totalitarian states throughout the world in which we do not intervene. The criteria for Western intervention (interference) is not an illegitimate totalitarian regime brutally repressing its own people - thats just the pretext. The real criteria is that we have national economic, political and strategic interests - we have something to gain from intervention, or something to lose from not intervening.

Otherwise, why don't we intervene in North Korea, which keeps thousands of its own people in concentration camps, or Iran, which is even more homophobic (last I check, the Russian state does not execute homosexuals). China is far more corrupt and repressive than Russia, yet because we do so much business with it that our economies depend on it we turn a blind eye to its crimes and simply make the occassional sanctimonious condemnation or declaration of concern yet take no action against China. Why aren't we hitting China with sanctions and freezing Chinese assets?

What is happening in Crimea is not the place to debate geopolitical morality of red team/blue team and a scoreboard. Russia is not running a bombing campaign against a dictatorship or intervening to stop a genocide, its annexing sovereign territory of another nation where a vocal, large minority certainly oppose them.

Do not mistake my distaste for Western hypocrisy and lies as tacit approval of Russia's actions.

Russia's enemy is not President-for-Life Generovich, its the popular will of the Ukrainian people.

No, its the will of a western Ukranian partially armed mob riddled with far right fascists. It will only be confirmed to be the will of the Ukranian people at large once free and open elections have been held (which may be rather difficult with the leader of the now opposition fleeing for his life, and opposition party members being arrested by the new regime) and the new regime can be considered an elected government.

I will consider the Kiev regime to be the rightful and legitimate government once they have won an electoral mandate. Until then, I will consider them as what they are - an unelected motley collection of demagogues and far right fascists installed through a violent rebellion.

Lets not forget that many other governments and regimes were installed via violent rebellion. The governments of Iran, Cuba, China and Libya were all installed through revolutions (though Libya was relatively bloodless AFAIK) and look how they all turned out. The fact that a regime was unpopular enough that it was overthrown by an angry section of the people does not necessarily mean that the new regime/government installed is legitimate.

As I said in my previous post I have no doubt plenty of Crimeans welcome Russian intervention but as the ballot paper above shows, its a white wash and Putin has no interest in what the people actually want.

Someone in this thread has questioned the translation of that ballot paper and the credibility of the person who posted it. Is the interpretation accurate? If so then I agree that dirty tricks are being played. I think a referendum and elections should be held in Crimea, under international observation to ensure its fair and legitimate. But the Kiev regime refuses to allow any referendum at all, denying the right of Crimeans to self determination.

The issue is the people in Crimea who will be subjected to a bigoted, homophobic, corrupt dictatorship.

China. Iran. North Korea. Saudi Arabia. Pakistan. Why are we not intervening in those countries too then, if the criteria for intervention in a country is that they're being run by the bad guys?

Also the EU is not a 'world power'

Collectively it is, especially as the EU makes further moves to develop a common European foreign policy backed up by a European military force.

and Russia has kept its head down for the most part since 1991 but is still a gargantuan military and economic power.

But still only a regional power that intervenes in countries that are its direct neighbours, unlike America, a global superpower which has been interfering and invading countries all over the world on trumped up pretexts to further its own interests (to borrow a term from a certain "Kerry") for decades. America quite happily ignores and breaks international law to further its own interests whenever it suits it, yet splutter in outrage when other countries follow their example.

I mean is your argument that because Washington, London and Brussels are backing the Ukrainians that specifically makes it a fight not worth having due to some quota system? If those people were backing Moscow would you switch sides?

What the hell does that mean? Quota? What "people"?

I think neither side should be interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs. The West is gak stirring in countries all over the world, encouraging (often violent) rebellions and overthrowing of regimes/governments in the hopes of a regime more friendly and susceptible to Western manipulation, or discouraging rebellion and siding with a government if they favour that government. We supported the Egyptian revolution, but then they democratically elected the wrong leader, so we approved of the Military coup that removed him.

Democracy. As long as you vote for the correct option.



I agree. So why are we getting ready to send NATO troops to the Ukraine?

Even if I totally agreed with you, your stance is basically philosophical chin stroking, Eastern Europe is not a pie to be divided between powers. A lot of people will be effected by this.

I agree. But that is exactly how we and Russia are treating the Ukraine. This is a political, economic and strategic tug of war power struggle - Ukraine is the prize, its people the rope.

When I heard about the anti/pro EU and NATO element of the revolution in Kiev I was wary, hoping the emotion of the situation wouldn't lead to Ukraine being rolled into the Western sphere before the people knew what was happening. My suggestion to rush Kiev into these institutions is because Russia has proven itself true to Ukraine's worst fears, a bullying jingoist happy to send tanks over the border.

And America is not a bullying jingoist nation happy to sent troops over a border? I've read Op-eds suggesting that Ukraine's people have consistently expressed an opposition to joining NATO. They want into the EU for economic reasons, but don't want to enter the military alliance. Not sure how true this is though.

On the Mexico/Canada proposition I feel the same way, it would be risky for Russia to infringe on America's traditional sphere as it would ruffle feathers but if America responded by invading Acapulco, I'd totally understand when MIGS started landing in Sonora.

It would be risky for Russia to interfere in America's traditional sphere? So why are you ok with America and Europe interfering in Russia's political sphere? Is that not as risky? Why is it ok for the West to intervene in sovereign nations on trumped up pretexts to further its own interests, but not ok for Russia or China?

Please understand, I see Russia's motivations, I'm no huge fan of many Western actions and have long been wary of EU/NATO advancement into Eastern Europe for precisely this reason but those nations have excellent cause to be wary of a dictatorship that is covering itself in Soviet nationalist nostalgia propaganda. For many older people, and political leaders in particular, things like Solidarity and Prague '68 are within living memory.

And the German invasion of Russia is within living memory too. Both countries, Ukraine and Russia have legitimate concerns here. And the West is deliberately stirring up tensions, trying to further its own interests when its priority should be to bring the two nations to a mutually agreeable compromise.

IMO, we should come to an arrangement that involves:

1) an internationally observed and supervised democractic referendum on Crimean independence (2 questions: [1] Stay with Ukraine: Yes or No? [2] Independence or annexation by Russia?). Eastern Ukraine stays with Ukraine. This way Kiev gets to keep the richer, industrial north and Russia takes Crimea ( a poorer region, with a population largely hostile to Kiev) their hands. Russia gets to keep its crucial strategic military bases, but becomes responsible for financially supporting and bailing out Crimea.

2) In anticipation of this referendum, Russia should pull its troops out of Crimea and/or withdraw them to their existing naval bases, on the guarantee that Ukraine and NATO will not move in their own troops and try to prevent the referendum (as Kiev has said it would do).

3) Ukraine should be permitted to join the EU and economic treaties, but be exempt from any military agreements and treaties.

4) Ukraine will not join NATO.

The problem with national interests is that other countries have their own national interests too. Unless you're willing to declare war, then you have to accept that they want to protect and pursue their own interests too and when they contradict yours, you're going to have to come to a mutually agreeable compromise. The West is demanding that Russia concede everything, and will compromise on nothing.

That's a very ..... unique .... take you have with regards to our attitudes to Libya there.

I think -- if one takes into account things like the bombing raid carried out on his house for example -- it's something of a stretch to claim that the west was fine and dandy with Gaddafi in way shape or form .

In the 1970s Libya initiated a socialist style nationalization program under which the government either nationalized oil companies or became a participant in their concessions, production and transportation facilities.[7] As part of this program, NOC signed production-sharing agreements with Occidental Petroleum, Sincat (Italy), and formed a joint drilling company with Saipem (an Eni subsidiary). This was accompanied by nationalization of ConocoPhillips's Umm Farud field in 1970, British Petroleum's Sarir field in 1971 and Amoco's Sahabir field in 1976. After commencement of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and other Arab states proclaimed an embargo on oil exports to countries who supported Israel, primarily the United States. Additionally, the NOC had encountered legal actions by BP over claims of ownership. Although the 1973 oil crisis increased global demand, BP's legal position made some countries wary of importing from Libya. NOC compensated for this weakness by arranging barter deals with France and Argentina. On March 18, 1974, the Arab oil ministers ended the US-embargo, with Libya being the sole exception. During 1974, agreements were reached with Exxon, Mobil, Elf Aquitaine and Agip provided production-sharing on an 85-15 basis onshore, 81-19 offshore. Eventually, all the foreign companies (excluding BP) agreed to partial nationalization, providing Libya with a substantial oil surplus. However, declining world oil prices resulted in NOC selling back its production shares. Other concessions that were nationalized that year included those belonging to BP, Amoseas (Beida field), Hunt, Arco, Esso and Shell's 17 percent share in the Oasis Oil Company. Mobil-Gelsenberg was owned by the NOC (51%), Mobil (32%), and Gelsenberg (17%).[8] Overall, during 1976 the National Oil Corporation produced about 408,000 bbl/d (64,900 m3/d) and exported 1.2 mmbpd.
U.S. sanctions[edit]
The last phase of the socialist period was characterized by an intensive effort to build industrial capacity, but falling world oil prices in the early 1980s dramatically reduced government revenues and caused a serious decline in Libya’s advantage in terms of energy costs.[9] More importantly, accusations of terrorism and Libya’s growing friendship with the Soviet Union led to increased tensions with the West. On 10 March 1982, the U.S. prohibited imports of Libyan crude oil. Exxon and Mobil left their Libyan operations by January 1983. In March 1984, controls were expanded to prohibit exports to the Ras al-Enf petrochemical complex.
President Ronald Reagan imposed sanctions on 7 January 1986 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, prohibiting US companies from any trade or financial dealings with Libya, while freezing Libyan assets in the US.[10] On 30 June 1986, the US Treasury Department forces remaining US oil companies to leave Libya but allows them to negotiate standstill agreements, retaining ownership for three years while allowing NOC to operate the fields. As a result, Amerada Hess, Conoco, Grace Petroleum, Marathon, and Occidental left a production entitlement that was generating 263,000 bbl/d (41,800 m3/d). Negotiations with NOC and US oil companies over assets dominated much of the late 1980s.
Libya responded by concluding its third Exploration and Production Sharing Arrangements (EPSA-III) in 1988, including agreements with Rompetrol, the Romanian Oil Company, Royal Dutch Shell, Montedison, International Petroleum Corporation of Canada, INA-Naftaplin, OMV, Braspetro and Husky Oil. The agreements included expenditure guarantees by the Libyan government, an important departure from earlier regulations, designed to help offset sanctions. r
U.N. sanctions and afterward[edit]
Libya’s isolation became even more pronounced following the 1992 imposition of United Nations sanctions designed to force Gaddafi to hand over two suspects indicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The sanctions, imposed on 31 March 1992, initially banned sales of equipment for refining and transporting oil, but excluded oil production equipment. Sanctions were expanded on 11 November 1993, to include a freeze on Libya's overseas assets, excluding revenue from oil, natural gas, or agricultural products. Under these condition, NOC Chairman Abdallah al-Badri emphasized reducing new projects and upgrading domestic facilities. Joint ventures were initiated with Veba, Petrofina, North African Petroleum, the Petroleum Development Co. (Republic of Korea) and Lasmo. Foreign operators were encouraged to produce exclusively for export, limited to national oil companies with pre-sanctions equity in Libya. This policy was an attempt to contain the amount of crude offered on the spot market through third-party traders, and increase downstream investment. In 2000, NOC was reorganized by the General People's Congress after the Ministry of Energy was abolished, further consolidating control over the sector.
Although U.N. sanctions were suspended in 1999, foreign investment was curtailed due to the U.S. Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), which capped the annual amount foreign companies can invest in Libya at $20 million (lowered from $40 million in 2001). On 14 August 2003, Libya agreed to compensate families of the 1988 bombing with $2.7 billion, to be released in three tranches; the first following a lifting of UN sanctions, the second after lifting of US sanctions, and the third after Libya is removed from the U.S. State Department's state sponsors of terrorism list. On 22 December 2003, Libya announced it will abandon WMD programs and comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US welcomes the move, but says it will maintain economic sanctions until it sees evidence of compliance. On 4 June 2004, US Assistant Secretary of Commerce William H. Lash announced that Libya sent its first shipment of crude oil to the US since resumption of ties between the two countries. In May 2006, the U.S. officially removed Libya from its list of states that sponsor terrorism and normalized ties and removed sanctions.[11] Since then, oil majors have stepped up exploration efforts for oil and natural gas in the country. Likewise, companies have tried using enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques to increase production at maturing fields.

This is not about the freedom and sovereignty of Ukrainians, this is about a political and economic power struggle between the East and the West over an important economic and strategic region.

Or, as is often the case in life, maybe it's a mixture of every motivation.

The Hitchen's quote is laughably bad -- are you seriously trying to claim that the West has never said anything or complained about China in Tibet ?!

For me the most striking thing about this crisis is the lack of critical analysis . Everybody has reverted to cold war mode. West = good, Russia = bad. If only it was that clear cut.

But as much as I despise Vladimir Putin, he's the only one that's acted sensibly.

A democratically elected Ukrainian president (everybody agrees his election was free and fair) was ousted from power because of his opposition to an EU trade deal. And yet, the Ukrainian parliament voted that deal down.

So a protest group springs up and EU leaders encourage the protestors in a reckless violation of what diplomacy is supposed to be. Could you imagine the American reaction if Putin turned up in America, ignored the president, and instead started meeting and talking with tea party leaders (or some other protest group) It would be a MASSIVE violation of diplomacy, but that's what EU leaders did in the Ukraine. They encouraged the protestors to set up an interim government whilst the last president was still in power!

Back to Putin. He's got naval bases on the Black sea, he's worried about the safety of the large ethic Russian population in the Ukraine, and he's just seen the Ukrainian president ousted from power by Neo-Nazi groups and anti-Semites.

From a geo-political view, his intervention is a clear, concise policy to safeguard Russian interests.

And then we have the UK and the USA, who just recently, illegally invaded a middle eastern country, lecturing Putin on sovereignty and the rule of law.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but we in the west are in no position to criticise Putin.

Like I said, I don't like Putin, I'm under no impressions he a murdering gangster, but this Ukraine situation is far more complex than cold war fantasies, and Russia seems to me to be the only country acting in a clear, geo-political way.

In contrast, The EU and the USA seem to be all over the shop. Sanctions or no sanctions, Ukraine in the EU or out of the EU. They don't know. It's a muddle.

Rant over!

 Breotan wrote:
Except for all the ruined lives that will result.

It happened before though and evidently some people yearn for it again

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Two wrongs don't make a right, but we in the west are in no position to criticise Putin.

As a Swede, I'll respectfully disagree. Not everyone in "the West" was on board with the whole Iraq debacle either, you know. The fact that the US and friends did some rather silly things doesn't mean we can't call out Putin on doing silly things of his own.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Two wrongs don't make a right, but we in the west are in no position to criticise Putin.

As a Swede, I'll respectfully disagree. Not everyone in "the West" was on board with the whole Iraq debacle either, you know. The fact that the US and friends did some rather silly things doesn't mean we can't call out Putin on doing silly things of his own.

That there, well, I believe they call it a Bingo...

Except for all the ruined lives that will result.

And the American government hasn't left of a trail of graves?

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

Except for all the ruined lives that will result.

And the American government hasn't left of a trail of graves?

And that has what to do with any of this? What at all?

 djones520 wrote:

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

Except for all the ruined lives that will result.

And the American government hasn't left of a trail of graves?

And that has what to do with any of this? What at all?

It has everything to do with it. Russia is simply following the example that America set. More countries will follow - probably China. Russia sees that America is able to ignore and break international law with impunity to pursue and protect its own interests, and thinks it can do the same.

If America wants to be the leader of the free world, it has to act like it.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

Except for all the ruined lives that will result.

And the American government hasn't left of a trail of graves?

And that has what to do with any of this? What at all?

It has everything to do with it. Russia is simply following the example that America set. More countries will follow - probably China. Russia sees that America is able to ignore and break international law with impunity to pursue and protect its own interests, and thinks it can do the same.

If America wants to be the leader of the free world, it has to act like it.

Perhaps we should stop leading the free world and just start leading the world, perhaps we should start following Russia's example, follow China's example and dispense with playing nice with our opponents and instead show them what the hand of the West can do when it's not held back by soft notions they fail to demonstrate in return.

The West is in retreat to these second fiddle players and the lunatics in the deserts because it keeps staying it's hand with them like an over indulgent parent with children grown into abusive adolescence. I really think it's time that stopped.

When Russia moves troops and armor into neighboring independent nations, ask them if they'd like to sign on to our one-stop membership and fanclub page, then roll our own superior tanks, better equipped soldiery and flying death robots into the same nations, as protection.

The West

You mean the America and England, Germany is doing quite well pursuing an isolationist policy. America is in retreat because the economy.

over indulgent parent with children grown into abusive adolescence

Explain?

Feth me. Ukraine is going to hell via the express elevator make no mistake.

I have to say that i am not too comftable with Russia re-building her Empire. Its starting to have certain vibes ascociated with a certain red wearing Warmachine faction.

I have to say that i am not too comftable with Russia re-building her Empire

Its weird, its Americans and English that seem to have a problem with modern Russia, not the Germans, French or Italians.

Germans seem to see themselves as superior to the Slavic people while the English historically have feared them going back centuries, strange.

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

I have to say that i am not too comftable with Russia re-building her Empire

Its weird, its Americans and English that seem to have a problem with modern Russia, not the Germans, French or Italians.

Germans seem to see themselves as superior to the Slavic people while the English historically have feared them going back centuries, strange.

Uh, what? Did I miss the memo about England historically fearing Russia? We have had historical rivalries with Spain, France and Germany but no nationwide fear of "Slavic people".

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Except for all the ruined lives that will result.

And the American government hasn't left of a trail of graves?

And that has what to do with any of this? What at all?

It has everything to do with it. Russia is simply following the example that America set. More countries will follow - probably China. Russia sees that America is able to ignore and break international law with impunity to pursue and protect its own interests, and thinks it can do the same.

In what parallel universe do any of the dots even allow you to draw a picture like that?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

Except for all the ruined lives that will result.

And the American government hasn't left of a trail of graves?

And that has what to do with any of this? What at all?

It has everything to do with it. Russia is simply following the example that America set. More countries will follow - probably China. Russia sees that America is able to ignore and break international law with impunity to pursue and protect its own interests, and thinks it can do the same.

If America wants to be the leader of the free world, it has to act like it.

Right... because Russia doesn't have a history of being an imperialistic power predating the existence of the United States...

Hold on while I try to find my I'm not laughing my ass off at your idiotic assertion face.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

Except for all the ruined lives that will result.

And the American government hasn't left of a trail of graves?

And that has what to do with any of this? What at all?

It has everything to do with it. Russia is simply following the example that America set. More countries will follow - probably China. Russia sees that America is able to ignore and break international law with impunity to pursue and protect its own interests, and thinks it can do the same.

If America wants to be the leader of the free world, it has to act like it.

Perhaps we should stop leading the free world and just start leading the world, perhaps we should start following Russia's example, follow China's example and dispense with playing nice with our opponents and instead show them what the hand of the West can do when it's not held back by soft notions they fail to demonstrate in return.

The West is in retreat to these second fiddle players and the lunatics in the deserts because it keeps staying it's hand with them like an over indulgent parent with children grown into abusive adolescence. I really think it's time that stopped.

When Russia moves troops and armor into neighboring independent nations, ask them if they'd like to sign on to our one-stop membership and fanclub page, then roll our own superior tanks, better equipped soldiery and flying death robots into the same nations, as protection.

I'm no Putin fan, but at least his invasion makes 'sense.' Compare and contrast that with the US/UK invasion of Iraq. Were there 100,000 ethnic Texans or Geordies being persecuted in Baghdad?

I'm not having a go at you Mean, but the guff I have read in newspapers and on TV about this being a new cold war is getting silly.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm no Putin fan, but at least his invasion makes 'sense.' Compare and contrast that with the US/UK invasion of Iraq.

I was and remain bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, it compromised the US and allies military capacity to deal with Afghanistan and was carried out for reasons that appear to be total lies.

But Putin's invasion 'makes sense'... Well, if you're Russian and wish to expand your country's borders, sure. If you're Ukrainian, or one of the minorities like the native Tatars... that's sense you can do without.

Give it 5, 10 years of Russian control of that zone, with the cossacks given free reign, and then take a look at the Tatar situation. Then tell me about how well we all did to leave Putin to continue to take bites out of neighboring nations...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm no Putin fan, but at least his invasion makes 'sense.' Compare and contrast that with the US/UK invasion of Iraq.

I was and remain bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, it compromised the US and allies military capacity to deal with Afghanistan and was carried out for reasons that appear to be total lies.

But Putin's invasion 'makes sense'... Well, if you're Russian and wish to expand your country's borders, sure. If you're Ukrainian, or one of the minorities like the native Tatars... that's sense you can do without.

Give it 5, 10 years of Russian control of that zone, with the cossacks given free reign, and then take a look at the Tatar situation. Then tell me about how well we all did to leave Putin to continue to take bites out of neighboring nations...

Well, the Volga Tatars in Tatarstan are doing great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan. They have their own state within Russia and their rights are as well protected as those of ethnic Russians. I don't think the Crimean Tatars have anything to fear. Stalin is long dead and Russians and Tatars have lived together in peace on Crimea for many centuries. That is really not going to change all of a sudden. The same goes for the Ukrainians. There are 2 million Ukrainians living all over Russia already, and that has been like that for centuries.
Putin's invasion still has more justification than the US invasion of Iraq. Putin can claim that he is 'protecting' ethnic Russians and making the referendum possible. The US couldn't claim anything but lies.
The Tatars are still not the native people by the way.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm no Putin fan, but at least his invasion makes 'sense.' Compare and contrast that with the US/UK invasion of Iraq.

I was and remain bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, it compromised the US and allies military capacity to deal with Afghanistan and was carried out for reasons that appear to be total lies.

But Putin's invasion 'makes sense'... Well, if you're Russian and wish to expand your country's borders, sure. If you're Ukrainian, or one of the minorities like the native Tatars... that's sense you can do without.

Give it 5, 10 years of Russian control of that zone, with the cossacks given free reign, and then take a look at the Tatar situation. Then tell me about how well we all did to leave Putin to continue to take bites out of neighboring nations...

Well, the Volga Tatars in Tatarstan are doing great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan. They have their own state within Russia and their rights are as well protected as those of ethnic Russians. I don't think the Crimean Tatars have anything to fear. Stalin is long dead and Russians and Tatars have lived together in peace on Crimea for many centuries. That is really not going to change all of a sudden. The same goes for the Ukrainians. There are 2 million Ukrainians living all over Russia already, and that has been like that for centuries.
Putin's invasion still has more justification than the US invasion of Iraq. Putin can claim that he is 'protecting' ethnic Russians and making the referendum possible. The US couldn't claim anything but lies.
The Tatars are still not the native people by the way.

Do you see a "No" option on the referendum?

 whembly wrote:

Do you see a "No" option on the referendum?

The option of restoring the 1992 Crimean constitution automatically means remaining part of Ukraine. It pretty much counts as a 'no' option as all it would mean is returning to the situation of 1992, when the Crimea had more autonomy than it has now.

 whembly wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm no Putin fan, but at least his invasion makes 'sense.' Compare and contrast that with the US/UK invasion of Iraq.

I was and remain bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, it compromised the US and allies military capacity to deal with Afghanistan and was carried out for reasons that appear to be total lies.

But Putin's invasion 'makes sense'... Well, if you're Russian and wish to expand your country's borders, sure. If you're Ukrainian, or one of the minorities like the native Tatars... that's sense you can do without.

Give it 5, 10 years of Russian control of that zone, with the cossacks given free reign, and then take a look at the Tatar situation. Then tell me about how well we all did to leave Putin to continue to take bites out of neighboring nations...

Well, the Volga Tatars in Tatarstan are doing great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan. They have their own state within Russia and their rights are as well protected as those of ethnic Russians. I don't think the Crimean Tatars have anything to fear. Stalin is long dead and Russians and Tatars have lived together in peace on Crimea for many centuries. That is really not going to change all of a sudden. The same goes for the Ukrainians. There are 2 million Ukrainians living all over Russia already, and that has been like that for centuries.
Putin's invasion still has more justification than the US invasion of Iraq. Putin can claim that he is 'protecting' ethnic Russians and making the referendum possible. The US couldn't claim anything but lies.
The Tatars are still not the native people by the way.

Do you see a "No" option on the referendum?

The actual referendum does have a "no" option on it. Whatever report you found earlier was wrong.

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm no Putin fan, but at least his invasion makes 'sense.' Compare and contrast that with the US/UK invasion of Iraq.

I was and remain bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, it compromised the US and allies military capacity to deal with Afghanistan and was carried out for reasons that appear to be total lies.

But Putin's invasion 'makes sense'... Well, if you're Russian and wish to expand your country's borders, sure. If you're Ukrainian, or one of the minorities like the native Tatars... that's sense you can do without.

Give it 5, 10 years of Russian control of that zone, with the cossacks given free reign, and then take a look at the Tatar situation. Then tell me about how well we all did to leave Putin to continue to take bites out of neighboring nations...

Well, the Volga Tatars in Tatarstan are doing great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan. They have their own state within Russia and their rights are as well protected as those of ethnic Russians. I don't think the Crimean Tatars have anything to fear. Stalin is long dead and Russians and Tatars have lived together in peace on Crimea for many centuries. That is really not going to change all of a sudden. The same goes for the Ukrainians. There are 2 million Ukrainians living all over Russia already, and that has been like that for centuries.
Putin's invasion still has more justification than the US invasion of Iraq. Putin can claim that he is 'protecting' ethnic Russians and making the referendum possible. The US couldn't claim anything but lies.
The Tatars are still not the native people by the way.

Do you see a "No" option on the referendum?

The actual referendum does have a "no" option on it. Whatever report you found earlier was wrong.

Cool then... I actually feel better now about this crummy situation.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm no Putin fan, but at least his invasion makes 'sense.' Compare and contrast that with the US/UK invasion of Iraq.

I was and remain bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, it compromised the US and allies military capacity to deal with Afghanistan and was carried out for reasons that appear to be total lies.

But Putin's invasion 'makes sense'... Well, if you're Russian and wish to expand your country's borders, sure. If you're Ukrainian, or one of the minorities like the native Tatars... that's sense you can do without.

Give it 5, 10 years of Russian control of that zone, with the cossacks given free reign, and then take a look at the Tatar situation. Then tell me about how well we all did to leave Putin to continue to take bites out of neighboring nations...

Like I said, I'm not having a go at you personally, but the whole Ukraine situation has been a shambles from start to finish. It can be summed up as follows: The EU made a power grab for the Ukraine to bring it into it's sphere of influence. It fethed up big time. Now Russia has made its grab and as usual, Putin seems to have run rings around the west a la Syria and Assad.