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.

 Frazzled wrote:

Because thats the only way it could occur. USSR er Russia gets a hint of "EU" troops going to Ukraine and its tanks will have reached the Polish border before you can say "European dithering."

Why would EU troops move to the Ukraine?

Also, equivocation does not suit you.

Seems like Totalwar1402 has the right of it - there seems to be huge amount of double standards being applied by many nations in terms of who is allowed to break up nations...........

 Frazzled wrote:
Cool as in leave us out of it.
or we could sell them $10Bn worth of stuff.

Oh, I get that. At the same time, due to my clearly skewed perspective, I really want to punch you in the face for saying it out loud

 Lone Cat wrote:
Who knows why Kruschev gave 'The Soviet of Ukraine' an entire Crimea peninsular?

Well, it's in most high school textbooks.

If it was just about Crimea? Let them have it. The problem is that they won't stop there. They'll keep pushing into the space occupied by former soviet satellites until either they take over everything, the neglected economy gives in and causes an inward collapse of the state or China decides to start doing to them what they're doing to Ukraine and force them to divert their attention from Europe.

The West set several precedents for violating the national sovereignty and aggressively interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent countries. Now Russia is making use of those precedents.

You reap what you sow.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
You reap what you sow.

Easy to say when you're not the one getting reaped.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not great, but I hardly see how its "worrying".

Its not like Ukraine will turn into the next Nazi Germany and try to take over the world. Worst case scenario is they rot in their own little corner of the world and become like North Korea.

I don't think the Ukrainians have any plans for world conquest, but it could be worrying for ethnic minorities in Western Ukraine. I don't think it will turn into a 1943 style genocide, but they could be seriously deprived of their rights.

I think the non Russian populations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine have a lot more to worry about, and right now.

The Tatars not so much. As the millions of Tatars already living in Russia would be able to tell you, the rights of Tatars are very well guarded. That won't be any different for the Crimean Tatars. The Crimean government has already promised to make Tatar an official language. That is actually better than in Ukraine. The Cossacks are not likely to stay in Crimea either, they will probably return to their host in Kuban, so they won't cause further trouble either.
The Ukrainians on the other hand, well, maybe the Crimean government could make some arrangements for them, but I am afraid they won't, so they will have to either become Russian and adapt like the millions of Ukrainians living in Russia or to return to Ukraine. Maybe not very nice for them, but at least they won't be threatened. Nothing will change for them apart from the fact that Ukrainian will no longer be an official language.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
You reap what you sow.

Easy to say when you're not the one getting reaped.

But true nonetheless.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Because thats the only way it could occur. USSR er Russia gets a hint of "EU" troops going to Ukraine and its tanks will have reached the Polish border before you can say "European dithering."

Why would EU troops move to the Ukraine?

The argument was military action by the EU. The EU would have to get forces to Ukraine, which means invasion as Russian forces would have already prepared Kursk II for them. Any action by the "EU" (hahahahaha) is inherently offensive in nature in this context.

Also, equivocation does not suit you.

WTF?


Here's a fun question.
Russia takes East Ukraine
West Ukraine goes Fascist.
Poland - remembering what happened THE LAST TIME A FASCIST STATE WAS ON ITS BORDER invades
Poland - killing the Nazi ghost in 2015?

 Frazzled wrote:
WTF?


Here's a fun question.
Russia takes East Ukraine
West Ukraine goes Fascist.
Poland - remembering what happened THE LAST TIME A FASCIST STATE WAS ON ITS BORDER invades
Poland - killing the Nazi ghost in 2015?

Western Ukraine has been a part of Poland before. I would have no problem in it becoming part of Poland again, but I don't live in Western Ukraine. I don't know how the Ukrainians would feel about that. They did massacre the Poles in Volhynia in 1943...
Also, Poland is really playing world history on hard mode, being caught between Germany and Russia. How many times has Poland been invaded again? But seriously, I have a deep respect for the Poles.

Oh, I get that. At the same time, due to my clearly skewed perspective, I really want to punch you in the face for saying it out loud

Pfft there's a long line of people who have dibs on you already. Hey wait!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The West set several precedents for violating the national sovereignty and aggressively interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent countries. Now Russia is making use of those precedents.

You reap what you sow.

Que?

When's the last time the West invaded, then annexed?

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
You reap what you sow.

Easy to say when you're not the one getting reaped.

They say the McCormick reaper does the work of a 100 men.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
WTF?


Here's a fun question.
Russia takes East Ukraine
West Ukraine goes Fascist.
Poland - remembering what happened THE LAST TIME A FASCIST STATE WAS ON ITS BORDER invades
Poland - killing the Nazi ghost in 2015?

Western Ukraine has been a part of Poland before. I would have no problem in it becoming part of Poland again, but I don't live in Western Ukraine. I don't know how the Ukrainians would feel about that. They did massacre the Poles in Volhynia in 1943...
Also, Poland is really playing world history on hard mode, being caught between Germany and Russia. How many times has Poland been invaded again? But seriously, I have a deep respect for the Poles.

Don't tick off the Poles.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Because thats the only way it could occur. USSR er Russia gets a hint of "EU" troops going to Ukraine and its tanks will have reached the Polish border before you can say "European dithering."

Why would EU troops move to the Ukraine?

Also, equivocation does not suit you.

To stop further invasion.... that's why.

I can totally see letting Crimea go to Russia. Then, invite the rest of Ukraine into NATO.... then, ask the NATO countries to help fund a large NATO present in the region to prevent further "annexation" by Russia.

 whembly wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The West set several precedents for violating the national sovereignty and aggressively interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent countries. Now Russia is making use of those precedents.

You reap what you sow.

Que?

When's the last time the West invaded, then annexed?

I invaded a fine Mexican restaurant today celebrating Benito Juarez's birthday. Does total and complete destruction of their bathroom count as annexation?

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The West set several precedents for violating the national sovereignty and aggressively interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent countries. Now Russia is making use of those precedents.

You reap what you sow.

Que?

When's the last time the West invaded, then annexed?

I invaded a fine Mexican restaurant today celebrating Benito Juarez's birthday. Does total and complete destruction of their bathroom count as annexation?

Depends... did it look like this?

Thats the "before" picture.

 whembly wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The West set several precedents for violating the national sovereignty and aggressively interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent countries. Now Russia is making use of those precedents.

You reap what you sow.

Que?

When's the last time the West invaded, then annexed?

Please point out in my comment where I specified "annexed".

My point was a general one, in that the West has a track record of violating the sovereignty and interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent foreign nations by bombing, undermining, and invading them (and on occasion even breaking them up) when it suits the West's own interests to do so, often breaking international law in the process. Now we have a situation where Russia has followed suit and violated the sovereignty of a neighbouring country and interfered in its domestic affairs in order to pursue and protect it's own national interests, breaking international law in the process.

I'm not saying I agree with Russia's actions in occupying and annexing the Crimea (with an apparent democratic mandate, lets keep in mind - they were invited in by the Parliament and supposedly won an overwhelming majority referendum approving it) because I don't, but I do feel uncomfortable condemning the behaviour of another country when my own country is guilty of and gotten away with similar acts in the past.

Pot. Kettle. Black?

However, I do think that Russia should not be allowed to move further into east Ukraine. Let Putin have Crimea, but block any further moves against East Ukraine.

Russia following suit. thats interesting.
Please step into the way back machine and revisit such topics as:

Crimean War
invasion of Finland
Iron Curtain
Korean War
invasion of Hungary.

The old Russian empire was made up of country after country that it had conquered. Its old hat at border intereference.

I was talking about the two and a half decades since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Russia =/= Soviet Union.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The West set several precedents for violating the national sovereignty and aggressively interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent countries. Now Russia is making use of those precedents.

You reap what you sow.

Que?

When's the last time the West invaded, then annexed?

Please point out in my comment where I specified "annexed".

You didn't have to.. you're justifying Russia's actions by saying the "West" is doing the same sort of thing.

Again, when did the modern West start annexing some countries?

My point was a general one, in that the West has a track record of violating the sovereignty and interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent foreign nations by bombing, undermining, and invading them (and on occasion even breaking them up) when it suits the West's own interests to do so, often breaking international law in the process. Now we have a situation where Russia has followed suit and violated the sovereignty of a neighbouring country and interfered in its domestic affairs in order to pursue and protect it's own national interests, breaking international law in the process.

I'm not saying I agree with Russia's actions in occupying and annexing the Crimea (with an apparent democratic mandate, lets keep in mind - they were invited in by the Parliament and supposedly won an overwhelming majority referendum approving it) because I don't, but I do feel uncomfortable condemning the behaviour of another country when my own country is guilty of and gotten away with similar acts in the past.

Pot. Kettle. Black?

Give me an example... what did the West do recently that can justify Russia's actions here?

However, I do think that Russia should not be allowed to move further into east Ukraine. Let Putin have Crimea, but block any further moves against East Ukraine.

Yup. Agree with you there... and even NATO-ize the feth out of that region too.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I was talking about the two and a half decades since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Russia =/= Soviet Union.

You're right its wussier.

The Russian Empire (aka BEFORE the USSR) was indeed an empire of amny different countries conquered from their rightful owners.

Whembly, I thought Ukraine (as a whole) didn't want to join NATO. How would forcing them to become part of that organization help in any way?

 Frazzled wrote:

WTF?

You're equating the Russian Federation with the USSR despite the fact that they are not the same, that is equivocation. Equivocation does not suit you because you're bad at hiding it.

 Frazzled wrote:

Here's a fun question.
Russia takes East Ukraine
West Ukraine goes Fascist.
Poland - remembering what happened THE LAST TIME A FASCIST STATE WAS ON ITS BORDER invades
Poland - killing the Nazi ghost in 2015?

You're not posing a question, you're presenting an absurd scenario.

 -Shrike- wrote:
Whembly, I thought Ukraine (as a whole) didn't want to join NATO. How would forcing them to become part of that organization help in any way?

Ukraine (okay, probably Western Ukraine) was always interested.

As it was, it could never happen because of the Russian base in Crimera.

You're equating the Russian Federation with the USSR despite the fact that they are not the same, that is equivocation. Equivocation does not suit you because you're bad at hiding it.

What can I say, I like to annoy the Russians. And now in the spirit of the Singing Revolution
"Lietuva, Tėvyne mūsų"

Frazzled wrote:

Here's a fun question.
Russia takes East Ukraine
West Ukraine goes Fascist.
Poland - remembering what happened THE LAST TIME A FASCIST STATE WAS ON ITS BORDER invades
Poland - killing the Nazi ghost in 2015?


You're not posing a question, you're presenting an absurd scenario.

Its why we count on you with your years of book learnin to ferret these things out.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Russia to sanction US Senators.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/17/russia-will-sanction-u-s-officials.html#url=/articles/2014/03/17/russia-will-sanction-u-s-officials.html

Finally the US public and Mother Russia are as one!

Shadow Captain is right when he says Russia =/= Soviet Union. Despite what is taught in the American Educational System, the USSR (i.e. the Soviet Union) was not the Russian Empire but actually a union of various sub-republics (Russia included) that formed a collective government. The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was just one of several such republics (as was the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), and while it was in fact the largest and arguably the most powerful, the government of the RSFSR, the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR, was subordinate to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Contrary to what you might think the head of state of the Soviet Union wasn't always a Russian... although who exactly the head of state was at any given time is up for debate, as it seems the Chairman/Premier of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and the First/General Secretary of the Communist Party somewhat alternated/vied for power.

 whembly wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The West set several precedents for violating the national sovereignty and aggressively interfering in the domestic affairs of indepedent countries. Now Russia is making use of those precedents.

You reap what you sow.

Que?

When's the last time the West invaded, then annexed?

Please point out in my comment where I specified "annexed".

You didn't have to.. you're justifying Russia's actions by saying the "West" is doing the same sort of thing


Again, when did the modern West start annexing some countries?
.

No, thats not at all what I'm saying. I disagree with Russia's actions. But I also disagree with the similar acts of Western governments in the past (Iraq). I am not saying that two wrongs make a right (Iraq does not justify Crimea), I am saying that Western hypocrisy has weakened our moral superiority thereby giving Putin a precedent to use as an excuse. We have shown Putin that you can break or circumvent international law when convenient to protect your own national interests and get away with it. The USA does it with near impunity.

And, again. I never specified "annexed". Those are your words, not mine.

The West has shown Russia that you can get away with breaking international law by invading and violating the sovereignty of indepedent countries and interfering in their domestic affairs in the pursuit of your own national interests. Russia thinks it can get away with it too.

Give me an example... what did the West do recently that can justify Russia's actions here?

Your words, not mine. I don't think the previous actions of the West justify the recent actions of Russia, but I do think that it encouraged Putin.

But anyway, my examples...

Iraq.
Libya.
The aborted intervention in Syria. (Limited strike? Is that what we're calling War these days? )
And the West's recent involvement in Ukraine, and attempts to draw it into NATO and the EU. (Didn't Baroness Ashton, a British EU comissioner go to Ukraine to meet with protesters and publicly declared that the EU supported the revolution, whilst Yanukovich was still officially the President?)

 whembly wrote:


Yup. Agree with you there... and even NATO-ize the feth out of that region too.

And I disagree with you there...Pushing NATO right up to Russia's borders will only restart the Cold War. Through its history Russia has been invaded time and time again from Western Europe. Napolean. WW1. WW2. With no natural defensive borders its paranoid that it'll be invaded again (hence the Soviet Union's obsession with buffer states and the Warsaw Pact; and Russia's horror at the prospect of sharing borders with NATO countries). We should try to keep Ukraine as neutral ground, and ensure that it has good relations with both the West (i.e. Europe) and Russia. Let Ukraine join the economic parts of the EU (but nothing involving the military).

Expanding NATO right up to Russia's own borders is like raising your fist to a paranoid schizophrenic.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Because thats the only way it could occur. USSR er Russia gets a hint of "EU" troops going to Ukraine and its tanks will have reached the Polish border before you can say "European dithering."

Why would EU troops move to the Ukraine?

Also, equivocation does not suit you.

To stop further invasion.... that's why.

I can totally see letting Crimea go to Russia. Then, invite the rest of Ukraine into NATO.... then, ask the NATO countries to help fund a large NATO present in the region to prevent further "annexation" by Russia.

Do you think NATO wants Ukraine to join now? I'm guessign the message was sent, and now NATO might not be so keen to move right up to the borders of Russia.

Also, I say that the UK should sanction America AND Russia for threatening world peace and raising the prospect of a second Cold War.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Because thats the only way it could occur. USSR er Russia gets a hint of "EU" troops going to Ukraine and its tanks will have reached the Polish border before you can say "European dithering."

Why would EU troops move to the Ukraine?

Also, equivocation does not suit you.

To stop further invasion.... that's why.

I can totally see letting Crimea go to Russia. Then, invite the rest of Ukraine into NATO.... then, ask the NATO countries to help fund a large NATO present in the region to prevent further "annexation" by Russia.

Do you think NATO wants Ukraine to join now? I'm guessign the message was sent, and now NATO might not be so keen to move right up to the borders of Russia.

I agree.

Expanding NATO right up to Russia's own borders is like raising your fist to a paranoid schizophrenic.


We should be looking for a compromise with Russia, not trying to beat it into a humiliating submission.

Ukraine should be neutral ground.
Let it enter into economic agreements with the EU (provided that those agreements are not mutually exclusive with similar agreements with Russia).
But keep Ukraine out of NATO.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

No, thats not at all what I'm saying. I disagree with Russia's actions. But I also disagree with the similar acts of Western governments in the past (Iraq). I am not saying that two wrongs make a right (Iraq does not justify Crimea), I am saying that Western hypocrisy has weakened our moral superiority thereby giving Putin a precedent to use as an excuse. We have shown Putin that you can break or circumvent international law when convenient to protect your own national interests and get away with it. The USA does it with near impunity.

And, again. I never specified "annexed". Those are your words, not mine.

What hypocrisy?

The West has shown Russia that you can get away with breaking international law by invading and violating the sovereignty of indepedent countries and interfering in their domestic affairs in the pursuit of your own national interests. Russia thinks it can get away with it too.

Which international laws were broken?
...

Your words, not mine. I don't think the previous actions of the West justify the recent actions of Russia, but I do think that it encouraged Putin.

I think Putin was encouraged because he believe the West won't stop him. Simply that.

But anyway, my examples...

Iraq.

How was that illegal? The U.N. authorized that.

Libya.

You might have a point here... but, understand it was a fething hotbed of terrorist activies. Besides... ask the Frenchies about this one.

The aborted intervention in Syria. (Limited strike? Is that what we're calling War these days? )

What mission? We didn't even start.

And the West's recent involvement in Ukraine, and attempts to draw it into NATO and the EU. (Didn't Baroness Ashton, a British EU comissioner go to Ukraine to meet with protesters and publicly declared that the EU supported the revolution, whilst Yanukovich was still officially the President?)

So?

...

And I disagree with you there...Pushing NATO right up to Russia's borders will only restart the Cold War. Through its history Russia has been invaded time and time again from Western Europe. Napolean. WW1. WW2. With no natural defensive borders its paranoid that it'll be invaded again (hence the Soviet Union's obsession with buffer states and the Warsaw Pact; and Russia's horror at the prospect of sharing borders with NATO countries). We should try to keep Ukraine as neutral ground, and ensure that it has good relations with both the West (i.e. Europe) and Russia. Let Ukraine join the economic parts of the EU (but nothing involving the military).

Expanding NATO right up to Russia's own borders is like raising your fist to a paranoid schizophrenic.

Nah... it's the right response. Anything less than that would be deemed toothless. The current sanctions? It's a joke.

 whembly wrote:

To stop further invasion.... that's why.

I can totally see letting Crimea go to Russia. Then, invite the rest of Ukraine into NATO.... then, ask the NATO countries to help fund a large NATO present in the region to prevent further "annexation" by Russia.

The EU and NATO are not the same things, please do not conflate them.

As to "further invasion": what responsibility does the EU have to defend the Ukraine?