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.

Russia does not need to invade. At this rate, the Ukrainians will turn on themselves and Kiev will do all the work for Putin

You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.

 Steve steveson wrote:
You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.

So all those people are Russian soldiers? lol
The protests in the Donbass are coming from the people. It is something that has been boiling since the Orange Revolution, and now it has boiled over.
Russia is not more involved than the West was in the protests in Kiev. Actually even less so. In Kiev there were actually Western politicians that openly went there and supported the protests against the legitimate, democratic government.
This is not Crimea, the situation and history leading up to it are different here.

 Steve steveson wrote:
You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.

And you don't think the initial uprising had any CIA support or other western support? I bet there were plenty of western agents behind the pro western mobs. Look at the facts, NATO wants Ukraine and offers deal, Ukrainian President turns down deal, instant uprising......I'm sure the West had nothing to do with that.

Lets face it this was one covert op after another, Russia was just better at it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia does not need to invade. At this rate, the Ukrainians will turn on themselves and Kiev will do all the work for Putin

I'd proffer Russia (or more "no id guys") has already invaded.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia does not need to invade. At this rate, the Ukrainians will turn on themselves and Kiev will do all the work for Putin

I'd proffer Russia (or more "no id guys") has already invaded.

I'd proffer Western guys were there from the beginning, causing the situation in the first place. Russia's guys were just better. The West in their usually brilliant theories thought all they needed was to support an uprising in Kiev.....they were wrong.

And your point is????

 Frazzled wrote:
And your point is????

I'm just countering your claim that Russian influence is in Ukraine. Russia is undoubtedly fostering these uprisings, but the West started it all in Kiev. Its a case of "Don't start none, won't be none."

The West is now crying "no fair" because they got out played, the west overplayed their hand and underestimated Russia. BOO HOO.

I don't know, maybe the West should start looking to fix the problems in their own backyards before trying to move into Russia's.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
In which case he'd be slammed for being too soft on Russia. There really isn't anything (that I can think of right now at least) that Obama could do that'd let him off the hook, as it were.

Well... it is a national pastime to blame any/all negative events on the current President.

*shrug*

Other than a NATO expansion (or maybe a war exercise in the Black Sea)... not much else he can do.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
In which case he'd be slammed for being too soft on Russia. There really isn't anything (that I can think of right now at least) that Obama could do that'd let him off the hook, as it were.

Well... it is a national pastime to blame any/all negative events on the current President.

*shrug*

Other than a NATO expansion (or maybe a war exercise in the Black Sea)... not much else he can do.

Well NATO expansion is what started this whole affair...so I don't think that is going to work, and a war exercise is probably not in anybody's best interests.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks anything should or could be done about this. I really don't see what the big issue is if Russia is able to take Ukraine in a relatively peaceful and popular movement. The Western sponsored uprising in Kiev was much more violent than any of the Russian sponsored take overs, which to me shows which movement was really more popular.

I doubt that Russia was sitting there plotting how to take Ukraine before the western meddling, they already had it where they wanted it. Now, while they may not have wanted to take it before, they certainly are not going to just let the west have it if they can defend that move so easily.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
In which case he'd be slammed for being too soft on Russia. There really isn't anything (that I can think of right now at least) that Obama could do that'd let him off the hook, as it were.

Well... it is a national pastime to blame any/all negative events on the current President.

*shrug*

Other than a NATO expansion (or maybe a war exercise in the Black Sea)... not much else he can do.

Well NATO expansion is what started this whole affair...so I don't think that is going to work, and a war exercise is probably not in anybody's best interests.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks anything should or could be done about this. I really don't see what the big issue is if Russia is able to take Ukraine in a relatively peaceful and popular movement.

I doubt that Russia was sitting there plotting how to take Ukraine before the western meddling, they already had it where they wanted it. Now, while they may not have wanted to take it before, they certainly are not going to just let the west have it if they can defend that move so easily.

Yeah... true.

If the US was really serious in making a response... one way is to expand our oil/gas industry and sell to Europe in order to compete with Gazprom.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.

And you don't think the initial uprising had any CIA support or other western support? I bet there were plenty of western agents behind the pro western mobs. Look at the facts, NATO wants Ukraine and offers deal, Ukrainian President turns down deal, instant uprising......I'm sure the West had nothing to do with that.

Lets face it this was one covert op after another, Russia was just better at it.

What on Earth are you talking about? The deal that the Ukrainian president turned down was a EU trade agreement it had nothing to with NATO, in fact NATO declined membership to Ukraine back in 2008 so I don't known where you are getting that NATO wants anything to do with Ukraine as well.

Also the Ukrainian people protested against the refusal of the trade agreement because most people see the EU as a source of prosperity and Russia just as a source of oppression so there is no need for any hidden conspiracy there as well. We are talking about a part of the world where democracy is such a young concept that you have open riots on the street when people find out that a politician was lying...

Also Putin got what he wanted, not because he is some genius mastermind that outmanoeuvred anyone, but because the European 'leaders' are incredibly weak at the moment thanks to the EU still being in a social turmoil because of the financial crisis and because the US isn't fooling anyone any more after their spectacular string of failures in the ME.

All this political posturing was completely unnecessary, Russia could have just rolled into Crimea with tanks at the front and the west wouldn't have been able to do anything anyway.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.

And you don't think the initial uprising had any CIA support or other western support? I bet there were plenty of western agents behind the pro western mobs. Look at the facts, NATO wants Ukraine and offers deal, Ukrainian President turns down deal, instant uprising......I'm sure the West had nothing to do with that.

Lets face it this was one covert op after another, Russia was just better at it.

What on Earth are you talking about? The deal that the Ukrainian president turned down was a EU trade agreement it had nothing to with NATO, in fact NATO declined membership to Ukraine back in 2008 so I don't known where you are getting that NATO wants anything to do with Ukraine as well.

My bad typed NATO instead of EU.

Also Putin got what he wanted, not because he is some genius mastermind that outmanoeuvred anyone, but because the European 'leaders' are incredibly weak at the moment thanks to the EU still being in a social turmoil because of the financial crisis and because the US isn't fooling anyone any more after their spectacular string of failures in the ME.

Right the West overplayed its hand. I don't think its because they are necessarily weak, but failed to really grasp the situation. Russia clearly outmaneuvered them and beat them at the game, not that they really wanted to, I think Russia would have been happier with the status qua as it was before. I mean Russia was already getting everything it wanted from Ukraine.

most people see the EU as a source of prosperity and Russia just as a source of oppression so there is no need for any hidden conspiracy there as well.

Not sure I agree with this, that may have been the perception in parts of western Ukraine, but I wouldn't call that most. It would also be an inaccurate assessment of who could provide the best financial support. Ukraine needs the gas subsidies that Russia gives it for its economy to survive, I'm not really sure what the EU could offer that would compare.....which is why the deal was refused.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.

And you don't think the initial uprising had any CIA support or other western support? I bet there were plenty of western agents behind the pro western mobs. Look at the facts, NATO wants Ukraine and offers deal, Ukrainian President turns down deal, instant uprising......I'm sure the West had nothing to do with that.

Lets face it this was one covert op after another, Russia was just better at it.

Also the Ukrainian people protested against the refusal of the trade agreement because most people see the EU as a source of prosperity and Russia just as a source of oppression so there is no need for any hidden conspiracy there as well. We are talking about a part of the world where democracy is such a young concept that you have open riots on the street when people find out that a politician was lying...

Lol, I stopped taking you seriously right there. I sincerely hope you don't actually believe what you are saying.
Otherwise I recommend a good conversation with an actual Ukrainian or a course on 'how not to generalise to the point of ridiculousness'.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.

And you don't think the initial uprising had any CIA support or other western support? I bet there were plenty of western agents behind the pro western mobs. Look at the facts, NATO wants Ukraine and offers deal, Ukrainian President turns down deal, instant uprising......I'm sure the West had nothing to do with that.

Lets face it this was one covert op after another, Russia was just better at it.

Also the Ukrainian people protested against the refusal of the trade agreement because most people see the EU as a source of prosperity and Russia just as a source of oppression so there is no need for any hidden conspiracy there as well. We are talking about a part of the world where democracy is such a young concept that you have open riots on the street when people find out that a politician was lying...

Lol, I stopped taking you seriously right there. I sincerely hope you don't actually believe what you are saying.
Otherwise I recommend a good conversation with an actual Ukrainian or a course on 'how not to generalise to the point of ridiculousness'.

Your family left Russia for presumably a better life in an EU country, you are living proof of what I just said... When you grow out of your "I'm an expatriate descendent so everything in my native country was better than where I am now" phase, you'll also realise this.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And your point is????

I'm just countering your claim that Russian influence is in Ukraine. Russia is undoubtedly fostering these uprisings, but the West started it all in Kiev. Its a case of "Don't start none, won't be none."

The West is now crying "no fair" because they got out played, the west overplayed their hand and underestimated Russia. BOO HOO.

I don't know, maybe the West should start looking to fix the problems in their own backyards before trying to move into Russia's.

Maybe we should just give Ukraine 50 nuclear tipped SS missiles with the notation "break glass in case of Roosky attack." That would stop this nonsense.

Let's just face facts. There are really no good ways to counter Putin's moves in his own backyard. I think it is time we all (The West) came to terms with that fact.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Also Putin got what he wanted, not because he is some genius mastermind that outmanoeuvred anyone, but because the European 'leaders' are incredibly weak at the moment thanks to the EU still being in a social turmoil because of the financial crisis and because the US isn't fooling anyone any more after their spectacular string of failures in the ME.

Right the West overplayed its hand. I don't think its because they are necessarily weak, but failed to really grasp the situation. Russia clearly outmaneuvered them and beat them at the game, not that they really wanted to, I think Russia would have been happier with the status qua as it was before. I mean Russia was already getting everything it wanted from Ukraine.

They didn't overplay anything, the EU isn't (or wasn't at least), in any geo-political struggle with Russia. This wasn't any covert political plot to "diminish" Russia's prestige or influence or whatever, it was just a trade agreement. What Putin did was insane by any definition, he committed an open act of war against an independent nation that had military defence agreements with both the UK and the US, only for the apparent purpose of 'saving face'.

And when I'm talking about EU politicians being weak, I don't mean as a character trait, I mean politically in their own countries. Every EU head of state is walking a very thin line with their constituents because of all the economical turmoil going around. The kind of sanctions that should have been imposed on Russia because of this, while having a much more serious impact on Russia, would only deepen that turmoil and probably cause any Prime Minister that supported them to loose their jobs at the next election if not sooner.

Not sure I agree with this, that may have been the perception in parts of western Ukraine, but I wouldn't call that most. It would also be an inaccurate assessment of who could provide the best financial support. Ukraine needs the gas subsidies that Russia gives it for its economy to survive, I'm not really sure what the EU could offer that would compare.....which is why the deal was refused.

The deal was refused because Russia threatened economic sanctions on Ukraine if they signed it. Russia threatened those sanctions because this deal would have lessened Ukraine's dependency on Russia's financial support and like you said yourself, remove Ukraine just that little bit from Russia's control. Claiming that the refusal was in the best interest of the Ukrainian people is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And your point is????

I'm just countering your claim that Russian influence is in Ukraine. Russia is undoubtedly fostering these uprisings, but the West started it all in Kiev. Its a case of "Don't start none, won't be none."

The West is now crying "no fair" because they got out played, the west overplayed their hand and underestimated Russia. BOO HOO.

I don't know, maybe the West should start looking to fix the problems in their own backyards before trying to move into Russia's.

Maybe we should just give Ukraine 50 nuclear tipped SS missiles with the notation "break glass in case of Roosky attack." That would stop this nonsense.

What nonsense are you speaking of?

Lets go over the timeline here.

Russia already had a military support agreement with Ukraine. Russia was to protect Ukraine, in exchange Ukraine gave up its Nukes.

The Ukrainian government stalls on signing an economic agreement with the EU because the results of signing the agreement could be catastrophic for the Ukrainian economy depending on the wording of the agreement and Moscow's reaction to it.

Western sponsored uprisings in western cities of Ukraine start. We know these uprisings are western sponsored, its not even an argument. These are the same groups that sponsored the orange revolution in 2004.

" Activists of the Orange Revolution were funded and trained in tactics of political organization and nonviolent resistance by a coalition of Western pollsters and professional consultants who were partly funded by a range of Western government and non-government agencies. According to The Guardian, the foreign donors included the U.S. State Department and USAID along with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, the NGO Freedom House and George Soros's Open Society Institute. The National Endowment for Democracy, a foundation supported by the U.S. government, has supported non-governmental democracy-building efforts in Ukraine since 1988. Writings on nonviolent struggle by Gene Sharp contributed in forming the strategic basis of the student campaigns."

So if there is any nonsense being done, its by Western influences.

Basically the West tried to overthrow the elected government of Ukraine. While this may have worked in some western Ukraine cities, it did not go over well every where else.

If someone somehow toppled lets say D.C. or New York city, do you think the rest of the U.S. would just go with it? I can totally see Texas and other states annexing themselves if the U.S. federal government collapsed.

They didn't overplay anything, the EU isn't (or wasn't at least), in any geo-political struggle with Russia. This wasn't any covert political plot to "diminish" Russia's prestige or influence or whatever, it was just a trade agreement.

It was a trade agreement made to bring Ukraine more strongly into the sphere of influence of the EU and away from Russia's. That's the definition of and aggressive economic/ geo-political struggle meant clearly to diminish Russia's prestige and influence. If you can't see that, there is no point in having a conversation. This can be proven by who has backed and supported political movements in western Ukraine.

Sometimes, hell in fact most times a trade agreement is not just a trade agreement. Thats just being naive.

What Putin did was insane by any definition, he committed an open act of war against an independent nation that had military defence agreements with both the UK and the US, only for the apparent purpose of 'saving face'.

That may be the Western propaganda explanation. The real explanation however is that Russia has had a standing defense agreement with Ukraine since Ukraine gave up its Nukes. This agreement was requested by the current and still legitimate President of Ukraine. That's Right, the head of the Ukrainian government requested the support of Russian troops and by that agreement Russia is actually bound to provide said support.

And when I'm talking about EU politicians being weak, I don't mean as a character trait, I mean politically in their own countries. Every EU head of state is walking a very thin line with their constituents because of all the economical turmoil going around. The kind of sanctions that should have been imposed on Russia because of this, while having a much more serious impact on Russia, would only deepen that turmoil and probably cause any Prime Minister that supported them to loose their jobs at the next election if not sooner.

Makes you wonder why they thought this would be a good idea in the first place then, or why Ukraine might stop to think if EU economic support was really worth distancing itself from Russia, when Russia's current economic support is the only thing keeping the country from collapse.

Actually the EU has put the lightest of sanctions on Russia, because they may hurt the EU more than Russia. Russia's economy is currently based on vital natural resources, if the EU won't buy them, there are plenty of other buyers out there. The EU economy however is very vulnerable and needs those resources more than Russia needs to sell them to the EU. This was a stupid push by the west.

However now that The US is a net exporter of Natural gas and Oil, I can see some gears turning as to who might want to shake up the situation.

The deal was refused because Russia threatened economic sanctions on Ukraine if they signed it. Russia threatened those sanctions because this deal would have lessened Ukraine's dependency on Russia's financial support and like you said yourself, remove Ukraine just that little bit from Russia's control. Claiming that the refusal was in the best interest of the Ukrainian people is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

Again, western propaganda. Russia didn't threaten sanctions. They simply said they would no longer be able to provide gas subsidies as the new EU agreement would break the current agreement with The Eurasian Economic Community customs union. Ukraine was free to choose which agreement they wanted, but had to consider the consequences of breaking their current agreements. The main consequence would be that Ukraine would now have to pay THE SAME PRICE EVERYONE ELSE PAYS, not more.

This basically means that keeping its trade agreement with Russia was in everyone best interests, as without those subsidies that Russia grants Ukraine, they could not afford gas......well they can't afford it now even, as they are way behind in payments already. If Russia really wanted to destroy Ukraine, they by rights could just shut off the pipeline.

Blah blah, would Russia attempt to "annex" Ukraine if Ukraine had 50 20 megaton bombs? yes or no?

PhantomViper wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
You say that as if there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine at the moment. There seems to be more and more evidence that not all of the "Local pro-russian grass roots protesters" are anything of the sort.

And you don't think the initial uprising had any CIA support or other western support? I bet there were plenty of western agents behind the pro western mobs. Look at the facts, NATO wants Ukraine and offers deal, Ukrainian President turns down deal, instant uprising......I'm sure the West had nothing to do with that.

Lets face it this was one covert op after another, Russia was just better at it.

Also the Ukrainian people protested against the refusal of the trade agreement because most people see the EU as a source of prosperity and Russia just as a source of oppression so there is no need for any hidden conspiracy there as well. We are talking about a part of the world where democracy is such a young concept that you have open riots on the street when people find out that a politician was lying...

Lol, I stopped taking you seriously right there. I sincerely hope you don't actually believe what you are saying.
Otherwise I recommend a good conversation with an actual Ukrainian or a course on 'how not to generalise to the point of ridiculousness'.

Your family left Russia for presumably a better life in an EU country, you are living proof of what I just said... When you grow out of your "I'm an expatriate descendent so everything in my native country was better than where I am now" phase, you'll also realise this.

So now you also know the reasons my family left Ukraine (Sevastopol was still part of Ukraine at the time)?
Wow! You are amazing!

 Frazzled wrote:
Blah blah, would Russia attempt to "annex" Ukraine if Ukraine had 50 20 megaton bombs? yes or no?

Maybe, since Russia has plenty of bombs itself, so Ukraine actually using those bombs would be its own doom, but It would be a huge lot less likely though.

Sadly, I think Frazz is on to something. We have learned yet again that the best defense against attack in Nukes.

Is it any wonder iran wants one so bad? The world stage is littered with countries that did not have nukes getting invaded while those that do have Nukes are not.

Ukraine clearly needs to have a sales meeting with the guy who's so popular in his country that all the males are getting the same hair cuts...

 Frazzled wrote:
Blah blah, would Russia attempt to "annex" Ukraine if Ukraine had 50 20 megaton bombs? yes or no?

Sadly, I think Frazz is on to something. We have learned yet again that the best defense against attack in Nukes.

Is it any wonder iran wants one so bad? The world stage is littered with countries that did not have nukes getting invaded while those that do have Nukes are not.

I think you are both crazy! Have you really given much thought to that situation?

Depends who had the codes. If it was the elected president of Ukraine, you know, the guy that asked for Russian assistance, I' don't think Russia has anything to fear. If anything Ukraine having Nukes would have meant a much more aggressive posture as Russia rolled through all of Ukraine, Czech style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia.

Russia really would have had little choice in the matter, as they still would most likely have a defense agreement with the Ukrainian government (as they still do, just depends on which government you see as legitimate), Russia would have had to roll in and protect the nukes from going rogue. Which probably would have required an extreme response from the West and escalating the conflict to the very brink of.....well BAD TIMES.

I think we can probably say the world is better off that Ukraine no longer had those nukes.

I'd proffer the Ukrainians now disagree with you.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'd proffer the Ukrainians now disagree with you.

hey, at least they're still alive and able to disagree. As opposed to incinerated...

 Frazzled wrote:
I'd proffer the Ukrainians now disagree with you.

hey, at least they're still alive and able to disagree. As opposed to incinerated...

Or more likely crushed under Russian tank tracks, only later to be incinerated as the situation goes bat gak levels as east and west finally have that showdown we have all thought was just an old cold war fantasy.

I'd proffer, that some Ukrainians might disagree with me, but they would be idiots who haven't really put much thought into the situation. Having nukes would have demanded Russian tanks blitzing throughout Ukraine putting down a civil war (most likely in the most expedient way which is usually violent and not good for anybody) and protecting Nuclear facilities. However, looking at the numbers that are flocking to the pro Russian side, I'd say that most would agree with me.

Has the Ukrainian military even put up a token defense? Nope. Literally nothing, not one instance of the Ukrainian military standing against Russia. In fact there were instances where they were sharing the same bases. I think that speaks volumes about what the real situation is and how much support there really is for this new government.

So this same military was going to shoot Nukes at Russia? I don't think so. Would those Nukes have forced a much more violent situation, I think the answer is undoubtedly yes.

No Nukes meant Russia could relax a bit and just defend what they wanted and where people wanted them, with nukes this gets bad really quick as they have to go and take everything and clash with the resistance.

Fazz, I don't get why you think this is some tragic event for Ukrainians. The Russians are not gunning people down, they are not oppressing anyone. The fact that they have met little to no resistance seams to say that this is for the most part actually a welcomed event. I believe it may have stopped an actual massively violent and destructive civil war!

You know like how the US was going to bring sunshine and rainbows to Iraq and the people would repay them with kisses.......except the Russian actually figured out how to do it right.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'd proffer the Ukrainians now disagree with you.

hey, at least they're still alive and able to disagree. As opposed to incinerated...

Or more likely crushed under Russian tank tracks, only later to be incinerated as the situation goes bat gak levels as east and west finally have that showdown we have all thought was just an old cold war fantasy.

I'd proffer, that some Ukrainians might disagree with me, but they would be idiots who haven't really put much thought into the situation. Having nukes would have demanded Russian tanks blitzing throughout Ukraine putting down a civil war (most likely in the most expedient way which is usually violent and not good for anybody) and protecting Nuclear facilities. However, looking at the numbers that are flocking to the pro Russian side, I'd say that most would agree with me.

Has the Ukrainian military even put up a token defense? Nope. Literally nothing, not one instance of the Ukrainian military standing against Russia. In fact there were instances where they were sharing the same bases. I think that speaks volumes about what the real situation is and how much support there really is for this new government.

So this same military was going to shoot Nukes at Russia? I don't think so. Would those Nukes have forced a much more violent situation, I think the answer is undoubtedly yes.

America has nukes in Europe, are they American nukes or European. Ukraine never had nukes they were Russian, Russia took them back.
Europe will do nothing, Great Britain will do nothing. I'm typing this because our power stations are generating electricity with Russian gas.

America has nukes in Europe, are they American nukes or European. Ukraine never had nukes they were Russian, Russia took them back.
Europe will do nothing, Great Britain will do nothing. I'm typing this because our power stations are generating electricity with Russian gas.

See I have a solution. Import Tex Mex and you'll have all the home grown natural gas you could possibly handle.

You don't think we got all this natural gas here from frakking did you?

I'm not sure if they were Russian Nukes, Ukrainian Nukes or just plain old Soviet Union Nukes, I don't know who had the launch codes, but it doesn't matter. Anyway you look at it, Nukes in Ukraine would have made this situation very very bad.