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.

 Allod wrote:
In all seriousness, I disagree completely, because my life experience tells me that conflicts of the scale we're discussing here (40,000 Russian troops for starters) are not predictable or controllable, and even if they were, our leaders are totally unable to do either. If we all were so sensible all the time, nuclear deterrence wouldn't be a thing.

Yeah, conflicts can escalate, that's a fair point, and while I was aware of it in my thinking I didn't do enough to put it down in my posts here.

But I'm not sure it means you can treat the possibility of escalation as equal to escalation, and therefore back out of most conflicts with any other nuclear armed state, because then given the severity of nuclear conflict nothing seems worth the risk. I mean, sure, NATO is important but measured against nuclear annihilation its just a treaty with those silly Europeans...

So, if you're a great power and start shooting at Russian soldiers, you should be sure that what you're fighting for is worth a nuclear exchange some time down the road. I doubt that anybody places that kind of value in the territorial integrity of a Soviet successor state that has practically no national history at all.

But that's just my opinion, and hopefully we'll never find out who of us is right.

I find the idea of a nation deserving protection only because it has some kind of national history to be one of the more odious parts of many people's beliefs of geo-politics, to be honest. They are people, and they deserve self-determination, and whether their ancestors used to have their own country or not doesn't really matter.

Not that this is about the whole Ukraine itself, but is more about Russian interference in independence movements in the Ukraine, and well it's pretty clear no-one in the West thinks that is worth a conventional war.

Guess the Ukraine should have signed up to NATO. They probably will now, with whatever is remaining of their country when this is all over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:
And they got the idea of concentration camps from us, look up the Boer war.

This is one of those things that gets thrown around the internet a lot, but without a lot of important context.

Yes, the idea of taking a population and concentrating them all together in dorm and tent dwellings behind barbed wire isn't particularly nice, but it's a fething mile away from systematically starving the people placed in those camps and forcing them in to such grueling work duties that the camp administrators actually calculated how long an inmate could be made to work before dropping dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
Meanwhile, Ill see both heads and tails, and youll just cry out "NO TAILS EXISTS BECAUSE I CANNOT SEE IT!", again, just adding noise because of your unwillingness to accept and process the complexity of having more then one side to issues.

Fallacy of the reasonable middle ground.

Thing is, when one side says its raining outside and the other side says it is clear, what makes sense is to look out the window and see whether it is actually raining or not. Instead your approach is to say 'I see both sides and consider both have valid points of view and think all the people who think it is raining are just biased people who only listen to their side'... and to be perfectly frank that's a complete load of nonsense.

Loath as I am to refer to RT, it seems that they have picked up on a story that Reuters and the BBC are choosing to ignore.

http://rt.com/news/155724-crimea-water-supply-ukraine/

Moscow will not bargain with Kiev over Crimea's water supply

Russia will not engage in political bargaining with the Ukrainian government over its decision to cut off Crimea's water supply, Russian natural resources minister Sergey Donskoy said.

“The situation clearly shows that Kiev is unfriendly towards the people of Crimea. We’re not surprised by this as recent developments characterize the regime in Kiev as anti-popular,” Donskoy said, as quoted by Itar-Tass news agency.

Moscow will not take part in political bargaining because “it’s the ordinary people who suffer” from water shortages, the minister said as he arrived in the city of Sevastopol.

Donskoy stressed that Crimea's agricultural industry is most affected in the current situation, but added that “we’ll find ways to compensate the water demands.”

“In Crimea, a lot of water is wasted. It’s dumped into the sea. There’s no water recycling in place, which would enable us to use water for technical needs after preliminary processing,” he said.

The minister added that Crimea's water supply system is in rather bad shape after decades of Ukrainian rule.

“Today we examined the Feodosiya reservoir where over 70 percent of the water is unusable,” he explained.

According to the minister, the water supply system in Crimea will be modernized by the Russian government, taking into account the specific features of each region of the peninsula.

He added that groundwater reserves will help satisfy Crimea's needs.

“But we must use all available options,” the minister said, underlining the importance of reconstructing the existing facilities. Donskoy said this will be less expensive than erecting large desalination plants for sea water, which he called “the last option to be considered.”

On Saturday, the coup-imposed Kiev government cut off water supply through the North-Crimean Channel, which delivers water from the Dnieper River to Crimea.

Crimea’s Prime Minister Sergey Aksenov was quick to state that “there are no problems with drinking water. Agricultural producers will be compensated for their losses.”

Crimea, which is dependent on Ukraine for 85 percent of its freshwater, offered an advance payment for the water from the Dnieper River. However, the talks were sabotaged by Kiev.

The relevant documents were sent to Ukraine's water management agency on five occasions, but were returned as “far-fetched” excuses, Vitaly Nakhlupin, head of the Permanent Economic Committee of the Crimean Parliament, said.

If the Ukrainians truly have cut all the water supplies going through to Crimea, then I somewhat take the view that they mustn't complain if the Russians then in turn cut off their gas. If you're going to try to strangle the absolute essentials of a group of people (and we're talking about over 80% of the water supply used in the Crimea for drinking, washing, and farming), you don't have much of a leg to stand on to complain when others do it to you, regardless of the politics of the situation.

I do note with interest though, that if gas were cut off to Ukraine the BBC would be all over it like hot cakes, but there hasn't been so much as a whisper on Ukraine cutting off water to Crimea. A perfect example, if one was needed, that the BBC are far from impartial on this one.

We're the "West". We're suppose to be the "Good Guys" and Russia/FDR is the "Evil Bad Guy"

Reference I was making Alpha was Russia Government view on Nazism. Past and more likely present. I highly doubt Russia/FDR is going to stand idle if a possible Neo-Facist Government sets up next door to them.

 sebster wrote:
But I'm not sure it means you can treat the possibility of escalation as equal to escalation, and therefore back out of most conflicts with any other nuclear armed state, because then given the severity of nuclear conflict nothing seems worth the risk. I mean, sure, NATO is important but measured against nuclear annihilation its just a treaty with those silly Europeans...

I get what you mean. In all fairness, I do think that "we" (put in quotes because of Austria's silly neutrality) in the west, who are so closely tied to each other, should stick up for each other, even in the face of danger. In the end, that might mean armed conflict with all its possible consequences. I just don't think that this is a clear-cut case of such defense.

I find the idea of a nation deserving protection only because it has some kind of national history to be one of the more odious parts of many people's beliefs of geo-politics, to be honest. They are people, and they deserve self-determination, and whether their ancestors used to have their own country or not doesn't really matter.

OK, that was not what I meant, I should make myself more clear: Is this terribly young nation of Ukraine identical with "the land of the Ukrainians"? History is a relevant factor here because Ukraine is a fantasy-land that was born by being drawn unto a map, not through any natural processes, and her current government's bleating about a historical "Ukrainian nation" that justifies all its claims is bogus. The Ukrainian hodge-podge collection of ethnicities, regions and completely diverging histories would not be a problem at all if a healthy majority of her people everywhere in the country said: "I don't care, *I* think I'm Ukrainian." Obviously, this is not the case.

By now this is all crying over spilt milk, but what should have been done is to give the people their vote which state they want to belong to after the fall of the Soviet Union, instead of just recognising another soviet republic that broke away.

Ukraine, as in, the land that the people identifying as Ukrainians can rightfully claim, deserves our protection. So far, nobody knows what this nation would look like. Unfortunately, we will never find out, because now Russia alone dictates what's Ukraine and what's not.

You tube posted this to my profile. I thought it worth watching.

You may disagree, but what the hell this is dakka

 loki old fart wrote:
You tube posted this to my profile. I thought it worth watching.

You may disagree, but what the hell this is dakka

Basically what I have been saying the whole time.

Cliffnotes for those of us who browse at work and can't listen?

chaos0xomega wrote:
Cliffnotes for those of us who browse at work and can't listen?

It basically says that the West intentionally backed violent Regime change in Ukraine, it lists references, articles and other paper trails to back the assertion.

I think it may take it a bit too far, saying that the plot is just a step to push for total war between the West and Russia/China, but the all the information seams credible.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Cliffnotes for those of us who browse at work and can't listen?

It basically says that the West intentionally backed violent Regime change in Ukraine, it lists references, articles and other paper trails to back the assertion.

Which doesn't mean any of it is true. It's also notably silent on the fact that Russian agents have been identified in the Ukraine among the "militias".

It's a YouTube channel dedicated to "exposing conspiracies aimed at discrediting those who tell only the truth" and "educating the misinformed European and American publics".

Was this not known already? The west supported Ukrainan regime change to a more western leaning gov., Russia is supporting pro-russian separatists. I didn't think this was news to anybody.

i think it because the west is supporting known Nazis.

It's also notably silent on the fact that Russian agents have been identified in the Ukraine among the "militias".

I believe that story has been debunked, if I remember even CNN retracted that story.

loki old fart:
Wasn't that back in page 10 or so?

I'm sure I heard a fleeting mention of crimea's water supply somewhere before, but that's still fething stupid. Why would you cut off drinking water to anyone?

 -Shrike- wrote:
I'm sure I heard a fleeting mention of crimea's water supply somewhere before, but that's still fething stupid. Why would you cut off drinking water to anyone?

You did, and maybe they want to force them to give in, or die of disease. Bet they cry like babies if Russia switches the gas off.

 Ketara wrote:

Spoiler:

Loath as I am to refer to RT, it seems that they have picked up on a story that Reuters and the BBC are choosing to ignore.

http://rt.com/news/155724-crimea-water-supply-ukraine/

Moscow will not bargain with Kiev over Crimea's water supply

Russia will not engage in political bargaining with the Ukrainian government over its decision to cut off Crimea's water supply, Russian natural resources minister Sergey Donskoy said.

“The situation clearly shows that Kiev is unfriendly towards the people of Crimea. We’re not surprised by this as recent developments characterize the regime in Kiev as anti-popular,” Donskoy said, as quoted by Itar-Tass news agency.

Moscow will not take part in political bargaining because “it’s the ordinary people who suffer” from water shortages, the minister said as he arrived in the city of Sevastopol.

Donskoy stressed that Crimea's agricultural industry is most affected in the current situation, but added that “we’ll find ways to compensate the water demands.”

“In Crimea, a lot of water is wasted. It’s dumped into the sea. There’s no water recycling in place, which would enable us to use water for technical needs after preliminary processing,” he said.

The minister added that Crimea's water supply system is in rather bad shape after decades of Ukrainian rule.

“Today we examined the Feodosiya reservoir where over 70 percent of the water is unusable,” he explained.

According to the minister, the water supply system in Crimea will be modernized by the Russian government, taking into account the specific features of each region of the peninsula.

He added that groundwater reserves will help satisfy Crimea's needs.

“But we must use all available options,” the minister said, underlining the importance of reconstructing the existing facilities. Donskoy said this will be less expensive than erecting large desalination plants for sea water, which he called “the last option to be considered.”

On Saturday, the coup-imposed Kiev government cut off water supply through the North-Crimean Channel, which delivers water from the Dnieper River to Crimea.

Crimea’s Prime Minister Sergey Aksenov was quick to state that “there are no problems with drinking water. Agricultural producers will be compensated for their losses.”

Crimea, which is dependent on Ukraine for 85 percent of its freshwater, offered an advance payment for the water from the Dnieper River. However, the talks were sabotaged by Kiev.

The relevant documents were sent to Ukraine's water management agency on five occasions, but were returned as “far-fetched” excuses, Vitaly Nakhlupin, head of the Permanent Economic Committee of the Crimean Parliament, said.

If the Ukrainians truly have cut all the water supplies going through to Crimea, then I somewhat take the view that they mustn't complain if the Russians then in turn cut off their gas. If you're going to try to strangle the absolute essentials of a group of people (and we're talking about over 80% of the water supply used in the Crimea for drinking, washing, and farming), you don't have much of a leg to stand on to complain when others do it to you, regardless of the politics of the situation.

I do note with interest though, that if gas were cut off to Ukraine the BBC would be all over it like hot cakes, but there hasn't been so much as a whisper on Ukraine cutting off water to Crimea. A perfect example, if one was needed, that the BBC are far from impartial on this one.

The BBC did have this article on the water issue posted on April 25.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27155885

Russian officials say a water shortage in Crimea is threatening to become acute as Ukraine has reduced the supply via a key canal.

Ukraine does not recognise the new authorities in Crimea who are backed by Moscow. Russia made the peninsula part of its territory last month.

Crimea's harvest of grapes, rice, maize and soya will be ruined if it does not get more water soon, officials say.

Russia says the Crimea-Ukraine border is now officially a state border.

The Russian government plans to establish permanent checkpoints there, as well as new rules for entering or leaving Crimea, Ria Novosti news agency reports.

The North Crimea Canal delivers water to Crimea from the River Dnieper, in Ukraine's southern Kherson region. The canal accounts for 80% of Crimea's water.

The current water shortage is threatening 120,000 hectares (296,000 acres) of Crimea's crops, which rely on irrigation, Russian Agriculture Minister Nikolai Fedorov said.

A ruined harvest across that area would mean losses of up to 5bn roubles (£83m; $140m), he told the Gazeta.ru news website.

Row with Kiev
A BBC reporter in Crimea recently said the water supply was one of the chief concerns of local people, ahead of the controversial March referendum on joining Russia.

The canal authorities in Ukraine say Crimea has accumulated a huge debt for water supplied last year. The dispute is aggravated by the breakdown in relations between Kiev and Moscow.

The water supply to Crimea has diminished from 50 cu m (1,765 cu ft) per second to about 16 cu m per second, Crimea's new pro-Russian authorities say.

To deal with the shortage, new wells could be dug or water could be brought in from Russia, but such options are expensive, officials warn.

Masked Russian-speaking gunmen blockaded Ukrainian military units in Crimea last month, leading to the peninsula's annexation by Russia - a move condemned internationally.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin later admitted that regular Russian forces had helped pro-Russian militants in Crimea.

Most of the local population is Russian-speaking and Sevastopol is the base of Russia's Black Sea Fleet.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which doesn't mean any of it is true. It's also notably silent on the fact that Russian agents have been identified in the Ukraine among the "militias".

still quoting redacted articles as fact eh?

that explains a lot. Dont let the fact that your "fact" is total BS stop you from calling it a "fact" though...


OFC that is the whole point of putting wild, unproven/unconfirmed speculations on the front page, and then mute retractions on the back page...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
I'm sure I heard a fleeting mention of crimea's water supply somewhere before, but that's still fething stupid. Why would you cut off drinking water to anyone?

You did, and maybe they want to force them to give in, or die of disease. Bet they cry like babies if Russia switches the gas off.

yeah, cutting off drinking water could even be seen as an act of war,

pretty dishonest of the ukraine to cut off water based on such a small amount of debt, when they themselves are asking for russia to totally ignore their gas debt and just keep giving it to them for free.

Not to mention, that if crimea is "ukraine" as the kiev regime says, then its just inflicing suffering on their own peoples.

Which doesn't mean any of it is true

Have you watched the video, do you know what evidence they presented? Its pretty damning stuff, recorded phone calls and financial records showing the U.S. state department backing a NEO NAZI take over.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
the U.S. state department backing a NEO NAZI take over.

Has this already happened? Where? I hope you are not talking about the current temporary Ukrainian government that apparently couldn't form without _some_ right wing participation. That's hardly a neo nazi regime.

 Minx wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
the U.S. state department backing a NEO NAZI take over.

Has this already happened? Where? I hope you are not talking about the current temporary Ukrainian government that apparently couldn't form without _some_ right wing participation. That's hardly a neo nazi regime.

DId you miss when they appointed people from svoboda and rightsector to key positions?


sure, not everyone in their government is a neo nazi, but what % is too much? 5? 10? 50? 100?

if john kerry, or the US minister of defence was a vocal KKK member, is that ok?

 Andrew1975 wrote:

It's also notably silent on the fact that Russian agents have been identified in the Ukraine among the "militias".

I believe that story has been debunked, if I remember even CNN retracted that story.

I thought Putin said that there were Russian soldiers in crimea? Or am I mis-hearing information?
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK !

 easysauce wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which doesn't mean any of it is true. It's also notably silent on the fact that Russian agents have been identified in the Ukraine among the "militias".

still quoting redacted articles as fact eh?

First of all: You don't know what "redacted" means. The term you're looking for is RETRACTED. But don't let that stop you from snarking off.

that explains a lot. Dont let the fact that your "fact" is total BS stop you from calling it a "fact" though...

One of the best-known leaders of the uprising, Igor Strelkov directs armed pro-Russian activists in eastern Ukraine, especially in Sloviansk.

The Ukrainian security service says he works for the Russian military intelligence agency, the GRU, and his real name is Igor Girkin. He was born in 1970 and registered in Moscow, according to the service.

He was previously active in Crimea. In an interview with Russia's Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper, Mr Strelkov said that his brigade in Sloviansk had been formed in Crimea from volunteers only, but most of them had combat experience fighting for the Russian armed forces in Chechnya, Central Asia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and even Syria.

According to various sources, Mr Strelkov himself also took part in conflicts in Yugoslavia as a volunteer, and in Chechnya under contract.

Russian media, however, dismiss any ongoing links with the Russian military - in fact they suggest he is a military enthusiast who specialises in historical re-enactment and staged recreations of battles.

They describe him as commander of Sloviansk's self-defence forces, but say he is not a GRU colonel, but rather a retired officer of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). His last role before retirement was reportedly with FSB's Directorate for Combating International Terrorism.

So no, that hasn't been "retracted"

OFC that is the whole point of putting wild, unproven/unconfirmed speculations on the front page, and then mute retractions on the back page...

There you go, you used the right term!

Too bad that the idea of it being "wild, unproven/unconfirmed speculations" actually fits perfectly since that same individual was photographed in Georgia wearing a Spetsnaz badge.

 loki old fart wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
I'm sure I heard a fleeting mention of crimea's water supply somewhere before, but that's still fething stupid. Why would you cut off drinking water to anyone?

You did, and maybe they want to force them to give in, or die of disease. Bet they cry like babies if Russia switches the gas off.

yeah, cutting off drinking water could even be seen as an act of war,

So could storming government buildings, taking hostages, and declaring yourself an independent nation.

pretty dishonest of the ukraine to cut off water based on such a small amount of debt, when they themselves are asking for russia to totally ignore their gas debt and just keep giving it to them for free.

Not to mention, that if crimea is "ukraine" as the kiev regime says, then its just inflicing suffering on their own peoples.

I love how you keep using the terminology of "Kiev regime". Totally objective to the whole situation, right?

 sebster wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Meanwhile, Ill see both heads and tails, and youll just cry out "NO TAILS EXISTS BECAUSE I CANNOT SEE IT!", again, just adding noise because of your unwillingness to accept and process the complexity of having more then one side to issues.

Fallacy of the reasonable middle ground.

Thing is, when one side says its raining outside and the other side says it is clear, what makes sense is to look out the window and see whether it is actually raining or not. Instead your approach is to say 'I see both sides and consider both have valid points of view and think all the people who think it is raining are just biased people who only listen to their side'... and to be perfectly frank that's a complete load of nonsense.

you have a false equivelency fallacy here seb...

IE: if a person in US states its raining, and a person in russia says its not, then yes, they are both right, and yes, you need to take into account both veiw points to acertain the actual truth (being that is is raining in one place and not another.


In complicated issues, where both people are not "in the same house looking out the same window" on an issue as simple as "is it raining?", you actually do have to take all veiwpoints into account.

You dont HAVE to consider both viewpoints valid at all, just know that both exist, and WHY they exist, and WHY they are different.

In the your example, any person who listens to both sides, immediately can "look outside" to get the real truth, however, if they just listen to one side at the exclusion of the other, they risk being completly wrong.

so again, you make a false equation there.

otherwise you are literally denying yourself information, then claiming to make an informed decision.

Talk about fallacies...

"The Ukrainian security service says he works for the Russian military intelligence agency, the GRU, and his real name is Igor Girkin. He was born in 1970 and registered in Moscow, according to the service. "


riight, so the same guys makeing previous, unsubstantiated claims are making more unsubstanciated claims.

they SAY he works for russia, so it must be true!

just like they said russian military was directly in volved in combat/protestor roles, which turned out to be a total lie and was retracted.

again, claims must be substanciated, not just claimed.

props for making ad homin attacks on grammer/spelling/use of words though, because auto correct fething me over makes me wrong and you right somehow.

 easysauce wrote:
"The Ukrainian security service says he works for the Russian military intelligence agency, the GRU, and his real name is Igor Girkin. He was born in 1970 and registered in Moscow, according to the service. "


riight, so the same guys makeing previous, unsubstantiated claims are making more unsubstanciated claims.

they SAY he works for russia, so it must be true!

just like they said russian military was directly involved in combat/protestor roles, which turned out to be a total lie and was retracted.

again, claims must be substanciated, not just claimed.

props for making ad homin attacks on grammer though, because auto correct fething me over sure never happens to you.

 Kanluwen wrote:

So could storming government buildings, taking hostages, and declaring yourself an independent nation.

so again, its ok for pro west protestors to do it (and actually KILL people too) but its not ok for pro russian ones to.

again, total hypocracy, and willingfull omision/denial/ignorance of anything that doesnt fit into your preconcieved "WEST GOOD EAST BAD" mindset

Well, TBF, it is Russia and Putin. They don't have the best record.

 easysauce wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

So could storming government buildings, taking hostages, and declaring yourself an independent nation.

so again, its ok for pro west protestors to do it (and actually KILL people too) but its not ok for pro russian ones to.

Where did "pro-western protesters" take hostages?

Plus, they weren't "declaring themselves an independent nation".

again, total hypocracy, and willingfull omision/denial/ignorance of anything that doesnt fit into your preconcieved "WEST GOOD EAST BAD" mindset

Again, total ignorance coming from someone who believes that you can take anything said by the Russian government at face value.

Four more months Eastern Ukraine going Putin