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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ukraine is responsible for escalating the situation.

Is Russia responsible for escalating the situation in the Crimea when they activated their troops in the region and claimed control of the region?

Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.

Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.

So your point is irrelevant, because we're talking about different things.

No, it was Russia that first stole the Crimea.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ukraine is responsible for escalating the situation.

Is Russia responsible for escalating the situation in the Crimea when they activated their troops in the region and claimed control of the region?

Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.

Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.

So your point is irrelevant, because we're talking about different things.

No, it was Russia that first stole the Crimea.

No, Crimea rightfully returned itself to Russia.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ukraine is responsible for escalating the situation.

Is Russia responsible for escalating the situation in the Crimea when they activated their troops in the region and claimed control of the region?

Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.

Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.

So your point is irrelevant, because we're talking about different things.

No, it was Russia that first stole the Crimea.

No, Crimea rightfully returned itself to Russia.

"Rightfully" ignoring the Ukranian constitution in the process.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Rightfully" ignoring the Ukranian constitution in the process.

You mean the consittution that was invalidated by the kiev government the second they changed it to get rid of the russian language.

You mean the constitution that they broke the laws of with their appointment of unelected people through violent means?

like it or not, you cannot over throw an ELECTED leader, then change the constitution to you whims, then complain when those people who elected him are upset you changed the constituion uniulaterally.

Why should they treat the constitution better then you yourself treat it.

again, rank hyppocracy, the easterners have to 100% follow the constitution with no voice in changing it, while the westerners can ignore/change/ect the constitution as they see fit.

You cannot support one side breaking the rules, then chastise the other when they break the same rules.

well, you can, its just hyppocritical.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ukraine is responsible for escalating the situation.

Is Russia responsible for escalating the situation in the Crimea when they activated their troops in the region and claimed control of the region?

Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.

Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.

So your point is irrelevant, because we're talking about different things.

No, it was Russia that first stole the Crimea.

No, Crimea rightfully returned itself to Russia.

"Rightfully" ignoring the Ukranian constitution in the process.

Which the Ukrainians do all the time, Which ever side wins Ukraine is stuffed. If Russia doesn't take over, the IMF will rob them blind.

 easysauce wrote:
You mean the consittution that was invalidated by the kiev government the second they changed it to get rid of the russian language.


like it or not, you cannot over throw an ELECTED leader, then change the constitution to you whims, then complain when those people who elected him are upset you changed the constituion uniulaterally.

An "elected leader" does not imprison the opposition on trumped up charges.

Or did you miss that bit? Because we actually had a discussion here on Dakka about it when Brother Vinni posted up one of his models, which was made to look just like said opposition leader.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
You mean the consittution that was invalidated by the kiev government the second they changed it to get rid of the russian language.


like it or not, you cannot over throw an ELECTED leader, then change the constitution to you whims, then complain when those people who elected him are upset you changed the constituion uniulaterally.

An "elected leader" does not imprison the opposition on trumped up charges.

Or did you miss that bit? Because we actually had a discussion here on Dakka about it when Brother Vinni posted up one of his models, which was made to look just like said opposition leader.

Even when the opposition is a thieving scumbag ?

What does brother Vinni have to do with the discussion? I know the connection, I just don't see why we need to bring his (IMHO, disgusting) work into this conversation.

loki old fart wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
You mean the consittution that was invalidated by the kiev government the second they changed it to get rid of the russian language.


like it or not, you cannot over throw an ELECTED leader, then change the constitution to you whims, then complain when those people who elected him are upset you changed the constituion uniulaterally.

An "elected leader" does not imprison the opposition on trumped up charges.

Or did you miss that bit? Because we actually had a discussion here on Dakka about it when Brother Vinni posted up one of his models, which was made to look just like said opposition leader.

Even when the opposition is a thieving scumbag ?

Sorry, where's the evidence? Is this like the whole thing that Western special forces are on the ground and training the Ukrainian soldiers?

She might not be thieving, but I wouldn't call her particularly nice either. Most of the time around 2009-2011 was spent telling everyone how much of a scumbag Yanukovich was.

To be completely honest, Tymoshenko and Yanukovich were both dicks to each other.

 -Shrike- wrote:
She might not be thieving, but I wouldn't call her particularly nice either. Most of the time around 2009-2011 was spent telling everyone how much of a scumbag Yanukovich was.

...No duh? She was calling him a scumbag when under his administration there was a ton of seemingly trumped up/"revisited" charges?

What a shock! How dare she call him a scumbag! Clearly everything Yanukovich was doing was above reproach!

way to move the goal posts...

you just cried out "BUT THE CONSITTUTION!!!"

then get debunked because your side broke the constitutions law..

so OFC the goal posts must move to "but you imprisoned someone!"

no one missed that bit... it just doesnt matter at the moment afte hundreds of people have been killed.

also, she was imprisoned "On October 11, 2011, she was convicted of embezzlement and abuse of power, and sentenced to seven years in prison"

maybe google fu some stuff before you claim she was just thrown in jail for no reason.. you can argue that the charges are illegitimate, but she was charged, and convicted, under the law as written.


Its also hypocritical yet again, if you are against political imprisonments, yet not against political coups/juntas, its a total double standard.

yes OFC she shouldnt have gone to jail... yes OFC they should also have waited for elections to get yanokovich out.

Anything to move the goal posts and avoid confronting that your previous claims of "unconstitutionality" are just hypocritical grand standing

just as how you need 0 evidence to say russian spec ops are behind the eastern protestors like its an absolute fact.

but need absolute double blind peer reviewed studies to even admit US backing western protestors as a possibility.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
She might not be thieving, but I wouldn't call her particularly nice either. Most of the time around 2009-2011 was spent telling everyone how much of a scumbag Yanukovich was.

...No duh? She was calling him a scumbag when under his administration there was a ton of seemingly trumped up/"revisited" charges?

What a shock! How dare she call him a scumbag! Clearly everything Yanukovich was doing was above reproach!

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. She was calling him a scumbag long before the elections, and continued doing so during the elections. Of course, she had every right to do so once he started looking for charges against her, as that was clearly politically biased.

EDIT: How nice of you to leave out the second part of my post. Yanukovich and Tymoshenko were both dicks to each other, neither are above reproach.

she was put in jail for actual charges... not for name calling....

even a cursory wiki search shows corruption convictions on her.

 easysauce wrote:
she was put in jail for actual charges... not for name calling....

even a cursory wiki search shows corruption convictions on her.

For the sake of argument, let's call those charges disputed, because this discussion will go nowhere otherwise.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
she was put in jail for actual charges... not for name calling....

even a cursory wiki search shows corruption convictions on her.

For the sake of argument, let's call those charges disputed, because this discussion will go nowhere otherwise.

certainly they are, but it was done "lawfully"

and thats besides the point, crimea's referendum, is also disputed, so is the new kiev legitimacy, and so on and so on...

the pro west side keeps trying to assert their position is unassailable, totally legitimate, and that all their actions are 100% justified/legal/ect and that the other side is 100% illegitimate.

This is despite pro west groups commiting acts that are deplorable, illegal, and so on.

I keep pointing out that double standard, and the other side keeps ignoring that they are applying double standards to what makes things "legitimate"

 easysauce wrote:
she was put in jail for actual charges... not for name calling....

even a cursory wiki search shows corruption convictions on her.

Wasn't Li'l Kim's uncle over in North Korea executed for actual charges?

They were certainly legal, if that's what you're after.

 Seaward wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
she was put in jail for actual charges... not for name calling....

even a cursory wiki search shows corruption convictions on her.

Wasn't Li'l Kim's uncle over in North Korea executed for actual charges?

yes, actual charges under what is the letter of the law =/= legitimate...

after all slavery was legal at one point, doesnt make it legitimate.

The point being, that if we point fingers at one side, as being illegitimate, for putting her in jail, then we must own up to the fact that OUR side, doing similar actions is also illegitimate.

the solution being that instead of both sides forceing the other side to comply with their ways, both sides need their own space to do things their own way.

However, in this thread, we have people calling pro east people illegitimate, because they ignored the consittuion, while calling pro west people legitimate, despite them ignoreing the constitution.

For some reason that double standard is incomprehensible to some

so far, in this thread, only one side has owned up to even the possibility that the other side might just have a point.

Not giving someone a call to tell them that a deal will continue to be honoured is not the same thing as actually failing to honour a deal. I mean holy crap, the excuses people are coming up with in this thread is just remarkable.

Simple analogy, I lend you money to buy a car. Your deal is to pay me on the 1st of every month, and you do so for a couple of years. Then I hear that you lost your job, and I then go and repossess the car.

You point out that's outrageous, because you hadn't actually missed a payment, and I say that you broke the deal because you didn't contact me to assure me you were going to continue making payments.

You know Sebster I am going to throw it in your lap

Give me a time line when he started using his military forces.
Look at a map of Crimea
Look at known activity of his units in Crimea

So list me by time
Location and what units there.

Read the map. Are you fimilar with reading maps from a tactical/logistical point view?

 Jihadin wrote:
Read the map. Are you fimilar with reading maps from a tactical/logistical point view?

I'm not, recommended reading?

 sebster wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
2. Again, I did not say that. My point was that Ukraine responded to a threat with pre-emptive action, making it even more likely that Russia will carry out its threat.

Gibberish. The water to the Crimea was cut off after there were Russian troops active in the region. Talking about the water as the first act from which other acts followed is absolutely fething bonkers.

Again, I did not call the cutting off of the water supply "the first act from which all acts followed". If we're arguing about what the very "first act from which other acts followed" was, then that must surely have been the original, violent uprising in Kiev.

What I find "absolutely bonkers", is that you're still arguing against what I have not said.

Kiev had a threat from Russia hanging over it, that Russia would cut off Ukraine's gas. By pre-emptively cutting off Crimea's water before Russia has even carried out that threat, does that not make it infinitely more likely that Russia will actually carry out that threat?

How many times must I state this before you acknowledge WTF I am actually saying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ukraine is responsible for escalating the situation.

Is Russia responsible for escalating the situation in the Crimea when they activated their troops in the region and claimed control of the region?

Yes, of course. But I referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis.

Whatever threats Russia may have made, it was Ukraine that acted first by cutting off Crimea's water. That pre-emptive action escalated the situation over gas and water Utilities, and Russia may now feel it has no choice but to cut off Ukraine's gas in response.

So your point is irrelevant, because we're talking about different things.

No, it was Russia that first stole the Crimea.

FYI.

"But I was referring only to the cutting off/potential cutting off of water and gas utilities, not the wider context of the Ukraine Crisis".

Granted, my original comment "Ukraine is responsible for escalating the situation" should have been clearer that I was talking about utilities. But it appears you didn't bother to properly read the second comment clarifying it.

 easysauce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Rightfully" ignoring the Ukranian constitution in the process.

You mean the consittution that was invalidated by the kiev government the second they changed it to get rid of the russian language.

This is the third time in this thread I've had to point out that they never actually did that.

 easysauce wrote:


You mean the constitution that they broke the laws of with their appointment of unelected people through violent means?

Parliament impeached Yanukovych, didn't they? If the election in Crimea is valid then surely a vote of impeachment by the elected representatives of the people is valid too, no?

 easysauce wrote:


so far, in this thread, only one side has owned up to even the possibility that the other side might just have a point.

You're probably not reading the same thread as the rest of us then.

LOL

Alright I help a few here if someone throws up a map on here showing

Sevestopol (Naval Station there0
Simferopolwhich is East about 50 K

Main Highway between Sevestopol and Simferopol is H06
Highway Junction at Simferopol is H06, E105, and P23
New Kiev Government anti Putin
Feb Ukraine starts to go down the drain
22 Feb Yanu pops smokes out of Ukraine
Sterile uniforms seized Sevestopol and Simferopol Airports
Sterile uniforms started locking down the isthmus at Perekot to continental Ukraine (M17 Highway)
Sterile uniforms locked down Chongar Peninsula (E105 highway)
Locked down a mechanized unit south of Simferopol that was within striking distance of Simferopol Airfield
-Basically Putin has a life line starting from Simferopol to Sevestopol to keep the base operational

So Crimea has a version of a SOFA agreement via Ukraine of

Russia was allowed to maintain up to 25,000 troops, 24 artillery systems (with a caliber smaller than 100 mm), 132 armored vehicles, and 22 military planes, on the Crimean Peninsula and Sevastopol.

Of those 25K troops only five battalions of combat troops of Russian Marines.
No sign of aircraft transport flying troops in
No signs of "Heavy" or "Light" Combat units has moved across Kerch

New Kiev government couldn't order Crimean military units to resist because lets face it. The freaking units were Pro Russian being they are manned by locals at where ever the base is located. So if order was given to move against the Russians or Sterile uniforms units I bet a case of beer the unit would not follow up

So five battalions of combat troops, ball park figure of 5k troops that
breakdown of unit

Infantry
1 Platton HQ
3 Platoons of Infantry
1 heavy weapon platoon

Artillery
HQ platoon
3 batteries of arty
(4 tubes per platoon)

So say two battalion Infantry
one Battalion of Artillery holds Sevestopol naval station

Two Battalions operating at both airfields and highway H06
Same Battalions locking down three Ukraine military units

Couple "Slap" platoons securing both northern entry points of Crimea

So basically two battalions holding down an area of 10K miles.

The entire time the New Kiev government screams they're almost being invaded and wanted West EU and US to support them.

Yet no one looked at a map and placed units,their actions, at the locations in Crimea. I figured that out like at page 11.12....13 maybe

Obama couldn't say to Putin "I see what your doing with troop movements in Crimea protecting Sevestopol. I see if the new Kiev Government will honor the previous agreement. If not then we're in a new ball game and a Cold War II."

Nope Obama had to go right out and condemn Putin and back the New Kiev government. Which IMHO is a BAD CALL as we can see by the actions of New Kiev Government

Crimea votes to go Russia due to 2-5 battalions of Russian Marines holding a gun to their head


Russia moves in force on 22 Mar

Now that's a breakdown dakkanaughts can follow.

Superb Jihadin!

Sebster already explained why it's irrelevant. You're not allowed to start taking over parts of another country just because they might not honour their agreements. Just because Russia was allowed a garrison it does not follow that they're allowed to do what they want with it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sebster already explained why it's irrelevant. You're not allowed to start taking over parts of another country just because they might not honour their agreements. Just because Russia was allowed a garrison it does not follow that they're allowed to do what they want with it.

I think we're long past the point of what people are allowed and are not allowed to do.

Were the Kiev protesters allowed to violently overthrow an elected government?
Were the gunmen and snipers who allegedly targeted people on both sides allowed to do what they did?
Was the new Kiev government allowed to appoint members of armed, extremist Neo Nazi parties to key government positions?
Was Russia allowed to use its troops already stationed in Crimea to take over?
Is Crimea allowed to unilaterally announce its seceding from Ukraine?
Is Russia allowed to hold a snap referendum then annex Crimea?
Were the pro-Kiev groups allowed to burn to death dozens of pro-Russia demonstrators?
Is the currently unelected Kiev government allowed to label a substantial number of its citizens "Terrorists" and send in the army to kill them?
Is Kiev allowed to cut off the drinking water for millions of Crimeans, who it maintains are still Ukrainian citizens forced against their will to join Russia?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sebster already explained why it's irrelevant. You're not allowed to start taking over parts of another country just because they might not honour their agreements. Just because Russia was allowed a garrison it does not follow that they're allowed to do what they want with it.

I think we're long past the point of what people are allowed and are not allowed to do.

Were the Kiev protesters allowed to violently overthrow an elected government?
Were the gunmen and snipers who allegedly targeted people on both sides allowed to do what they did?
Was the new Kiev government allowed to appoint members of armed, extremist Neo Nazi parties to key government positions?
Was Russia allowed to use its troops already stationed in Crimea to take over?
Is Crimea allowed to unilaterally announce its seceding from Ukraine?
Is Russia allowed to hold a snap referendum then annex Crimea?
Were the pro-Kiev groups allowed to burn to death dozens of pro-Russia demonstrators?
Is the currently unelected Kiev government allowed to label a substantial number of its citizens "Terrorists" and send in the army to kill them?
Is Kiev allowed to cut off the drinking water for millions of Crimeans, who it maintains are still Ukrainian citizens forced against their will to join Russia?

Jihadin doesn't seem to be past that though, which is what I'm arguing against.

more stuff for the tin foil hat wearers who still keep crying out that the CIA and FBI are not actively engaged in supporting this

https://news.yahoo.com/cia-fbi-agents-advising-ukraine-government-report-101508429.html

 easysauce wrote:
more stuff for the tin foil hat wearers who still keep crying out that the CIA and FBI are not actively engaged in supporting this

https://news.yahoo.com/cia-fbi-agents-advising-ukraine-government-report-101508429.html

Was that truly before or after the Ukraine asked for help?