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.

So its come to my attention NATO is planning to mass 30k troops in eastern europe. Has Russia reacted to this planned action yet?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.

To what end?

As is, Russia's economy is faltering, their currency reserves are drying up, the purchasing power of their currency is weakening, the annexation of Crimea is putting a large strain on the government to digest, the value of their exports are plummeting, government budgets look to shrink, and they've irked/alarmed most of their neighbors and trading partners.

Threatening to send "volunteers" would only feed Putin's propaganda and reinforce his narrative, and potentially get US forces involved in a conflict they ultimate have no direct stake in a non-NATO country, and potentially bring into direct conflict two nuclear armed powers. Nothing good will come of that.

Dropbear Victim wrote:
So its come to my attention NATO is planning to mass 30k troops in eastern europe. Has Russia reacted to this planned action yet?

Not that I know of, not sure they necessarily will, it's sabre-rattling. There's already thirteen thousand troops here, they're doubling that number basically. That's just a couple of divisions worth of troops in total and does not appear to include US forces AFAIK, and Eastern Europe is a very large place. The last time an army seriously moved eastward through there, it was with 153 divisions. Not sure Russia is particularly worried, particularly as they aren't entering Ukraine.

Yeah, Russia is in enough trouble. They're gonna have major economic problems in the coming years. Not that that will do much help for the Ukranians.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.

To what end?

As is, Russia's economy is faltering, their currency reserves are drying up, the purchasing power of their currency is weakening, the annexation of Crimea is putting a large strain on the government to digest, the value of their exports are plummeting, government budgets look to shrink, and they've irked/alarmed most of their neighbors and trading partners.

Threatening to send "volunteers" would only feed Putin's propaganda and reinforce his narrative, and potentially get US forces involved in a conflict they ultimate have no direct stake in a non-NATO country, and potentially bring into direct conflict two nuclear armed powers. Nothing good will come of that.

I just want something to get Putin to stop being a gakker and funding the totalynonfundedbyrussia rebels. Or at least get the to stop killing each-other.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.

To what end?

As is, Russia's economy is faltering, their currency reserves are drying up, the purchasing power of their currency is weakening, the annexation of Crimea is putting a large strain on the government to digest, the value of their exports are plummeting, government budgets look to shrink, and they've irked/alarmed most of their neighbors and trading partners.

Threatening to send "volunteers" would only feed Putin's propaganda and reinforce his narrative, and potentially get US forces involved in a conflict they ultimate have no direct stake in a non-NATO country, and potentially bring into direct conflict two nuclear armed powers. Nothing good will come of that.

I just want something to get Putin to stop being a gakker and funding the totalynonfundedbyrussia rebels. Or at least get the to stop killing each-other.

Unfortunately I don't think there's anything simple, or that a foreign nation is capable of without a real chance of an escalation nobody wants, that will solve that issue nicely.



Personally, if I were Ukraine, at this point I'd threaten the following if acceptable peace terms cannot be reached in short order.

1: Declare the Budapest Memorandum to have been violated and its terms no longer applicable following the violation of territorial sovereignty by a signatory power.

2: Let the eastern territories go. Cease payment of salaries and pensions, stop services, cut off utilities, and abandon the region. Leave Russia on the hook for rebuilding these areas and trying to govern them and their thousands of armed partisans with their already strained resources, These areas no longer will no longer have representation in Kiev and as such it will move far more to the West, and will no longer constitute an ongoing territorial issue or existing conflict which leads to the next point

3: Petition for NATO & EU membership.

I can't imagine a worse backfire for Putin than this. At least if those areas are reintegrated into Ukraine there remains a strident pro-Russia voice in Kiev and greater economic integration even if Ukraine joins the EU.

Your #3 would backfire on Ukraine. No way NATO accepts them in while they are involved in a shooting war with Russia. Putin would see a denial of NATO membership as a green light.

 CptJake wrote:
Your #3 would backfire on Ukraine. No way NATO accepts them in while they are involved in a shooting war with Russia. Putin would see a denial of NATO membership as a green light.

Hence the point #2. If #2 happens, #3 can happen.

You assume Russia holds what they have where they are. I'm not willing to assume that. You would find 'rebel' groups springing up in Ukrainian territory.

If they haven't been able to generate unrest in other areas yet, I'd be surprised if it spread significantly more, especially given the increased distance Russian logistical support would have to travel and the strain of incorporating and rebuilding Donetsk and Luhansk, coupled with the decreasing percentage of the population that identifies as or speaks Russian as you move away from these areas.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I just want something to get Putin to stop being a gakker and funding the totalynonfundedbyrussia rebels. Or at least get the to stop killing each-other.

You don't really understand realpolitik, do you?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Unfortunately I don't think there's anything simple, or that a foreign nation is capable of without a real chance of an escalation nobody wants, that will solve that issue nicely.



Personally, if I were Ukraine, at this point I'd threaten the following if acceptable peace terms cannot be reached in short order.

1: Declare the Budapest Memorandum to have been violated and its terms no longer applicable following the violation of territorial sovereignty by a signatory power.

2: Let the eastern territories go. Cease payment of salaries and pensions, stop services, cut off utilities, and abandon the region. Leave Russia on the hook for rebuilding these areas and trying to govern them and their thousands of armed partisans with their already strained resources, These areas no longer will no longer have representation in Kiev and as such it will move far more to the West, and will no longer constitute an ongoing territorial issue or existing conflict which leads to the next point

3: Petition for NATO & EU membership.

I can't imagine a worse backfire for Putin than this. At least if those areas are reintegrated into Ukraine there remains a strident pro-Russia voice in Kiev and greater economic integration even if Ukraine joins the EU.

Actually, Ukraine already did all of this.
After № 1, Western nations all agreed that Russia was in breach of the Budapest memorandum, told Putin he was very naughty and ordered him to stop messing with Ukraine. Then they went back to their own issues.
№ 2 kinda backfired on Ukraine, because now the Donbass is completely dependent on the Seperatists, who have taken over government. They still supply electricity and water though, as they are afraid cutting that of too will antagonise the Eastern Ukrainian population too much, making any sort of future reunification impossible.
After № 3, NATO and EU welcomed Ukraine's efforts, but stated that it does not meet the demands for either organisation and still has a very long way to go.

 Vaktathi wrote:
If they haven't been able to generate unrest in other areas yet, I'd be surprised if it spread significantly more, especially given the increased distance Russian logistical support would have to travel and the strain of incorporating and rebuilding Donetsk and Luhansk, coupled with the decreasing percentage of the population that identifies as or speaks Russian as you move away from these areas.

What makes you think Russia wants to incorporate Donetsk and Lugansk? Putin just wants to have his frozen conflict so he can have his buffer zones.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I just want something to get Putin to stop being a gakker and funding the totalynonfundedbyrussia rebels. Or at least get the to stop killing each-other.

You don't really understand realpolitik, do you?

I have no idea what that even means.

I just don't like killing. Especially this meaningless death that is happening.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

You don't really understand realpolitik, do you?

I have no idea what that even means.

Realpolitik: a system of politics based on a country's situation and its needs rather than on ideas about what is morally right and wrong

 Vaktathi wrote:

3: Petition for NATO & EU membership.
I can't imagine a worse backfire for Putin than this. At least if those areas are reintegrated into Ukraine there remains a strident pro-Russia voice in Kiev and greater economic integration even if Ukraine joins the EU.

That will never happen.
Sarkozy: Crimea cannot be blamed for joining Russia

Crimea cannot be blamed for seceding from Ukraine – a country in turmoil – and choosing to join Russia, said former president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. He also added that Ukraine “is not destined to join the EU.”

“We are part of a common civilization with Russia,” said Sarkozy, speaking on Saturday at the congress of the Union for a Popular Movement Party (UMP), which the former president heads.

“The interests of the Americans with the Russians are not the interests of Europe and Russia,” he said adding that “we do not want the revival of a Cold War between Europe and Russia.”

Regarding Crimea’s choice to secede from Ukraine when the country was in the midst of political turmoil, Sarkozy noted that the residents of the peninsula cannot be accused for doing so.

“Crimea has chosen Russia, and we cannot blame it [for doing so],” he said pointing out that “we must find the means to create a peacekeeping force to protect Russian speakers in Ukraine.”


In March 2014 over 96 percent of Crimea’s residents – the majority of whom are ethnic Russians – voted to secede from Ukraine to reunify with Russia. The decision was prompted by a massive uprising in Ukraine, that led to the ouster of its democratically elected government, and the fact that the first bills approved by the new Kiev authorities were infringing the rights of ethnic Russians.

Concerning Kiev’s hopes of joining the EU in the near future Sarkozy voiced the same position as had been previously expressed by some EU leaders. “It is not destined to join the EU," he said. “Ukraine must preserve its role as a bridge between Europe and Russia.”

While the West has been criticizing Russia’s stance on Crimea, the Russian Foreign Minister said on Saturday that the peninsula’s residents had the right to “self-determination” citing the March referendum. He gave the example of Kosovo, which despite not holding a referendum, was allowed to leave Serbia and create its own state.

“In Crimea what happened complies with the UN Charter on self-determination,” Lavrov said during his speech at the Munich security conference. “The UN Charter has several principles, and the right of a nation for self-determination has a key position.”

On Saturday, French President Francois Hollande called for broader autonomy for the eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. They need “rather strong” autonomy from Kiev, he said speaking on France 2 TV.

The comment comes after Hollande together with German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Kiev and Moscow this week for talks on the resolution of the Ukrainian conflict, that has escalated in January.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Actually, Ukraine already did all of this.
After № 1, Western nations all agreed that Russia was in breach of the Budapest memorandum, told Putin he was very naughty and ordered him to stop messing with Ukraine. Then they went back to their own issues.

AFAIK the Ukrainian government itself has not repudiated its obligations under the treaty.

№ 2 kinda backfired on Ukraine, because now the Donbass is completely dependent on the Seperatists, who have taken over government. They still supply electricity and water though, as they are afraid cutting that of too will antagonise the Eastern Ukrainian population too much, making any sort of future reunification impossible.

In some ways I'd agree that it's backfired but at the same time it's probably the only realistic option, cut off funding and make it untenable to sustain, and it doesn't look like the Separatists are doing a great job of administering the area. However, abandoning it entirely would be necessary for point #3 to occur, and the threat of that is really what's salient.

After № 3, NATO and EU welcomed Ukraine's efforts, but stated that it does not meet the demands for either organisation and still has a very long way to go.

Indeed it does have a long way to go, and as long as there's an issue in Donbass, they won't be able to join NATO.

However, these three taken together would free Ukraine from its territorial issues and allow it to join NATO much sooner, while presenting Putin with a threat on his borders that Russia has been attempting to prevent for the last seventy years. This would not be the ideal solution for anyone I think, but, it I were the Ukrainian government, this is the stance I would present to Russia to begin the peace process from a much stronger position than trying to kill and bleed its way through reconquering Donetsk and Luhansk or allow Russia to freeze it into some sort of permanent political limbo.

What makes you think Russia wants to incorporate Donetsk and Lugansk? Putin just wants to have his frozen conflict so he can have his buffer zones.

I agree, which is why Ukraine would have to countenance abandoning it. If such happened (along with Ukraine's claim on Crimea), Ukraine would have no territorial conflicts preventing it from joining NATO, and it would appear likely that popular pressures would force Putin's absorption of the Donbass, as I do not think they'd simply let it float about in its own, particularly when many within the region want to join Russia.

This is all about threatening a potential bad end for Putin in a worst case scenario, not really about wanting to actually do these things, in order to have a viable footing from which to negotiate.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

3: Petition for NATO & EU membership.
I can't imagine a worse backfire for Putin than this. At least if those areas are reintegrated into Ukraine there remains a strident pro-Russia voice in Kiev and greater economic integration even if Ukraine joins the EU.

That will never happen.
Sarkozy: Crimea cannot be blamed for joining Russia

Crimea cannot be blamed for seceding from Ukraine – a country in turmoil – and choosing to join Russia, said former president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. He also added that Ukraine “is not destined to join the EU.”

“We are part of a common civilization with Russia,” said Sarkozy, speaking on Saturday at the congress of the Union for a Popular Movement Party (UMP), which the former president heads.

“The interests of the Americans with the Russians are not the interests of Europe and Russia,” he said adding that “we do not want the revival of a Cold War between Europe and Russia.”

Regarding Crimea’s choice to secede from Ukraine when the country was in the midst of political turmoil, Sarkozy noted that the residents of the peninsula cannot be accused for doing so.

“Crimea has chosen Russia, and we cannot blame it [for doing so],” he said pointing out that “we must find the means to create a peacekeeping force to protect Russian speakers in Ukraine.”


In March 2014 over 96 percent of Crimea’s residents – the majority of whom are ethnic Russians – voted to secede from Ukraine to reunify with Russia. The decision was prompted by a massive uprising in Ukraine, that led to the ouster of its democratically elected government, and the fact that the first bills approved by the new Kiev authorities were infringing the rights of ethnic Russians.

Concerning Kiev’s hopes of joining the EU in the near future Sarkozy voiced the same position as had been previously expressed by some EU leaders. “It is not destined to join the EU," he said. “Ukraine must preserve its role as a bridge between Europe and Russia.”

While the West has been criticizing Russia’s stance on Crimea, the Russian Foreign Minister said on Saturday that the peninsula’s residents had the right to “self-determination” citing the March referendum. He gave the example of Kosovo, which despite not holding a referendum, was allowed to leave Serbia and create its own state.

“In Crimea what happened complies with the UN Charter on self-determination,” Lavrov said during his speech at the Munich security conference. “The UN Charter has several principles, and the right of a nation for self-determination has a key position.”

On Saturday, French President Francois Hollande called for broader autonomy for the eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. They need “rather strong” autonomy from Kiev, he said speaking on France 2 TV.

The comment comes after Hollande together with German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Kiev and Moscow this week for talks on the resolution of the Ukrainian conflict, that has escalated in January.

I'm not seeing what Sarkozy has to do with anything, he's not in political power, and in fact is facing criminal charges for corruption. His thoughts on the situation have no bearing on it.

Likewise, the 96% "yes" vote is believed by largely nobody, particularly when a not insignificant part of the Crimean population didn't participate. Pass rates that high are almost always fraudulent. Truth be told, I could believe a majority or plurality vote having passed, but a 96% rate is absurdly obviously rigged.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Actually, Ukraine already did all of this.
After № 1, Western nations all agreed that Russia was in breach of the Budapest memorandum, told Putin he was very naughty and ordered him to stop messing with Ukraine. Then they went back to their own issues.

AFAIK the Ukrainian government itself has not repudiated its obligations under the treaty.

№ 2 kinda backfired on Ukraine, because now the Donbass is completely dependent on the Seperatists, who have taken over government. They still supply electricity and water though, as they are afraid cutting that of too will antagonise the Eastern Ukrainian population too much, making any sort of future reunification impossible.

In some ways I'd agree that it's backfired but at the same time it's probably the only realistic option, cut off funding and make it untenable to sustain, and it doesn't look like the Separatists are doing a great job of administering the area. However, abandoning it entirely would be necessary for point #3 to occur, and the threat of that is really what's salient.

After № 3, NATO and EU welcomed Ukraine's efforts, but stated that it does not meet the demands for either organisation and still has a very long way to go.

Indeed it does have a long way to go, and as long as there's an issue in Donbass, they won't be able to join NATO.

However, these three taken together would free Ukraine from its territorial issues and allow it to join NATO much sooner, while presenting Putin with a threat on his borders that Russia has been attempting to prevent for the last seventy years. This would not be the ideal solution for anyone I think, but, it I were the Ukrainian government, this is the stance I would present to Russia to begin the peace process from a much stronger position than trying to kill and bleed its way through reconquering Donetsk and Luhansk or allow Russia to freeze it into some sort of permanent political limbo.

What makes you think Russia wants to incorporate Donetsk and Lugansk? Putin just wants to have his frozen conflict so he can have his buffer zones.

I agree, which is why Ukraine would have to countenance abandoning it. If such happened (along with Ukraine's claim on Crimea), Ukraine would have no territorial conflicts preventing it from joining NATO, and it would appear likely that popular pressures would force Putin's absorption of the Donbass, as I do not think they'd simply let it float about in its own, particularly when many within the region want to join Russia.

This is all about threatening a potential bad end for Putin in a worst case scenario, not really about wanting to actually do these things, in order to have a viable footing from which to negotiate.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

3: Petition for NATO & EU membership.
I can't imagine a worse backfire for Putin than this. At least if those areas are reintegrated into Ukraine there remains a strident pro-Russia voice in Kiev and greater economic integration even if Ukraine joins the EU.

That will never happen.
Sarkozy: Crimea cannot be blamed for joining Russia

Crimea cannot be blamed for seceding from Ukraine – a country in turmoil – and choosing to join Russia, said former president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. He also added that Ukraine “is not destined to join the EU.”

“We are part of a common civilization with Russia,” said Sarkozy, speaking on Saturday at the congress of the Union for a Popular Movement Party (UMP), which the former president heads.

“The interests of the Americans with the Russians are not the interests of Europe and Russia,” he said adding that “we do not want the revival of a Cold War between Europe and Russia.”

Regarding Crimea’s choice to secede from Ukraine when the country was in the midst of political turmoil, Sarkozy noted that the residents of the peninsula cannot be accused for doing so.

“Crimea has chosen Russia, and we cannot blame it [for doing so],” he said pointing out that “we must find the means to create a peacekeeping force to protect Russian speakers in Ukraine.”


In March 2014 over 96 percent of Crimea’s residents – the majority of whom are ethnic Russians – voted to secede from Ukraine to reunify with Russia. The decision was prompted by a massive uprising in Ukraine, that led to the ouster of its democratically elected government, and the fact that the first bills approved by the new Kiev authorities were infringing the rights of ethnic Russians.

Concerning Kiev’s hopes of joining the EU in the near future Sarkozy voiced the same position as had been previously expressed by some EU leaders. “It is not destined to join the EU," he said. “Ukraine must preserve its role as a bridge between Europe and Russia.”

While the West has been criticizing Russia’s stance on Crimea, the Russian Foreign Minister said on Saturday that the peninsula’s residents had the right to “self-determination” citing the March referendum. He gave the example of Kosovo, which despite not holding a referendum, was allowed to leave Serbia and create its own state.

“In Crimea what happened complies with the UN Charter on self-determination,” Lavrov said during his speech at the Munich security conference. “The UN Charter has several principles, and the right of a nation for self-determination has a key position.”

On Saturday, French President Francois Hollande called for broader autonomy for the eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. They need “rather strong” autonomy from Kiev, he said speaking on France 2 TV.

The comment comes after Hollande together with German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Kiev and Moscow this week for talks on the resolution of the Ukrainian conflict, that has escalated in January.

I'm not seeing what Sarkozy has to do with anything, he's not in political power, and in fact is facing criminal charges for corruption. His thoughts on the situation have no bearing on it.

Likewise, the 96% "yes" vote is believed by largely nobody, particularly when a not insignificant part of the Crimean population didn't participate. Pass rates that high are almost always fraudulent. Truth be told, I could believe a majority or plurality vote having passed, but a 96% rate is absurdly obviously rigged.

This is the president of france,"On Saturday, French President Francois Hollande called for broader autonomy for the eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. They need “rather strong” autonomy from Kiev, he said speaking on France 2 TV."
Now he as a election soon, what do the opposition think?.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30278606

How can the West solve its Ukraine problem?

Marine Le Pen: hostile to further European integration

n their zeal to denounce Russia for putting pressure on Ukraine over gas supplies, Western commentators usually neglected to mention that, through cheap gas and lenient payment terms, Russia was in fact subsidising the Ukrainian economy to the tune of several billion dollars each year - many times the total of Western aid during this period.

This allowed the same commentators not to address the obvious question of whether Western states would be willing to pay these billions in order to take Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence and into that of the West.



Finally, very few Western commentators indeed have mentioned what is perhaps the most significant aspect of the Ukrainian-Russian relationship, namely that Ukrainians are entirely free to move to Russia to work, and to work in the vast majority of jobs and professions.

As a result of Russia's much more successful economy, more than three million Ukrainians are now working in Russia, and sending remittances to their families in Ukraine - a vital contribution to the economies of several Ukrainian regions.

Do you think Europe can afford another Greece? Where are all these Ukrainians going to work in the EU. Whose jobs are they having.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.

Why?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threaten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.

Why?

I don't like killing, and I want it to stop. Simple as that really.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threaten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.

Why?

I don't like killing, and I want it to stop. Simple as that really.

"Yo dawg. I don't like killing, so I think we should have more killing to stop the killing so we can stop killing while killing".

Thanks for the laugh mate.




I don't think deliberately escalating a conflict will have the effect you desire...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threaten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.

Why?

I don't like killing, and I want it to stop. Simple as that really.

"Yo dawg. I don't like killing, so I think we should have more killing to stop the killing so we can stop killing while killing".

Whowhatnow?

Threaten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.

I don't think deliberately escalating a conflict will have the effect you desire...

I did just say threaten. I don't want war, I want reasonable people to sort problems out.

 loki old fart wrote:

n their zeal to denounce Russia for putting pressure on Ukraine over gas supplies, Western commentators usually neglected to mention that, through cheap gas and lenient payment terms, Russia was in fact subsidising the Ukrainian economy to the tune of several billion dollars each year - many times the total of Western aid during this period.

This allowed the same commentators not to address the obvious question of whether Western states would be willing to pay these billions in order to take Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence and into that of the West.



Finally, very few Western commentators indeed have mentioned what is perhaps the most significant aspect of the Ukrainian-Russian relationship, namely that Ukrainians are entirely free to move to Russia to work, and to work in the vast majority of jobs and professions.

As a result of Russia's much more successful economy, more than three million Ukrainians are now working in Russia, and sending remittances to their families in Ukraine - a vital contribution to the economies of several Ukrainian regions.

Do you think Europe can afford another Greece? Where are all these Ukrainians going to work in the EU. Whose jobs are they having.

What does any of that has to do with Russia invading Ukraine?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I did just say threaten. I don't want war, I want reasonable people to sort problems out.

Threats you cannot or will not back up don't work. Putin knows that.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I did just say threaten. I don't want war, I want reasonable people to sort problems out.

Well, threatening to out-Russia Russia doesn't strike me as particularly reasonable.


What would be reasonable, is a mutually agreeable compromise and peace agreement for both sides. Political autonomy / revolution for eastern regions, a DeMilitarized Zone so Putin can have his buffer regions, and closer economic ties (NOT military) with Europe for West Ukraine.

Which sounds like what Hollande and Sarkozy are suggesting...

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I did just say threaten. I don't want war, I want reasonable people to sort problems out.

Threats you cannot or will not back up don't work. Putin knows that.

Well, I did say "something". If it would work, then use it. If it wouldn't, then don't.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I honestly wish Obama would be more firm on the subject. Threaten to do/actually do a complete embargo on Russia. Seize Russian government assets that are in the US. Threaten to send in our own "volunteers". Something. Anything.

Why?

I don't like killing, and I want it to stop. Simple as that really.

how is dragging the US into it stopping the killing? Please explain the logic here?

Its Islamic logic.

"There will be peace in the world when everyone is Muslim".

"There will be peace in Ukraine when we stop the killing by killing the people doing the killing."

Look at my previous posts.

I did. And I'm still laughing.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Its Islamic logic.

"There will be peace in the world when everyone is Muslim".

"There will be peace in Ukraine when we stop the killing by killing the people doing the killing."

No, extremist. It has nothing to do with Islam. You can see the same thing with communism vs capitalism during the cold war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I did. And I'm still laughing.

At what?