How Should NATO react to the Crimean Situation?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Shock and Awe:

albino boo:
A carrier battle group in the black sea is SSK bait. The black sea has terrible sonar conditions and the small size means an SSK can snort in friendly aircover. A big fat target like carrier is a submariners dream. Any Tango or Kilo captain would give his right arm for a carrier battle group in such restricted waters. Stick a few DDGs in but nothing you couldn't afford to lose.

As to air units deploying to Ukraine is risky. The Russians can come in too many directions and base security would be a nightmare. Its better to deploy tactical aircraft to Germany and run CAPs over Ukraine. Deploy strategic aircraft to the UK and leva them out when Russian recon satellites pass over. NATO ground forces my pack more punch but they don't have the numbers to defend a long front. The Russians can attack anywhere from the Baltic to the black sea and even in NATOS hey day they couldn't hold a front that long.

While I will defer to your judgement on the Naval aspect as I am not terribly familiar with Navies and the Black sea's conditions, I must disagree on the matter of the air assets. Stationing tactical aircraft in Germany is to far away for CAS in many cases as it would take hours for aircraft to respond to calls from ground units. It also severely limits any loiter time the aircraft would otherwise have. We could safely station tactical aircraft in Ukraine and Turkey as long as we did not station them near the border or coast. As for strategic aircraft the UK and Germany would both probably serve as quality bases for them as we already have the infrastructure in place at many bases in both countries.

One of the main problems is that there isn't a way to get a carrier group into the Black Sea. The small air craft carrier the Chinese use is basically as big as something can be and still fit in. That lone ship the US sent to sit outside of Russian controlled waters is what, a frigate? Destroyer?

The US should leave NATO. I think it would be beneficial for the UK and Canada to leave also. It's fairly clear after how Clinton betrayed Ukraine when he made the fraudulent agreement to beat their swords into plowshares in exchange for US protection that the US can't be counted on.

Since the US is in a fragile place economically and cutting back it's military in the midst of this, it would be best psychologically and strategically for mainland Europe to start arming and preparing.

Zontar:

How could the people in Crimea even know WHAT the transitional government was going to do if it was invaded almost immediately after the old president ran away? Plus, so what about the bill which has been proposed (but has not gone through the legal proses yet) to remove Russian as a regional language? Apart from the fact there has been no vote, the law which made Russian a regional language in the first place was passed in 2010, so it's not exactly something new.

Ukraine has a lot of problems. It looks funny, but the fist thing that the transitional government did is reforming bill about regional languages 23 of February 2014. Prospective consequences: teaching children in Ukrainian language at all schools, change street-labels to Ukrainian in all cities, change all the documentation to Ukrainian, deprecating russianspeaking TV, deprecating russianspeaking sites in ukrainian part of internet space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainization#Post-1991:_Independent_Ukraine Is it a problem number one? Is it a most important problem in whole Ukraine? The transitional government does nothing to grow economics and decrease poverty. I think language is not a problem at all. If some region in Ukraine every time used Romanian in documentation and schools, they should continue use Romanian in future. Language is not a problem that should be debated in the government.

In Finland native Swedish-speakers are less then 10% of all population. But official languages in Finland are Finnish and Swedish. In Ukraine native Russian-speakers are about 20-30%. But official language is only one, Ukrainian. If the ukrainian government do like in Finland, there will be no problems. But it has another plan: to Ukrainizate Russian-speakers at all.

Zontar:

the law which made Russian a regional language in the first place was passed in 2010

http://www.ibtimes.com/watch-your-tongue-language-controversy-one-fundamental-conflicts-ukraine-1559069

Zontar:

are you forgetting the poll from before the invasion that showed only at most 40% of Crimean's wanted to join Russia?

Really at most 40%? I would say another numbers: at least 60%. At least! I know atmosphere in Crimea last 10 years.

Early outcome of referendum:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/16/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/16/ukraine-russia-truce-crimea-referendum

Crimea always was a Russian territory, it belonged to Ukraine because bureaucratic mistake.

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20140302074212/http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/1/in-crimea-citizensstandforselfdefenseandmotherrussia.html

Zontar:

And you keep calling them Nazis

The main figure in revolution in Ukraine is Dmytro Yarosh. If there was no Dmytro Yarosh there was no any revolution. Please, read about him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmytro_Yarosh Watch him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27QNMNNeQa4 And watch, how russian-speakers love his fighters in Kharkiv http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFjIEApn-ZU (fighters of Dmytro Yarosh captured Kharkiv's regional government, but citizens of Kharkiv recaptured it, in the building they found some weapons and Nazi's brochures). Do you say, Pravyi Sektor is not Nazi organization? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector

He's audacious, but not to the point of being stupid.

Never underestimate bullies with delusions of grandeur fueled by a sycophantic propaganda machine. That's what Merkel meant when she told Obama that Putin was in "his own world": a polite way to say Diese Trottel glaubt dass seine eigene Propaganda wirklich ist

The West does however need to hit Russia with sanctions

The problem with sanctions is that they often end up hurting the common people and not the ruling class. It's then easy for corrupt leaders to their people "You are suffering because of western imperialistic economical warfare": the Castro brothers, the Iranian clerics or the Hamas all pulled this trick, and as you may have noticed, are all still in power.

Then the EU should get an association agreement signed with Ukraine, and build up the country economically and politically- make it into a stable, prosperous liberal democracy and let Russia and Crimea go into stagnation.

Indeed: as I said before, one of the too seldom mentioned reason the soviet empire lost its vassals in central Europe is because it became increasingly obvious to their inhabitants that people had much better living standards in the West. More than sanctions, it's investing in the ukrainian economy that will in the long term do the most to weaken Moscow's regime grasp over its people and the russian-speaking enclaves it tries to turn into satrapies.

***

Plus, are you forgetting the poll from before the invasion that showed only at most 40% of Crimean's wanted to join Russia?

More like 23% actually. It was only within the Russian-speaking fraction of the peninsula's population that support for annexation was around 40% (higher, yet still a minority)
But the most obvious evidence that occupation forces did not even bother to make the referendum look even remotely fair was the fact that the ballot wasn't even secret: look at the picture: the ballots are put in the box without any envelope: you can't have a fair vote when one side has all the guns and know who voted against them and where they live: as I said in another similar topic: the referendum was fated to be even more rigged that Russia's last presidential election.

Nixou:

But the most obvious evidence that occupation forces did not even bother to make the referendum look even remotely fair was the fact that the ballot wasn't even secret: look at the picture: the ballots are put in the box without any envelope: you can't have a fair vote when one side has all the guns and know who voted against them and where they live: as I said in another similar topic: the referendum was fated to be even more rigged that Russia's last presidential election.

Oh my God. If we remake referendum with envelopes you will dream another reason to declare referendum was fated. The role of police is not horroring the voters but preventing aggression of Nazis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40xVX1tvuEo. If somebodies do not want to vote for Russia, they may vote for Ukraine or just stay at home.

If you know Germany, would you translate what that clever man says? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D-8kv4wBlA

I translate in brief: "Putin tries to solve the Ukrainian problem by force. This is wrong. But NATO always had solved problems by force. Besides, NATO disturbed all agreements with Russia. NATO disturbed humanity lows bombing Serbia. Today disturbers of humanity lows accuse Russia in disturbing of humanity lows. On Maidan there were many fascists. The ukrainian parliament dismissed the president with 73% of voters, but by the constitution they must gain at least 75%. When revolution is nearby, plus 2% or minus 2% is not important. Besides while voting in building there ware many radicals with weapons, so voting is not democratic. At referendum in Crimea there will be many men with weapons too. If you say that referendum was fated, you must say, that voting in parliament was fated too. If you say, that by constitution such referendum is deprecated, you must say, that 73% is not enough for dismissing the president according to constitution. Do you want to keep the constitution by parts? Then a new government was created. Obama, E.U. and Merkel supported it. But all key functionaries in this government are fascists. When fascists political group get the authority in Austria, Germany immediately stopped all the dialogues with them. But when fascists political group get the authority in Ukraine, Merkel supports them. Oleh Tyahnybok said: take weapons and combat with Russian pigs, Germans, and Jewish pigs, and other infection. Accounts of Yanukovich and his friends are arrested now because they are thieves. Did you know it earlier? Why did you arrested only this accounts, though there are many other thieves in Ukraine?"

Shock and Awe:

While I will defer to your judgement on the Naval aspect as I am not terribly familiar with Navies and the Black sea's conditions, I must disagree on the matter of the air assets. Stationing tactical aircraft in Germany is to far away for CAS in many cases as it would take hours for aircraft to respond to calls from ground units. It also severely limits any loiter time the aircraft would otherwise have. We could safely station tactical aircraft in Ukraine and Turkey as long as we did not station them near the border or coast. As for strategic aircraft the UK and Germany would both probably serve as quality bases for them as we already have the infrastructure in place at many bases in both countries.

The Ukraine is an effect a large salient into Russia. The strategic position is worse for defence than after operation bagration. In the event of war Ukraine and the Baltic states are undefendable, Nato just simply do not have the manpower to defend a line that long. A line running from Poland to Rumania is more likely with perhaps with the parts of the Ukraine that used to be Poland until 1945. Placing large numbers of ground troops and aircraft in Ukraine is just asking for them to get cut off.

Placing aircraft in Turkey is no closer than eastern Germany and has the SAM systems of the black sea fleet in the way. Then you add the fact the Turkey itself is undergoing a political and economic crisis currently, placing aircraft in Turkey is no help.

aelreth:
The US should leave NATO. I think it would be beneficial for the UK and Canada to leave also.

you're making one of the mistakes i implored people not to make in my earlier post.

you're "othering" it.

who do you think NATO are ? (rhetorical)

NATO was basically founded, as a defensive military alliance, by the very people you're suggesting should leave it.

it's not someone else's...it's their "thing".

albino boo:

Shock and Awe:

While I will defer to your judgement on the Naval aspect as I am not terribly familiar with Navies and the Black sea's conditions, I must disagree on the matter of the air assets. Stationing tactical aircraft in Germany is to far away for CAS in many cases as it would take hours for aircraft to respond to calls from ground units. It also severely limits any loiter time the aircraft would otherwise have. We could safely station tactical aircraft in Ukraine and Turkey as long as we did not station them near the border or coast. As for strategic aircraft the UK and Germany would both probably serve as quality bases for them as we already have the infrastructure in place at many bases in both countries.

The Ukraine is an effect a large salient into Russia. The strategic position is worse for defence than after operation bagration. In the event of war Ukraine and the Baltic states are undefendable, Nato just simply do not have the manpower to defend a line that long. A line running from Poland to Rumania is more likely with perhaps with the parts of the Ukraine that used to be Poland until 1945. Placing large numbers of ground troops and aircraft in Ukraine is just asking for them to get cut off.

Placing aircraft in Turkey is no closer than eastern Germany and has the SAM systems of the black sea fleet in the way. Then you add the fact the Turkey itself is undergoing a political and economic crisis currently, placing aircraft in Turkey is no help.

The scenario in which Ukraine would quickly succumb to Russian invasion requires a Ukraine that has zero NATO support. We must remember that the Russian military; while improved, is not all that much more effective then the one that invaded Georgia six years ago, and the Georgians even with their inferior numbers proved to be worthy foes. If NATO were to lend direct support to Ukraine in air and ground assets the Russians(assumingly with Belorussian support) would face stiff resistance from NATO and Ukrainian troops. Any assault that would threaten air assets stationed in central and western Ukraine would have to be a blitzkrieg on the level of Desert Storm. The difference in force between the two forces in any potential conflict here is nowhere near so great.

As for the position of aircraft in Turkey, it would allow strikes into Southern Russia bypassing the expectedly heavily defended Eastern border and Crimean peninsula. Aircraft could travel though Georgia who would probably be more then happy to allow enemies of Russia through. That and we already already have American bases in Turkey so it would be no large task to station strike craft who's first task would be to eliminate the Black sea fleet which to be honest is probably a smaller threat to air assets then the SAMs already being moved into Crimea.

Shock and Awe:

The scenario in which Ukraine would quickly succumb to Russian invasion requires a Ukraine that has zero NATO support. We must remember that the Russian military; while improved, is not all that much more effective then the one that invaded Georgia six years ago, and the Georgians even with their inferior numbers proved to be worthy foes. If NATO were to lend direct support to Ukraine in air and ground assets the Russians(assumingly with Belorussian support) would face stiff resistance from NATO and Ukrainian troops. Any assault that would threaten air assets stationed in central and western Ukraine would have to be a blitzkrieg on the level of Desert Storm. The difference in force between the two forces in any potential conflict here is nowhere near so great.

Okay, I'm sorry, but I'll need to see some actual military analysts back that up before I take it as anything more than wishful thinking.

As for the position of aircraft in Turkey, it would allow strikes into Southern Russia bypassing the expectedly heavily defended Eastern border and Crimean peninsula. Aircraft could travel though Georgia who would probably be more then happy to allow enemies of Russia through. That and we already already have American bases in Turkey so it would be no large task to station strike craft who's first task would be to eliminate the Black sea fleet which to be honest is probably a smaller threat to air assets then the SAMs already being moved into Crimea.

Your current scenario literally depends on Russia laying back and taking the beating without even considering to fight back. You're talking about a war in which one side doesn't utilize its full military capabilities. Which begs the question, if that's all Russians are capable of, then why hasn't a Wehrmacht flag been flying on the Kremlin for the last 70 years?

Not to say anything about the fact that you're advocating a military confrontation with Russia.

You're advocating a military confrontation with Russia. Let that sink in for a moment. Even if you win it, are you willing to pay the cost?

Sleekit:

aelreth:
The US should leave NATO. I think it would be beneficial for the UK and Canada to leave also.

you're making one of the mistakes i implored people not to make in my earlier post.

you're "othering" it.

who do you think NATO are ? (rhetorical)

NATO was basically founded, as a defensive military alliance, by the very people you're suggesting should leave it.

it's not someone else's...it's their "thing".

It's also up to a different group of senators to hold POTUS to it should the POTUS refuse follow the treaty.

Between a war weary electorate and the spineless senators, do you think that POTUS would be impeached and removed from office for failing to faithfully execute the laws (NATO Treaty)?

I doubt it.

aelreth:

Between a war weary electorate and the spineless senators, do you think that POTUS would be impeached and removed from office for failing to faithfully execute the laws (NATO Treaty)?

I doubt it.

Okay okay okay, just a moment here.

Just which "law" are you talking about here? Or well, which article of the NATO treaty?

Vegosiux:

aelreth:

Between a war weary electorate and the spineless senators, do you think that POTUS would be impeached and removed from office for failing to faithfully execute the laws (NATO Treaty)?

I doubt it.

Okay okay okay, just a moment here.

Just which "law" are you talking about here? Or well, which article of the NATO treaty?

The NATO treaty that was ratified by the US Senate in the late 40s and IAW the Constitution of the United States is the "Supreme" law of the land.

You brought up a scenario that I didn't predict however. When you stated "which article" there could have been articles added that are not "The law of the land" since they weren't ratified by the Senate (they would have to be ratified again).

The US is a signatory to many treaties/agreements that haven't been ratified. Thus would have no binding. The agreement to defend Ukraine falls under this category. Various expansions of the NATO treaty could also lay here.

aelreth:

Vegosiux:

aelreth:

Between a war weary electorate and the spineless senators, do you think that POTUS would be impeached and removed from office for failing to faithfully execute the laws (NATO Treaty)?

I doubt it.

Okay okay okay, just a moment here.

Just which "law" are you talking about here? Or well, which article of the NATO treaty?

The NATO treaty that was ratified by the US Senate in the late 40s and IAW the Constitution of the United States is the "Supreme" law of the land.

You brought up a scenario that I didn't predict however. When you stated "which article" there could have been articles added that are not "The law of the land" since they weren't ratified by the Senate (they would have to be ratified again).

The US is a signatory to many treaties/agreements that haven't been ratified. Thus would have no binding. The agreement to defend Ukraine falls under this category. Various expansions of the NATO treaty could also lay here.

I was more getting at the fact that Ukraine is not a NATO member. Which means that the North Atlantic Treaty simply doesn't apply to Ukraine at all. The North Atlantic Treaty is a defensive treaty between parties to it, not a basis for a coalition to go around the world "fixing problems". And NATO can't invoke article 5 even if Russia occupies the entire Ukraine, since Ukraine isn't a NATO member.

Seriously. This is the text of the North Atlantic Treaty:

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/stock_publications/20120822_nato_treaty_en_light_2009.pdf

Can someone present explain to me just what I'm missing? How does it apply to Ukraine?

Vegosiux:

aelreth:

Vegosiux:

Okay okay okay, just a moment here.

Just which "law" are you talking about here? Or well, which article of the NATO treaty?

The NATO treaty that was ratified by the US Senate in the late 40s and IAW the Constitution of the United States is the "Supreme" law of the land.

You brought up a scenario that I didn't predict however. When you stated "which article" there could have been articles added that are not "The law of the land" since they weren't ratified by the Senate (they would have to be ratified again).

The US is a signatory to many treaties/agreements that haven't been ratified. Thus would have no binding. The agreement to defend Ukraine falls under this category. Various expansions of the NATO treaty could also lay here.

I was more getting at the fact that Ukraine is not a NATO member. Which means that the North Atlantic Treaty simply doesn't apply to Ukraine at all. The North Atlantic Treaty is a defensive treaty between parties to it, not a basis for a coalition to go around the world "fixing problems". And NATO can't invoke article 5 even if Russia occupies the entire Ukraine, since Ukraine isn't a NATO member.

Seriously. This is the text of the North Atlantic Treaty:

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/stock_publications/20120822_nato_treaty_en_light_2009.pdf

Can someone present explain to me just what I'm missing? How does it apply to Ukraine?

It doesn't, unless someone can find one that was ratified by the US Senate.

Vegosiux:

Shock and Awe:

The scenario in which Ukraine would quickly succumb to Russian invasion requires a Ukraine that has zero NATO support. We must remember that the Russian military; while improved, is not all that much more effective then the one that invaded Georgia six years ago, and the Georgians even with their inferior numbers proved to be worthy foes. If NATO were to lend direct support to Ukraine in air and ground assets the Russians(assumingly with Belorussian support) would face stiff resistance from NATO and Ukrainian troops. Any assault that would threaten air assets stationed in central and western Ukraine would have to be a blitzkrieg on the level of Desert Storm. The difference in force between the two forces in any potential conflict here is nowhere near so great.

Okay, I'm sorry, but I'll need to see some actual military analysts back that up before I take it as anything more than wishful thinking.

As for the position of aircraft in Turkey, it would allow strikes into Southern Russia bypassing the expectedly heavily defended Eastern border and Crimean peninsula. Aircraft could travel though Georgia who would probably be more then happy to allow enemies of Russia through. That and we already already have American bases in Turkey so it would be no large task to station strike craft who's first task would be to eliminate the Black sea fleet which to be honest is probably a smaller threat to air assets then the SAMs already being moved into Crimea.

Your current scenario literally depends on Russia laying back and taking the beating without even considering to fight back. You're talking about a war in which one side doesn't utilize its full military capabilities. Which begs the question, if that's all Russians are capable of, then why hasn't a Wehrmacht flag been flying on the Kremlin for the last 70 years?

Not to say anything about the fact that you're advocating a military confrontation with Russia.

You're advocating a military confrontation with Russia. Let that sink in for a moment. Even if you win it, are you willing to pay the cost?

First and most importantly, I am not advocating a war with Russia. That needs to be made clear. However, I think we must stop them from making further moves against Ukraine and to show them we will not roll over and allow them to kick around their neighbors for nothing more then territorial gain.

As for the latter part of your post, this implies that Russia goes on a total war footing for what would most likely be a limited war. We would most likely not see a mass call up of reserves or anything similar. One would expect the Russians to make every effort to protect gains made in the region and possibly expand further, most likely into Georgia, Ukraine, and possibly the Baltic states. That being said, if Russia were to make moves against targets outside Ukraine such as the Baltic States or Poland then you would be talking about a whole other beast entirely. That would be a major war for all participants and a total one for the Baltic states, Poland, and the other countries in the region.

That all being said, I do not believe Russia would make any aggressive action toward NATO troops or Ukrainian ones for that matter if NATO troops are suring them up. The Russians would most likely not risk an attack on NATO troops as this would require response by 28 countries, a war Russia could never win.

And I cannot call upon any professional analysts because to be quite honest I wouldn't know where to search.

One would expect the Russians to make every effort to protect gains made in the region and possibly expand further, most likely into Georgia, Ukraine, and possibly the Baltic states

It's far too late for the Baltic states: they're already within Strasbourg's territories. Since the treaty of Lisbon includes a mutual defense clause, if Putin puts one of his soldier boots in the Baltic states, he'll face an army twice as large as his own backed by an economy which can outspend him into oblivion, and that's even before the US itself gets involved. Bullies never put people stronger than themselves in a corner where they have no choice but to fight back: they'll threaten, they'll insult, they'll rattle their sabers and wave their dicks, but they won't give a bloody nose to someone who can beat them to death.

Nixou:

One would expect the Russians to make every effort to protect gains made in the region and possibly expand further, most likely into Georgia, Ukraine, and possibly the Baltic states

It's far too late for the Baltic states: they're already within Strasbourg's territories. Since the treaty of Lisbon includes a mutual defense clause, if Putin puts one of his soldier boots in the Baltic states, he'll face an army twice as large as his own backed by an economy which can outspend him into oblivion, and that's even before the US itself gets involved. Bullies never put people stronger than themselves in a corner where they have no choice but to fight back: they'll threaten, they'll insult, they'll rattle their sabers and wave their dicks, but they won't give a bloody nose to someone who can beat them to death.

You are correct it'd be an absolutely ridiculous idea to invade a country that is not only NATO, but EU. However at this point I don't think we can assume anything. Especially if Russia and NATO start shooting.

Shock and Awe:

First and most importantly, I am not advocating a war with Russia. That needs to be made clear. However, I think we must stop them from making further moves against Ukraine and to show them we will not roll over and allow them to kick around their neighbors for nothing more then territorial gain.

Ah. Yeah seems I've misunderstood you there, then. Been through so many opinions on the matter it tends to all blur together somehow, I need a bigger brain (and matching skull to put it in).

As for the latter part of your post, this implies that Russia goes on a total war footing for what would most likely be a limited war. We would most likely not see a mass call up of reserves or anything similar. One would expect the Russians to make every effort to protect gains made in the region and possibly expand further, most likely into Georgia, Ukraine, and possibly the Baltic states. That being said, if Russia were to make moves against targets outside Ukraine such as the Baltic States or Poland then you would be talking about a whole other beast entirely. That would be a major war for all participants and a total one for the Baltic states, Poland, and the other countries in the region.

That all being said, I do not believe Russia would make any aggressive action toward NATO troops or Ukrainian ones for that matter if NATO troops are suring them up. The Russians would most likely not risk an attack on NATO troops as this would require response by 28 countries, a war Russia could never win.

We're in agreement on this one. Especially since, while Ukraine isn't a NATO member, the Baltics and Poland are so that would actually be taking on the entire alliance and it would take some serious lapse of judgement and/or delusion in Moscow for the option to even be considered.

And just to clarify, since I might have not put it as I meant to, earlier on, when I say that "Russia is going to call that bluff", I didn't mean they'd engage in a confrontation, but rather that they'd likely not be too dissuaded from their Crimean agenda.

On a more amusing note, with several individuals close to Putin getting sanctioned by the West, one of them (Dmitri Rogozin) went on twitter to go "Comrade Obama, what should do those who have neither accounts nor property abroad? Or U didn't think about it?" I honestly still can't really wrap my head around the concept of political figures go at each other on twitter...

And I cannot call upon any professional analysts because to be quite honest I wouldn't know where to search.

Well, after thinking some more about what I said regarding that, I figure most such relevant information would likely be classified, so yeah...don't think that point I made was too useful in the end.

What I was trying to say was more that to me it seemed as if Russia's often treated as some sort of a passive participant in this, and when discussing the hypothetical confrontation it was presented as way too "smooth". Russia's a strange beast. You can kick it down, batter it, break its legs, but it's eventually gonna get up and shrug it off, slightly worse for the wear, but still be a thorn in your side.

Meanwhile, I'm keeping an eye on Bosnia, things are tense there too...

I honestly still can't really wrap my head around the concept of political figures a go at each other on twitter...

I'm honestly still baffled that so many powerful people have yet to be taught to avoid twitter like the plague.

Results of referendum: 83% of all citizens of Crimea have come for voting, though they could stay at home and boycott voting. 96.6% of them voted for being a part of Russian Federation. And the russian government will realize their hope. There is a document http://pravo.gov.ru:8080/page.aspx?92062 Next, Transnistria wants to be a part of R.F. too, they asked Russia about inclusion. I guess Russia will refuse inclusion of Transnistria. Now a huge amount of citizens in East parts of Ukraine holds the meetings for support R.F. Maybe they will follow Crimea.

Now R.F. needs sanctions from the U.S. and E.U. We need in most hard sanctions. History shows that U.S. and E.U. are bad friends. Many Russians hope that sanctions against us will make our motherland better for living in it.

Why are you so militaristic? In your forum the words "war" and "WW3" are frequent that wonders me. Every war is stupid. Independence of Crimea has prevented the civil war in Ukraine. How russian-speakers in East love the revolutionaries of the new government arrived from West http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3enKBXbbjGc

I think if you listen to Nuland's leak phone conversation and the speech she gave at the national press club briefing literally standing in front of chevron and exxonmobil logos... it's clear the west organized this whole democracy movement as a coup with window dressing on it. Some people will want to deny that, but others have been around long enough to know better.

That said, we started this. If Russia helped to destabilize Mexico and install a Moscow-friendly government, we'd be losing our shit right now and drones would indiscriminately drop ordnance on Mexico City to kill "terrorists." Our action would not be sanctioned by the UN so we'd have to make up our own international coalition buy buying off the support of as many small podunk countries as we could. So given how we started this, how we'd react; how we have reacted in the past- I'd say Russia is playing nice with the other children, as nice as they can- and we should probably just let them have their toys back and go back to playing on our side of the room; if for nothing else but the sake of quiet during nap time.

xDarc:
I'd say Russia is playing nice with the other children, as nice as they can- and we should probably just let them have their toys back and go back to playing on our side of the room;

This is a wise decision. Much wiser then stupid cry "war" "WW3". The U.S. has a lot of problems and instead solving them it just directs people's attention to far away countries.

I have never heard that Russia helped to destabilize Mexico. Maybe this is true, maybe not. Russia has no much money for such operations. But Mexico is only a country that has bought at least 4 air-planes SSJ-100, others countries bought at most 2.

There is a leak that the U.S. has spent 5 billions dollars to "democratization" of Ukraine. http://www.hangthebankers.com/us-spent-5-billion-to-destabilize-ukraine/
What is "democratization"? The gossips paint a picture, that this money were spent for growing neo-fascists organizations like Pravyi Sektor or All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda", to sponsor Maidan protests. Maybe it is true, maybe not. But Maidan looked like well-paid three-month carnival with thousands citizens and well-equipped radicals delivered from West Ukraine.

Ide be sick if England follows or aids any action against Russia. Obama has truly made England turn away from America govt but we still love the usa people. Most of them but as do alot of Americans we hate the im it your shit yankies. Our school teaches us all sides of history including bad stuff we've done and times we've been fools. Bush led us as fools on a loyal voyage that obama has smashed to peices with every meeting with UK officials.

Lets be reasonable and hate our leaders and unite as the free people.

Lets look at brittain falklands or usa hawai I bet there's plenty more illegal gotten lands around if anything russia is the most clean on this subject they owned chimra but now want it back.

fukrususawar:
Lets look at brittain falklands or usa hawai I bet there's plenty more illegal gotten lands around if anything russia is the most clean on this subject they owned chimra but now want it back.

10/10 confirmed Russian. The fact that you bring up the Falklands and then call it stolen land is a dead giveaway. Did you know that Russia was, when it was created, only about 1/5th of what is today European Russia? You know how the got the rest of their country? By the sword. And moving to the topic of Crimea, there are 2 false equivalencies there. 1st is that it was Russian. It was part of the Russian Empire, but using that logic they have rightful claim to annex most of Poland, the Baltics, Finland, the Caucasian republics, the Central Asian Republics, Ukraine and Belarus. Crimea has been part of the Ukraine since the early days of the Soviet Union, get over it.

Another problem is that Russia is trying to invade NOW, 70 years after invading to annex land was outlawed without exception by the UN in a treaty every country has signed.

so much irony on this post, quick question which country has invaded more than 3 countries in the last 20 years?

but the russian are the hungry land grabbers, yeah..........

Zontar:

fukrususawar:
Lets look at brittain falklands or usa hawai I bet there's plenty more illegal gotten lands around if anything russia is the most clean on this subject they owned chimra but now want it back.

10/10 confirmed Russian. The fact that you bring up the Falklands and then call it stolen land is a dead giveaway. Did you know that Russia was, when it was created, only about 1/5th of what is today European Russia? You know how the got the rest of their country? By the sword. And moving to the topic of Crimea, there are 2 false equivalencies there. 1st is that it was Russian. It was part of the Russian Empire, but using that logic they have rightful claim to annex most of Poland, the Baltics, Finland, the Caucasian republics, the Central Asian Republics, Ukraine and Belarus. Crimea has been part of the Ukraine since the early days of the Soviet Union, get over it.

Another problem is that Russia is trying to invade NOW, 70 years after invading to annex land was outlawed without exception by the UN in a treaty every country has signed.

please tell me you arent american nor british, i coundt take the amount of hypocrisy in your post if you where.

sonofliber:

please tell me you arent american nor british, i coundt take the amount of hypocrisy in your post if you where.

I'm not American or British. Though I like how you ask which country has invaded more then three countries in the past 20 years when, since 1994, the US has only invaded 2 countries (Afghanistan, at the request of the local government, and Iraq) and neither of those was to annex land, and only 1 was even illegal. Meanwhile in the same timeframe Russia has also invaded 2 countries, but both invasions where illegal and instead of the breach in international law being to depose a dictator it was to annex territory (which is a higher crime then invading to depose a government).

fukrususawar:
Lets look at brittain falklands or usa hawai I bet there's plenty more illegal gotten lands around if anything russia is the most clean on this subject they owned chimra but now want it back.

Britain has owned the Falkland's for hundreds of years, from what I've read Argentina only owned it for a few years in the 1830's. Also, there weren't 20 000 troops occupying the place when the Falkland's voted to stay part of Britain. That is a terrible example. And before you go saying Crimea was part of Russia, it was given to Ukraine and it stayed with Ukraine since it was independent. Also, Britain didn't commit war crimes trying to make the Falklands British.

You know, I even think a large portion of the west would be supporting Crimea if not for the fact that there were thousands of Russian troops occupying it without provocation, replacing the ruling party with one that only had 4% of the vote, occupying Ukrainian military bases, taking over Ukrainian ships, being hostile to Western media, and starting the referendum before any kind of international observers could be in place so that the vote was sure to be done democratically. And the vote did not go democratically. I'm not sure I could get 97% of the world's population to agree on anything remotely problematic, especially not something as divisive as a secession vote. I mean, staying in Ukraine wasn't even on the ballot for Pete's sake. This was also during a time of turmoil for the country, when there was no hope of the Ukrainian government to ensure a free, safe vote.

Nothing about this vote was done legally. There is an extremely clear moral high ground here right now, and Russia stands on the wrong side of it.

Zontar:
Though I like how you ask which country has invaded more then three countries in the past 20 years when, since 1994, the US has only invaded 2 countries (Afghanistan, at the request of the local government, and Iraq) and neither of those was to annex land, and only 1 was even illegal. Meanwhile in the same timeframe Russia has also invaded 2 countries, but both invasions where illegal and instead of the breach in international law being to depose a dictator it was to annex territory (which is a higher crime then invading to depose a government).

What about bombing of Serbia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deliberate_Force
Allow me to place some info that is exactly a "russian propaganda":
http://www.phantomreport.com/us-nato-building-roman-empire-in-europe-serbia-not-invited

Do you say that the war in Afghanistan was legal? In 2001 skyscrapers were destroyed, and U.S. blamed Ben Laden in doing it. As I remember Ben Laden negated his blame. But U.S. wanted to catch him. Ben Laden was in Afghanistan, Afghanistan's leader said that the reason to give out Ben Laden is not enough important. U.S. came to Afghanistan to catch Ben Laden by force. While invasion, Afghanistan increased production of drugs to 1000% that is a very nice result of invasion. Tbh, USSR's invasion to Afghanistan was also illegal. Modern Russia and USSR are two very different countries. Unlike the U.S., Russia doesn't invade other countries just because some famous terrorist hides there and the leaders don't want to give him out.

You know how the got the rest of their country? By the sword.

Such times were in the past. Russia got territories by the sword. And Russia lost its territories by the foreign sword. And other countries did the same in the past. What did European colonizers at whole the world? Ashluss of Crimea and Russia is like Ashluss of GDR and FRG on 3 October 1990. All was democratic.

It was part of the Russian Empire, but using that logic they have rightful claim to annex most of Poland, the Baltics, Finland, the Caucasian republics, the Central Asian Republics, Ukraine and Belarus.

If their people don't want to be annexed by Russia, Russia will not annex them. It is much wiser to create the diplomatic alliances with Poland, the Baltics, Finland, the Caucasian republics, the Central Asian Republics, Ukraine and Belarus.

-----

There is a good Israel analytic (on russian language with funny Jewish accent): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UjxEFXjQhA
They say that Crimean referendum doesn't cause doubts in honesty. If democracy is a power of majority, referendum was democratic. Talking about Crimea is meaningless. Question today is not Crimea but Ukraine. Ukraine needs in law and order. Europe and Russia need in overthrow of fascists. Russia needs in a real legitimated government with which Russia could communicate. Also Russia needs in preventing of entering of Ukraine in NATO (that have transformed from alliance of defence to alliance for aggression). How to overthrow the fascists and to organize a real legitimated government? History teaches that fascists newer lose their positions by democratic way. There are two russian armies in full readiness near the Ukraine's border. They will overthrow the fascists. Then a democratic election will be. The main question is what sanctions will be realized by Europe. Yes, Crimea will cause some sanctions, but they will be emblematic just to save the European's face ('face' = 'image'). After coming Russia's invasion to Ukraine sanctions will be strong. On every sanction there is a counter-sanction. Nowdays Europe begins to go out of deep economical depression that could to disorganize E.U. Swapping of sanctions will put E.U. in 10 times deeper depression. Russia today is much more stable for economical problems then E.U.'s countries are. People of European countries does not worry about Ukraine, it prefers to live in peace with high quality of life. People will be angry to their leaders. Results of swapping of sanctions could be very unexpected.

Def:

What about bombing of Serbia?

Notice both he and I used the word "Invasion". I don't know about how it works in Russian, but in English words matter, and the bombing of Serbia was just that, a bombing. It was not an invasion. Since 1990 the US has only invaded 3 countries, Kuwait and Iraq during the Gulf War (a legal police action), Afghanistan (another legal police action), and Iraq again (an illegal invasion).

Do you say that the war in Afghanistan was legal? In 2001 skyscrapers were destroyed, and U.S. blamed Ben Laden in doing it. As I remember Ben Laden negated his blame. But U.S. wanted to catch him. Ben Laden was in Afghanistan, Afghanistan's leader said that the reason to give out Ben Laden is not enough important. U.S. came to Afghanistan to catch Ben Laden by force.

Bin Laden openly admitted to the action. Did you know that before details came out (security footage of the perpetrator and a video by Bin Laden ADMITING TO THE ACTION) experts suspected that the terrorists where Chilean? Of course not. Here's something else: the ICC ordered him to be turned over, as did the UN. When that didn't happen, NATO gave air support to the republican militants who had been fighting against the Taliban for 10 years. It was only after they came to power and requested military assistance on the ground that the invasion occurred.

Such times were in the past. Russia got territories by the sword. And Russia lost its territories by the foreign sword. And other countries did the same in the past. What did European colonizers at whole the world? Ashluss of Crimea and Russia is like Ashluss of GDR and FRG on 3 October 1990. All was democratic.

Uh, no, no it is not. When the two Germanys unified, it was because both had always viewed the other as an improper government controlling what was their own territory, and it was also state policy by both to try and reunite with the other.

Crimea, on the other hand, had a minority that wanted to separate from Ukraine (and yes, it was a minority. Apart from an illegal referendum which no one recognizes and broke every protocol in the book, not a single poll or election has shown anything more then a minority supporting the idea) and despite there being a clear mandate for it to remain a part of Ukraine (re: the results of every election since the country was founded), so this was an invasion that is the antithesis to democracy (and who are you, a Russian, to lecture about democracy? Your nation wouldn't know democracy if October Revolutionaries shoved it down your throats if your comments on it are to be believed).

If their people don't want to be annexed by Russia, Russia will not annex them.

Evidently not. Georgia since 2008 and Ukraine this past month are evidence of that. Then again, so is Chechnya, the embodiment of democracy not factoring into the equation.

It is much wiser to create the diplomatic alliances with Poland, the Baltics, Finland, the Caucasian republics, the Central Asian Republics, Ukraine and Belarus.

This is true. Too bad the Russian government has no interest in doing that. Apart from Belarus, all of them are antagonistic towards Russia. Can't say I blame them, it is only logical due to self-preservation.

If democracy is a power of majority, referendum was democratic. Talking about Crimea is meaningless. Question today is not Crimea but Ukraine.

A referendum is, IF it functions, a pure act of democracy. But, and I know I've beaten this into the ground so much you'd have to be a Russia Today viewer to not realize it, the referendum was rigged. There was no oversight, there was no time for preparations, and there was deadly intimidation. The results are not recognized by anyone. Crimea is at best a rouge state.

Ukraine needs in law and order. Europe and Russia need in overthrow of fascists. Russia needs in a real legitimated government with which Russia could communicate.

Hey, if you want your country to have democracy, that's all well and good, but don't pretend that your nations dictator imposing his will on another is a step towards that.

Also Russia needs in preventing of entering of Ukraine in NATO (that have transformed from alliance of defence to alliance for aggression).

Any evidence for that? If you didn't want Ukraine to join NATO, maybe you should have prevented your government from making that happening much faster then it ever could have if this had been handled peacefully. Ukraine ascending into the alliance is not only assured, it's almost guaranteed to be fast-tracked due to a clear and present danger to its sovereignty.

How to overthrow the fascists and to organize a real legitimated government?

You do realize that calling the transitional government fascist discredits your argument right? Everyone who is a part of the transitional government is a member of the former government which had been in power before that bastard ran away. If they are fascists, then the government was ALREADY fascist under the man who you hold up as the "legitimate" government. The man isn't the government, he ran, and the government reformed itself. This is to be expected from this sort of event. Then again there is already an election on the way, so the non-issue would be over because of that if it had been an issue at all.

History teaches that fascists newer lose their positions by democratic way.

Alright, so you'll have to find an undemocratic way of removing Putin from power. That's your problem, not ours, and has nothing to do with Ukraine.

There are two russian armies in full readiness near the Ukraine's border. They will overthrow the fascists.

I seem to remember you called us Westerners warmongers or something along those lines, yet the fact that your statement here is even true shows that Putin may be willing to start a fucking world war to gain territory. Keep calling them what you want, but the only ones beating the war drums are you Ivans, and we are reacting in kind with our preparations. An invasion of Ukraine would end like this: NATO mobilizing, Russia being ordered to move out, and if it refuses (given the Oligarchs, that may not happen, though it would mean an end to Putin) then the problem will be solved in the only way those thugs at the Kremlin can understand, with force. We don't want war, but we will not let the Russian menace rise again either.

Then a democratic election will be.

I would laugh at the irony of that if I wasn't so disgusted by the fact that you don't even realize how wrong that statement is.

The main question is what sanctions will be realized by Europe. Yes, Crimea will cause some sanctions, but they will be emblematic just to save the European's face ('face' = 'image'). After coming Russia's invasion to Ukraine sanctions will be strong.

You're dame right they will be, even in this situation as it stands now, the EU is planning on possibly moving from natural gas and oil for electricity to coal, which has been estimated to only take 6 months to do and could eliminate all Russian imports of the two, which would cripple both the economy and government of Russia. Did I mention this is as it stands NOW?

On every sanction there is a counter-sanction.

And what does the EU export to Russia? Luxury items which are not critical to the economy. The economy of the EU is almost entirely domestic oriented, with almost all trade being between members. The only ones who would be harmed are the Oligarchs who would not be able to import any of their nice toys, so that means there's no chance of it even happening.

Nowdays Europe begins to go out of deep economical depression that could to disorganize E.U. Swapping of sanctions will put E.U. in 10 times deeper depression.

Depression? The EU went through a small recession (big difference. Like I said earlier, words in English matter). Right now it's recovering. Yes, a sudden end to trade would have an effect, but comparing that which it would have to Russia and the EU, it would be madness to think that Putin had the balls to put Russia threw all that just to inconvenience the EU.

Russia today is much more stable for economical problems then E.U.'s countries are.

Not at all. Russia in currently in a recession that's projected to get deeper (and that's assuming this event doesn't prompt sanctions) while the EU is well in recovery. Remember that Greece is almost nothing when it comes to the EU.

People of European countries does not worry about Ukraine, it prefers to live in peace with high quality of life. People will be angry to their leaders. Results of swapping of sanctions could be very unexpected.

Evidently that's not entirely true, since even as it stands the governments are planning on removing the need for oil and natural gas imports from Russia (also known as "everything they import"). And given the antagonism between Europe and Russia given the Russian menace (which this whole crisis shows is very much back again), they're probably happy for an excuse to cut ties.

At the end of the day, though, the only good thing to come out of all this is that, since it is the case in reality, we can now have Russians be the villains in fiction again as well.

Def:
If their people don't want to be annexed by Russia, Russia will not annex them. It is much wiser to create the diplomatic alliances with Poland, the Baltics, Finland, the Caucasian republics, the Central Asian Republics, Ukraine and Belarus.

What diplomatic alliances? You think any former Soviet territory is going to trust Russia after they ripped a piece of their neighbor? They'll take their weight and add it to NATO or China. Finland isn't part of NATO now, but they've got incentive to sign up. That puts Americas warplanes five minutes from St. Petersburg. Ukraine itself could become part of NATO.

In the East, things are even worse. Do you want to see Chinese troops on the Kazakh border, within spitting distance of Volgograd and Novisbirisk and a quick blitz from Moscow itself? They've already got their eye on Vladivostok and want a big chunk of Siberia.

Putin's greasing the skids to make these kinds of nightmare scenarios happen. If he plays nice, the 'stans stay in line and protect his flank. Ukraine makes a buffer to keep Europe at bay. If it doesn't...the knives come out. You can't have allies without being an ally. That's the cost of Putin's Crimean adventure.

The situation here is pretty straightforward when you get down to it. Ukraine is a nation that used to be part of Russia but became independent after the fall of the USSR. When it broke away, like a lot of former Russian states it was promised protected and autonomy by the western world against Russia should it decide to retaliate, especially seeing as these break away states by not remaining part of Russia weakened it as a whole and prevented it from ever becoming as powerful as it was before.

Recently there was a vote in Ukraine over whether Ukraine would seek closer ties to the east or west. The pro-western faction won, those who want closer ties to, or to rejoin Russia representing a minority position. Like it or not nations dividing based on idealogical splits like this is not a good thing, and why governments and votes exist to begin with. Indeed the USA had our one major civil war exactly over this kind of issue. In this case however what happened was Russia who wants tighter control of The Black Sea decided to invade, hold everyone at gunpoint, and then hold another vote in a specific region and then Saddam style went "wow, 95% support", which isn't exactly shocking when you basically put an AK-47 to someone's head at the poll stations. Sure, the pro-eastern elements (who were a sizable faction) are overjoyed and were dancing in the streets, presenting this as liberation, but that doesn't mean much given that the legitimate decision as a whole was to go the other way. Dividing and weakening Ukraine shouldn't really be seen as an option.

There is also the issue of what stakes the western world actually has in this. For starters there is the issue of our word, while agreements get broken or changed, typically it's a really bad thing when it happens on a major scale like an invasion. The bottom line is the US and Europe promised when Ukraine and other parts of the USSR (and various satellite nations) that we wouldn't allow this to happen, and we actually assisted a lot of them in becoming independent. Sure they might not have actually joined groups like NATO, but that was also part of the deal at the time where we wanted to weaken Russia without trying to force our hand and make it look like we were trying to basically absorb or annex parts of Russia (in reality or politically). Making Ukraine join NATO as opposed to remaining independent probably would have ruined the entire thing and not achieved the goal of them leaving Russian control. If the western first world does NOT intervene to stop Russia directly, this means in similar situations in the future we aren't likely to be trusted, which reduces our options and how seriously we're taken when we say we're going to back a group as an independent state.

We also have the whole issue of strategic position. See, Ukraine occupies a key strategic location for control over The Black Sea, which is one of the key routes for a war between Europe and Russia, controlling The Black Sea and putting Russian troops in Ukraine presents a direct threat to Poland. Russia, like China, has been becoming increasingly belligerent and offensive, and really this is exactly the kind of territory Russia needs to control if it's ever going to try and start another World War on it's terms.

It should be noted that while a lot of people have ignored it, the threat of WMD isn't what it used to be. Really the only ones who tend to be "nuke-phobic" nowadays are Americans. The truth is that after decades countermeasures have been developed. The US leads in them right now (indeed this was a point of contention with Russia earlier) but nations like China has also developed their technology heavily (do a search for China, Satellite, and Lasers together you'll see various articles dealing with Chinese systems to blind US military satellites to make things like automated ICBM targeting far more difficult if not impossible). It's been going on for a while as I pointed out, but China and Russia are on fairly good terms, both have been building up their military forces (especially China) and right now your seeing what amounts to a double pronged attack to gain strategic position for offensives. China is disputing a set of island (and placing troops there) that represent a big part of the US (Japanese) foothold into the region, and also an avenue for attack against Japan where a large part of the US Navy is based in the region. On the "other side" Russia is again moving on Ukraine to gain control of The Black Sea which is one of the avenues it can use for a serious attack on Europe. "Former claims" are a joke when you consider that every piece of land was owned by someone else at some point (and part of another nation/culture in all likelihood), right now it's all about the strategic importance of those areas.

It's also noteworthy that we really can blame Obama for a lot of this, and not for the usual reasons people shoot off their mouths on. Obama is the guy who has been putting down lines and then backing down continually when they are crossed, and literally finding pretty much every excuse he can to not go to war and defend US interests. Basically when there is no real retaliation for Benghazi, or worse yet we let Kim Jong Un kick us around like a Soccor Ball, this kind of thing goes noticed by the REAL threats, and Moscow and Beijing both pretty much realized that with their ambitions now is the best time to try and make a move since Obama isn't likely to actually do anything but talk... which has been the case so far, we've seen a literal invasion and all Obama has done is whine about sanctions and scream "stop or I'll say stop again". What's more Russia has managed to cow a lot of people in the US by having state media talk about turning the USA into radioactive ash, because it knows this strikes a chord with ignorant Americans, our own media likewise hasn't been playing the same game back.

Now honestly, had we decided to say take strong action in retaliation for Benghazi, or blow North Korea off the map when it crossed the line, we probably wouldn't be in this position now, because neither Russia or China would have taken the current actions, but we didn't, and it turned into greater problems (which I saw coming). It will continue to snowball if we don't do something massive right now, because our lack of retaliation is just going to encourage more action and belligerence, and if we let Russia and China build up their positions a bit at a time while we try and maintain the peace, they will eventually start a war from a strong position, and people will then fully realize we're in the crapper because the old threat of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has been an antiquidated concept for a long time now, not to mention that for it to work people actually have to believe you'd pull the trigger (and frankly nobody could see the US doing that right now, even if it would work, which it probably wouldn't).

Right now I think the US needs to pretty much sink or capture Chinese ships in the Philippines who have been responsible for assaults on Filipino fishing interests, that's one of our territories. I also think we should take whatever action we need to get Russia out of Ukraine. For the record I have no problem with people from Ukraine who identify with being Russian simply leaving the country and moving to Russia, that's their right, but they have no right to take control of Crimea, divide Ukraine, and give Russia that kind of control over The Black Sea. What's more it's not really about 'right and wrong' like most wars, honestly even if Ukraine as a whole wanted to join Russia we'd still need to intervene because of the strategic position and the threat it presents to us and our allies. A classic "us or them" situation, thankfully it isn't quite that morally ambigious since before the invasion Ukraine as a whole decided to embrace a pro-western attitude.

*IF* this snowballs into a third world war, which is possible, but unlikely, it's better to start it now than after nations like Russia occupy a stronger position. Right now we have as big an advantage as we're going to get, time isn't likely to play to our favor. Truthfully though I expect Russia will continue to threaten it, but won't go through with it because at the end of the day it already admitted the US's anti-missile technologies have them more or less pinned. Even if they launched ICBMs all it would do is make them and their 'ultimate threat' of nuclear action look pathetic when they all got shot down, many of them probably over Russia. Assuming of course Obama was stupid and actually gave them this tech during previous negotitions where it was "being considered".

I imagine if the US and NATO get involved we'll push Russia out and Putin will look as weak in his posturing as Obama usually does. Given our plans to decommission the A-10s and such this would be a good lash hurrah for them given that they are designed to pretty much eat Russian tanks (the same ones Russia is largely still using). Once we succeed we will then be in a position to strongly suggest Ukraine join NATO. We could then say decide to "gift" our remaining A-10s that we're scrapping anyway to Ukraine along with perhaps establishing a US military base there to help keep Russia out (and penned in). The most awesome thing to do would be to make those bases anti-missile ones penning Russia in even further in retaliation, given that they were already throwing a tantrum over Poland having bases like this ("what? we likely aren't able to nuke the EU? That's unfair..")

History teaches that fascists newer lose their positions by democratic way.

Which is why the european far-right is nearly unanimously pro-Putin: he rigs elections, puts political opponents in Siberia and have independent journalists assassinated, openly treat minorities like shit, allow violent bullies to beat people in the streets with impunity, openly tries to resurrect his country's colonial empire... He epitomizes the petty tyrant with way too much power european fascists wish they were.

***

Then again there is already an election on the way

With the fascist party being given 5 to 6% of the vote according to the latest polls, which shows how overblown the "fascists are taking over" claim was.

Not at all. Russia in currently in a recession that's projected to get deeper (and that's assuming this event doesn't prompt sanctions) while the EU is well in recovery. Remember that Greece is almost nothing when it comes to the EU.

Greece represents one percent of the EU's GDP. In fact, when Athens joined the Euro currency, the highers up of the Union already knew that decades of clientelism, tax evasion and embezzlement had rendered the country's public finances unsustainable, but they decided to allow Greece in anyway because fixing it would demand only pocket change...
Of course that was not counting on the fact that the Greek state collapsed from its own specific corruption exactly at the same time than a worldwide crisis hit every other country, after a decade during which right-wing demagogues had with their "slash-taxes-but-keep-spending-our-own-voters-rely-on-public-services-and-we-don't-want-to-be-clobbered-in-the-ballot-box-next-time" dominated Union's politics and fragilized its public sector.

***

Basically when there is no real retaliation for Benghazi

Quick retaliation did happen, in the form of the pro-western majority in Benghazi getting pissed and kicking the fundie militias out of the city the following week. That's "soft power" at work: you help people getting rid of a corrupt tyrant, then you refrain from treating them like a client state, and you won't need to put your own troops in every corner of the planet.

we let Kim Jong Un kick us around like a Soccor Ball

What the US -at the bidding South Korea- is doing, is allowing the North Korean regime to pretend it can bully the west into submission because South Korea fear that a regime that knows only saber-rattling will collapse the day it's stopped from doing that and does not want to suddenly have to absorb 22 millions of starving people and 2 million of fallen warrior-caste aristocrats, something they'll have to do when the Kim dynasty collapse.

Most importantly, people should not want to confuse patience and weakness: both the US and the EU are way out of Russia's league when it comes to conventional warfare, and regardless of clueless pet-anchors of the regime might claim, using nukes would be nothing more than a suicidal temper tantrum. If both powers refrain from flexing their military muscle yet, it's because both count among their leaderships people who know that bellicose posturing is a pointless waste of time and energy: but that doesn't mean their diong nothing: putting Ukraine on fast-track to EU membership is a much more productive move, which will put Kiev under the Mutual Defense Close of the Lisbon Treaty's umbrella, something that will frighten Putin a lot more than any sort of grandstanding.

Zontar:

bombing of Serbia was just that, a bombing. It was not an invasion.

I see as a humanist, I count the souls delivered to Eden, I look at the things behind the words. What is worse: bombing of Serbia that was not an invasion or invasion of Crimea that was not a bombing?

Bin Laden openly admitted to the action. Here's something else: the ICC ordered him to be turned over, as did the UN.

I just read a "russian propaganda": http://www.e-ir.info/2013/11/06/was-the-nato-invasion-of-afghanistan-legal/

and who are you, a Russian, to lecture about democracy?

The best lecturer about democracy was Socrates, the antique greek philosopher. His lectures were such good, that democrats poisoned him.

there was deadly intimidation

Do not make me laughing. They were so intimidated that made a photo-sessions with them and gifted them the flowers. http://zlobnig-v-2.livejournal.com/295827.html

There was no oversight

What about foreign observers that were there? Of course, all of them were deadly intimidated, they wrote the wrong reports while the AK-47 were near their heads.

Any evidence for that? If you didn't want Ukraine to join NATO

Fascists that came often make a statement about this.

If they are fascists, then the government was ALREADY fascist under the man who you hold up as the "legitimate" government.

Party "Svoboda" was fascistic before 2014. I am not authority for you. Listen how Gregor Gyzi named them by fascists on 13 of March in Bundestag. Merkel and the others listened him and didn't dispute about "fascists". http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2014/03/13/gysi-lehrstunde-eu-hat-in-der-ukraine-alles-falsch-gemacht/comment-page-11/

Er warf der Bundesregierung vor, vor Jahren wegen Jörg Haider eine Kontaktsperre mit Österreich verhängt zu haben und nun eine eindeutig mit Faschisten besetzte Regierung in Kiew aus dem Stand anerkannt zu haben. Die Swoboda habe von 'Russensäuen' und 'Judenschweinen' geredet, auf die die Ukrainer die Gewehr richten sollen. Es sei ein Skandal, dass die EU sich eine solche Regierung als Partner ausgesucht habe, sagte Gysi.

http://img15.nnm.me/5/9/7/7/3/2d3b25a71baa862814b60e9eb50.jpg

Alright, so you'll have to find an undemocratic way of removing Putin from power.

I notice that Putin has won the elections. He was only one adequate candidate confirming to others. For whom we should vote? For communist Zyuganov? Zyuganov has won election in 1996, but suddenly, the president in 1996-2000 was alcoholic Yeltsin, this episode discredited of Zyuganov. To vote for Medvedev? He is a 50-years old kid. To vote for Prohorov? He is an oligarch and thief. To vote for Zhirinovsky? He is a clown, his role is not to make politics boring. To vote for Mironov? He is just an empty place. Putin has a good rating among the people.

I seem to remember you called us Westerners warmongers or something along those lines, yet the fact that your statement here is even true shows that Putin may be willing to start a fucking world war to gain territory.

Is there something value at this territories except poor people? Somebody must overthrow the fascists, because fascism leads only to war. Russia can do it. If Finland wants to overthrow the fascists, lets go with us. If Germany wants to overthrow the fascists, Russia will not be against invasion to Ukraine together.

An invasion of Ukraine would end like this: NATO mobilizing

You are intimidating a hedgehog by a naked fanny. We are more then 100_000_000 of men. This amount is bigger then bullets NATO has.

And what does the EU export to Russia? Luxury items which are not critical to the economy.

What about two France's helicopter-carriers Mistral bought by Russia for example? It is not the end of list.

At the end of the day

You are tired of typing. I should relax you by a video about Sevastopol, a city in Crimea and Russian base. Crimeans did it specially for you on March 2014.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J-a9SpyXRA

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked