Ukraine-in-a-thread

[HopAlongBunny]

It is very unlikely that Russia is going to give up on the Crimea.
The West (ie: NATO) would love to have Sevastopol as a base on the Black Sea; what are we willing to pay for it in blood and treasure? Not much I'm willing to bet.

[rvg]

It is very unlikely that Russia is going to give up on the Crimea.
The West (ie: NATO) would love to have Sevastopol as a base on the Black Sea; what are we willing to pay for it in blood and treasure? Not much I'm willing to bet.

Crimea is not a problem if there was a guarantee that Putin wouldn't go further. By all accounts it looks like he's not about to stop.

[Strike For The South]

Worthless Fascist, deserves nothing more than his head on a pike.

The yoke of tyranny and subjugation comes forth to delirious applause and nods of tacit approval.

The man moves his flesh and steel in, to nary a peep from vanguard of liberal democracy.

I weep for the next generation of Ukranian innocents, who will be under the amoral Russian boot

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Worthless Fascist, deserves nothing more than his head on a pike.

The yoke of tyranny and subjugation comes forth to delirious applause and nods of tacit approval.

The man moves his flesh and steel in to nary a peep from vanguard of liberal democracy.

I weep for the next generation of Ukranian innocents who will be under the amoral Russian boot

Nary a peep? There has been a veritable litany of denunciation, whole angry legions of words.


As to the locals wanting it, there is no dearth of examples of the Russian people (Muscovite if you prefer) seeking the security of a strongman leader.


It is simply countered. Ultimatum, war, 10s of thousands of casualties on both sides, occupation of a Crimea festering with insurgency for a couple of decades. Putin knows this and looking at the leaders who oppose this acquisition, thinks they're gonna blink. So do I.

[Brenus]

“As a reason she states Crimea” Very convincing. Do you thing that Cameron in UK did all the cuts in preparation of the Crimean Crisis? When will be the next charge of the Light Brigade, and perhaps we will finally get out of the legend of the Thin Red Line?

[Myth]

Let's all agree that we don't want war to erupt. From that point of view, what other means are there to halt a supposed annexation of eastern Ukraine? Furthermore, why should anyone try to stop it if they themselves want to be a part of Russia? Or independent? I mean, didn't the USA bomb Serbia to get Kosovo the right to cessate?

[Sarmatian]

Let's all agree that we don't want war to erupt. From that point of view, what other means are there to halt a supposed annexation of eastern Ukraine? Furthermore, why should anyone try to stop it if they themselves want to be a part of Russia? Or independent? I mean, didn't the USA bomb Serbia to get Kosovo the right to cessate?

Basically, the US and Russia are two hypocrites screaming "Hypocrite!!!" at each other. US just has a few more hypocrites on its side so they can scream "hypocrite" a little louder.

[rvg]

Basically, the US and Russia are two hypocrites screaming "Hypocrite!!!" at each other. US just has a few more hypocrites on its side so they can scream "hypocrite" a little louder.

Hey, at least you're recognizing Russia as a hypocrite. We're making some real progress here!

[Sarmatian]

Hey, at least you're recognizing Russia as a hypocrite. We're making some real progress here!

Que? When did I not?

I just argued how idiotic and hypocritical it was for the US (and most of the "west" in general) to act all high and mighty, cry foul, cite international law when they've done similar or worse things many times in the past, and as recently as several years ago.

It was a case of pot calling the kettle black from the beginning.

[rvg]

Que? When did I not?

When did you? Until now.

[HoreTore]

Que? When did I not?

I just argued how idiotic and hypocritical it was for the US (and most of the "west" in general) to act all high and mighty, cry foul, cite international law when they've done similar or worse things many times in the past, and as recently as several years ago.

It was a case of pot calling the kettle black from the beginning.

The serbs started to ethnically cleanse Kosovo.

The situations are not at all similar. This time around, it's the Crimeans who are driving around whacking innocents.

[Husar]

Que? When did I not?

I just argued how idiotic and hypocritical it was for the US (and most of the "west" in general) to act all high and mighty, cry foul, cite international law when they've done similar or worse things many times in the past, and as recently as several years ago.

It was a case of pot calling the kettle black from the beginning.

I think the pro-US agenda boys can't hear that because it's blotted out by their own hypocritical propaganda screams and fearmongering.
Instead, anyone who criticizes both sides is a Russian shill to a lot of them.

I'm still not a fan of Putin but maybe Russia should have sanctioned the West when NATO kept taking one country after another way beyond the Elbe river, where they had previously agreed to stop. Now Ukraine was about to turn far towards the West and with a bunch of fascists in the government. Russia simply put a stop to this regarding the Crimean peninsula. It's certainly not a nice way but there was hardly a nicer choice if they didn't want to risk losing their bases there sooner or later.

How was the original gifting of Crimea to the Ukraine in 1954 legal anyway? Could Obama just gift Texas to Mexico tomorrow? Or France gift Normandy to Britain? Is it so surprising that a lot of Crimeans would rather be Russians even without armed men around?

The whole Hitler rhetoric and that Russia is not going to stop is relatively baseless so far, could have said the same about Bush or assumed that Obama would topple every pro-western dictator after Libya.

[Husar]

Here's an interesting interview on how the west is largely to blame for this:

http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/ukraine-interview-posth100.html

http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tagesschau.de%2Fausland%2Fukraine-interview-posth100.html

And this: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/04/opinion/ukraine-west-russia-opinion/


But any suggestions that the Kremlin is actually ready to start a full-blown invasion of Ukraine are way, way off the mark. This would be very dangerous for Russia itself, considering it close links with Ukraine on all levels. So the hysteria surrounding the Russian involvement in Crimea at the moment is either caused by ignorance or is a result of the deep suspicions that the West still has about Russia, Cold War or no Cold War.

[Gilrandir]

Meanwhile Maidan goverment announced mobilization of 40K reservist, while they already declared a full mobilization of all reserves couple weeks a go. Didnt anybody show up the last time?
On the contrary. When people came two weeks ago they were just registered and taken contact information. There were actually so many of them that the military enlistment offices were in fact abashed and didn't know what to do with such quantity. So all people were turned back and they are supposed to arrive there on short notice.
Now only those who have a previous military experience will be called now into the army and any volunteers can enlist into the national guard.

[Gilrandir]

"Yeah, the interrim government are the real fascists." Of course not. They are freedom fighters who never ever assault opposition, throw Cocktail Molotov or stormed official buildings. Their celebration of SS and their racist, anti-Semitic rant and calls for murders are just part of a nice and lovely folklore.

The anti-semitic interrim government appointed Igor Kolomoisky (the head of the Ukrainian jewish community) the head of Dnipropetrovsk regional state administration (aka governor). He himself remarked: "Either they are not Nazis, or I'm not jewish". A specific example that proves nothing?

[Gilrandir]

How was the original gifting of Crimea to the Ukraine in 1954 legal anyway? Could Obama just gift Texas to Mexico tomorrow? Or France gift Normandy to Britain? Is it so surprising that a lot of Crimeans would rather be Russians even without armed men around?


Read my post somewhere above. First of all, it was done within one country - the Soviet Union. It could be considered a reshaping of administrative division of the country. It was done since most of the Crimea's economic ties were (and are) with Ukrainian mainland. Secondly, it was not a GIFT. In exchange Russia received a strip of densely populated land along Ukraine's eastern border the city of Taganrog included.

[Husar]

Read my post somewhere above. First of all, it was done within one country - the Soviet Union. It could be considered a reshaping of administrative division of the country. It was done since most of the Crimea's economic ties were (and are) with Ukrainian mainland. Secondly, it was not a GIFT. In exchange Russia received a strip of densely populated land along Ukraine's eastern border the city of Taganrog included.

You're right, I read that and forgot about it. The population is still pretty much Russian though. Maybe the region around Taganrog should hold a referendum to join Ukraine?

[Sarmatian]

The serbs started to ethnically cleanse Kosovo.

The situations are not at all similar. This time around, it's the Crimeans who are driving around whacking innocents.

Ethnically cleanse? No. Oppress? Yes.

Unless you call 2000 casualties on both sides after two years of fighting ethnic cleansing. If it was, considering the disparity of forces, it was quite clearly the most poorly executed ethnic cleansing since Ugh-ugh decided that those living in another cave are taking all the mammoths for themselves.


When did you? Until now.

I'm hardly gonna quote myself. Read the thread from the beginning, if you're interested.

[HoreTore]

Ethnically cleanse? No. Oppress? Yes.

Unless you call 2000 casualties on both sides after two years of fighting ethnic cleansing. If it was, considering the disparity of forces, it was quite clearly the most poorly executed ethnic cleansing since Ugh-ugh decided that those living in another cave are taking all the mammoths for themselves.

When does "ethnic cleansing" equal "kill"?

[Myth]

Don't you badmouth Ugh-Ugh mister. He was a gentleman and a cave painter.

[rvg]

When does "ethnic cleansing" equal "kill"?

12511

[Sarmatian]

When does "ethnic cleansing" equal "kill"?

It doesn't mean kill exclusively, but it is included in the meaning. So, what do you mean? Displacement? There hasn't been a single community moved anywhere.

[rvg]

By the way, is Mitrovica administered from Belgrade or is it mostly self-governing?

[Sarmatian]

By the way, is Mitrovica administered from Belgrade or is it mostly self-governing?

Not directly, but channels are open for coordination when needed.

[HoreTore]

It doesn't mean kill exclusively, but it is included in the meaning. So, what do you mean? Displacement? There hasn't been a single community moved anywhere.

It is your opinion that the Serbs did not intend to reduce Albanian influence in Kosovo, and increase Serbian influence?

EDIT: And what was Milosevic and his cronies charged with, if I may ask...?

[Sarmatian]

It is your opinion that the Serbs did not intend to reduce Albanian influence in Kosovo, and increase Serbian influence?

No. Did I mention oppression?

How does that equate to ethnic cleansing, though?

[HoreTore]

No. Did I mention oppression?

How does that equate to ethnic cleansing, though?

How many refugees fled Kosovo again?

[Sarmatian]

How many refugees fled Kosovo again?

Before, during or after the bombing?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Let's all agree that we don't want war to erupt. From that point of view, what other means are there to halt a supposed annexation of eastern Ukraine? Furthermore, why should anyone try to stop it if they themselves want to be a part of Russia? Or independent? I mean, didn't the USA bomb Serbia to get Kosovo the right to cessate?

secede, not cessate

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Local news suggests that Putin will bow to the will of the Crimean people and allow them to join Russia. Noble of him.

[Sarmatian]

Local news suggests that Putin will bow to the will of the Crimean people and allow them to join Russia. Noble of him.

Well, he is a flawless democrat. He simply can't go against the will of the people.

[rvg]

Local news suggests that Putin will bow to the will of the Crimean people and allow them to join Russia. Noble of him.

And so an Orthodox Slavic country A forcibly steals land from an Orthodox Slavic country B to avenge the injustice suffered by an Orthodox Slavic country C.
Balance has been restored.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, he is a flawless democrat. He simply can't go against the will of the people.

Funny how thousands of Russian troops make Russia popular.

IRRC, Crimea voted with the rest of Ukraine for independence - regardless of what happened in 1954.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Funny how thousands of Russian troops make Russia popular.

IRRC, Crimea voted with the rest of Ukraine for independence - regardless of what happened in 1954.

Perhaps they didn't want Yeltsin? Or they preferred for the new Russia to stabilize first before rejoining?

[rvg]

Funny how thousands of Russian troops make Russia popular.

IRRC, Crimea voted with the rest of Ukraine for independence - regardless of what happened in 1954.

The funny thing is that back in 1991 the independence vote also was over 90%.

[Sarmatian]

Balance has been restored.

So, Putin is the Chosen One? Or he's fallen to dark side and his son will eventually bring him back to the light side?

[Kagemusha]

And what happens next? My guess is lot of hot air from West and nothing else. From here on Russia is going to wait for elections in Ukraine proper, now that it has shown that pro West government simply cant do business with Russia. Ukrainians will find out that the West is not going to do anything for them and that Russia will do what they wish unless they get more pro Russian government to Ukraine. The bigger kid has slapped the smaller in the sandbox, because the smaller one did not do as the bigger one wanted.

[HoreTore]

Before, during or after the bombing?

I will direct you to p.134. (http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/Under_Orders_En_Combined.pdf)

[rvg]

So, Putin is the Chosen One? Or he's fallen to dark side and his son will eventually bring him back to the light side?
He's just a thief. He robs his people of their wealth, then robs other countries of their land in order to pacify his people. In the meantime, it'll be back to business as usual: stealing budget money allocated to the fresh "Crimea Project". That's many billions of dollars waiting to be apprehended.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He's just a thief. He robs his people of their wealth, then robs other countries of their land in order to pacify his people. In the meantime, it'll be back to business as usual: stealing budget money allocated to the fresh "Crimea Project". That's many billions of dollars waiting to be apprehended.

At least Putin's cronies are lining their pockets. Beat the HOHO out of arranging traffic jams for political opponents.

[Sarmatian]

I will direct you to p.134. (http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/Under_Orders_En_Combined.pdf)

Police and army officials getting medals?

[rvg]

Police and army officials getting medals?

I think he means p. 134 (Forced Expulsions) within the document, not what Acrobat Reader assigns

[rvg]

And so the hot phase has begun (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26637296)...

[Sarmatian]

I will direct you to p.134. (http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/Under_Orders_En_Combined.pdf)

Ok, skimmed through it all, I'm hardly gonna read 600+ pages.

Disregarding the fact that the report was written in 2001, and that many of the claims were proven incorrect in the following years, the factual errors, contradictions and bold conclusions of dubious quality, I do not disagree that there was the overall intention to encourage as much of the Albanian population as possible to leave Kosovo.

But, still the most important fact, is that it all happened after March 24th (as stipulated at least a few dozen times in the report), which means that NATO started the bombing to protect Albanians from non-existing ethnic cleansing.

Prior to that, NATO refused the call from Serbian Parliament for more international monitors and proposed NATO troops in Kosovo and NATO control of Kosovo. After that was about to be accepted, NATO added in the appendix to put entire FRY under NATO occupation. They were looking for an excuse and were constantly raising the bar until they have found an agreement unacceptable to Milosevic, probably assuming that they can destroy most the army in an air campaign and afterwards a mere threat of a ground invasion would allow them military occupation of the entire country. Ironically, after 78 days, hundreds of thousands of refugees, thousands of deaths and rapes, they settled for just control of Kosovo, which was basically accepted prior to the bombing.

Afterwards, when they had troops on the ground, they allow permanent ethnic cleansing to take place and refused to lift a finger to stop it. So, saying that it was a humanitarian intervention is quite ludicrous, and I'm not willing to place the blame for it all entirely on Milosevic, as much of a scumbag he was.

[HoreTore]

Yeah, damn those lying weasels of the Human Rights Watch, always trying to find ways to please their western masters!!!111

[Sarmatian]

Yeah, damn those lying weasels of the Human Rights Watch, always trying to find ways to please their western masters!!!111

Did you just disregard the rest of my post? That's not nice.

[HoreTore]

Did you just disregard the rest of my post? That's not nice.

Human Rights Watch still maintains that what happened in Kosovo was ethnic cleansing committed by the Serbs.

The NATO intervention was perfectly justified.

[Sarmatian]

Human Rights Watch still maintains that what happened in Kosovo was ethnic cleansing committed by the Serbs.

The NATO intervention was perfectly justified.

How can you justify an intervention with something that happened after the intervention? We started the intervention because we knew there was gonna be an ethnic cleansing if we start the intervention, and that totally justifies our intervention?

[HoreTore]

How can you justify an intervention with something that happened after the intervention? We started the intervention because we knew there was gonna be an ethnic cleansing if we start the intervention, and that totally justifies our intervention?

Is your argument that the Serbs only ethnically cleansed Kosovo because NATO bombed them...?

[rvg]

How can you justify an intervention with something that happened after the intervention? We started the intervention because we knew there was gonna be an ethnic cleansing if we start the intervention, and that totally justifies our intervention?

We're here because Serbia has problems. And Serbia's problems won't end for as long as we're here!

[Kagemusha]

To be sincere.I don´t quite get why Russians started using force at Simferopol. What exactly the isolated Ukrainian garrison could have done? One has to wonder what was the Russian motivation for storming the base.

[Xiahou]

One dead officer does not a war make. The Ukrainians can't muster an Army and Russia got what it wanted. Actual escalation is unlikely, but it does seem possible if the Ukrainians step it up a notch.

From Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.580565)...

Yatseniuk said he had ordered Ukraine's defense minister to call a meeting with his counterparts from Britain, France, and Russia - signatories to a 1994 treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's borders to "prevent an escalation of the conflict".
Frankly, I don't expect anything more than hand-wringing from the signatories, but the Ukranian regime is at least going thru the motions.

[HoreTore]

According to 5080.no, Obama has frozen Putin's Linked-in account.

There's talk of freezing his netflix account if he doesn't back down.

[Sarmatian]

Is your argument that the Serbs only ethnically cleansed Kosovo because NATO bombed them...?

No, it is my argument that while Milosevic and other hardliners would have liked a Serb-dominated Kosovo, they wouldn't dare to try and make it a reality for fear of repercussions, like the NATO bombing that was in the air (no pun intended). By starting the bombing for something that hadn't happen, NATO removed all incentives for it not to happen.

If I'm being unclear, I'll try to illustrate it with a rather crude example - Guy A hates Guy B and wants to kill him, but doesn't do it for fear of going to jail. Even though Guy B is unharmed, the judge places Guy A in jail for killing Guy B. Guy A doesn't have anything more to lose, so he can attack Guy B.

[Brenus]

“The Serbs started to ethnically cleanse Kosovo” For reference, the term “ethnic cleansing” was invented by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Art complaining about what happed to the Serbs under the Albanian Local (and autonomous) Administration of Kosovo i Methojia.
It was a reference to Tito’s politic that forbade the return of the Serbs kicked out of Kosovo by the Bulgarians, Italians/Albanian Occupying Authorities during the WW2.
It was first the Communist Regime (Milosevic himself) who attacked this Memorandum being against the Yugoslav Ideal.
So, apparently the Serbs didn’t start the Ethnic Cleansing, but the Yugoslav Regime, which is not really surprising if you considered how Tito made the Republic’s borders, dividing very carefully in order to rule.
You have to notice that the Memorandum was absolutely ignored when it was published, even more than the Islamic Declaration of Izetbegovic.
I worked in Kosovo before the bombing and the situation wasn’t nice for the Albanians, basically the same than in Macedonia, but much better than the Turkish Minorities in Bulgaria or the Roma.

“A specific example that proves nothing?” Nope. Because one Ukrainian rabbis, Moshe Reuven Asman, has urged the Jews to leave the capital Kiev following anti-Semitic aggression. He even closed the Jewish schools (22-Feb-2014). To have Jews in a Coucil is a good old tactic employed by Nazi in the past.

“And what was Milosevic and his cronies charged with, if I may ask...?” About Kosovo, nothing:
“genocide; complicity in genocide; deportation; murder; persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; inhumane acts/forcible transfer; extermination; imprisonment; torture; willful killing; unlawful confinement; wilfully causing great suffering; unlawful deportation or transfer; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; cruel treatment; plunder of public or private property; attacks on civilians; destruction or wilful damage done to historic monuments and institutions dedicated to education or religion; unlawful attacks on civilian objects.”
And as Milosevic conveniently died in custody, this will be never really elucidated.
And note that could charges against NATO or/and KLA as well, but it is not, is it?
What was proved by the way? Today at the Crown we had some charged who walked free as he was not guilty…
But I understand you approve the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs in Slovenia, Croatia, Kosovo and Bosnia as you never mentioned them.

“Human Rights Watch still maintains that what happened in Kosovo was ethnic cleansing committed by the Serbs.” Which prove how reliable they are.

[HoreTore]

No, it is my argument that while Milosevic and other hardliners would have liked a Serb-dominated Kosovo, they wouldn't dare to try and make it a reality for fear of repercussions, like the NATO bombing that was in the air (no pun intended). By starting the bombing for something that hadn't happen, NATO removed all incentives for it not to happen.

To me, that sounds like a perfectly justified bombing campaign.

I can't see how it was anything other than a matter of time. Good riddance.

[rvg]

According to 5080.no, Obama has frozen Putin's Linked-in account.

There's talk of freezing his netflix account if he doesn't back down.

Of course now the question will be how many days after the independence vote will Scotland ask to join Russia.

[Sarmatian]

To me, that sounds like a perfectly justified bombing campaign.

I can't see how it was anything other than a matter of time. Good riddance.

Really? That's a very weird position...

Tell me, if there's a danger of things escalating in an unnamed hotspot in the world and there are two options:

A) Place peacekeeping force in control of the hotspot, to which all sides have agreed and that would ensure no violence will happen
B) Attack one side, even though it will surely escalate the conflict and cause massive suffering on all sides

Are you really telling me you would choose option B?

[HoreTore]

Really? That's a very weird position...

Tell me, if there's a danger of things escalating in an unnamed hotspot in the world and there are two options:

A) Place peacekeeping force in control of the hotspot, to which all sides have agreed and that would ensure no violence will happen
B) Attack one side, even though it will surely escalate the conflict and cause massive suffering on all sides

Are you really telling me you would choose option B?

How was A ever a realistic possibility?

Milosevic wanted a Serbian Kosovo. Such people should be removed. The Serbians didn't do it, and so we were left with the bombs. Had the Serbs been a little smarter, none of it would have happened.

The fault for Kosovo lies with Serbia, and Serbia alone.

[Brenus]

"The fault for Kosovo lies with Serbia, and Serbia alone.":laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:......~:mecry:

[Sarmatian]

How was A ever a realistic possibility?

Milosevic wanted a Serbian Kosovo. Such people should be removed. The Serbians didn't do it, and so we were left with the bombs. Had the Serbs been a little smarter, none of it would have happened.

The fault for Kosovo lies with Serbia, and Serbia alone.

Did you not read the previous posts? NATO troops in Kosovo was practically accepted in Rambouillet. The day it was supposed to be accepted, NATO withdrew the offer and changed it, asking instead of NATO troops in Kosovo -> NATO troops in the entire country. A) was not just a realistic possibility but accepted basically.

Here's a link (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200005--.htm) for you.

[HoreTore]

Did you not read the previous posts? NATO troops in Kosovo was practically accepted in Rambouillet. The day it was supposed to be accepted, NATO withdrew the offer and changed it, asking instead of NATO troops in Kosovo -> NATO troops in the entire country. A) was not just a realistic possibility but accepted basically.

Here's a link (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200005--.htm) for you.

NATO occupation of Kosovo would mean a de facto separation of Kosovo from Serbia. I can see Milosevic using that as a ploy, but I can't see him actually going through with it.

....And do you remember who it was that objected to the use of a source because it was written in 2001? ~;)

[HoreTore]

"The fault for Kosovo lies with Serbia, and Serbia alone.":laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:......~:mecry:

Yeah, NATO stood behind the Serbs poking them with sticks to make them push the Albanians faster onto the trains....

[Sarmatian]

NATO occupation of Kosovo would mean a de facto separation of Kosovo from Serbia. I can see Milosevic using that as a ploy, but I can't see him actually going through with it.


Actually, no. Milosevic understood that NATO wasn't joking and was basically looking for an excuse the entire time. We now know Racak was staged, he knew that back then and NATO knew it back then. He knew he couldn't fight of NATO, by that time everyone knew Russia would object just officially, even less than the West did with Crimea.

He had no choice. It was either accept the loss of Kosovo or have a war and be forced to accept it. The appendix, to include NATO control of entire country, was introduced the last day of the negotiations. I remember watching in a documentary later, it was someone high up in American or NATO administration, the name escapes me now, was meeting head of Serbian delegation in a bar that last evening - Milosevic, in a last effort to prevent the bombing asked that Serbia be admitted in NATO, in addition to everything else.

NATO needed an excuse for the bombing. That's why we've heard of "hundreds of thousands of dead Albanians", "mass murders on football stadiums", "Racak massacre".


....And do you remember who it was that objected to the use of a source because it was written in 2001? ~;)

I didn't object, I pointed out the obvious flaws in it, but agreed with the general assessment. If I rejected it, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you.

[HoreTore]

It was either accept the loss of Kosovo

I have a hard time believing this was a conclusion he could make so easily.

This is a kind of conclusion even sane, rational people rarely come to. And Milosevic was far from sane and rational...

I have no objections to NATO pushing hard, as it can be reasonably assumed that their end goal was to remove Milosevic from power(a goal I whole-heartily agree with).

[Sarmatian]

I have a hard time believing this was a conclusion he could make so easily.

This is a kind of conclusion even sane, rational people rarely come to. And Milosevic was far from sane and rational...

You don't need to be very sane and rational when you're potentially against someone whose military budget is hundreds of times bigger than your GDP. There was no need for higher brain functions at all. NATO delegation later said on camera that there was no ambiguity - it was clearly said that NATO would bomb Serbia if an agreement wasn't made.

In fact, if you want a more detailed, step-by-step retrospective. First deal offered included NATO troops in Kosovo, but no mention of the referendum. Serbian side has some minor issues but likes it, Albanian refuses it outright, to the general bewilderment of all diplomats who expected that Serbian side wouldn't be so eager to agree. Albright comes to Rambouillet herself to persuade Thaci to sign it, with the words "if you sign this we can bomb the Serbs" (her words on camera). He refuses. The wording is than changed to include mention that the "status of the province" will be decided later, but again no mention of a definitive referendum. Now Serbian side doesn't like it but is willing to swallow it, Albanian side still refuses to sign anything that doesn't include a specific mention of a referendum for independence within 3 years. The negotiations are nearing an end and is increasingly starting to look that Serbian side will sign while Albanian won't. On the last day, Appendix B was added, that states in practical terms occupation of entire Serbia and Montenegro by NATO troops. Serbian side refuses.

I'm quite surprised that you're willing to ignore the facts, defend some weird logical leaps and question the sanity of a man in an effort to justify NATO actions.

[HoreTore]

You don't need to be very sane and rational when you're potentially against someone whose military budget is hundreds of times bigger than your GDP. There was no need for higher brain functions at all. NATO delegation later said on camera that there was no ambiguity - it was clearly said that NATO would bomb Serbia if an agreement wasn't made.

It has been shown over and over again that leaders will happily meet their doom in a military defeat rather than give up land. I don't see why Milosevic would be a coward in this regard.


I'm quite surprised that you're willing to ignore the facts, defend some weird logical leaps and question the sanity of a man in an effort to justify NATO actions.

I believe NATO's goal was to 1) remove Milosevic from power and 2) separate Kosovo from Serbia.

I fully support both goals.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

To be sincere.I don´t quite get why Russians started using force at Simferopol. What exactly the isolated Ukrainian garrison could have done? One has to wonder what was the Russian motivation for storming the base.

The parallels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia) continue....
Then on the morning of 15 March, German troops entered Bohemia and Moravia, meeting practically no resistance (the only instance of organized resistance took place in Místek where an infantry company commanded by Karel Pavlík fought invading German troops).

[Kagemusha]

The parallels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia) continue....

Im not so easily drawn into those parallels. Why run down the garrison, when all you need to do is cut off the power and water and they will surrender soon enough without any effort? I think i will sit on this for a bit before i make any judgement calls upon it.

[Sarmatian]

It has been shown over and over again that leaders will happily meet their doom in a military defeat rather than give up land. I don't see why Milosevic would be a coward in this regard.

Again I'm amazed with the lengths you go to justify aggression. Why didn't Georgia fight Russia to the end but accepted status quo? Why didn't Tibet fight China? Are you honestly trying to tell me you can't remember examples of a smaller, weaker country acquiescing to the pressure of a much stronger one? Seriously?

In the end, it's useless. I don't know what to tell you anymore. This happened in 1999, not the middle ages. You can find the newspapers, the detailed accounts of Rambouillet negotiations, videos of politicians, OSCE and UN reports. If you choose to ignore it all so that no one can shatter your illusion of a benevolent NATO, that's up to you.



I believe NATO's goal was to 1) remove Milosevic from power and 2) separate Kosovo from Serbia.

I fully support both goals.

And it didn't achieve the first and had to break the peace deal it signed in Kumanovo to achieve the second. Why aren't you supporting Russian acquisition of Crimea again?

[rvg]

I think i will sit on this for a bit before i make any judgement calls upon it.

While you're waiting you might consider taking accelerated course of Russian 101. It might come in very handy very soon.

[HoreTore]

And it didn't achieve the first and had to break the peace deal it signed in Kumanovo to achieve the second.

Milosevic is gone: check. Kosovo separated from Serbia: check. I'm happy.


Why aren't you supporting Russian acquisition of Crimea again?

I'm an internationalist socialist. Terms like "borders", "territorial integrity", "sovereignty" and such are meaningless to me.

I don't oppose Crimea rejoining Russia. What I oppose is that Russia wants Crimea to rejoin. And that thug in charge in Crimea, hang him.

I support the thugs in Kiev, they only shot at the police. I see little wrong with that.

[Kagemusha]

While you're waiting you might consider taking accelerated course of Russian 101. It might come in very handy very soon.

Hmmm...According to latest news one Ukrainian service man and one "self defense forces" member were in fact killed by a third party sniper who has been now detained. Interesting... And dont worry i know few words of Russian rvg.~:)

[rvg]

...And dont worry i know few words of Russian rvg.~:)

Awesome! You must be a part of some early warning/intelligence gathering unit.

[Brenus]

"Kosovo separated from Serbia: check." Re-calibrate your checker, faulty somewhere...

"I believe NATO's goal was to 1) remove Milosevic from power and 2) separate Kosovo from Serbia." and "Terms like "borders", "territorial integrity", "sovereignty" and such are meaningless to me". Err, contradiction... I am not against contradictions mind you...

[HoreTore]

Err, contradiction... I am not against contradictions mind you...

How so?

[drone]

II believe NATO's goal was to 1) remove Milosevic from power and 2) separate Kosovo from Serbia.

I always thought the goal was to distract the news away from Bill Clinton getting oral from his intern. :inquisitive:

[HoreTore]

I always thought the goal was to distract the news away from Bill Clinton getting oral from his intern. :inquisitive:

Is that the sound of a dog wagging its tail I hear?

[Beskar]

I always thought the goal was to distract the news away from Bill Clinton getting oral from his intern. :inquisitive:

It is a honest mistake when regional accents distort the oval office. He thought he was exercising his presidential privileges.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, it is my argument that while Milosevic and other hardliners would have liked a Serb-dominated Kosovo, they wouldn't dare to try and make it a reality for fear of repercussions, like the NATO bombing that was in the air (no pun intended). By starting the bombing for something that hadn't happen, NATO removed all incentives for it not to happen.

If I'm being unclear, I'll try to illustrate it with a rather crude example - Guy A hates Guy B and wants to kill him, but doesn't do it for fear of going to jail. Even though Guy B is unharmed, the judge places Guy A in jail for killing Guy B. Guy A doesn't have anything more to lose, so he can attack Guy B.

Oh - so we should have bombed you earlier and harder?

Because, in your example they either needed a better cell, or a hangman.

[gaelic cowboy]

Ah the dominoes keep racking up now Transnistria is next (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26627236)


Pro-Russian politicians and activists in Moldova's breakaway Trans-Dniester region have asked the Russian parliament to draft a law that would allow their territory to join Russia.

The Trans-Dniestrian appeal comes as Moscow moves towards absorbing Crimea into the Russian Federation. Ukraine, the EU and US say that move is illegal.

Russian loyalists dominate Trans-Dniester, with support from Moscow.

The region split from Moldova in a war in 1991-92, as the USSR was collapsing.

Moldova's President Nicolae Timofti said in a news briefing on Tuesday that any decision by Moscow to accept Trans-Dniester "would be a step in the wrong direction".In a September 2006 referendum, unrecognised by Moldova and the international community, the region reasserted its demand for independence.

Irina Kubanskikh, spokeswoman for the Trans-Dniester parliament, told Itar-Tass news agency that the region's public bodies had "appealed to the Russian Federation leadership to examine the possibility of extending to Trans-Dniester the legislation, currently under discussion in the State Duma, on granting Russian citizenship and admitting new subjects into Russia".

A pro-Kremlin party, A Just Russia, has drafted legislation to make it easier for new territories to join Russia. The party told the Vedomosti newspaper that the text was now being revised, in order not to delay the rapid accession of Crimea to Russia.

The Duma - Russia's lower house - and the Federation Council (upper house) are dominated by supporters of President Vladimir Putin.

Vedomosti reports that the Trans-Dniester appeal to Russia also warns about a possible further deterioration if Moldova signs an association agreement with the EU.

Moldova's leaders plan to do so. The crisis in neighbouring Ukraine erupted after former President Viktor Yanukovych was expected - and then refused - to sign such an agreement.

this is where he will go to far in my view

[rvg]

this is where he will go to far in my view

No! There will be peace in our time!!!

[gaelic cowboy]

No! There will be peace in our time!!!


tell that to the fellas voting in referendums who arent even in transnistria (http://en.apa.az/xeber_moldovan_parliament_bans_local_referendu_208584.html)

[rvg]

tell that to the fellas voting in referendums who arent even in transnistria (http://en.apa.az/xeber_moldovan_parliament_bans_local_referendu_208584.html)
Peace! Peace!!! Just need to bury the head in the sand a little deeper and all is well again!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, there are significant Russophone populations in most of the old Soviet satellite states. A common cleavage in these states in one down pro/anti-Russia lines. Maybe it was naive to assume that they would forge entirely independent paths form Russia - the collapse of the USSR was only around 20 years ago after all.

And can we please stop the Hitler comparisons it is ridiculous and fails on countless levels.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not gonna happen, Rhyf'. This thread is over 1300 posts -- at that point Godwining becomes a requirement, even in the mafia threads. You don't want the .org to lose its license do you?

[Sarmatian]

Oh - so we should have bombed you earlier and harder?

Because, in your example they either needed a better cell, or a hangman.

I'm just trying to explain that something that happened after an action can not be justification for that action. If I punch you in the face, can I justify my actions by saying that you punched me back afterwards? In the same line of thoughts, Milosevic's actions are justified by the fact than a few months later, Albanians performed an ethnic cleansing of non-Albanians.


Milosevic is gone: check.

Again - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc


I'm an internationalist socialist. Terms like "borders", "territorial integrity", "sovereignty" and such are meaningless to me.

I don't oppose Crimea rejoining Russia. What I oppose is that Russia wants Crimea to rejoin. And that thug in charge in Crimea, hang him.

I support the thugs in Kiev, they only shot at the police. I see little wrong with that.

I am, too. I don't care much for the borders. I'm angry that that NATO did everything it could to get the justification for aggression, from stagings of massacres and feeding false information to the public and the press, to removing a perfectly acceptable offer and purposefully making an offer that couldn't be accepted. Are you noticing a pattern (Iraq, Crimea...)?

According to the women who was in charge of a field hospital for the protesters and is a candidate for a health minister, they shot at other protesters, too. Funny how that's also acceptable to you.

[Brenus]

“Oh - so we should have bombed you earlier and harder?” In fact, if you wanted to bomb to stop a war, yes. Now, when you see the result of this “peace” that is just a war in waiting (or ethnic cleansing)…

“There aren't very many good modern comparisons for this”: Kosovo. Around what, 10 years ago?

“How so?”: "Kosovo separated from Serbia”. You support the creation of new border (and States). As an internationalist, it is not really great. Well, I supposed you are still against an Independent Serbian Republic in Bosnia. So, it is more about being against the Serbs than a real political point of view I suppose. But it is a supposition and perhaps you will tell I assume wrongly.

[Gilrandir]

According to the women who was in charge of a field hospital for the protesters and is a candidate for a health minister, they shot at other protesters, too. Funny how that's also acceptable to you.
She was considered a candidate but she withdrew saying that corruption schemes were still there so she saw no point in stepping in.

[Gilrandir]

Hmmm...According to latest news one Ukrainian service man and one "self defense forces" member were in fact killed by a third party sniper who has been now detained. Interesting...
While Ukrainian army officials gave the name and the rank of the killed and wounded Crimeans never did that. I strongly doubt there was one on the Crimean side. At first they claimed that only self-defenders were hurt, only then they conceded Ukrainian casualties.

[Brenus]

"She was considered a candidate but she withdrew saying that corruption schemes were still there so she saw no point in stepping in." So, your point is?

[HoreTore]

“How so?”: "Kosovo separated from Serbia”. You support the creation of new border (and States). As an internationalist, it is not really great. Well, I supposed you are still against an Independent Serbian Republic in Bosnia. So, it is more about being against the Serbs than a real political point of view I suppose. But it is a supposition and perhaps you will tell I assume wrongly.

Meh. I support turning all European countries into tiny bits, united under a strong central government in Brussels... So, slice up all the big states and get all of them into the EU.

[HoreTore]

Funny how that's also acceptable to you.

Who says it is? If the current crop of thugs don't end their thuggery, we'll just have to wait until a new batch of thugs comes along to act all thuggish and remove the current thugs.

[Gilrandir]

"She was considered a candidate but she withdrew saying that corruption schemes were still there so she saw no point in stepping in." So, your point is?
No point. Just clarification. Frankly, for me she is the person I would support for any state vacancy (including presidency).

[Sarmatian]

Who says it is? If the current crop of thugs don't end their thuggery, we'll just have to wait until a new batch of thugs comes along to act all thuggish and remove the current thugs.
And at the same time, have 50 millions Ukrainians live under thugs after thugs after thugs after thugs... That's no better than living under one thug. It's probably even worse because thugs removing thugs involves violence, periods of lawlessness, a drop in living standards, quality of medical care and education, radicalization of the population, more chance for extreme ideologies to get to power...

You know why Milosevic was voted out? Not because of the bombing but because west, most notably Germany and USA put pressure on all the various opposition parties to unite, gave them funding and organized them, along with several other opposition movements. 19 different parties (all of different ideologies) united to form a common front against him.

Elections weren't scheduled for another two years, but Milosevic pushed for elections to gain another term, after NATO gave him an excuse to present himself as patriot and defender of the country in the face of aggression instead of a thug.
That could have been achieved, even easier without the bombing. So, unless you're a trigger-happy idiot, there's no excuse for that kind of needless aggression.

[HoreTore]

And at the same time, have 50 millions Ukrainians live under thugs after thugs after thugs after thugs... That's no better than living under one thug. It's probably even worse because thugs removing thugs involves violence, periods of lawlessness, a drop in living standards, quality of medical care and education, radicalization of the population, more chance for extreme ideologies to get to power...

...And this is different from Yanukovich how?

What you're suggesting is that stability is preferable to moving towards democracy. A tough dictator to keep order.

I don't buy that.

[Sarmatian]

...And this is different from Yanukovich how?

What you're suggesting is that stability is preferable to moving towards democracy. A tough dictator to keep order.

I don't buy that.

No, I'm suggesting that unless you can be reasonably sure that removing a dictator moves you toward democracy, other options should be considered. There are different types of dictators. Tito and Paul Pot aren't even similar.

So, unless you know what you're doing, removing a Tito is just as likely to give you a Paul Pot instead of a democracy. Do I need to mention Iran?

In the case of Ukraine, which had a barely functioning democracy, no matter how corrupt it was, I believe elections were a better choice than violence on the streets.

[HoreTore]

Now, I'm suggesting that unless you can be reasonably sure that removing a dictator moves you toward democracy, other options should be considered. There are different types of dictators. Tito and Paul Pot aren't even similar.

So, unless you know what you're doing, removing a Tito is just as likely to give you a Paul Pot instead of a democracy. Do I need to mention Iran?

In the case of Ukraine, which had a barely functioning democracy, no matter how corrupt it was, I believe elections were a better choice than violence on the streets.

I'm not into apologizing for dictators. Whack 'em all.

[Gilrandir]

In the case of Ukraine, which had a barely functioning democracy, no matter how corrupt it was, I believe elections were a better choice than violence on the streets.
When people are brought to the boiling point it is hardly possible to reason with them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, I'm suggesting that unless you can be reasonably sure that removing a dictator moves you toward democracy, other options should be considered. There are different types of dictators. Tito and Paul Pot aren't even similar.

So, unless you know what you're doing, removing a Tito is just as likely to give you a Paul Pot instead of a democracy. Do I need to mention Iran?

In the case of Ukraine, which had a barely functioning democracy, no matter how corrupt it was, I believe elections were a better choice than violence on the streets.

Keep shooting dictators, eventually you have to get democrats.

[HoreTore]

Keep shooting dictators, eventually you have to get democrats.

I actually supported the US aim of toppling Saddam. If only they had been clear on that and dropped the WMD nonsense as well as creating a proper plan for the invasion and occupation(or at least a plan!), I would have been a supporter of the invasion....

[Myth]

The USA didn't annex Iraq for many reasons, none of which are because of the morality of the guys in charge.

1 - annexing Iraq would be a stupendous act of international politics suicide. After all, uncle Sam's justification usually involves worn out cliches like "democracy" "liberty" and "freedom", none of which could be plastered over Fox news and CNN if you actually annexed a foreign nation.
2 - trying to keep Iraq annexed would send a steady stream of body bags and flags back to the soccer moms of the middle class. See, while they can be brainwashed into believing the war on terror, when their kids start dying en masse your government will get a new wave of hippies, protesters and other such things.
3 - no point in annexing when you can install a puppet regime enforced by your benevolent "allies" from Israel
4 - no point in annexing when chevron and shell are already leeching iraqi oil and it's sold in USD and not EUR

So let's not pretend the USA has any moral high ground here.

[Sarmatian]

Keep shooting dictators, eventually you have to get democrats.

Is "eventually" definable? How many years, deaths, rapes, suffering... are there in "eventually"?

"Eventually", every democracy will become a dictatorship and every dictatorship will become a democracy without shooting anyone...

For democracy to succeed, certain conditions need to be met. If those conditions aren't met, forcibly implementing democracy means it will revert back to dictatorship, just with more violence in the meantime.


EDIT: And that is all assuming that the actual goal of toppling a dictator is internal change, rather than a change in foreign policy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Is "eventually" definable? How many years, deaths, rapes, suffering... are there in "eventually"?

"Eventually", every democracy will become a dictatorship and every dictatorship will become a democracy without shooting anyone...

For democracy to succeed, certain conditions need to be met. If those conditions aren't met, forcibly implementing democracy means it will revert back to dictatorship, just with more violence in the meantime.


EDIT: And that is all assuming that the actual goal of toppling a dictator is internal change, rather than a change in foreign policy.

Serbia seems to be doing better now than it was under Milosevic, no? I hear that you have a wealthy young reformer as the deputy PM and running for leadership. He is extremely ugly, but I support many of the policies that he has in mind.

Long story short, the chaos of freedom is preferable to the stasis if totalitarian despotism. For as long as my country has a military, I will support the clandestine undermining of dictators and the insurgency that it causes - followed by, if necessary - military assistance in eliminating the despot and his political classes. I don't believe in doing this for economic reasons (although that seems to be the rationale that our political leaders and power brokers need). I support legitimate freedom movements because people who want to break free from bad laws and awful governments are my brothers in arms. Like Virginia supported Massachusetts in the American Revolution, I support my fellow human beings anywhere that they are fighting to break the chains.

[Sarmatian]

Serbia seems to be doing better now than it was under Milosevic, no? I hear that you have a wealthy young reformer as the deputy PM and running for leadership. He is extremely ugly, but I support many of the policies that he has in mind.

Serbia met, for the most part, the preconditions for democracy, and would have probably made the transition sooner were it not for the surge in nationalism brought by internal crisis and problems that have been swept under the rug. Support for far right parties peaked at almost 20% back then, now it's at much more healthy level of 2-3%. We're not really that much better off now than we were in 1998. It is the general feeling that in October, 2000, we removed one corrupt bastard and installed 19 corrupt bastards instead.

Considering the young reformer, we'll have to wait and see. Anywaym he isn't a deputy anymore. Serbian parliamentary elections were held this Sunday but Crimean referendum overshadowed that. He got unprecedented support, 158 out of 250 seats. I'm not holding my breath, though.


Long story short, the chaos of freedom is preferable to the stasis if totalitarian despotism. For as long as my country has a military, I will support the clandestine undermining of dictators and the insurgency that it causes - followed by, if necessary - military assistance in eliminating the despot and his political classes. I don't believe in doing this for economic reasons (although that seems to be the rationale that our political leaders and power brokers need). I support legitimate freedom movements because people who want to break free from bad laws and awful governments are my brothers in arms. Like Virginia supported Massachusetts in the American Revolution, I support my fellow human beings anywhere that they are fighting to break the chains.


I agree that the chaos of transitioning from a totalitarian regime to freedom is acceptable. I do not agree that chaos from transitioning from one totalitarian regime to another is acceptable.

What was achieved in Iran? Expelling the shah, installing Ayatollah... In Afghanistan - removing communists, installing Talibans... In Egypt and other places?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Serbia met, for the most part, the preconditions for democracy, and would have probably made the transition sooner were it not for the surge in nationalism brought by internal crisis and problems that have been swept under the rug. Support for far right parties peaked at almost 20% back then, now it's at much more healthy level of 2-3%. We're not really that much better off now than we were in 1998. It is the general feeling that in October, 2000, we removed one corrupt bastard and installed 19 corrupt bastards instead.

Considering the young reformer, we'll have to wait and see. Anywaym he isn't a deputy anymore. Serbian parliamentary elections were held this Sunday but Crimean referendum overshadowed that. He got unprecedented support, 158 out of 250 seats. I'm not holding my breath, though.



I agree that the chaos of transitioning from a totalitarian regime to freedom is acceptable. I do not agree that chaos from transitioning from one totalitarian regime to another is acceptable.

What was achieved in Iran? Expelling the shah, installing Ayatollah... In Afghanistan - removing communists, installing Talibans... In Egypt and other places?

Good points. Transitions that take us from the Shah to the Ayatollah are arguably more of a tragedy than the status quo. Arguably, because fear of consequence can throw you off making the changes needed to see best effect. Either way, the best way to protect against a negative outcome is to become involved, because you know that powerful enemy interests wound have no reluctance to involve their own agenda.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The USA didn't annex Iraq for many reasons, none of which are because of the morality of the guys in charge.

1 - annexing Iraq would be a stupendous act of international politics suicide. After all, uncle Sam's justification usually involves worn out cliches like "democracy" "liberty" and "freedom", none of which could be plastered over Fox news and CNN if you actually annexed a foreign nation.
2 - trying to keep Iraq annexed would send a steady stream of body bags and flags back to the soccer moms of the middle class. See, while they can be brainwashed into believing the war on terror, when their kids start dying en masse your government will get a new wave of hippies, protesters and other such things.
3 - no point in annexing when you can install a puppet regime enforced by your benevolent "allies" from Israel
4 - no point in annexing when chevron and shell are already leeching iraqi oil and it's sold in USD and not EUR

So let's not pretend the USA has any moral high ground here.

The US didn't annex Iraq because the US doesn't do that sort of thing - for all its faults, the US is not a country which likes to directly rule others.


Putin on the other hand - well "Glory to Russia" as he said.


Is "eventually" definable? How many years, deaths, rapes, suffering... are there in "eventually"?

Depends on how quickly you reload.

That may sound flippant, but it's true. The problem with Western policy is a lack of consistency - we should ONLY support democrats and we should CONSISTENTLY support democratic revolutions. That does not mean we should attack every dictator, but as soon as he starts waging war against his own people and that generates an uprising we should support it on the understanding that we expect them to form a better government.

We did well in Libya, then lost credibility when we failed to support the Syrian revolution - a policy which looks even more idiotic after Putin's invasion of Crimea.

Had we supported the Syrian rebels a couple of years ago there might be a better situation in that country, rather than a new Somalia.

To return to Kosovo - Serbs were always going to start killing ethnic Albanians, it was just a question of when. At the very least, the interventions got the mess over and done with.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Meh. I support turning all European countries into tiny bits, united under a strong central government in Brussels... So, slice up all the big states and get all of them into the EU.

Balkanization as the tool for effecting OEG. Wowzers.

HT, I have got to hand it to you, you are the most unabashedly "big government" guys I interact with -- but you stick to your principles pretty well.

[Husar]

The US didn't annex Iraq because the US doesn't do that sort of thing - for all its faults, the US is not a country which likes to directly rule others.


Putin on the other hand - well "Glory to Russia" as he said.

Afghanistan is also half a planet away from the US, it would be much harder to incorporate. Crimea has Russian history, Russian culture, Russian almost everything. It's apples and oranges. The US annexed a lot of territories from the British, the Indians and the Mexicans however, because those were nearby and "strategically important" at the time. Afghanistan and Iraq are none of that and having a friendly guy in power and several contracts for economic cooperation etc. is far preferable. Often they can also keep a military base in such friendly countries, which is one of the major issues islamic terrorists used to form around in the first place IIRC.

[HoreTore]

Balkanization as the tool for effecting OEG. Wowzers.

HT, I have got to hand it to you, you are the most unabashedly "big government" guys I interact with -- but you stick to your principles pretty well.

One world government, not one european government.... NWO for the win!

Nationstates belong to the past. They make little sense nowadays in my opinion.

[rvg]

One world government...

The mere thought of a bureaucracy associated with that abomination makes me cringe.

[HoreTore]

The mere thought of a bureaucracy associated with that abomination makes me cringe.

Remember that they will all be Reptoids, so they're super-effective.

[Xiahou]

Afghanistan is also half a planet away from the US, it would be much harder to incorporate. Crimea has Russian history, Russian culture, Russian almost everything. It's apples and oranges. The US annexed a lot of territories from the British, the Indians and the Mexicans however, because those were nearby and "strategically important" at the time. Afghanistan and Iraq are none of that and having a friendly guy in power and several contracts for economic cooperation etc. is far preferable. Often they can also keep a military base in such friendly countries, which is one of the major issues islamic terrorists used to form around in the first place IIRC.

Russia has core (http://www.paradoxian.org/eu3wiki/Core) on Crimea. That gives them casus belli. :yes:

[HoreTore]

Russia has core (http://www.paradoxian.org/eu3wiki/Core) on Crimea. That gives them casus belli. :yes:

Core is lost after 50 years.

Russia gave away its province in the 50's. No casus belli.

[Sarmatian]

Core is lost after 50 years.

Russia gave away its province in the 50's. No casus belli.

Russia plays Magna Mundi Platinum. Cores never expire.

[Sarmatian]

T
To return to Kosovo - Serbs were always going to start killing ethnic Albanians, it was just a question of when. At the very least, the interventions got the mess over and done with.

Bollox. OSCE and UN reports prior to the bombing show that attack by the Serbian forces were concentrated on KLA and areas with strong KLA support. Reports about the actions during the bombing, even the HRW report HoreTore linked, show disproportionate damage in the areas where KLA was active.

They also show that presence of international monitors did have a pacifying effect as KLA couldn't operate as easy as before in Kosovo and naturally, that also stopped the responses of the Serbian police. In the last several months prior to the bombing, Kosovo was most peaceful it has been in several years. That's why there was the need to stage Racak massacre and to keep repeating the word "genocide", to justify a needless intervention.

[Kagemusha]

I have been looking at the footage concerning the Russian takeover of the Ukrainian Navy headquarters and something has definitely changed. People pouring in the base were apparently Crimean militia and the Russian professional troops only secured the gates after the militia stormed in. If such was the case also yesterday at the base, where there were casualties apparently on both sides. It would seem that it just might be that Russia is actually now looking forward towards confrontation. I dont like what i see. Hopefully i am wrong or the footage is not giving a clear picture.

[rvg]

It would seem that it just might be that Russia is actually now looking forward towards confrontation. I dont like what i see. Hopefully i am wrong or the footage is not giving a clear picture.

They have everything to gain and nothing to lose from provoking a confrontation. On the other hand, if they initiate an act of aggression and Ukraine actually decides to actively resist it, I would expect a whole lot of real support starting to pour in from the West. The West is not willing to protect those who aren't willing to protect themselves. However, once we see that the Ukrainians are willing to fight back it'll be a game changer imho.

[Kagemusha]

They have everything to gain and nothing to lose from provoking a confrontation. On the other hand, if they initiate an act of aggression and Ukraine actually decides to actively resist it, I would expect a whole lot of real support starting to pour in from the West. The West is not willing to protect those who aren't willing to protect themselves. However, once we see that the Ukrainians are willing to fight back it'll be a game changer imho.

What i am afraid is that they are trying to frame the Ukrainian troops as aggressors. In the footage basically an unarmed mob of men ripped off the gates of the base and stormed in, while the Russian troops only isolated the base afterwards. One only needs a local Ukrainian commander with itchy finger and we have a "massacre of unarmed civilians" in our hands.

[Husar]

I have been looking at the footage concerning the Russian takeover of the Ukrainian Navy headquarters and something has definitely changed. People pouring in the base were apparently Crimean militia and the Russian professional troops only secured the gates after the militia stormed in. If such was the case also yesterday at the base, where there were casualties apparently on both sides. It would seem that it just might be that Russia is actually now looking forward towards confrontation. I dont like what i see. Hopefully i am wrong or the footage is not giving a clear picture.

If local militia stormed the base that is great news, it's just like Kiev with reversed winners!

And you have to admit it takes more balls to storm a military base than to storm a parliament or ministry.

[Kagemusha]

If local militia stormed the base that is great news, it's just like Kiev with reversed winners!

And you have to admit it takes more balls to storm a military base than to storm a parliament or ministry.

I am myself more fan of a vote when it comes to dealing with mutual affairs.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am myself more fan of a vote when it comes to dealing with mutual affairs.

I would agree. To be fair though, it does take more courage to go at the armed forces of those you deem your opponent then to blow up school buses.

[Kagemusha]

I would agree. To be fair though, it does take more courage to go at the armed forces of those you deem your opponent then to blow up school buses.

Yes but is the actual case about Russians encouraging Crimean nationalist towards action for their own goals? Courage is a fine quality, but it can be used like anything else. Courage combined with possible fanatical nationalism can have a terrible turn out.
Are those militia or protesters as RT network calls them, pawns in Putin´s chess game?

[GenosseGeneral]

Edit: Wow, what a lengthy post. Anyway, there is a manifesto in there you can possibly skip.

Seems like Kyiv likes to kindle. Announcements being made after the last session of Ukraine's national security council:

1. Introduction of a Visa regime with Russia.
Earlier today it became public, that Russia has also made it harder for Ukrainians to enter the country. They need an invitation now, as well as documents proving that they have medical insurance and enough money to sustain themselves. That is basically the same stuff citizens of other countries need to apply for a Visa, but Ukrainians need only the documents so far and don't have to apply for a visa. Even before there had been threats to do so, in case Kyiv signs the association agreement (remember, that treaty this whole mess started with).
This closing of the borders will certainly p*** off people in both countries, as it makes it way more of a hassle to cross borders. A lot of Ukrainians have relatives in Russia (and vise versa). Also, in Kharkov I often saw Russian cars in the streets, a lot of Russians came there for shopping. That seems to be all over now. We will see whom the people will blame for this development, the transitional government in Kyiv or the Kremlin.

2. Ukraine leaves the CIS, the confederation of independent states
Again, something Ukrainian nationalists will cherish whilst it worries Russia-oriented Ukrainians. In my opinion, this transitional government is making far more strategic long term decisions than a transitional government for 3 months should.

3. The armed forces of Ukraine go into full combat readiness.
Well, what to say about this one... I really hope, the nationalists take their glorification of Stepan Bandera and the UPA's fight against the Soviets not so serious, that they try to continue it.

4. Ukraine wants to hold joined military excercises with the UK and US on Ukrainian soil.
Also a dumb provocation, in my eyes. It will just scare the people in Eastern Ukraine who fiercely oppose Ukraine joining the NATO, and it will also support hawks in Moscow. With no effect other than this.

To give you an idea of these people's mindset, a 'manifesto' from a demonstration in Donetsk. I have translated it from Russian into English to illustrate to some friends of mine, how pro-Russian minded people probably think:

"After occupying power by arms, after commiting a disgrace against the rule of law in Ukraine, humiliating the common folk, calling them scum and slaves, they continue to create despotism in Ukraine. Today they occupy our churches,
extinct our orthodox faith. They continue to drag Ukraine into the EU, under humiliating conditions; ignoring the non-aligned status, set in the constitution, they drag Ukraine into the NATO.
And this means - we fill up the ranks of the unemployed and beggars, while those, who burned our people in crematories, who annihilated them in concentration camps, become even richer.
The successors of the fascists have seized power in Ukraine!!! Under the slogan "Ukraine over all - death to [all] enemies" they openly call for the extermination of everything Russian.
In Ukraine occur political arrests, they destroy the memorials of our ancestors, [memorials] to the warrior-liberators of the Great Patriotic War. We will not make peace with fascism, humiliation, arbitrariness and call you up, not to miss the time, when we can still peacefully demand to restore peace and rule of law in Ukraine.
we do not allow [them] to break the country apart, we do not allow the defiling of our grandfathers' commemoration, who defended the country against fascism, we defend our faith, the soil of our Russian motherland.
To prevent the spreading of fascism, to stop the bloodshed, the participants of the demonstration decide to:
Send this message to:
The president of the Russian federation,
Valdimir Vladimirovitch Putin,

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine,

The members of the Donetsk Oblast council,

The members of the Verkhovna Rada [parliament] of Crimea

Accepted at the demonstration on the 16.3.2014. Donetsk, Lenin Square."
http://kor.ill.in.ua/m/610x0/1370791.jpg?v=635305736735714895

;tldr: The people on the Majdan were evil fascists, thus our new government consists out of even more evil fascists who want oppress everything Russian and dishonour our ancestors.

After all, the transitional government of Ukraine becomes more and more of a problem in my eyes. Their main objective should be to keep their country together and try to appease people in the East. Those are extremely worried about the fact that a good deal of their new government are members of the nationalist Svoboda party. Yet the government in Kyiv takes those actions, which will probably heat the situation even further up. That is not how to convince people to trust you...

[Sarmatian]

1) It will make things more complicated but Ukrainian government need to respond in some way. Choosing visas is the most benign option.

2) Another decision an interim government shouldn't make. Indefinite suspension of CIS membership as a response would have been more appropriate, until the legitimate government is elected and can act accordingly.

3) and 4) Absolutely disastrous. In no way does it change the reality of the situation and won't scare Russia for a second. It just might make pro-Russians in the eastern Ukraine that more desperate and determined.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So let's not pretend the USA has any moral high ground here.

US and the West has more moral high ground than Putin. That's all that matters.

Your rant about brainwashed soccer moms is hilariously out of touch. Every mother I have met is proud, but awfully scared of their child being in the military.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I give up - I'm gonna apply for Armour, what about you guys?

[Beskar]

I give up - I'm gonna apply for Armour, what about you guys?

I can get into medical, so I will most likely be there. Even if it on the 'front-lines' on conflict.

Prefer to be shot whilst saving lives then get shot whilst being just as bad. Forcing people many innocent conscripted people against each other on different sides of a conflict, there are no winners there, the other person is just like myself. Obviously, if the person was a cold-blooded murderer who likes to shoot medics and wounded people who could not be dissuaded, I would shoot back in self-defense, but that is fundamentally different to me morally. I like to think the 'other side' would leave them be, and I would treat their wounded too, in spirit they may be doing the same to my 'brothers and sisters'.

[rvg]

Checked out my enlistment potential...


12524

[drone]

I give up - I'm gonna apply for Armour, what about you guys?

First law of warfare - Large, slow moving hunks of metal tend to attract small, fast moving hunks of metal.

[Gilrandir]

This closing of the borders will certainly p*** off people in both countries, as it makes it way more of a hassle to cross borders. A lot of Ukrainians have relatives in Russia (and vise versa). Also, in Kharkov I often saw Russian cars in the streets, a lot of Russians came there for shopping. That seems to be all over now. We will see whom the people will blame for this development, the transitional government in Kyiv or the Kremlin.


With Russian propaganda machine in full swing it is not hard to predict which side will be held guilty. At least in the eyes of the people in Eastern Ukraine.

[Brenus]

“With Russian propaganda machine in full swing it is not hard to predict which side will be held guilty.” Helped by the full swing of the Western Media who absolutely ignore then.

I feel sorry for the Ukrainians. They started a social movement against crooks and corruption, for a better life in a fairer and democratic society. To achieve this they needed, as in the Arab Spring, a change in the political system (with probably the same results). The high-jacking of this movement by the extreme-right wing, with the full support of the EU and the USA stole from them the real object of the movement.
Thanks to the action of the like US Ambassador in Kiev, Putin sized the opportunity and moved faster than expected, as everyone was expecting him to have a delay of Grace thanks to the Winter Olympic Games.
So instead of a social progress, Ukraine is now facing secession, threat of secession(s), call to arms and possibility of war with powerful neighbour, or, civil war in the Eastern Borders.
Instead of choosing national unity and citizenship, the “provisional” government (elements of it), first came with the old corrupted, and went for division, threatening their own citizens.
Instead to talk to their minorities, they (some openly) wished to be able to kill them (some bragged having doing it yet).

So, now, what is possible to do?
A direct attack against Crimea is risky as Russian Troops are there.
Sent troops in the Eastern Borders? What if these troops are attacked by Ukrainian Russian Citizens? Will the Ukrainian Army shoot at Ukrainian Citizens, showing that they are not as such citizens?
NATO manoeuvres? Where? USA and UK, all right, but what if USA and UK troops are deployed in a “Russian” area and under hostile movement from the local populations? It is politically difficult, as counties in the world experimented (even USSR) to liberate locals who don’t want to be liberated.
Then, I can’t see Polish or German Troops deployed in Ukraine either as they will ignite even more the fears of the Russian Minorities (and not only).

[Sarmatian]

I wouldn't apply out of principle that someone might shoot at me if I do...

Had enough of wars. Beer is better.

[Husar]

US and the West has more moral high ground than Putin. That's all that matters.

From my more objective point of view this is not the case. I am sorry but you are wrong. The sides you compare are also apples and oranges, where is Ukraine in your equation? Part of the USA or the West? Or doesn't matter, just a puppet?


I give up - I'm gonna apply for Armour, what about you guys?

I'm gonna apply for the south pole because I have no desire to support either side in this incredibly stupid conflict.

[a completely inoffensive name]

From my more objective point of view this is not the case. I am sorry but you are wrong. The sides you compare are also apples and oranges, where is Ukraine in your equation? Part of the USA or the West? Or doesn't matter, just a puppet?

Just stop trolling for a moment and I will respond.

[Sarmatian]

Just stop trolling for a moment and I will respond.

So, anyone not agreeing with your position is trolling? Husar explained his position at length many times in this thread. Trolling would be someone dropping in and writing his opinion in a sentence or two, without contributing anything meaningful to the discussion. Kind of like what you just did.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

From my more objective point of view this is not the case. I am sorry but you are wrong. The sides you compare are also apples and oranges, where is Ukraine in your equation? Part of the USA or the West? Or doesn't matter, just a puppet?

I'm gonna apply for the south pole because I have no desire to support either side in this incredibly stupid conflict.

I am now convinced this is some form of German humour we don't understand.

notwithstanding that there is a strong pro-Russian faction in Crimea, Putin pulled the same trick Hitler did in the 1930's. I'm not say he's as bad as Hitler, or that he wants to rule the world, but we need to recognise the tactic as a landgrab, and an illegal one.

The UK has already stopped all exports of military tech to Russia, Merkel has said the G8 effectively no longer exists, the thaw after the Cold War is being reversed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Thanks to the action of the like US Ambassador in Kiev, Putin sized the opportunity and moved faster than expected, as everyone was expecting him to have a delay of Grace thanks to the Winter Olympic Games.

Was this in reference to the ambassadors statements in support of the toppling of the previous President or asst. secstate Nulands **** the EU comment?

[Husar]

Just stop trolling for a moment and I will respond.

There was no point to argue, you simply posted an opinion and I responded likewise and tried to offer some angles in addition.
If you think that qualifies as trolling, then maybe I shouldn't have responded to your trolling. :dizzy2:


I am now convinced this is some form of German humour we don't understand.

notwithstanding that there is a strong pro-Russian faction in Crimea, Putin pulled the same trick Hitler did in the 1930's. I'm not say he's as bad as Hitler, or that he wants to rule the world, but we need to recognise the tactic as a landgrab, and an illegal one.

I don't think Putin is trying to imitate Hitler, it was perhaps an illegal landgrab but my point is that I don't care and don't see why we should get involved as much as we do. The Ukrainian "revolutionaries" and their nazi friends are responsible for this. They made a revolution, replaced the government, enacted more and far more influential laws than any unelected interim government should and then they acted surprised that their neighbor and former ally who they just turned away from is angry about this. Oh, and they antagonized the large parts of the country which voted for the previous president, the one they chased away.

And now we are supposed to start WW3 to help them keep some island I don't really care about where a majority of the population does not even like them. As Brenus said, should we bomb Crimea to force the majority to stay with Ukraine? Should we force 60% of the people to do something to please the 10% of Tatars? The way the West reacts about this it's almost painfully obvious that the revolution did indeed happen with western support and now we're angry that Putin ruined our party...

It's a stupid kindergarten and we made a move without considering the reality of the situation. That was a big mistake and just because Putin isn't Mr. Niceguy I'm not going to support this huge diplomatic failure. Instead of going full support for molotov-throwing nazis, maybe the west should have negotiated between the interim government and Russia to prevent this clustercheese from the beginning. That was before we ruined our relatively good relations with Russia.

[Fisherking]

I kind of disagree with a bit of this. Putin sounds a lot like Hitler on this one. More like he wants to build a greater Russia.

His whole speech pretty much sounds like a justification for interventions in the future.

Yes Crimea was handed over to Ukraine. It had been Russian, before that Turk. Where do you stop? Ethnic minorities or just majorities? If you are on the Russian border you best not try what France did, or the USSR for that matter and educate everyone in one national language.

Another world war is stupid and so is another cold war but how do you ignore it?

It is a dangerous game they are playing. What would be the Russian response if Kaliningrad Oblast ( Königsberg, East Prussia) had a coup and decided they were independent or wanted to join some other country? Say they were occupied by mysterious troops and held an election a week and a half later deciding to join Poland or anyplace else? After all, it was never traditionally Russian. Those were all Soviet Colonists.

[Fisherking]

I worry that the whole affair will only spark more nationalism in both countries. If Putin decides he doesn’t like the outcome of the Ukrainian elections or the west does something stupid I expect more trouble come May-June.

[rvg]

Russians are storming what remains of the Ukrainian ships docked in Sevastopol. They are really trying their best to escalate this conflict.

[Husar]

I kind of disagree with a bit of this. Putin sounds a lot like Hitler on this one. More like he wants to build a greater Russia.

His whole speech pretty much sounds like a justification for interventions in the future.

Yes Crimea was handed over to Ukraine. It had been Russian, before that Turk. Where do you stop? Ethnic minorities or just majorities? If you are on the Russian border you best not try what France did, or the USSR for that matter and educate everyone in one national language.

Another world war is stupid and so is another cold war but how do you ignore it?

It is a dangerous game they are playing. What would be the Russian response if Kaliningrad Oblast ( Königsberg, East Prussia) had a coup and decided they were independent or wanted to join some other country? Say they were occupied by mysterious troops and held an election a week and a half later deciding to join Poland or anyplace else? After all, it was never traditionally Russian. Those were all Soviet Colonists.

Part of my point was that Crimea may have never happened had we negotiated with Putin right away instead of supporting the interim government in opposing him as best as they (and we) could. If you believe him to be a fan of Hitler that was never an option of course but by now we have almost closed the door for negotiations on the issue.

Do you think he would have invaded Crimea even without the revolution?

What was all that about the bay of pigs invasion after a country close to the USA changed to a government the USA didn't like anyway?
I almost forgot to mention that regarding the moral superiority. These things happen if small countries close to super powers do not behave and ruin their military and their political stability. Land grab or not, so far he took far less than he could chew, after all he'd be welcome in Eastern Ukraine as well.

As for Russia doing it's best to escalate this, so is the interim government in Kiev.

[Brenus]

“Putin pulled the same trick Hitler did in the 1930's” Nope. Putin is pulling the same trick NATO did in 1994 for Kosovo. So if you want to involve Hitler, you have to say that NATO pulled the same trick Hitler blab la bla. Then Putin, having learned his lesson how Russia was unable to react, is now doing the same thing.

“Was this in reference to the ambassadors statements in support of the toppling of the previous President” Yes. It convinced the Russians than EU and USA were playing the game to push NATO to the borders of Russia. As a lot of us here are explaining that Russia is an enemy, Russia did think it was a bad idea to have NATO tanks to its borders. Can I remind you that a US Ambassador had a very particular role in Saddam invading Kuwait? We will never know what she said to the former dictator of Iraq, but we know he felt free to invade his neighbour.
Like it or not, the point of view from Russia is USA being a very aggressive country invading others without any concern of International Laws or even a valid reason, so better to prevent having their tanks too near Moscow.
Citizen of a country that was ready to go to war for Missiles installed in Cuba, I think you can at least understand that.

Then you add the Russian paranoia due to 40 million dead during WW2, you’ve got the actual reaction. And you add the long-time game of the CIA to topple all leaders who disagree with the US policies (elected or not), then you’ve got the powder keg.

Just for fun, can I remind people I trained 5 years to fight against a Red Storm that never came...?

[Fisherking]

Part of my point was that Crimea may have never happened had we negotiated with Putin right away instead of supporting the interim government in opposing him as best as they (and we) could. If you believe him to be a fan of Hitler that was never an option of course but by now we have almost closed the door for negotiations on the issue.

Do you think he would have invaded Crimea even without the revolution?

What was all that about the bay of pigs invasion after a country close to the USA changed to a government the USA didn't like anyway?
I almost forgot to mention that regarding the moral superiority. These things happen if small countries close to super powers do not behave and ruin their military and their political stability. Land grab or not, so far he took far less than he could chew, after all he'd be welcome in Eastern Ukraine as well.

As for Russia doing it's best to escalate this, so is the interim government in Kiev.

I don’t think Putin cared whether we negotiated or not. It is mostly about Putin’s vision of the old Russian (Soviet) Sphere of Influence and moves by US oil corporations to develop Ukrainian gas deposits. His man was kicked out of office, which was enough to warrant his actions, at least in his mind.

Yes, the EU and NATO are partly to blame but it is not the main reason. Russia is still somewhat paranoid of western influence. I can’t blame them for remaining aloof from some of it. But in the end it is still about power and the vision of returning Russia to center stage and being a Super Power.

It all boils down to the same old, same old.

Sorry if it comes down to oil and gas and not revenge. Russian nationalism may help the position but it is just food for the masses.

[HoreTore]

Full of conspiracy theories today aren't we?

It's the truth!! (http://odesk.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/If-you-ever-feel-stupid.jpg)

[Brenus]

"Sorry if it comes down to oil and gas" Agree. So having NATO in Crimea would have the possibility to cut the pipelines used by Russia.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Part of my point was that Crimea may have never happened had we negotiated with Putin right away instead of supporting the interim government in opposing him as best as they (and we) could. If you believe him to be a fan of Hitler that was never an option of course but by now we have almost closed the door for negotiations on the issue.

Do you think he would have invaded Crimea even without the revolution?

What was all that about the bay of pigs invasion after a country close to the USA changed to a government the USA didn't like anyway?
I almost forgot to mention that regarding the moral superiority. These things happen if small countries close to super powers do not behave and ruin their military and their political stability. Land grab or not, so far he took far less than he could chew, after all he'd be welcome in Eastern Ukraine as well.

As for Russia doing it's best to escalate this, so is the interim government in Kiev.

OK - the Bay of Pigs is a red herring. We're not making a moral comparison to Hitler - we're talking about Putin's strategy and tactics - it looks increasingly as though he is pushing the "all Russian" angle, which could potentially include all or most of Ukraine as they are the "White Rus".

The escalation has been all on Putin's end, Kiev took several weeks before it allowed its servicemen to even fire in self defence, and it is only now fortifying the border. They aren't ratcheting things up, they're moving to a war footing in preparation for a coming Russian invasion. They tried the pacifistic approach and it lost them Crimea and got at least on of their soldiers killed.

Here's a timeline from wiki, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2014_Crimean_crisis#February_23

Note the general LACK of support for Russia until those gunmen seize the parliament - and where did those thousands of Tartars go?

This crisis was manufactured by Putin.

[Sarmatian]

OK - the Bay of Pigs is a red herring. We're not making a moral comparison to Hitler - we're talking about Putin's strategy and tactics - it looks increasingly as though he is pushing the "all Russian" angle, which could potentially include all or most of Ukraine as they are the "White Rus".

White Rus refers to Belarus.


The escalation has been all on Putin's end, Kiev took several weeks before it allowed its servicemen to even fire in self defence, and it is only now fortifying the border. They aren't ratcheting things up, they're moving to a war footing in preparation for a coming Russian invasion. They tried the pacifistic approach and it lost them Crimea and got at least on of their soldiers killed.

Actually, they tried to export the revolution from Kiev to the eastern Ukraine from day 1, hoping that stunned opposition wouldn't be able to offer any resistance.


Note the general LACK of support for Russia until those gunmen seize the parliament - and where did those thousands of Tartars go?

This crisis was manufactured by Putin.

Lack of reports about it, perhaps, but Russian flags started appearing in the east soon after Maidan government made efforts to repeat Kiev scenario in the eastern regions.

Even though secession and subsequent integration of Crimea into Russa was illegal without any shred of doubt, let us not pretend that it wasn't wanted by the majority of the population.

[Fisherking]

"Sorry if it comes down to oil and gas" Agree. So having NATO in Crimea would have the possibility to cut the pipelines used by Russia.


It is more a case of Ukraine cutting in on Russia’s racket.

Ukraine in economic partnership with Russia and serving Russian interests is one thing. An independent Ukraine not under Russian directorship has to be crushed.

As for NATO basing in Crimea; Why?

Turkey is a longtime NATO member covering the southern coast and closing the door if need be. Why do something needlessly antagonistic that serves no good interest?

[Sarmatian]

As for NATO basing in Crimea; Why?

Turkey is a longtime NATO member covering the southern coast and closing the door if need be. Why do something needlessly antagonistic that serves no good interest?

Because Crimea is the best strategic position in the Black Sea. The new pipeline that's being build is within swimming distance from Crimea. Sevastopol is a natural port, allowing big ships, and a lot of them, to go in or out efficiently all year long.

Additionally, Ukraine in NATO would allow another batch of NATO ships, as the Black Sea is restricted for military shipping of nations without Black Sea coast.
NATO would have some benefit, but, more importantly, the loss of Crimea would be a huge setback for Russia, as there isn't another port on the Russian coast that can hold the Black Sea.

In the end, NATO control of Crimea would make it much harder for Russia to protect the pipeline, would make it much easier for NATO to strike anywhere on the Russian Black Sea coast and would make it much more difficult for Russia to respond to such a move.

[Brenus]

“This crisis was manufactured by Putin.” Ridiculous. You think he is more intelligent he is, but you underestimate his speed of reaction to exploit others mistakes.

“It is more a case of Ukraine cutting in on Russia’s racket.” Yeah, in the West that is called Capitalism (or business, or offer and demand). In the East it’s racket.
The racket was Russia selling gaz to Ukraine under prices?

[HoreTore]

In the end, NATO control of Crimea would make it much harder for Russia to protect the pipeline, would make it much easier for NATO to strike anywhere on the Russian Black Sea coast and would make it much more difficult for Russia to respond to such a move.

I find it hilarious how many in this thread have called Putin a Hitler hellbent on expansion, while at the same time laughing at Putin's desire for a black sea fleet. The argument given in this thread is that the black sea fleet is useless at projecting power, thus Putin is an idiot.

This skips over the obvious benefit the black sea fleet has in protecting Russia. I think this shows who the expansionist is, and it aint Putin...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

White Rus refers to Belarus.

Actually, they tried to export the revolution from Kiev to the eastern Ukraine from day 1, hoping that stunned opposition wouldn't be able to offer any resistance.

Lack of reports about it, perhaps, but Russian flags started appearing in the east soon after Maidan government made efforts to repeat Kiev scenario in the eastern regions.

Even though secession and subsequent integration of Crimea into Russa was illegal without any shred of doubt, let us not pretend that it wasn't wanted by the majority of the population.

Sorry, I meant Kievan Rus - my bad. Doesn't matter though - in fact it reinforces my point, the "Kievan Rus" are the supposed originators of Russian culture, but Kiev is outside Russia. It's like England without the region of Wessex and London.


Because Crimea is the best strategic position in the Black Sea. The new pipeline that's being build is within swimming distance from Crimea. Sevastopol is a natural port, allowing big ships, and a lot of them, to go in or out efficiently all year long.

Additionally, Ukraine in NATO would allow another batch of NATO ships, as the Black Sea is restricted for military shipping of nations without Black Sea coast.
NATO would have some benefit, but, more importantly, the loss of Crimea would be a huge setback for Russia, as there isn't another port on the Russian coast that can hold the Black Sea.

In the end, NATO control of Crimea would make it much harder for Russia to protect the pipeline, would make it much easier for NATO to strike anywhere on the Russian Black Sea coast and would make it much more difficult for Russia to respond to such a move.

NATO doesn't need a black sea port - admittedly the port is of some value to Russia, but only really in access to the Med, which it needs to oppose NATO. I suppose there is some potential utility in being able to land forces behind the Russia lines further up the coast, but I'm not sure how useful that really is when you can use airborne troops to achieve the same affect. Bear in mind, Romania and Bulgaria are both on the Black Sea and in NATO anyway. So is Turkey.

Speaking of Romania - they are getting extremely twitchy about Moldova: http://www.rferl.org/content/moldova-eu-membership-romania/25302886.html

Moldova has recently banned regional referendums, apparently.

[rvg]

Russkies are massing more troops on the border. Gentlemen, do not kid yourselves: this is a full scale war.

[HoreTore]

Russkies are massing more troops on the border. Gentlemen, do not kid yourselves: this is a full scale war.

Nah, this is a full-scale scare.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's not full sclae war, but the temperature is rising.

The question is - will the Western Allies leave Ukraine out to dry the way they did Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary....etc.?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I find it hilarious how many in this thread have called Putin a Hitler hellbent on expansion, while at the same time laughing at Putin's desire for a black sea fleet. The argument given in this thread is that the black sea fleet is useless at projecting power, thus Putin is an idiot.

This skips over the obvious benefit the black sea fleet has in protecting Russia. I think this shows who the expansionist is, and it aint Putin...

I have suggested parallels with the Czechoslovakian absorption by Germany. Putin is not mentally warped; apparently has very little in the way of silly inanities about "race" clobbering around inside his skull, and, I suspect, less of a "gamblers" attitude than der kaput fuhrer.

Putin is being opportunistic here, and has obviously had contingency plans for this ready at need, but it is hard to see him as having hatched the whole thing on his own -- more like a prepared chess player seizing a positional advantage when offered.

[Husar]

Full of conspiracy theories today aren't we?


It's the truth!! (http://odesk.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/If-you-ever-feel-stupid.jpg)

Yeah, there are even people who believe the NSA spies on everyone, trolololol. :rolleyes:


I don’t think Putin cared whether we negotiated or not. It is mostly about Putin’s vision of the old Russian (Soviet) Sphere of Influence and moves by US oil corporations to develop Ukrainian gas deposits. His man was kicked out of office, which was enough to warrant his actions, at least in his mind.

We will never know now. And how can you say Putin did it because his man was kicked out after you just gave proof that the region is economically important even for US companies? That sort of supports the argument that the riots were instigated and supported from the US. Is it okay if the USA manipulate a country for economic benefit but Russia better stick to their own borders?


Yes, the EU and NATO are partly to blame but it is not the main reason. Russia is still somewhat paranoid of western influence. I can’t blame them for remaining aloof from some of it. But in the end it is still about power and the vision of returning Russia to center stage and being a Super Power.

The EU and NATO as well as the rioters are to blame for not taking that into account. If Mexican communists started a revolution with Mexican drug lords and established a communist government in Mexico that expelled all DEA and other US agents and declared it wanted to align with China, I'd not like to see the US carpet bomb Mexico but I'd still say that was kinda expected.


It all boils down to the same old, same old.

Sorry if it comes down to oil and gas and not revenge. Russian nationalism may help the position but it is just food for the masses.

As are freedom and democracy on the other side of the issue.


Russkies are massing more troops on the border. Gentlemen, do not kid yourselves: this is a full scale war.

Not surprising after Ukraine invited half of NATO for maneuvers.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21599346-post-soviet-world-order-was-far-perfect-vladimir-putins-idea-replacing-it?fsrc=rss|lea

An Article in the Economist - which boils down to the fact that Putin is lieing, we all know he's lieing and he manufactured the crisis, and he's getting away with it.

[Husar]

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21599346-post-soviet-world-order-was-far-perfect-vladimir-putins-idea-replacing-it?fsrc=rss|lea

An Article in the Economist - which boils down to the fact that Putin is lieing, we all know he's lieing and he manufactured the crisis, and he's getting away with it.


Russia’s recent conduct is often framed narrowly as the start of a new cold war with America. In fact it poses a broader threat to countries everywhere because Mr Putin has driven a tank over the existing world order.

And that's a problem because in the existing World Order America and the people who finance the Economist tell other countries what they can and cannot do and we really wouldn't want that to change.

I don't have time to read more of this propaganda, as though Putin was the first head of state to lie in public. :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

And that's a problem because in the existing World Order America and the people who finance the Economist tell other countries what they can and cannot do and we really wouldn't want that to change.

Really? You're trying to make some point about how the west is telling countries what to do and doesn't want that to change, when it's Putin who got riled up because his puppet ruler of Ukraine was deposed, and manufactured the crisis as a farcically thin pretext to invade and annex his neighbor?

But somehow - essentially because the US isn't saintly in international relations - invading and annexing another country like this is okay.

Good God.

CR

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm not supporting a war. I think economic sanctions would have been enough - or will be enough to stop Putin from invading Eastern Ukraine.

CR

[Sarmatian]

But somehow - essentially because the US isn't saintly in international relations

That's a bit like saying Messi knows a trick or two with the ball.

[Gilrandir]

Putin is pulling the same trick NATO did in 1994 for Kosovo.

Nope. NATO didn't annex Kosovo nor let anyone incorporate it (yet).

[Gilrandir]

White Rus refers to Belarus.


In Russia before 1917 Ukraine has traditionally been termed "Lesser Rus".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And that's a problem because in the existing World Order America and the people who finance the Economist tell other countries what they can and cannot do and we really wouldn't want that to change.

I don't have time to read more of this propaganda, as though Putin was the first head of state to lie in public. :laugh4:

OK - try being Moldovan, then.

I'm sure they're totally relaxed about the way things are going.

[Gilrandir]

I don't think Putin is trying to imitate Hitler, it was perhaps an illegal landgrab but my point is that I don't care and don't see why we should get involved as much as we do. The Ukrainian "revolutionaries" and their nazi friends are responsible for this. They made a revolution, replaced the government, enacted more and far more influential laws than any unelected interim government should and then they acted surprised that their neighbor and former ally who they just turned away from is angry about this. Oh, and they antagonized the large parts of the country which voted for the previous president, the one they chased away.

So whenever in the neighboring country something happens that displeases you, you have a right to invade it and bite off some of its land? I thought this approach had died somewhere in the middle of the 20th century. Now the whole world has to own up to it: agreements don't matter any more. You can disregard them and do whatever you want and the others will lump it. It is not about Ukraine any more, it is about the whole system of international relations.

[Brenus]

"NATO didn't annex Kosovo nor let anyone incorporate it (yet)" You are having a laugh. The biggest US base in Europe! (see Camp Bondsteel).

"It is not about Ukraine any more, it is about the whole system of international relations." This was just a crisis in waiting. With the new interventionism from the West (or more or less good reasons, and I was one supporting "the right to intervene for Humanitarian Purposes!!!), it was just matter of time it bites back. Unfortunately for Ukraine, it came when a genuine movement for social and political changes was high-jacked.

Now, it looks like more Russian Minorities in other Countries wish to be oppressed by Putin.

Can I remind here that the West pledged to Gorbachev that NATO will not expend on Former Communist Countries. And what did happened? So how Russia is supposed to make about Western Promises?

[Gilrandir]

Putin is being opportunistic here, and has obviously had contingency plans for this ready at need, but it is hard to see him as having hatched the whole thing on his own -- more like a prepared chess player seizing a positional advantage when offered.
I have read an article that claims that Russia was (and is) ready for the kind of sanctions that are being introduced now. They are a good excuse to offer for the economic hardships that it is experiencing and is likely to experience in future. Moreover, the sanctions will boost the support for Putin and contribute to the spread of nationalism which Putin can utilize.
The article states that when the sanctions become really hurtful, Russia will invade Eastern Ukrane and make sanctions a thing to be negotiated: the West removes the sanctions, Russia withdraws from Eastern Ukraine.
To me all this sounds sensible.

[Gilrandir]

"NATO didn't annex Kosovo nor let anyone incorporate it (yet)" You are having a laugh. The biggest US base in Europe! (see Camp Bondsteel).

Yet there was no referendum for joining, say, Albania and no official inclusion into any country.

[Brenus]

"Yet there was no referendum for joining, say, Albania and no official inclusion into any country." And what does change?

[Gilrandir]

Can I remind here that the West pledged to Gorbachev that NATO will not expend on Former Communist Countries. And what did happened? So how Russia is supposed to make about Western Promises?
Gorbachev was the president of a country that stopped existing. Can you be expected to hold your promise to, say, Austro-Hungary?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Really? You're trying to make some point about how the west is telling countries what to do and doesn't want that to change, when it's Putin who got riled up because his puppet ruler of Ukraine was deposed, and manufactured the crisis as a farcically thin pretext to invade and annex his neighbor?

But somehow - essentially because the US isn't saintly in international relations - invading and annexing another country like this is okay.

Good God.

CR

What is the most bewildering is the impression that because the US makes mistakes when it comes to foreign policy, we are now on the same level as a "democratically elected leader" who is purposely agitating a nation that has done nothing but restrain itself from using force against hostile occupying forces whether they be Crimean rebels or Russian forces in disguise.

The public US mentality is still shaped by the Cold War, we have not adapted our public view of the world to the new reality, and we make errors because of it. But you can't say that any public support for military action comes from a place of imperialism or tyranny. Despite our idiotic policies, we felt they were what was best for supporting democracy and promoting the Western values of human rights. Do private companies and contractors get their hands dirty and their pockets filled, sure. It's the business of war.

This self defeatist attitude that has taken hold in the West is cancerous. I'm glad Americans still have the sense that the world can be improved and that it still needs to be protected.

[Gilrandir]

"Yet there was no referendum for joining, say, Albania and no official inclusion into any country." And what does change?

Though essentially it may have been similar (introducing a military base) it was not an enlargement of country X who promised in 1994 to guarantee the integrity and security of country Y, at the expense of country Y. And Russia didn't have to plant a base in Crimea - it is already there.

[Sarmatian]

Gorbachev was the president of a country that stopped existing. Can you be expected to hold your promise to, say, Austro-Hungary?

It's not same.

Russia is the legal successor of USSR. Any deal made with USSR is applicable automatically to Russian Federation. Like the permanent security council seat - it didn't dissolve when USSR disintegrated, it was immediately transfered to Russian Federation.

Autria-Hungary has no legal successor state.

[Gilrandir]

It's not same.

Russia is the legal successor of USSR. Any deal made with USSR is applicable automatically to Russian Federation. Like the permanent security council seat - it didn't dissolve when USSR disintegrated, it was immediately transfered to Russian Federation.

Autria-Hungary has no legal successor state.
But Russia doesn't recognize Ukraine after February 21 (or what was the exact date) 2014 as a legal successor of Ukraine before that date and claims that Budapest memorandum can't be applied in this case. Does it make any sense? As for Gorbachev, was there any official document signed saying that NATO promises not to expand eastward?

[Sarmatian]

But Russia doesn't recognize Ukraine after February 21 (or what was the exact date) 2014 as a legal successor of Ukraine before that date and claims that Budapest memorandum can't be applied in this case. Does it make any sense? As for Gorbachev, was there any official document signed saying that NATO promises not to expand eastward?

No. Russia doesn't recognize this government as a legitimate government of Ukraine.

It's legal double talk. UN Charter and many other international documents also forbid change of borders. That didn't stop the great powers to invade and dissect countries when it suited them.

USA signed dozens of documents and charters that should have forbade them from recognizing Kosovo. See how that worked out?

The legal excuse is that it all refers to forced change of borders by outside influence. In the case of Kosovo, Crimea and some other cases, it is argued that it was legal because the population itself voted for it.

[Husar]

Really? You're trying to make some point about how the west is telling countries what to do and doesn't want that to change, when it's Putin who got riled up because his puppet ruler of Ukraine was deposed, and manufactured the crisis as a farcically thin pretext to invade and annex his neighbor?

No, I'm saying that you artificially blow this out of proportion by saying things like "annex his neighbor" instead of "annex an island that likes to be with them more anyway" and use a farcically thin pretext to put sanctions on Russia after you made their neighbors revolt and turn against Putin. You didn't even shy away from marginalizing the part the fascists play in the revolution.
And again, you tried to do pretty much the same thing when Cuba turned to communism and ousted your puppet dictator who was arguably far worse than Yanukovich, and that's where your moral highground went down the slippery slope.
I also didn't say the West is telling countries what to do, I said America and the people who finance the Economist. Why else did not a single country in Europe want to harbor Snowden? Why did one country even bring down a machine on a diplomatic mission merely on the suspicion that Snowden was on board? Because America told them to and they all obey.


But somehow - essentially because the US isn't saintly in international relations - invading and annexing another country like this is okay.

Good God.

CR

And so just because Cubans had enough of the murderous dictator you had installed there, sending a bunch of exiles there with US-supplied weapons to invade and annex the island is okay, just because Russia doesn't have a splendid track record in international relations?
Please explain how the bay of pigs was "not saintly" while Crimea is "like Hitler!!!!". Or are you just jealous that the Russians succeeded while you are still left with boycotting Cuba like a whiny child that never gives up a gripe? (and trying to assassinate their head of state)

Oh and on the last note, I didn't say it is okay, you are bending what I said again. I said it's not okay but given the circumstances our reaction to it is wrong, was wrong and may even have lead to it happening in the first place.

[Gilrandir]

No. Russia doesn't recognize this government as a legitimate government of Ukraine.

As Putin put it, "We had an agreement in 1994 but we have no agreement with THIS Ukraine." And not recognizing current government of Ukraine should automatically mean recognizing Yanukovych. If he is still president, then Russia must obey the treaty all the same.


The legal excuse is that it all refers to forced change of borders by outside influence. In the case of Kosovo, Crimea and some other cases, it is argued that it was legal because the population itself voted for it.
Voting is OK, independence is OK (though legality of both are highly debatable), but not inclusion by outside countries.

[Sarmatian]

As Putin put it, "We had an agreement in 1994 but we have no agreement with THIS Ukraine." And not recognizing current government of Ukraine should automatically mean recognizing Yanukovych. If he is still president, then Russia must obey the treaty all the same.

Legally, it's a load of bollox, yes. 1994 memorandum is vague enough not to present huge problems, and it's just one of many documents Russia signed that in theory should force it respect territorial integrity of Ukraine. In practice, as we've seen so many times thus far, it means little.


Voting is OK, independence is OK (though legality of both are highly debatable), but not inclusion by outside countries.

Then we get another problem. IF a part of the country secede and becomes a fully independent country, who has the right to decide what it is allowed to do?

There's nothing that can stop unification of Kosovo and Albania, other than their own constitutions. With Kosovo, that's not gonna happen in the near future for sure, because several smaller states are easier to control than one bigger. Kosovo is perfect for US interests just as it is - it's politically, militarily and economically totally dependent on the US and that ensures the long-term presence of US/NATO soldiers in one of the best strategic locations in the Balkans.

[rvg]

Remember folks how Russians were laughing at our sanctions? They aren't laughing anymore. Sanctions on just 3 (or is it 4) banks are already creating a major ruckus and major grumbling among the populace: Visa and Mastercard are no longer processing any transactions from those banks and it is starting to sting.
Notice, this is Day 1.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...And so just because Cubans had enough of the murderous dictator you had installed there, sending a bunch of exiles there with US-supplied weapons to invade and annex the island is okay, just because Russia doesn't have a splendid track record in international relations?
Please explain how the bay of pigs was "not saintly" while Crimea is "like Hitler!!!!". Or are you just jealous that the Russians succeeded while you are still left with boycotting Cuba like a whiny child that never gives up a gripe? (and trying to assassinate their head of state)


There was zero intention to annex Cuba. Our best chance to annex it came in 1900, which we did not pursue. We did want the communist regime out and thought that the Cubans would land, beat the local defense force, and then a counter-revolution would sweep Cuba. Rather stupid strategic premise in retrospect, but there you have it. Had we -- inexplicably -- ended up backing a winning counter revolution at the Bay of Pigs, the expatriates would have installed their own new kleptocracy. Back then, it was all about the Dominos -- actually annexing it would have been to annex all of its problems as well.

Btw, why do so many Europeans seem so emphatic about getting Americans to say "we're shitty self-interested bastards?" It's not like there is much of a shortage of hypocrisy among political leadership on either side of the pond. Nor is the backroom crowd of Americans wandering through our weeks blithely unaware of our own past. Most of us are big-time history buffs for God's sake!

Hell, if we get into a pissing match about tawdriness, the USA might hold its own on a jerk-move-per-year level, but Europe will out volume us big time and China has us all beat combined. So why dwell on it?

Does past inappropriate behavior mean that all future behavior to the good must be cancelled for lack of a pristine track record? If so, it bodes ill for the species.

[Sarmatian]

There was zero intention to annex Cuba. Our best chance to annex it came in 1900, which we did not pursue. We did want the communist regime out and thought that the Cubans would land, beat the local defense force, and then a counter-revolution would sweep Cuba. Rather stupid strategic premise in retrospect, but there you have it. Had we -- inexplicably -- ended up backing a winning counter revolution at the Bay of Pigs, the expatriates would have installed their own new kleptocracy. Back then, it was all about the Dominos -- actually annexing it would have been to annex all of its problems as well.

Annexation isn't always the best solution. Creating protectorates or any type of dependencies is often preferable, especially if there's a strong national identity and/or there are other problems with direct rule. US annexed Hawaii earlier, Puerto Rico in the war against Spain and so on. Mexican territory, on the other hand, was annexed outright.


Btw, why do so many Europeans seem so emphatic about getting Americans to say "we're shitty self-interested bastards?" It's not like there is much of a shortage of hypocrisy among political leadership on either side of the pond. Nor is the backroom crowd of Americans wandering through our weeks blithely unaware of our own past. Most of us are big-time history buffs for God's sake!

Hell, if we get into a pissing match about tawdriness, the USA might hold its own on a jerk-move-per-year level, but Europe will out volume us big time and China has us all beat combined. So why dwell on it?

Does past inappropriate behavior mean that all future behavior to the good must be cancelled for lack of a pristine track record? If so, it bodes ill for the species.

I think it is generally because of the mindset revealed by Kerry's statement "that you simply can't go around invading sovereign state under a false pretext in the 21st century".

If you read what was written in the thread, you've noticed that quite a few Orgahs share his opinion, and most are, at best, willing to accept that "US made some mistakes in foreign policy".

The reality is - after WW2, USA was by far the most aggressive country in the world, whether it was orchestrating coups, direct invasions, fostering civil wars, supporting dictators and so on... Like the colonialism conducted by the Europeans, when it was justified by white man's burden of civilizing others, while it was, pure and simple, a land grab from the natives for various purposes, so were the US actions often justified by democratic and/or humanitarian cause.

By any yardstick, USA was the most aggressive country in the world post ww2. Then there's a gap, then there's Russia/USSR, then there's a huge gap and then everyone else.

We're a loooong way from understanding that. We're still at "we made some mistakes".


That, naturally, doesn't excuse Russian actions, but it's funny when they get criticized by USA. Wouldn't you at least chuckle if two thieves were constantly accusing each other of stealing?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think it is generally because of the mindset revealed by Kerry's statement "that you simply can't go around invading sovereign state under a false pretext in the 21st century".

If you read what was written in the thread, you've noticed that quite a few Orgahs share his opinion, and most are, at best, willing to accept that "US made some mistakes in foreign policy".

The reality is - after WW2, USA was by far the most aggressive country in the world, whether it was orchestrating coups, direct invasions, fostering civil wars, supporting dictators and so on... Like the colonialism conducted by the Europeans, when it was justified by white man's burden of civilizing others, while it was, pure and simple, a land grab from the natives for various purposes, so were the US actions often justified by democratic and/or humanitarian cause.

By any yardstick, USA was the most aggressive country in the world post ww2. Then there's a gap, then there's Russia/USSR, then there's a huge gap and then everyone else.

We're a loooong way from understanding that. We're still at "we made some mistakes".

In Kerry's defense (and it loathes me to take that stance I assure you), it has been the US position that our invasions were not conducted under false pretexts -- or in the case of Iraq a mistaken pretext we presumed true.

Well, aggressive is probably a fair label. Virtually all of the actions you reference, however, are subsumed by two basic concepts: The Cold War and the War on Terror. The large bulk of our post ww2 aggressive stance was, in our eyes (and I will stipulate that we are just as prone to selective perception as the next culture), steps to counter or head off communist aggression and steps to counter Islamist terrorism. There were, of course, a number of instances that were not connected to those issues, but US policy since WW2 was dominated by those issues -- in many instances to the point of unhealthy fixation.

Pre-WW2, quite a few of our aggressive efforts were efforts to seem powerful or acquire territory -- classically imperialist stuff.

[Sarmatian]

In Kerry's defense (and it loathes me to take that stance I assure you), it has been the US position that our invasions were not conducted under false pretexts -- or in the case of Iraq a mistaken pretext we presumed true.

That is the official line, I agree. Official line from Moscow is that Ukraine government was overthrown and fascists installed in its place. Part of the country wanted to secede and they couldn't, in good conscience, refuse their wish for a democracy and freedom.

However, I find it hard to believe that US intelligence made such a mistake, especially when all other major intelligence organizations pointed out there was no evidence to support that claim.

That leaves only the option that the US leadership knowingly and willfully lied to its own population and invaded a sovereign country for selfish reasons under a false pretext.


Well, aggressive is probably a fair label. Virtually all of the actions you reference, however, are subsumed by two basic concepts: The Cold War and the War on Terror. The large bulk of our post ww2 aggressive stance was, in our eyes (and I will stipulate that we are just as prone to selective perception as the next culture), steps to counter or head off communist aggression and steps to counter Islamist terrorism. There were, of course, a number of instances that were not connected to those issues, but US policy since WW2 was dominated by those issues -- in many instances to the point of unhealthy fixation.

Cold War works for all involved sides. If we accept that American fear of communism is a justification, that the US was acting in good faith but not always with a clear head or best judgement, than that courtesy must also be extended to the other side and the invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia etc... should also be viewed in similar light.

I'd agree that fear of mutual invasion or undermining of influence was the prime motivator and can explain some of the Cold War aggression by either side. USSR and now Russia is also guilty of an unhealthy fixation - their fear of another western invasion is bordering on the irrational. The explanation works slightly better for Russia, though, as USA-led NATO is theoretically capable of such an invasion, while Russia isn't capable of invading NATO.

War on Terror is more dubious, as I see terrorism as a reaction to US actions. I don't subscribe to the idea "they hate us because we cherish freedom".
]

[Brenus]

Don’t know. How I see things is both Russia and USA controlled nothing. They thought they played smart and were completely over-powered by their creation.

The USA (to simplify) was happy with the Revolution and jumped on the opportunity to take another country out of Moscow. They were probably over-joyed.
Then all went wrong. With the Extreme-Right/Nazi in Ukraine, fear spread through of the Crimean Russians. Then Russian troops took control. Then Crimean Parliament, in 1 week, went from Independence to Referendum then becoming part of Russia… Over-maneuvered by Putin, the USA agents have now to go to explain to their President (who really had other things to do) that something went wrong.

Not sure Putin wanted this, as the price for the Russian economy might be high, but he can’t avoid to agree without risking to be defeated in the next elections (as all good dictators he need to be elected).
And now, even more Russian Minorities want to go back in Putin’s dictatorship. Probably because the democratic rules in the countries where they live are too nice and they are fed-up to be free.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That is the official line, I agree. Official line from Moscow is that Ukraine government was overthrown and fascists installed in its place. Part of the country wanted to secede and they couldn't, in good conscience, refuse their wish for a democracy and freedom.

However, I find it hard to believe that US intelligence made such a mistake, especially when all other major intelligence organizations pointed out there was no evidence to support that claim.
Actually, that is just about exactly what I think happened. Nor is this just the "go to" response of the apologist. I encourage you to read Graham Allison's The Essence of Decision (used it as a focal piece for my dissertation). His treatment of the decision-making process in government during a crisis is scarily enlightening. It becomes clear that far more than rational evaluations come into play and that decisions are made often because of various internal political agendas that have zero to do with the issue at hand.


Cold War works for all involved sides. If we accept that American fear of communism is a justification, that the US was acting in good faith but not always with a clear head or best judgement, than that courtesy must also be extended to the other side and the invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia etc... should also be viewed in similar light.

I'd agree that fear of mutual invasion or undermining of influence was the prime motivator and can explain some of the Cold War aggression by either side. USSR and now Russia is also guilty of an unhealthy fixation - their fear of another western invasion is bordering on the irrational. The explanation works slightly better for Russia, though, as USA-led NATO is theoretically capable of such an invasion, while Russia isn't capable of invading NATO.

War on Terror is more dubious, as I see terrorism as a reaction to US actions. I don't subscribe to the idea "they hate us because we cherish freedom".

I have little doubt that such factors, in reverse of those applied by the USA, applied to the CCCP's efforts in those instances you cite. Nor do I blame the decisions made as acts of evil. I find the comm0-disctatorship of the Soviets anathema because it stifles the individual so badly and works so inefficiently -- but their foreign policy efforts were actually a bit more consistent than ours and clearly motivated by their sense of self preservation. I have often thought that THAT is why "trust but verify" went over so well with them.

As to the fear factor, the Sov's truly did think that NATO could come after them and possibly destroy them. One NATO member, operating alone under different management, had come perilously close to doing so. Equally, however, the West really did fear that we would not be able to stop a massive Soviet attack short of the use of nuclear weapons -- which were anathema to us for any number of psychological reasons.


As to the War on Terror, the whole thing is a bit nebulous. Warring on an idea/concept/cause cannot be accomplished solely by military means. The 9-11 attackers very much shattered our illusions that we were fundamentally safe on our relatively peaceful continent -- even though the numbers lost here do not hold a candle to the civilian "collateral" casualties caused in our response. Yet we could not not respond -- a frustrating dilemma. We then tacked on all sorts of other projects -- such as Iraq -- that were AT BEST tangentially related to countering Islamist terrorism. We still haven't achieved the appropriate combination of military, investigative, financial and diplomatic force required.

[Kagemusha]

Why cant we just all agree that we are all hypocrites and move on? There are people to love, babies to make, business to make so there will be bread in the table and loved ones to care about. Who gives a flying genital about world politics, where there are no morals, only necessity.

[rvg]

Why cant we just all agree that we are all hypocrites and move on? There are people to love, babies to make, business to make so there will be bread in the table and loved ones to care about. Who gives a flying genital about world politics, where there are no morals, only necessity.
Because if we move on, Putin will also move on. On to the next target.

[Sarmatian]

Because if we move on, Putin will also move on. On to the next target.

Of course. He has just sent the fleet to the far side of the moon of Endor. Everything is happening as he has foreseen.

[Fisherking]

Of course. He has just sent the fleet to the far side of the moon of Endor. Everything is happening as he has foreseen.


Ha ha.

So I guess we just need the Russian view for the next act.

Evil Nazi Ukrainian troops in iron boots frighten poor ethnic Russian. Super Putin and the Army of Light sweep in and save everyone all the way to Odessa and maybe Moldavia, and welcome them home to Mother Russia.

Obama and the EU refuse to honor Russia’s green stamps. Everyone buys more weapons.

Ether that or some fool goes nuclear.

[Husar]

Ha ha.

So I guess we just need the Russian view for the next act.

Evil Nazi Ukrainian troops in iron boots frighten poor ethnic Russian. Super Putin and the Army of Light sweep in and save everyone all the way to Odessa and maybe Moldavia, and welcome them home to Mother Russia.

Obama and the EU refuse to honor Russia’s green stamps. Everyone buys more weapons.

Ether that or some fool goes nuclear.

So Russia just agreed to have international observers in Ukraine so that they have a proper challenge in doctoring a reason for the imminent invasion or just so that they can kill them easier in the process?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-deal-reached-observer-mission-ukraine-23009669

[Fisherking]

So Russia just agreed to have international observers in Ukraine so that they have a proper challenge in doctoring a reason for the imminent invasion or just so that they can kill them easier in the process?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-deal-reached-observer-mission-ukraine-23009669

So?

It doesn’t change anything. Observers in Ukraine, other than Crimea! Big Deal!

Elections in two months. Ukraine elects unacceptable candidate, game over.

[Sarmatian]

We'll need to see first if there will be election in two months. Government in Kiev might use the crisis to postpone the elections.

[Husar]

We'll need to see first if there will be election in two months. Government in Kiev might use the crisis to postpone the elections.

I thought they are all flawless democrats.

[Fisherking]

Aren’t you listening?

They are ALL Evil Iron booted Neo-Nazis and their lackeys.

It is time to stop the bloodbath. Bring them back to Russia. http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/21-03-2014/127145-gather_lands-0/

Federalize Ukraine! Bring them home to Mother Russia.

[Gilrandir]

There's nothing that can stop unification of Kosovo and Albania, other than their own constitutions. With Kosovo, that's not gonna happen in the near future for sure, because several smaller states are easier to control than one bigger. Kosovo is perfect for US interests just as it is - it's politically, militarily and economically totally dependent on the US and that ensures the long-term presence of US/NATO soldiers in one of the best strategic locations in the Balkans.
A perfect example of Russia's doublethinking: Crimea was recognized as an independent state (before the annexation), while Kosovo was (and is) not.

[Gilrandir]

Aren’t you listening?

They are ALL Evil Iron booted Neo-Nazis and their lackeys.

It is time to stop the bloodbath. Bring them back to Russia. http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/21-03-2014/127145-gather_lands-0/

Federalize Ukraine! Bring them home to Mother Russia.
Things start to look black for Tatars and other dissidents. There's been a report that the houses of Tatars (in ethnically mixed communities) were marked with special signs. If you sport any Ukrainian symbols or speak Ukrainian you are looked askance at or get bullied.
Is it true that Churchill predicted that fascists of the future would call themselves anti-fascists?

[Fisherking]

Oh?

And after they all voted to be part of Russia too.

Obviously, these are lies spread by all those Nazis supported by the CIA. The same ones who are machine-gunning all those poor Russian Liberals who also want to join Russia once again.

The sooner the rest of the world sees the wrongs of these evil thugs and the USA supporting them, the better.

You see what the poor Russian people have to endure because of this evil illegal regime! Ukraine needs to rejoin Russia and the sooner they do the freer they will be.

What a load of :daisy:

[rvg]

What a load of :daisy:

Indeed. Some people's desire to embrace this :daisy: with open arms comes across as very irrational.

[Flavius Aetius]

You all realize that the Russians' lease on Sevastopol was ending soon right? They need that window on the black sea and the Ukrainians did not seem like they were going to renew the lease. As a result the entire situation was going to get messy one way or the other if the Russians were not able to maintain their black sea fleet. Because the Ukrainians couldn't control their own people because they were a corrupt as hell entity. The Russians just jumped on what they saw as a miracle and now the West has to clean up the Ukraine's mess.

[rvg]

You all realize that the Russians' lease on Sevastopol was ending soon right?...

Can you define "soon"? The lease was set to expire in 2042, 28 years does not sound like "soon" to me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You all realize that the Russians' lease on Sevastopol was ending soon right? They need that window on the black sea and the Ukrainians did not seem like they were going to renew the lease. As a result the entire situation was going to get messy one way or the other if the Russians were not able to maintain their black sea fleet. Because the Ukrainians couldn't control their own people because they were a corrupt as hell entity. The Russians just jumped on what they saw as a miracle and now the West has to clean up the Ukraine's mess.

It had been extended to 2040.

What I think is, Husar is still trolling, and the problem is not that Russia absorbed Crimea, it's the WAY they did it.

The Crimeans could have had the West on-side for this, we probably would have forced Ukraine to change it's Constitution to make a referendum in just Crimea legal.

Instead we have a smoothly orchestrated takeover by Russia, then a referendum, all in less than a month.

So - why did Putin do this?

To show he could - and show he would get away with it. That's the core problem - the point Putin is making, that he can do what he wants.

[Flavius Aetius]

Can you define "soon"? The lease was set to expire in 2042, 28 years does not sound like "soon" to me.

28 years is nothing for a nation. When you have 28 years until you lose your southern port and the Ukrainian leader you helped place in power has been deposed and anti Russian sentiment is in the country you take the first chance you can to solidify you won't lose it.

to Phillips: As a westerner it isn't that I think what Russia did was unconscionable or doesn't make sense. It is simply not in the West's collective interest for Russia to strengthen itself under any means. And I completely agree with your last point in regards to the Russians wanting to prove they CAN do these things with not backlash.

[rvg]

28 years is nothing for a nation. When you have 28 years until you lose your southern port and the Ukrainian leader you helped place in power has been deposed and anti Russian sentiment is in the country you take the first chance you can to solidify you won't lose it.

28 years is more than a generation. Hell of a long time even for a nation. Besides, the Black Sea in general has a rather limited in its strategic value.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

28 years is more than a generation. Hell of a long time even for a nation. Besides, the Black Sea in general has a rather limited in its strategic value.

All true - but the Black Sea is the only way Russia can get ships into the Med, unless it sales around the entire Atlantic Coast and runs the Pillars of Heracles, all of which makes fighting through the Dardenelles look like a picnic.

[Husar]

Oh?

And after they all voted to be part of Russia too.

Obviously, these are lies spread by all those Nazis supported by the CIA. The same ones who are machine-gunning all those poor Russian Liberals who also want to join Russia once again.

The sooner the rest of the world sees the wrongs of these evil thugs and the USA supporting them, the better.

You see what the poor Russian people have to endure because of this evil illegal regime! Ukraine needs to rejoin Russia and the sooner they do the freer they will be.

What a load of :daisy:

The bullying of people supporting Ukraine already happened before the annexation apparently. The question is what forcing these people to stay with Ukraine would have achieved? Alternatively all countries with a Russian population, i.e. all satellites can risk war and expell all Russians. Otherwise they will always have these problems and expelling them will obviously also cause trouble. So what are we going to do about it?
Start WW3 to make Russia and their "citizens" in other countries shut up? Then fire the nukes to get it over with. :rolleyes:


Husar is still trolling

[...]

So - why did Putin do this?

To show he could - and show he would get away with it. That's the core problem - the point Putin is making, that he can do what he wants.

Your PhD in psychology is finally paying off?


All true - but the Black Sea is the only way Russia can get ships into the Med, unless it sales around the entire Atlantic Coast and runs the Pillars of Heracles, all of which makes fighting through the Dardenelles look like a picnic.

Yeah, so maybe 2040 was not long-term enough in case Ukraine is going to join the EU now because that would almost ensure that 2040 is a finite date and the lease would never have been renewed. So Putin annexed it to secure the Black Sea Fleet for Russia. Annoy the West or lose a strategically important fleet in 2040? Maybe Putin won't be around anymore but he is a fan of Stalin who left him these Russian populations in all the satellites as some sort of legacy joker and maybe he wants to leave something for the Russian presidents who follow him. And that would also sort of torpedize the idea that he just wanted the land and is going to get even more.

But I suppose just mentioning that he may not want more makes me a Putin shill-troll who cannot be taken seriously.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yeah, so maybe 2040 was not long-term enough in case Ukraine is going to join the EU now because that would almost ensure that 2040 is a finite date and the lease would never have been renewed. So Putin annexed it to secure the Black Sea Fleet for Russia. Annoy the West or lose a strategically important fleet in 2040? Maybe Putin won't be around anymore but he is a fan of Stalin who left him these Russian populations in all the satellites as some sort of legacy joker and maybe he wants to leave something for the Russian presidents who follow him. And that would also sort of torpedize the idea that he just wanted the land and is going to get even more.

But I suppose just mentioning that he may not want more makes me a Putin shill-troll who cannot be taken seriously.

Or maybe, just MAYBE, he as Russian President is actually looking out for Russia's best interest? ~:cool:

Without Stalinistic theories having to be involved.

[Husar]

Or maybe, just MAYBE, he as Russian President is actually looking out for Russia's best interest? ~:cool:

Just like Stalin did then. But that was part of my point, yes, I may have overexplained the legacy thing, it happens.
Still doesn't mean that he is going to invade countless other countries which have no real strategic importance or fleet bases.

[Slyspy]

I'm sure that will be enough to reassure Estonia et al.

[Kadagar_AV]

Just like Stalin did then. But that was part of my point, yes, I may have overexplained the legacy thing, it happens.
Still doesn't mean that he is going to invade countless other countries which have no real strategic importance or fleet bases.

Remember you talk with a lot of USAnians here. I think we are both saying and thinking the same thing, just, one has to stay clear of the words that make many USAnians go frothing at their mouth - as they much like dogs then lose all sense of balance and logical thinking.


Note: Example of why such generalisation is not acceptable, please avoid it with people of nations.

Note: Re-edited to "many USAnians", I think that makes it a somewhat fair generalization :)

[Husar]

I'm sure that will be enough to reassure Estonia et al.

Estonia should know that the EU cannot tolerate an invasion of a member state any more than NATO could. Emphasis on should because apparently noone told them that. Which is just another thing that is worrying about the EU and western overextension against promises made and into regions where nothing can be backed up.

So what do you want me to say? That Putin is a bad guy? That we will send our 250 little tanks through Poland to stop him?
Apparently we like to make promises and hold grand speeches and aren't ready to back any of that up or keep our word, but I'm not allowed to criticize us as we are the most trustworthy democratic freedom lovers.
So yeah, Putin is an evil fascist, I hope American nukes will save us all and make me eternally thankful either from the barren wasteland or from heaven.

[Sarmatian]

All true - but the Black Sea is the only way Russia can get ships into the Med, unless it sales around the entire Atlantic Coast and runs the Pillars of Heracles, all of which makes fighting through the Dardenelles look like a picnic.




To show he could - and show he would get away with it. That's the core problem - the point Putin is making, that he can do what he wants.


Black Sea could become important if major changes occur in Turkey or the other countries that border the sea. The fleet is an opportunistic bet against the future, and a pretty good one.

You are again reasoning from a western point of view. The difference in point of view is partly to blame for the entire crisis. It isn't about power projection, it's about limiting western power projection on Russia's Black Sea coast. Like HT said:


I find it hilarious how many in this thread have called Putin a Hitler hellbent on expansion, while at the same time laughing at Putin's desire for a black sea fleet. The argument given in this thread is that the black sea fleet is useless at projecting power, thus Putin is an idiot.

This skips over the obvious benefit the black sea fleet has in protecting Russia. I think this shows who the expansionist is, and it aint Putin...

Russia doesn't have a blue water navy. They don't plan to build one and they couldn't afford one. Russian fleet serves one purpose and one purpose only - protecting Russian coastline. They can't compete in the Med. In the Black Sea however, when aided by land defense, the Black Sea fleet is useful. Past Bosphorus and Dardanelles, that fleet is floating scrap iron.

Showing off? Muscle flexing? Sabre rattling? Random land grabs? Empire building? Dreams of world domination? I don't know which one of these thesis is more ludicrous.

Russian mindset is completely different - their prime point of concern is protection again hypothetical invasion coming from the west. Everything else is of secondary concern. Until western politicians figure that out, we're gonna have more crisis like this one. And this isn't Putin. This is Russia. This is indoctrinated into their military and political thought. Removing Putin won't change that.

If I'm allowed to quote Einstein - We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Your PhD in psychology is finally paying off?

Actually, I'm taking a sabbatical.


Yeah, so maybe 2040 was not long-term enough in case Ukraine is going to join the EU now because that would almost ensure that 2040 is a finite date and the lease would never have been renewed. So Putin annexed it to secure the Black Sea Fleet for Russia. Annoy the West or lose a strategically important fleet in 2040? Maybe Putin won't be around anymore but he is a fan of Stalin who left him these Russian populations in all the satellites as some sort of legacy joker and maybe he wants to leave something for the Russian presidents who follow him. And that would also sort of torpedize the idea that he just wanted the land and is going to get even more.

But I suppose just mentioning that he may not want more makes me a Putin shill-troll who cannot be taken seriously.

All valid points, but if Putin wants Crimea - looking at his speech - he also wants all of Ukraine and Belarus, along with at least the Russian-speaking parts of the Baltic States, Moldova and Georgia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26652058

"Everything in Crimea speaks of our shared history and pride. This is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptised. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilisation and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The graves of Russian soldiers whose bravery brought Crimea into the Russian empire are also in Crimea"

All of this applies to Kiev, cradle of Russian civilisation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26662721

While we're here - lets kill this idea of NATO's illegitimate expansion.

It was never for the US, the UK or Germany to say NATO would not expand east - because when Poland et al came knocking they were never going to be able to turn them down.

[rvg]

You are again reasoning from a western point of view. The difference in point of view is partly to blame for the entire crisis. It isn't about power projection, it's about limiting western power projection on Russia's Black Sea coast.
Protect Russia from whom? I hope you realize that Black Sea is heavily regulated by treaties. For instance, nuclear vessels (this includes both nuclear-powered ones and the ones carrying nuclear weapons) cannot enter the Black Sea aquatory. Ever. Now guess what, US carriers are nuclear powered: Turkey is required to deny them entry no matter the cause. If it isn't us then who could possibly be a threat? Romania? Bulgaria? Laughable.



Russia doesn't have a blue water navy. They don't plan to build one and they couldn't afford one. Russian fleet serves one purpose and one purpose only - protecting Russian coastline. They can't compete in the Med. In the Black Sea however, when aided by land defense, the Black Sea fleet is useful. Past Bosphorus and Dardanelles, that fleet is floating scrap iron.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Russian naval base at Severomorsk has a HUGE modern Navy, including nuclear subs and one carrier. Guess what, they can't enter the Black Sea either. While in the Mediterranean they resupply either at the Russian base of Tartus in Syria or sometimes in Cyprus. Once again Black Sea is a non-player.


Showing off? Muscle flexing? Sabre rattling? Random land grabs? Empire building? Dreams of world domination? I don't know which one of these thesis is more ludicrous.
Why not? Why not? Why not? Why not? Putin has proven himself as a megalomaniac both within his country and abroad.


Russian mindset is completely different - their prime point of concern is protection again hypothetical invasion coming from the west. Everything else is of secondary concern. Until western politicians figure that out, we're gonna have more crisis like this one. And this isn't Putin. This is Russia. This is indoctrinated into their military and political thought. Removing Putin won't change that.
Please, tell me more about the intricacies of Russian soul... This is nonsense. This mindset has been brought on not by some genetic trait or cultural upbringing, but by a dozen years of Putin's propaganda machine. Nothing more.

[Husar]

All valid points, but if Putin wants Crimea - looking at his speech - he also wants all of Ukraine and Belarus, along with at least the Russian-speaking parts of the Baltic States, Moldova and Georgia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26652058

"Everything in Crimea speaks of our shared history and pride. This is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptised. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilisation and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The graves of Russian soldiers whose bravery brought Crimea into the Russian empire are also in Crimea"

Well yeah, and people also believed Bush when he said he'd invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of WMDs. But maybe politicians just say one thing sometimes to legitimate another thing and people who take it at face value are giving those empty words too much value. Maybe. So far Putin seems to have shown quite some readiness to negotiate since he secured his black sea fleet's future.


While we're here - lets kill this idea of NATO's illegitimate expansion.

It was never for the US, the UK or Germany to say NATO would not expand east - because when Poland et al came knocking they were never going to be able to turn them down.

So it was a lie right from the start, should that make Russia feel better about it?

[Kadagar_AV]

Why not? Why not? Why not? Why not? Putin has proven himself as a megalomaniac both within his country and abroad.



Dude, you are USANIAN, and you accuse Putin of megalomania?

From my point of view, he has acted in Russias best interest within his immediate strategic back yard.

I can't say I much like it, but c'mon... compared to USA's not so stellar modern history, who the **** are you to say even one itsy bitsy bit about it?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????

Heck, look at your own quote in my sig, to understand just how far removed from reality you are here.

[rvg]

Dude, you are USANIAN, and you accuse Putin of megalomania?

From my point of view, he has acted in Russias best interest within his immediate strategic back yard.

I can't say I much like it, but c'mon... compared to USA's not so stellar modern history, who the **** are you to say even one itsy bitsy bit about it?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????

Heck, look at your own quote in my sig, to understand just how far removed from reality you are here.

Try more question marks. I'm also Russian, and as such I can tell that your understanding of Russia, Russians and Putin leaves much to be desired.

[Kadagar_AV]

Kad you're just a swedish version of rvg. You paint a blanket picture of over 300 million Americans that is both wrong and hilarious quite often.

Not quite. I think I even stepped in and defended USA somewhere further back in this thread.

I just call bollocks when I see bollocks. That the USA has a higher percentage of bollocks, and I thus flame them more, has absolutely nothing to do with my clear line of reasoning.

That the USA is the biggest meddler in world politics, is also a cause why I flame them more than others on this international politics boards.

Honestly, have you seen me let stupidity-by-nations slip by just because the USA was not involved? Ever? Even my own country(/ies)?

If not, please retract that statement.

[rvg]

...and I thus flame them more, has absolutely nothing to do with my clear line of reasoning...

What reasoning? The drivel that you post is largely just pure irrational hatred.

[Kadagar_AV]

What reasoning? The drivel that you post is largely just pure irrational hatred.

After 11/9 and Iraq and Afghanistan... it's quite logic resembling the general US foreign policy to frothing dogs.

[Kadagar_AV]

You make pretty shallow attacks on the character of our people all the time Kad. You also base a lot of your reasoning on an inaccurate view of the way our government and policy making bodies work. It all comes off as purely shallow anti American vitriol, as though you base your opinion of an entire nation on the shallowest of investigations.

Good for a laugh though. I'll do no retracting, the forum is littered with examples of your drivel. Keep doing what you do man. :yes:

That I do.

Heck, I read reports stating that the majority of members of your then biggest political party still several years after the Iraq war believed WMD's to have been found there.

Your school system is failing and your general population is anti-intellectual.

I never said every USAnian is, I say that enough are to dictate your international politics. And that quite honestly SCARES me.

[gaelic cowboy]

All true - but the Black Sea is the only way Russia can get ships into the Med, unless it sales around the entire Atlantic Coast and runs the Pillars of Heracles, all of which makes fighting through the Dardenelles look like a picnic.

Russia has plenty land on the black sea so this Crimea port thingy is a red herring.

12537

[Kadagar_AV]

Russia has plenty land on the black sea so this Crimea port thingy is a red herring.

12537

Much like the Dutch ports are a Red Herring for EU imports of commerce?

No need for the EU to defend them, we have plenty of coastal lands?

[rvg]

After 11/9 and Iraq and Afghanistan... it's quite logic resembling the general US populace to frothing dogs.

Riiight... my ignore list needs more specimens. Bye, Kad.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are again reasoning from a western point of view. The difference in point of view is partly to blame for the entire crisis. It isn't about power projection, it's about limiting western power projection on Russia's Black Sea coast. Like HT said:



Russia doesn't have a blue water navy. They don't plan to build one and they couldn't afford one. Russian fleet serves one purpose and one purpose only - protecting Russian coastline. They can't compete in the Med. In the Black Sea however, when aided by land defense, the Black Sea fleet is useful. Past Bosphorus and Dardanelles, that fleet is floating scrap iron.

Showing off? Muscle flexing? Sabre rattling? Random land grabs? Empire building? Dreams of world domination? I don't know which one of these thesis is more ludicrous.

Russian mindset is completely different - their prime point of concern is protection again hypothetical invasion coming from the west. Everything else is of secondary concern. Until western politicians figure that out, we're gonna have more crisis like this one. And this isn't Putin. This is Russia. This is indoctrinated into their military and political thought. Removing Putin won't change that.

If I'm allowed to quote Einstein - We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

Yeah - I get that - but what I also get is that Putin sees parts of other countries as occupied Russian land, and the Crimea episode indicates he's not above using force to "restore" that land to Mother Russia - up to an including potentially the entire Soviet Union.

Despite me posting the translation of his speech in English, you seem blind to that fact.

For a Russian "containment" means that the other "Great Powers" are trying to limit Russia's operation within what Russia sees as its legitimate sphere of control.

We want everybody to be a European democracy just for the sake of it, including Russia, but Russia sees that prospect as an existential threat.

And, for the moment Russia = Putin, in so far as decision making goes.

[a completely inoffensive name]

After 11/9 and Iraq and Afghanistan... it's quite logic resembling the general US populace to frothing dogs.

The most subtle of trolls. I love it, man.

[Montmorency]

On one hand, Kad is a bozo. On the other, to be made a target of rvg's petulance is no mark of shame.

/flame war

[Husar]

Russia has plenty land on the black sea so this Crimea port thingy is a red herring.

12537

Why didn't Ukraine move its fleet away before Russia took it over? They have plenty of coastline left.

Yeah, let's continue with more guesswork.

http://www.stripes.com/news/analysts-black-sea-port-in-ukraine-still-key-to-russia-s-naval-interests-1.270904


Although Russia continues to construct a navy base in its own territory in Novorossisk, near Sochi, analysts agree that Sevastopol remains the navy’s preferred base in the Black Sea region because of its size, location and infrastructure.

“It’s hard to speculate on motivations, but it may be that one of the main reasons for the (events) in Crimea was, legitimately or not, they thought they might lose the base in Sevastopol,” said Dmitry Gorenburg, who researches Russian military reform at the CNA Corporation, an analysis group.

Also no mention of nuclear submarines as that guy in Germany claimed. Oh yeah, he was pro-Putin and I actually noticed that some of his "facts" were off. Again, there is propaganda and baseless support on both sides IMO. "He's a Hitler and wants more Lebensraum" is not a very convincing argument either.


The fleet may also need to grow to support a new Mediterranean task force created by Russia last year, noted Fedyszyn, a move that comes as the U.S. increases its own Mediterranean presence with four destroyers in Spain.

Quite honestly, if it were the other way around I guess it would be a response to "Russian aggression" but I suppose the US placing more ships in the Mediterranean is not about aggression, just fishing destroyers bringing freedom to plankton and jellyfish. I'm not convinced that placing more NATO allies, nukes, missile shields and armed forces all around Russia will make Russia any less paranoid.

When Russia wanted to station nukes on Cuba people like to call it Russian aggression and tend to forget that this was in response to the USA stationing nukes in Turkey, which was incidentally right across from Russia and no more or less aggressive than Russian nukes on Cuba. Additionally they were meant to prevent further attempts of the US to invade Cuba, sounds rather defnsive rather than aggressive. There are usually two sides to a fight and if one wants to solve the conflict it can help to look at the issue from both sides.

If everybody agrees and noone dares to counter-argue, you end up with groupthink, it's not nice.


Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

[Kadagar_AV]

The most subtle of trolls. I love it, man.

Cheers.

I see it more as "educating" than "trolling". But that's just me, Bozo :clown:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Cheers.

I see it more as "educating" than "trolling". But that's just me, Bozo :clown:

Lol, do people in European countries really call it 11/9? Considering it was an American event, and is called the "September 11th attacks", I don't see why you would call it 11/9 other than to be frustrating to USAnians.

[Flavius Aetius]

Cheers.

I see it more as "educating" than "trolling". But that's just me, Bozo :clown:

This fellow seems about as coherent as that Kurdish dude. Why do you all encourage his childish and laughable views? He is straight out of a European, I hate the USA cookie cutter. On every thread I've seen he has posted nothing which but inane drivel that weakens the discourse and pisses people off. But I guess he is simply a superior life form with his Nordic blood so I guess we are all just lucky to be blessed by his presence.

[Kadagar_AV]

Lol, do people in European countries really call it 11/9? Considering it was an American event, and is called the "September 11th attacks", I don't see why you would call it 11/9 other than to be frustrating to USAnians.

You are completely right.

Still though, if you are to speak English, learn to do it properly :clown:

[Kadagar_AV]

This fellow seems about as coherent as that Kurdish dude. Why do you all encourage his childish and laughable views? He is straight out of a European, I hate the USA cookie cutter. On every thread I've seen you have posted nothing that contributes to conversation but inane drivel that weakens the discourse and pisses people off. But you are simply a superior life form with your nordic blood so I guess we are all just lucky to be blessed by your presence.

NAILED IT!!

I bow to your wisdom :bow:

EDIT: That note from a new member is actually worth a better response.

I (very) occasionally contribute to these boards as well. When I don't, I tell hypocrites what idiots they are. Beating a dead horse, I know...

Most people around here has seen enough of me not to judge my behavior from some Saturday night postings at local time 3am and onwards.

Not that I don't make sense, not that I am wrong. Just that I tend to have very limited tolerance for stupidity and I don't always explain my points to the fullest. Luckily, plenty of other intelligent people around to enhance the points I drunkenly point my fingers at. So I still contribute, in my very own way ~:smoking:

[Strike For The South]

EVERYONE POSTS DRUNK, IT'S THE ONLY WAY WE CAN STAND EACH OTHER

[Gilrandir]

This is what I call a sober and measured discussion.

[Brenus]

“Protect Russia from whom?” From you, or people who think like you, who considered Russia like an enemy, people who are still in the Cold War. I read here a lot of texts telling me that Russia is our enemy, and they look surprise if Russia looks at us as enemy.
Al these countries, in the region, fought each other’s for centuries. And this didn’t stop long time ago, but around 30 years ago, one was still occupying others. Then, the former occupied don’t like very much the former occupier, some even hate him. So the Former Occupier, knowing what they think, has reasons to believe they might take revenge as soon as they can. And what the Former occupier is seeing is exactly this. More of the Former Occupied making alliances with Countries that openly say your country is an enemy (note, not a former enemy, an actual enemy).

Then, when Russia, having signed an agreement with a legitimate Government of Ukraine sees openly hostile forces over-taking power with “kill the Russian” propaganda, and running in the arms of an hostile coalition, which has proved several time to be an offensive weapon used to enforced Western (so anti-Russian) Politic, what the Russians should have thought?

“This mindset has been brought on not by some genetic trait or cultural upbringing, but by a dozen years of Putin's propaganda machine. Nothing more.” And your? What did it for yours?

“I'm also Russian, and as such I can tell that your understanding of Russia, Russians and Putin leaves much to be desired.” Laughable! I am French and there is one think I don’t pretend is to understand or speak for all French. When you get 3 French speaking politic you’ve got 5 opinions… But YOU understand (how many 380 million?) all Russians. And I really, but really, don't understand the mindset of this F***** actual French President, liar, traitor, coward and one of the worst piece of garbage never elected in a country (this including Sarkozy).

[Husar]

(how many 380 million?)

Only 143,533,000 (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL), Russia alone has often seemed overrated to me in terms of its population. It's probably easy to overestimate it given the size of the country and its political significance.

[Sarmatian]

Protect Russia from whom? I hope you realize that Black Sea is heavily regulated by treaties. For instance, nuclear vessels (this includes both nuclear-powered ones and the ones carrying nuclear weapons) cannot enter the Black Sea aquatory. Ever. Now guess what, US carriers are nuclear powered: Turkey is required to deny them entry no matter the cause. If it isn't us then who could possibly be a threat? Romania? Bulgaria? Laughable.

In the case of a hypothetical NATO-Russia conflict, those agreements wouldn't be worth the paper they were written on. Possibly only in a case if Turkey decides to stay neutral.

NATO control of Crimea would allow the alliance to base more ships in the Black Sea under Ukrainian flag, in the central location in the Black Sea, and limit severely Russian options of responding.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. Russian naval base at Severomorsk has a HUGE modern Navy, including nuclear subs and one carrier. Guess what, they can't enter the Black Sea either. While in the Mediterranean they resupply either at the Russian base of Tartus in Syria or sometimes in Cyprus. Once again Black Sea is a non-player.

That's the Northern Fleet. If you believe that either Northern or Black Sea fleet can realistically challenge US fleet anywhere except in the near vicinity of Russia coast, then you're really out of touch with reality.


Why not? Why not? Why not? Why not? Putin has proven himself as a megalomaniac both within his country and abroad.

We'll have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, Putin has proved that he is cold, cautious and calculated.


Please, tell me more about the intricacies of Russian soul... This is nonsense. This mindset has been brought on not by some genetic trait or cultural upbringing, but by a dozen years of Putin's propaganda machine. Nothing more.

Military and political doctrines have little to do with soul or genes. That would be like saying that Monroe Doctrine is about American soul or genetic traits.


Russia has plenty land on the black sea so this Crimea port thingy is a red herring.

12537

Ports don't usually spring up anywhere on the coast. Natural conditions are extremely important. Why doesn't Germany just increase the size of Hamburg port and imports directly everything, rather than using Dutch ports? Because Hamburg port can't handle that sort of traffic, while Rotterdam can.

Same with Crimea. Sevastopol is a natural port. To create a port of Sevastopol's quality, if it were at all possible, they would have to spend billions and billions. It would also signify the loss of a strategic position in the Black Sea. Do you think it is coincidence that from ancient times Crimea was always the most important trading and military port in the Black Sea?

So even if were possible to build a similar port, Ukraine in NATO means Crimea is in control of NATO.

[Fisherking]

Well, the Russian propaganda machine isn’t exactly taking a sabbatical either, is it.

Putin’s speech opens the door to the repartition of Eastern Europe.

It was fine for Russia to crush break-away nationalists within their own borders but not for others to do it to Russian speakers. They become protectorates or part of Russia. Very reasonable and honorable.

The Ukraine is longing to come home. They just don’t know it yet.

Why not just go back to where the borders were 100 years ago and have done with it! Oh! Waite…

[Sarmatian]

Yeah - I get that - but what I also get is that Putin sees parts of other countries as occupied Russian land, and the Crimea episode indicates he's not above using force to "restore" that land to Mother Russia - up to an including potentially the entire Soviet Union.

Despite me posting the translation of his speech in English, you seem blind to that fact.

For a Russian "containment" means that the other "Great Powers" are trying to limit Russia's operation within what Russia sees as its legitimate sphere of control.

We want everybody to be a European democracy just for the sake of it, including Russia, but Russia sees that prospect as an existential threat.

And, for the moment Russia = Putin, in so far as decision making goes.


Well, the Russian propaganda machine isn’t exactly taking a sabbatical either, is it.

Putin’s speech opens the door to the repartition of Eastern Europe.



It's quite naive to base someone's long term foreign policy on a speech, which was clearly intended for domestic audience, most of which can not understand the strategic importance of Crimea.

If we were to do that, that we would have to assume that US is actively planning to invade:
1. Iran
2. North Korea
3. Cuba
4. Syria
5. Belarus
6. Zimbabwe
7. Burma

... because they were mentioned in the "Axis of Evil' or "Outposts of Tyranny" speech.

[Husar]

Why not just go back to where the borders were 100 years ago and have done with it! Oh! Waite…

No, that sounds fine.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/maps/map_images/Europe1914.gif

Much simpler, a streamlined EU with fewer members, sounds good.

[Fragony]

Lol, do people in European countries really call it 11/9? Considering it was an American event, and is called the "September 11th attacks", I don't see why you would call it 11/9 other than to be frustrating to USAnians.

We kinda do, I know exactly where I was, was at home because I had called in sick. My mom called, she was crying, as I am now when I think of it, yeah I am a pussy. Turned on the tv and the pleasure of seing the second plane hit. I have never been that disgusted, completily taken over by what I saw, and speculation of what was going on over there, without anything I could do. It's not just an American event.

Blob blob blob, falling people who jumped. Ffs. My brother was on that building exactly a week before.

[Flavius Aetius]

The laughable audacity of the fact that you just posted all about the "Russian mind" and how their culture is making them predisposed to treat 'x' by doing 'y' and then told RVG,


"Laughable! I am French and there is one think I don’t pretend is to understand or speak for all French. When you get 3 French speaking politic you’ve got 5 opinions… But YOU understand (how many 380 million?) all Russians. And I really, but really, don't understand the mindset of this F***** actual French President, liar, traitor, coward and one of the worst piece of garbage never elected in a country (this including Sarkozy)."

And you understand the Russian mind apparently? Not to mention the absolute rant that the above was.

[Sarmatian]

The laughable audacity of the fact that you just posted all about the "Russian mind" and how their culture is making them predisposed to treat 'x' by doing 'y' and then told RVG,
And you understand the Russian mind apparently? Not to mention the absolute rant that the above was.

The part you quoted dealt with him stating you can't understand the mind of millions of people, so saying I was born/I lived/I have friends... is idiotic. It's not idiotic on its own, but claiming that it gives one special insight in the minds of 150 millions Russians, or 50 millions French, or 300 millions Americans is idiotic.

The second part was him giving his opinion about current French president. So, what are you on about?

[Flavius Aetius]

Oh it was you but you pleasantly stepped into the hypocrites role yourself despite my mistake.

[Sarmatian]

Oh it was you but you pleasantly stepped into the hypocrites role yourself despite my mistake.

What are you talking about?

[Flavius Aetius]

What are you talking about?


It's not idiotic on its own, but claiming that it gives one special insight in the minds of 150 millions Russians, or 50 millions French, or 300 millions Americans is idiotic.


Showing off? Muscle flexing? Sabre rattling? Random land grabs? Empire building? Dreams of world domination? I don't know which one of these thesis is more ludicrous.

Russian mindset is completely different

...

[Fragony]

...

The Serb makes no inconsistancy, a country is not it's government.