Printable View
The "West" could do a lot of things.
They will actually do nothing.
Fight a war on Russia's doorstep => not gonna happen
Economic sanctions => unlikely, winter still gets awful cold and Russia has everyone by the gas
Pontificate and let talk radio go bananas => very likely
People shouldn't think about dividing countries without thinking of the consequences. Look what happened with Korea and Vietnam. Although there are different ethnicities in the case with Ukraine, the demographics are mixed geographically. Even in eastern Ukraine where there are large numbers of Russian-speaking people, there are significant numbers of Ukrainian-speakers in that region with the exception of Crimea. Ukraine doesn't want to lose territory and would want to protect Ukrainian citizens in eastern Ukraine.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
Also, where would you draw the boundary? Having a third party decide the boundaries have proven to be disastrous in Korea, Vietnam, in African nations and in the Middle East.
Germany is an exception. Germany lost WWII and was in no position to start a civil war expecially when having superpower armies stationed there. After decades of peace, the Germans decided to continue with that peace.
No, I want Ukraine to actually use its enormous potential and become a well-functioning and rich country. You can't do that with tycoons controlling corrupt politicians. I want Ukraine that has a strong enough economy and can be an important partner to other countries, not beg other countries for money so it doesn't go bankrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
There's no need to destroy the companies. It doesn't take a genius to know the way most tycoons acquired most of those companies wasn't exactly legal. Take them legally away from tycoons and sell them. There are many companies in the US, western Europe, Russia, China... that will want to buy them.
I didn't know that. Still, there's danger when some Ukrainian politicians advocate nato membership, secretly or openly.Quote:
It is written in constitution. Now how does it help us at the moment?
They don't need a foothold, Ukraine is not in South America. You share a huge border. Foothold or no foothold, if they decide to move, there's nothing Ukraine can do to stop them.Quote:
They have them according to 2010 agreement until something about 2048. Now how does it help us at the moment? Instead Russia has a foothold to attack from.
Not if both languages are taught from the first grade of elementary school in all schools in Ukraine.Quote:
Ethnic Russians are not numerous. The vast majority of Russian speakers are ethnic Ukrainians. I won't go into details (if you want me to I can make a special post on linguistic situation, but it is not that simple and maps shown in this thread may be misleading), but officializing Russian as a second language will eventually spell extinction of Ukrainian in many social spheres degrading it to the status of the language of uneducated hicks from the sticks.
Russian army isn't in a much better state, except a small part that is combat ready.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
No country in the world is prepared to fight a war of ww2 proportions.
“It is written in constitution. Now how does it help us at the moment?” Sadly, what is written in Constitution is not what makes the differences. The implementation of it does.
Now, I am against “minorities” (or communities) rights. If you have a “minorities” rights (or a need for them) that is the proof your initial constitution is wrong. No citizens of a Country should be in need of “special measures” to be protected by the law if all citizens are equals in front of the law.
But, in order to make the “minorities” part of a democratic state, first you have to re-assure the “minorities” that they are part of the Country. And when a Nazi bragged about how many Russians, Jews and others he killed, you put him in jail for murder; you don’t offer him a job.
Implementation of universal laws is the key for Citizenship Building, and more your have “special” “minorities” rights, more you are building on sands, especially when the “minority” in your country is a big “majority” on the other side of the border.
NATO will not engage the Russians. They didn’t in Georgia when the Georgian President (once upon a time the Champion of the Free World) started his ethnic Cleansing, thinking he would succeed as the Croatian Tudjman did. And Russia was far weaker than it is now.
NATO armies are now not in shape for a confrontation against a more or less equal enemy. Armed Forces are now stretch so thin that just to launch an offensive needing more than one battalion would take months (can’t be in Afghanistan, fighting the flood and parading at Westminster all the times). And I just imaging German Soldiers sent to the Eastern Front once again, Germany being probably the only Country being able to provide enough foot soldiers for this kind of operation.
Forget about short air campaign, as Russia can retaliate. Even Serbia, completely overpowered, succeeded to attack NATO base in Bosnia, in a sky totally controlled by AWACS.
So what are the options? Strong condemnation of Russia’s move, and err, that is it.
Im guessing it would return political relations to extreme suspision this would hurt Russia in the long run.
“Eh. I say America lets it happen. Let the EU defend its own territorial integrity, preferably with stuff they bought from us.” I would say let USA deal with what they started and pay it with their money. Then we will see how many “revolutions” will start. And US material is not that good any way....
In term of military intervention, the USA certainly doesn’t want to know if the Abrahams are not only good at crushing rusty T55 and militias. In a conflict against Russia, Air Campaign is not an option, as Alaska is not THAT far, and possibly Seattle and other Pacific Towns are in reach, not only to Air Attack, but submarines. So, all former war strategy against enemies unable to retaliate has to be abandoned.
The problem is when you start a war, you can’t decide when and where to stop.
The other problem of course is if USA wants war, it has to be launch from errr, European Territories, which are not that keen on this. The Russian troops are ready, at around 200 km; the US troops are not and are far. Ukraine not being part of NATO, there is no legal obligation to engage the Russian Armies. If fact, there is a lot of good reasons not to.
Thanks to cut and “end of Communism = end of History”, all European Countries dismantled their armies, and kept just “special” forces and specialised Regiments. In France, the new generation of tanks production was just halted as “we don’t need this very costly and ineffective material in the new generation of threats we are now facing”, forgetting that Bin Laden and Terrorism are not a real threat when powerful Armoured Divisions are.
Even don’t want to speak of the cancellation of the 2nd Aircraft Carrier, and the dissolution of Air Squadrons, Infantry Regiments, and destruction of factories producing Assault Rifles and selling of Army Facilities to investors.
In UK, we have an Aircraft carrier; unfortunately we don’t have the planes going on it.
So Europe (even including UK in it) is not ready to fight for a US war: Not militarily, not politically.
Want the SEAL or other “special Forces” will do in front of Armoured Divisions? Die bravely. Can they attack them? No.
“The suggestion that these nations would or could use their paper divisions in anger is laughable on its face. Combat effectiveness was sucked out of these respective militaries a long time ago” Yeap. Not for the second sentence, as the combat effectiveness is quite good, however the design of their mission changed, so they French Army is not able to face this kind of action, as every resources for this kind of war were wrecked by all successive government (starting by abolition of Conscription).
According to Voice of Russia news channel and Andriy Parubiy from Ukrainian security council, Ukraine has today ordered full mobilization of its armed forces. The situation has gone to the extreme. All that needs to happen now is one bad call somewhere locally and the shit will hit the fan. I hope, no i pray that cool heads will prevail and what i am afraid will happen next can be avoided..
It moves the sides apart and reduces tension.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
A neutral force to protect those Russian and Ukrainian peoples and not be a threat of annexing territory.
It should protect the stated interests of all parties without having them place people in harms way.
If we are talking about the current situation at Ukraine. There is a solution. UN needs to send a huge multinational peacekeeping force there in order to cool the situation and prevent open confrontation between Russian and Ukrainian forces. It is pretty much the only chess move left to avoid Russia doing what it can and quite likely will. Once the situation would cool of all sides need to sit in the table and Russia should quite likely get parts of Ukraine, so the Russian interests in the area are secured, after that Ukraine should apply for NATO membership and thus the lines will be solidly drawn in the area.
We should all remember that Russia does not equate with Mordor, but that Russia has been loosing ground on most of its interest areas for quite long and there is only so much the Russian bear can tolerate, without collapsing from inside out and we really do not want that. Even with all the problems and quirks Russia as it is causes. We really do not want Russia to collapse into dozen diibadaabastans, which would create a hot bed of trouble like not seen in long time.
If we look at this in larger scale. What West can do is to re evaluate the situation and understand the real worst scenarios that can happen and stop living in a dream world effected by security consultants who think armed forces should be built according to "trends". USA should think what is really the role they want to have in Global security and what pros and cons their role will give to them.
Europe needs to pull their head out from their behinds and decide what Europe wants to be and act accordingly when it comes to security. For my country Finland.This Ukrainian crisis have clearly shown that we really need to forget already the past wars and understand that we cant fight our possible wars alone and cant remain without choosing which power block we clearly belong.Thus Finland should apply for NATO asap.
From my personal point of view. If in a hypothetical situation Russia would keep expanding to West and invade my country. As much as i like Russians as people. I have taken the pledge to protect my country from enemies outside and i would hold to it. So then it would be the bayonet, until i am dead or those threatening my land and my loved ones.
And now it takes just one bullet on their way to Crimea and the shit hits the fan.
Even if the division of Ukraine would mean long term stability, you can't really expect Ukrainians to agree to that.
The problem with multinational peacekeeping force is that it will hardly be neutral. Who's gonna be in it? Americans, French, Russians, Brits, Germans? Not neutral by a long shot.
Maybe we could invite Chinese and Indian troops, in a delicious spiff of irony.
Germans are incredibly neutral because half of Germany is heated with Russian gas in the winter.
I knew buying Russian gas would have advantages eventually...
Im afraid that Ukraine has just to accept the facts. International politics do not compute right or wrong but necessity. About peacekeepers, yes Asians, Africans, mixed with neutral Europeans like for example Finns, Swedish and Austrians and like you mentioned, this would be perfect chance for China to take the Global spotlight in positive way, while India could join in as it has very good relations with Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
This still can be avoided. It does not look good, but the chips have not yet fallen.
Well, it seems to be looking more like a world war all the time.:shame:
Apparently Russia just wants the Ukrainians to establish the government that was agreed on in the talks around Feb. 21st.
Meanwhile the government apparently consists of different people who seized power through the revolution while the west distracts from the issue with alarmist propaganda about supposedly russian aggression...
There are simply some pro-russian areas as we established earlier and since they're not happy with the new anti-russian government, they took to the streets themselves. I don't see how that is Russia's fault or constitutes an invasion because someone thinks the people on some photograph "look a little too professional". The cold war mentality is still alive in the west...
Whether Russia actually has a right to protect Russian citizens in Ukraine is debatable though given their numbers and why they are there in the first place. It's not too different from the USA planting US Marines in allied countries to act upon "attacks on US soldiers" however.
Oh and this picture is awesome because it looks like they're getting ready to enter "the zone": http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/...-videowebl.jpg
Ah here come on now Russia has troops on the ground seizing Crimea already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Hus, if you are referring to the troops operating yesterday at Crimea without insignia. Anyone with eye for such can recognize they were Russian regulars. No paramilitary forces are so well equipped and acting so calmly.
Ukraine has just moments a go closed her airspace.
Peacekeepers do not work that way, sadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
First of all, peacekeepers have only appeared post-conflict. Sending "peacekeepers" into an on-going one is a recipe for disaster.
reports are coming out that local Ukrainian comanders and there troops are refusing to surrendar there arms and bases in Crimea.
This is the most delicate phase now as there apparently big scuffles outside Feodosia marine base.
Their uniforms look a lot like those of the Ukrainian military in the picture I linked above. IIRC the local government of the Crimean peninsula was very much against the government takeover and may have asked for Russian help to secede. Since it is the democratically elected government of the Crimeans and Ukraine cannot beat them in a civil war if they get Russian help, the new government of Ukraine will just have to accept the secession.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Also love this comment:
:laugh4:Quote:
Can't speak for the Russians but personally as an American I would love to leave Old Europe to your own fate. The problem though is your Politics are so screwed up you keep dragging the US back in.
I feel the need to remind you Communism and Socialism are the gifts to the world born in Europe. Capitalism and Democracy improved in the US are our gifts to the World.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...f-Ukraine.html
When deployed successfully it is exactly how they work. Get your mind off from Yugoslavia and take a look at Suez, Lebanon or Darfur just to mention few deployments.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Dont look at their camouflage, but their coms, weapons and carrying systems. Here you have a pic from the guys at Crimea:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Attachment 12373
Compare to your pic of the Ukrainians from today. These guys have ballistic vests, composite helmets, radios and carrying AK-74 with tactical sights, compared of the AK 47´s of Ukrainians.
Also, where would you draw the boundary? Having a third party decide the boundaries have proven to be disastrous in Korea, Vietnam, in African nations and in the Middle East.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
True. Boundaries are tricky. However, repopulations are nothing new. The Russians for one are very good at them. The Turks and Greeks did a land exchange after WWI with hundreds of thousands moving from one country to another. There are ways.
In terms of non-violent solutions - Russia could switch off the gas. But Ukraine could switch off the power and water from Crimea, and leave the russian black sea fleet with no electricity. I reckon a 2 hour power outage across the whole of Crimea would calm things down significantly, to be honest. There ain't no revolution without twitter these days.
The helmets of the Ukrainians look just the same, the vests are very thin and how you can make out the exact nature of their weapons is a mystery to me. They look like AK family guns and the magazines are a little different but such things often vary even within units.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
I leave it to you to decide if you think i know or not what i am talking about.:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
You have been in the army, I have never seen a gun from inside, that's not even a contest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Just consider me amazed by your abilities. :bow:
Other details not with standing both lots are in Russian camo anyway aren't they?
We should sent the photos to McCain to analyze. He's great when it comes to looking people in the eyes and seeing their motives and affiliations.
Yes. Both armies have similar camo variants and once the Ukrainian reservist are equipped we will be seeing lot of good ole Soviet looking guys in the pics, with older camo type and quite likely green metal helmets. I bet identification can be very problematic for both sides on several occasions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catiline
Peacekeepers could be an option.
It would be nice to see them used as a war prevention tool.
The difficulty is convincing both side more is to be gained from sitting/talking/negotiating than from armed conflict.
While the stakes/benefits might seem clear from an external viewpoint is the Ukraine really going to enter an agreement which effectively cuts it into pieces? Would Russia forgo its trump card of force?
Putin knows that the US and EU are governed by feckless and cowardly administrations. If you were an early 20th century Russian dictator living in the modern age, wouldn't you invade sovereign nations when you could do it with impunity? It's no wonder that China is attempting to define itself as the hegemon in the S China Sea. Once it is able to do so, the US will shrink at every provocation and roll over. The US government has become good only at targeting it's own citizens and has lost it's grip on the world. Let's see how much better off the world becomes for it. Wait, didn't we spend countless years and treasure to target one guy in central Asia? Brilliant foreign policy when sovereign nations are being invaded.
The US should begin encouraging or threatening to encourage secession within Tartaristan, Dagestan, and Chechnya. Remove some organizations from the terror list. I believe that we should push for independence everywhere, especially where it compromises the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation and China.
"If you were an early 20th century Russian dictator living in the modern age, wouldn't you invade sovereign nations when you could do it with impunity?" Do you mean like in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya? Of course, you will have to change Russian dictator by Modern and Alive Democracies, and add in agreement with UN decisions...:laugh4:
Energy is not a Russian trump card.
If Russia ever cuts the oil in a conflict or near-conflict situation, they will lose it as a source of revenue permanently, unless they agree to whatever disadvantageous terms the East-Asian states are willing to offer.
Don't forget that Europe is sitting on a huge bed of natural gas. They will exploit it if forced to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
You know, I thing the West, and the rest of the world, should be looking for solutions that defuse the situation. Preferably while maintaining Ukrainian territorial integrity.
Not getting into further difficulties. Forcing anyone into a corner or launching propaganda campaigns to make them look like beasts is not going to do that.
Russia may be overly aggressive in the actions they took. Taking a cold but firm stance that offers them an out without losing face. Russia was guarding its interests while using an excuse that has worked before.
Heated rhetoric is not going to make them back down and further drawing lines or taking a polarized view is not going to get the reaction you are looking for, that is unless it is more tension leading to larger confrontation.
They could work that way though - it requires a binding UN resolution, though, and Russia has a veto.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Putin is testing to see how far he can go before NATO reacts, especially America. As the Head of NATO the US should be taking the lad here, but comment has been strongest so far from Kerry, not Obama.
This is unlikely to result in WWIII - it could become a shooting war over Ukraine, but that would likely be a larger version of the Falklands war, essential an arm-wristle between NATO and Russia until one side concedes. Long Term - comment by the American here suggest America will revert to type and leave Europe to burn, until it realises it really SHOULD do something, thus triggering WWIII.
As far as I'm concerned, worst case scenario is WWIII, and whether that happens depends on whether the US is willing to face down Russia or not - if it is not Putin may conclude he can overpower Europe and start shooting.
Looking at this news article, things are really hotting up.
Russia is getting threatened to be kicked out of G8.
The UK has joined the US, France and Canada in suspending preparations for the Sochi summit.
Nato is conducting emergency talks, saying Russia's actions threaten "peace and security in Europe".
US President Barack Obama called Russian troop deployments a "violation of Ukrainian sovereignty".
"[President Putin] has just seen his man, in effect, [Viktor] Yanukovych, overthrown by what he sees as a Western instigated revolt. He [Putin] is determined to maintain Russian influence in Ukraine as a whole, and he has now taken Crimea... hostage"
"You just don't in the 21st Century behave in 19th Century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext," Mr Kerry told the CBS program Face the Nation
"He may find himself with asset freezes, on Russian business. American business may pull back, there may be a further tumble of the rouble."
Unconfirmed reports of Russian soldiers along with militia assaulting the Regional Border Control HQ
That's it.
Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Yeah, when you say there are WMDs then there....oh wait, never mind.
Are you serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
CR
....And the UN peacekeepers in Suez, Lebanon and Darfur entered while the crisis was ongoing...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
We tried to send peacekeepers while Darfur was hot. It failed because a peacekeeping mission requires an invitation, which it didn't get until things cooled down.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26405082Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
BBC Monitoring - between 1603-1607.
Personally, I don't understand why those idiots thought it was a good idea to try to overthrow the elected government. However bad it is and however corrupt, the generally understood rules of the democratic game is that, after an election, you're stuck with whoever your country elected until the next set of elections where you can change your mind. If you abandon those rules, you shouldn't have any complaint about where you end up.
That would be like ISAF without Enduring Freedom. How could that work in Ukraine?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Thanks for the link. It is still hazy as the news have not been promoted in any other medias. We do not know if the "storming" was an actual use of force or again unidentified troops seizing an key loacation like they have done for days on already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Are you just playing thick today Horetore? The basic idea how peacekeepers are deployed is so they are deployed between possibly hostile forces, thus helping to neutralize the situation. The worst thing that can happen now is that someone fires a shot and anything to diminish that possibility will help. The operations in Afghanistan have little to nothing to do with normal peacekeeping operations as the coalition is fighting an insisting armed rising of toppled ex government of Afghanistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Or alternatively, the "pro-Europe" side tested things first by unilaterally overthrowing the pro-Russian government, which, however corrupt, was elected. Russia stood by election results when they weren't favourable. When they were favourable, their side should have had the opportunity to cash in, until the next lot of elections when they could be thrown out again by a disgruntled electorate. If we felt fair elections weren't likely to be possible, we should have pushed diplomatically to redress the conditions. The riots weren't the right way to go about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
That mission is called Enduring Freedom. ISAF's mission was simply to protect Karzai's government from being whacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Peacekeepers have a good record on lowering tensions in post-conflict areas(with the occasional hiccup in the form of a genocide or two). Deploying such a force in a potentially explosive conflict is something else, and something which has not been done before(if you discount ISAF). What would be its mandate? When would it intervene? Would it require a shot fire, a shell fired or a tank rolling before they intervened? Should it be pre-emptive or only reactive? Should it side with one of the sides if the situation escalates, or should it form an independent faction?
All in all, there are way too many unanswered questions for what a peacekeeping force in the Ukraine could do right now that it would be impossible to avoid becoming the screw-up of the decade.
Lol! What kind of peace forcing mission would you like to deploy to solve the current crisis in Ukraine? How does that apply to the current crisis?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I have two words for you "Police Sniper"Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The president ordered the deaths of protesters, then fled the Capital.
His "ousting" was a mere formality.
Edit: The Head of the Navy has defected: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26410431
Crap, Crap, Crap.
I wouldn't want to deploy any kind of peacekeeping force, that's kinda my point. A few gunboats in the black sea might be useful, but that carries the risk that if something happens we are forced to intervene.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
You are entitled to your opinion. You just want to stay clear from the crisis and hope for the best. That has little to do with your original statement that peace keeping operations are not for situations like this. But thank you for the clarification.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Newly appointed head of the Ukrainian navy defects to Crimea. His statement:
Quote:
"I, Berezovsky Denys Valentynovych, pledge allegiance to the residents of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the hero city of Sevastopol. I vow to strictly follow orders from the commander-in-chief of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and hero city of Sevastopol, as well as orders by military commanders appointed by them, demands placed by the military code. I vow to fulfil my military duty properly and bravely defend the life and property of the people of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol."
Then let them do what they feel is right, and let them handle the consequences as well. Same with the president they overthrew. I suspect what Russia really wants is a stable set of rules to play by, with no unexpected changes, and certainly not against them. Democratic elections with the government remaining in place for the duration of their term would be as good as a Russian puppet government. What is not good is a democratic government with the chance of turning against Russia at any given moment. Unpredictable in a direction that they don't want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
What absolute nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
It seems Crimea is now more secure for the Russians. Interesting to see what his troops will do.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
That quote is so evil on a Orwell scale that it might just have made my day...
I don't know what saddens me most... That he think the USAnian population is so stupid they accept quotes like that, or that the USAnian population actually is so stupid that they accept quotes like that.
Having a bad day HoreTore? You have already shown that you have no idea how actual peacekeeping missions work as your knowledge of them is based solely on Afghanistan which has little to nothing to do with ordinary operations which just dont get such media attention. You are making blanket statements and we should just take it by face value? Ok, lets play the game, please elaborate how deploying peacekeepers would make the situation worse?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Based on the number of unfounded assumptions made in this post, I have no desire to respond.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Oh well, at least you don't come off as a petulant child..Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Did the army try to recruit you to any of the 3 peacekeeping missions you mentioned, Kage? Do you personally know anyone who were a part of those missions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
I can answer yes to both of those(Darfur and Suez). Where you got the idea that I know only of Afghanistan is plain nonsense, and such statements do not form a foundation for further discussion.
From what little I've been able to understand, most of the officers in the armed forces are pro-Russian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
It's definitely getting more chaotic by the minute.
I totally support the right of people to overthrow their government in a popular revolution. The problem here, is that the revolution was only semi-popular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Yes and yes. I had the possibility to join the Kansainälinen valmiusjoukko, which sends most of Finnish peacekeepers to operations. My brother in law is a peacekeeper and have made couple tours to Lebanon.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I made my assumptions based on your posts. First you claimed that peacekeepers cant be used to prevent an situation from escalating, but only in the aftermath of conflict, which is simply rubbish. Then you posted that any peacekeeping mission would need a peace forcing mission before hand, which is rubbish also. Maybe i cant read between the lines of your posts, or you do not explain your statements very clearly?
Extreme selective reading here, I would say. The first claim is a simple misunderstanding; I said that a peacekeeping mission isn't sent in when it is hot, as it has never been done. Ie. in the middle of an ongoing war. It can of course be used to prevent a situation from escalating, that's the reason they are there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Where you got the idea that I believe a peacekeeping force needs to follow a mission to enforce the peace I'm not sure. That only rarely happens, and did not happen in any of the three missions you stated.
Further, your claim that since I do not see the benefit of sending a peacekeeping force in I simply wish to "hope for the best" is pure rubbish. There are plenty of alternatives other than "do nothing" and "send in some troops".
If they want the right to overthrow a government through popular revolution, they can accept the responsibility of consequences that goes with it. The basic rule of a democracy is that, post-election, the country is left with the government that was elected, until the time comes for another election. If you decide that rule is unsatisfactory, then negotiations can take place for a substitute set of rules. During this interregnum, your neighbours may decide to have a hand in deciding the new set of rules. But you shouldn't have any complaint, as it was your choice to abandon those rules in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
As serious as Mister Kerry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Well yeah, there is also not much of a Ukrainian army on the Crimean peninsula because the government of the Crimean peninsula turned all ukrainian soldiers on the peninsula into crimean soldiers two days ago. Why did they do that? Because they were not happy with the revolution and do not want to support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The only one making a big fuss about all of this are Westerners who think a pro-western revolution of ~50% of the population has to be a good thing simply because it's pro-west and against the evil russian empire. That doesn't mean that I liked Yanoukovich, it just means that when 51% of Ukrainians elected him ,what gives the other 49% the right to overthrow him? It's no wonder that the country is full of corruption because that's a corrupt way of thinking.
Exactly. While I fully support the ideas of the revolutionaries in general, their way of getting there leaves a very bad taste and wasn't the right way to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
As Pannonian says, that's what elections are for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
This is your original post:
This is the one you are referring to Afghanistan:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Either we are assessing the situation very differently but from your first one i got the expression that you do not think peacekeepers as viable option. In my opinion using them now could possibly deter the situation from becoming "hot" at any point.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
From the second i understood that you thought that in your view a peace forcing mission would be needed before peacekeeping mission, with your reference to Afghanistan. Maybe we are simply misunderstanding each other, but i want to make clear that in my opinion peacekeeping mission now could very well be viable option in order to avoid the conflict turning "hot".
IMO, the situation is already hot, or at the very least will be before such a force can be mustered and deployed. The "Rapid" in RDF's is, of course, rather misleading... Moreover, the peacekeeping missions so far have happened with the acceptance of the parties of the conflict(excluding the unofficial ones). How do you propose to get Putin to agree to international troops in the Crimea...? You could go on without Putin's approval, but that leads us to the next point:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
"ISAF without Enduring Freedom" doesn't mean ISAF won't work without Enduring Freedom. "Without" simply means exclude Enduring Freedom from the equation altogether, both its goals and its consequences. I don't make a general claim that ISAF needed an Enduring Freedom. Rather, I suggest that pvc's proposal would look like an ISAF operation without the need for an accompanying Enduring Freedom operation, and I question what good that would do in Ukraine.
This is one of the strangest threads in a while. The speculation on a potential shooting war between the CIS and NATO is a real laugh, and something I'd expect to hear from a middle-aged Midwesterner, not liberal Europeans. Putin has everything to gain by simply waiting for things to proceed in his favor, rather than starting a pointless conflict in which everyone stands to lose.
If Ukraine outright joins NATO tomorrow, Putin will simply effectuate the secession of Eastern Ukraine; "rump" Ukraine will end as an inconsequential economic cripple and will be of no threat to Russian interests ever again.
The alternative of course being a resolution to the crisis in the form of tolerable new elections followed by a steady slide into the same Russia-dominated oligarchy that we've seen for the past 20 years.
All in all, very predictable. Leave the Cold-War era fantasies out of it.
Thank you for the clarifications. About the situation. The situation is "hot" only after the first shot and so far it has not happened. The Russian troops in Crimea have coordinated the takeover there very professionally and i am quite sure that there is actually large reluctance on both sides to open fire against each other. Russians and Ukrainians dont exactly hate each other at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
About the possible operation. It should have full UN mandate and that means that Russia has to accept it. I am certain that there is no real wish for Russia to engage, if they dont see it as absolutely last option. How they have behaved so far shows it quite clearly. If Russia could be convinced by the UN that they will be offered a real starting point for the negotiations. I think they just might accept the mission, if it consisted of troops that they would see as not backing certain power block. I think someone ought to bring this up in UN and fast rather then individual countries and NATO making aggressive statements towards Russia.
To me the most important thing is to avoid things getting out of hand. It will be hard, but it can be achieved.
That is all true, but who in Ukraine is ready to end the status quo now in effect by making a deal? That person will commit political suicide, and possibly a real one. The other question is how will the protesters, and especially, the militant arm, react? The proposal for new government was first given to them to approve, before it was taken to the parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The longer the status quo is in effect, the more danger something will go wrong. The only ones in Ukraine that would jump to respond to the call for mobilization will be far-right, anti-Russian organizations and their supporters. It might take only a few bullets by a single company to light up this powder keg.
Except that the majority of the Rada voted to impeach the President and the first people to deploy troops were the Russians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
If, after the May 25th elections the Crimea was to demand greater autonomy, or even secession, then the West would likely support that. However - the fact is that, from what we know, the ex-President ordered the paramilitary Berkut Police to shoot protesters with sniper rifles, then fled, then was impeached, then the Russians invaded.
So the Russian-backed stooge screws up, then the Russians invade.
The opposition has a lot of answer for, mostly for screwing up in-office and letting Yanoukovich back in, but it's still RUSSIA who are the aggressors here.
If that's the case, why can't we give them a bunch of AK-74s and an agreed on battlefield and call it natural selection?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
If only the world would work like that.~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Rapid admission to NATO with mutual defense treaties for Ukraine is a way to prevent further aggression. Additionally, NATO should begin building a Black Sea response fleet on newly acquired maritime borders.
That is a highly simplified and fairly inaccurate version of the events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
No more simplistic than Putins shenanigans since the begining of this crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
This is quite simply his crisis