Ukraine-in-a-thread

[gaelic cowboy]

Really, how do you justify this kind of opinion? I understand that a country A has strategic interests to ally country B, that their level of trust is high, they may share some other similarities, have a history of cooperation and so on and so forth, but if a country A acts like country C, how can you label one a "cop" and the other a "gangster"?

What's the rationale behind it?

Simple because the USA has real elections and Russia has sham ones.

[Sarmatian]

Because purposefully inducing famine and drought is actually encouraged?

[Husar]

Anyway when a bully stands up to a bully beating up someone weaker, which one is right?

Certainly not the weakling going by typical US-rhetoric. The weakling is at fault himself for not having worked hard enough to stay on top and defend himself. If two bullies are fighting, I like to not choose sides, but since this forum is full of people biased one way, I decided to argue the other way instead of joining the circlejerk.

Putin caught Ukraine during a weak moment and we still do not know what he wants. He made a clever move and noone is willing to strongly oppose him over it. How is that different from sending drones and killer commandos into sovereign nations to kill people there? Oh yeah, Putin did it all without shedding any Ukrainian blood.

I can fully understand the Ukrainians and Crimeans who do not want to join Russia, but maybe they will have to move, not the first time this happens. If the US were to start a war over this, noone would be better off for it.

Simple because the USA has real elections and Russia has sham ones.

How is a country better if the people actually support their leaders in breaking international law and state-sanctioned murder?

[Fisherking]

I heard the same thing about US sponsored Kosovo. Then the fact the US propped up Saddam and all those other tyrants and dictators across the world from South America to Africa, to Middle East and Asia.

The problem is that the US look like big hypocrites and that is a realist position, they are also in a position similar to Russia in the past where they can not act.

Crimea like Kosovo for the Serbs/Russians cannot be won.

What can I say. Kosovo was the most wrong-headed think I ever saw.

I said at the time it was like illegals taking Texas and the UN attacking the US because they didn’t want to let it go.

Nice to bring up what all the past leaders did too. Blame the people for the actions of various politicians. They do change.

Remember Cromwell? Remember the Irish famine or the Seapoy Rebellion? Remember Colonialism, the Boer War? You have a long history of hypocrisy. We learned form you. Pot-Kettle-Black.

Different leaders with different goals and policies. The danger is Russia grabs Crimea or other parts of Ukraine, its going to be hell to stop them ( the US) from going into Syria on some humanitarian pretext.

This may be a weak willed administration but it is vindictive and ruthless all the same. You give them an excuse for a war now and Congress will be a bunch of lapdogs for them. We’ll all have WWIII at this rate.

[Husar]

How would Russia lose by shutting down the Ukrainian pipeline?

They've done it all by themselves before and the only ones who suffered were a lot of Eastern Europeans who begged them to turn it on again because they were freezing in their homes.

[gaelic cowboy]

Well it seems like Russia considers Crimea indispensable to her strategic interests, that is to put it mildly a massive joke.

At the stroke of a pen a large Russian population will leave Ukraine and basically never again will a pro moscow candidate get in.

Russia loses a larger influence in Ukraine proper for a naval base they already had, a naval baser they could easy replace (with oil money)

Short term Russia looks strong but Long term this is a setback for Russian attempts to influence Ukraine.

[Sarmatian]

Simple because the USA has real elections and Russia has sham ones.

Are you kidding me? The USA is, for all intents and purposes, a presidential dictatorship. There are few countries in the world (not counting countries like North Korea) where there's so much power concentrated in the hands of one person. Not to mention that they have basically a single party system, where you vote for one or the other faction. You want an isolationist USA, like GC mentions often? Sorry, no such option exists. You get to vote for faction A that specializes in invading countries in Europe and Middle East or the faction B which specializes in Asia and Africa? South America is not negotiable.

I agree with the second part of your sentence, though.

[gaelic cowboy]

How is a country better if the people actually support their leaders in breaking international law and state-sanctioned murder?

how is that what im talking about.

Russia is a gangster state run by a paranoid former kgb.

USA is many things but your allowed to burn pictures of Obama every day if ye llike.

[Beskar]

At the stroke of a pen a large Russian population will leave Ukraine and basically never again will a pro moscow candidate get in.

Under a different lens, Moscow felt like they already lost to the Kiev revolution and just going for grabs to get the most of what it can get from Ukraine.

[Sarmatian]

Well it seems like Russia considers Crimea indispensable to her strategic interests, that is to put it mildly a massive joke.

At the stroke of a pen a large Russian population will leave Ukraine and basically never again will a pro moscow candidate get in.

Russia loses a larger influence in Ukraine proper for a naval base they already had, a naval baser they could easy replace (with oil money)

Short term Russia looks strong but Long term this is a setback for Russian attempts to influence Ukraine.

Even though I'm not an expert on naval bases (to put it mildly), there are areas particularly suitable for a base. I'm guessing there are reasons why Crimea is important in the regard.

Crimea's population is actually less than 4% of the Ukraine's population so it certainly doesn't change the overall ratio much. Pro-Russian parties will either form the government or be the strongest opposition party. Key regions in Ukraine will still be dominated by pro-Russian parties.

I believe Moscow decided Ukraine isn't a stable partner and is very susceptible to western meddling, so it decided that taking Crimea and returning to the tug of war is the safer option.

[gaelic cowboy]

delete

[Beskar]

dont gimme that yer talking about Putin here he is a bloody dictator in all but name. (he is also the only one invading Ukraine)

I think you misread slightly, Sarmatian was agreeing that the elections in Russia were a sham. He was simply saying the USA doesn't really have 'real' ones too.

[gaelic cowboy]

didnt tymeshenko lose by 4% in a divided pro western camp? that sounds to me like a lock on elections for them

[gaelic cowboy]

delete

[Sarmatian]

didnt tymeshenko lose by 4% in a divided pro western camp? that sounds to me like a lock on elections for them

If we accept that all voting is done on ethnic lines, then they lose 2/3 of 4% as the rest are Ukrainians and Tatars, so overall it's 2.66%. Enough to lose you an election but not a huge game changer like you mentioned. It certainly doesn't mean that "never again will a pro moscow candidate get in".

[rvg]

Because purposefully inducing famine and drought is actually encouraged?

The price of freedom. There's won't be any famine though, this isn't Serbia or any other 3rd world country. No worries.

[Brenus]

“This can also be subject to change.” What I like is your deep knowledge of international affairs. Now, you will have to go to research on the reason why the Israelis launched the 6 days war: Clue: the Syrian wanted the control the Euphrates River in building a dam and controlled the springs of the Golan. So it is a REASON to go to war, and you, de facto, give Putin reason of intervention (pre-emptive strikes ring a bell?)

“At the stroke of a pen a large Russian population will leave Ukraine and basically never again will a pro moscow candidate get in.” Ethnic Cleansing? So Putin is right, he is actually protecting the Russian Minority… And I thought it was a fight for democracy and freedom…

"this isn't Serbia" And Geography is not your strongest point (see Danube, Voivodina).

[rvg]

Okay, so Serbs were wronged in Kosovo and Ukrainians will be wronged in Crimea. The adequate US response should include annexing Ontario from Canada. Clearly, this should make the world a better place.

[gaelic cowboy]

“At the stroke of a pen a large Russian population will leave Ukraine and basically never again will a pro moscow candidate get in.” Ethnic Cleansing? So Putin is right, he is actually protecting the Russian Minority… And I thought it was a fight for democracy and freedom…

EH?? what are you on about.

Once Crimea vote on secession it means a large chunck of the russian population in the Ulraine live in russia and not ukraine anymore.

So basically yer readin too much into it

[Ironside]

Are you kidding me? The USA is, for all intents and purposes, a presidential dictatorship. There are few countries in the world (not counting countries like North Korea) where there's so much power concentrated in the hands of one person. Not to mention that they have basically a single party system, where you vote for one or the other faction. You want an isolationist USA, like GC mentions often? Sorry, no such option exists. You get to vote for faction A that specializes in invading countries in Europe and Middle East or the faction B which specializes in Asia and Africa? South America is not negotiable.

I agree with the second part of your sentence, though.

The difference is quite easy to tell. When was Putin predicted to win the latest presidential election? When Medvedev became president.

When was Obama predicted to win the 2008 election? Chosen because re-elections got better prediction power. I don't remember exactly when the polling started to get close to the results, but say a week ahead of election day or something like that. Predicting it 4 years ahead? Pretty much impossible.

The US isn't the finest example of good elections, but they do have real ones.

[Brenus]

“The danger is Russia grabs Crimea or other parts of Ukraine, its going to be hell to stop them ( the US) from going into Syria on some humanitarian pretext.” That was the danger the US and Allies took in taking Kosovo from Serbia, against the treaty they signed in Paris.
It was possible only because Russia was too weak to react.
Well, tables turned and now we have the situation in Ukraine. The ones who encouraged the Ukrainian to take power immediately should have learned history. They remind me the German Intelligence Committee organising the return of Lenin in Russia during the WW1: Plan worked very well, a bit too well. Why didn’t respect the Polish Plan? Transition government, elections, ejection of the former president, national government then austerity measures imposed by IMF and EU that would have made Greece looked like a paradise, job done.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are you kidding me? The USA is, for all intents and purposes, a presidential dictatorship. There are few countries in the world (not counting countries like North Korea) where there's so much power concentrated in the hands of one person. Not to mention that they have basically a single party system, where you vote for one or the other faction. You want an isolationist USA, like GC mentions often? Sorry, no such option exists. You get to vote for faction A that specializes in invading countries in Europe and Middle East or the faction B which specializes in Asia and Africa? South America is not negotiable.

I agree with the second part of your sentence, though.

Ultimately though, people vote. The fact that they vote affects the candidates the parties put forward.

If Obama were an elected Dictator, Congress would have to pass his budget - it doesn't.

[HoreTore]

Presidential dictatorship?

Yeah, he really did push through that healthcare reform like a proper dictator.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you give infantry a reason to attack with Bayonets, they'll do it.

That's because there's an NCO behind them and the enemy in front.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Once the great powers sit down and talk, it will be alright. After all, the Sudetanland...er, sorry, the Crimea, is a small price to pay for peace in our time.

[Sarmatian]

The price of freedom. There's won't be any famine though, this isn't Serbia or any other 3rd world country. No worries.

Oh, thank you for the explanation, Mr. First World American!

[Brenus]

"So basically yer readin too much into it" I read what was was written.

[Myth]

The price of freedom. There's won't be any famine though, this isn't Serbia or any other 3rd world country. No worries.

[Myth]

The moment I see more than two parties in the USA, and ones who are not carbon copies of each other and the moment I see someone standing up to the corporations and bankers I'd say the USA has a real election system.

Healthcare reforms - who gives a crap? The power and money are still in the same hands and that hasn't changed. Lobbyist laws are passed without fail. They forced farmers to smear the cancerogenic bovine growth hormone gel on cow udders for over a decade because it suited the interests of the pharmaceutical companies making it. It took them over a decade to reverse the law and remove this travesty. That's just one example of how un-democratic the USA is. The people are ignorant and CNN tells them how good milk with BGH is, so they are removed as a factor, and the competent organizations and the lawmakers are bought and paid for.

Where are Saddam's chemical weapons? How's that Patriot Act going for US democracy? Yeah.

I like the regular people there, and I admire that they have still managed to retain their right to bear arms (though this is systematically being attacked), but their government is far from a democracy. You can burn pictures of Obama all day long but when Monsanto comes to sue your small private farm for using their GMO seeds due to cross pollination you'll see how democratic it truly is.

[Gilrandir]

They only make up roughly 10% of the population, so if they are going for the 51% rule and 60% of the population are classified as 'Russians' by Ukraine census, they do not really have much chance if the 'Russian' population are unanimous in their support.

Tatars - 14%, Russians - 58%, most of the rest are Ukrainians who mostly do not feel Ukrainians and have become in most views like Russians calling themselves (together with Russians) Slavic population of the Crimea as opposed to Tatars.