It's not what you think it is. Obama would say he is receiving a "trust me, all's OK" sign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Printable View
It's not what you think it is. Obama would say he is receiving a "trust me, all's OK" sign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
What a stupid thing to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
We are ever grateful for your help just like I would hope you are grateful for ours. This has nothing to do with 73 years ago though and I'm sure people are sick of the we won the war crap by now. It's just that sort of mentality that backs up shallow stereotypes and I don't want that for my American friends that I respect immensely.
I don't know if it is that stupid. America did pretty well for itself by staying out of WW2 as long as it did; just as it did staying out of WW1 as long as it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Going to war it perhaps the ultimate demonstration of the broken window fallacy. Sure you increase production and it does act as a major stimulus to an economy but the opportunity cost of war is also massive.
In fact, it might have made sense for Britain to avoid WW1 for precisely the same reason.
I'm pretty sure that most nations in this current crisis don't want to go to war either. The problem is though that as it stands, Russia is demanding the surrender of Ukraine forces in Crimea. That implies that Russia already has gone to war even without a single shot being fired.
Not a stupid thing to say at all. Just a way to point out that sometimes you have to step up and do the right thing. The US did the correct thing in getting involved in WWII and no regrets here. History might have been different though if England and France had drawn a line in the sand a bit earlier. Allowing Hitler his early successes was a major error; one that all should reflect on when dealing with situations like the current one.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
I have no idea what all the hoopla is about. This is a EURO deal and Obama bless his heart is not going to raise a hand. You guys are sucking on the gas pipe so you will do nothing. So the Ukraine returns to russia. Maybe that is a good deal. I don't much care for Obama but he is doing very well so far on this deal. Fcuking John McCain's head may blow off over this deal ha ha. You guys have to figure out where to draw the line not us. We will help you screw over the ruble if you want to but I doubt that because you have no gas without Putin. So just give it up and turn on the heater. I will take one of the women if that will help :)
I guess it may be, at least for about the third of it's "Russian" population, who are more afraid of the Swoboda than of Putin...Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
A lot has changed in 73 years though. WW2 was a situation where we couldn't have won it without American help and you couldn't have won it without us, but that is the thing, it was won. That is very different to modern history to which I think demonstrates the shortfalls of jumping in. There is a lot of debate about whether Vietnam was in fact a success, however both the recent conflicts (Iraq, Afghanistan) have most people believing it was a complete waste of time and money. I can't imagine what the families of lost troops feel. We achieved very little in the grand scheme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Anyway back on topic, I don't feel Russia want a war any more than we do. We seem to have this perception that Russians are war mongers, when in reality they are totally the opposite. I just hope a peaceful resolution can be found in this latest flashpoint.
I got rolling eyes from a rabid right winger when I suggested that the current Ukraine situation had no side with which the EU should ally.Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
Your point about the Swoboda is spot on, viz the first line of the Wiki entry on the organisation. 'The party was founded in 1991 as the Social-National Party of Ukraine' .
Whichever way you place 'national' and 'social' in a phrase it still equals the same thing! As Dr Johnson said 'there is no determining the precedence between a louse and a flea.
Having a fascist-run state on your doorstep is still a pretty emotive issue for Russians.
You think government ministers would have learned by now that you don't walk into No.10 with uncovered documents as the press outside *will* be able to read them*. Anyway it turns out that the UK position is that we aren't prepared to do anything, even sanctions.
*It's also a sure fire way to deliberately leak information without making any official statement.
As weird as this sounds:Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/modest-pr ... 25357.html
Verleger argues that the millions of barrels of oil in SPR are far beyond any needed reserve, given the rapid increase in U.S. production. And selling the oil at around $100 a barrel would add about $10 billion to U.S. revenues in fiscal year 2015.
The Russians, of course, could counter with higher prices for natural gas shipped to Western Europe or by threatening to cut off natural gas shipments altogether. Western Europe's dependence on Russian natural gas supplies -- most of which flow through pipelines in Ukraine -- has visibly muted the eurozone's response to Russia's military move into the Crimea. But cutting back on or cutting off natural gas supplies to Europe only makes Russia's revenue problems worse.
Without energy revenues, the country's finances would be in a shambles. The ruble has already touched a five-year low against the dollar, making Russia's financial difficulties that much worse.
At the rate of around 200 million barrels a year, the United States could continue to pump crude into global markets for more than three years. The Russian economy could not stand the pain, which may bring it to the bargaining table, or it may cause Putin to behave like a cornered wolf. Flooding the crude market is not risk-free, but it probably deserves a thorough examination and public debate.
- via Yahoo Finance, 4th Mar 2013
Briliant!
Flood the market with cheap oil and gas - Russia finds that the money it doesn't get from oil and gas reserves cripples its economy - America wins by drawing down some of its debt or at very least, helping the budget deficit - cheaper pump prices.
This is the ultimate four-way play. Not even Eric Bruntlett of the Phillies could pull off that one. :D
You might want to reconsider this statement after looking at which countries the Russians have intervened in militarily since the breakdown of the USSR, and the longer list of countries that they've threatened to intervene in. It should be noted that Russian military intervention has often received fairly broad backing from the Russian populace.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
I've reconsidered my viewpoint but haven't changed my mind.
Heard that in the Russian Federation access to websites about Ukrainian protests are blocked.
The benefits of immigration and "assimilation" shown once again.Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
Everyone knows the people on the political left are a bunch idiots, but then there is the creme de la creme. Those are the ones who keep on going about fascism and seeing every right wing party as being fascist. The most overused word in the arsenal of the left-wingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintexmemory
As for Svoboda, they are very much anti-communist and have the right ideas in most aspects. If it was between Svoboda and Russia, then the choice for Europe should be more than obvious.
:laugh:Quote:
Having a fascist-run state on your doorstep is still a pretty emotive issue for Russians.
You want fascist? Look no further than Russia itself with its brainwashed people.
How very sad, but then again, UK has been a pathetic shadow of a real country for a while now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
It is a simple thing really. Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Russia have sent troops into Ukraine and ordered Ukraine's military to surrender. This is purely and simply an act of war, there is no glossing over it by saying that some of the Crimea residents are of Russian origin. Russia are in the wrong.
It would be akin to New Zealand invading Sydney and demanding Australia lay down their arms, simply because we don't like the way ex-pat Kiwis are being treated by the Austtralian government.
It is time the UN inserted themselves between the Russians and the Ukranian forces, rather than standing on the sidelines. ... Yes I know the UN is a toothless entity, but at least it would show that the civilised world will not put up with bullying
Isn't that just called Bondi Beach bro'? Bondi is choice and sweet as. You know I can't grab your ghost chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by anfield5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Wow Rollo, didn't realise youz knew Kiwiistic langage, I am seriously impressed. As for the ghost chips add, it makes my skin crawl. :)
1. or Sweden invading Åland or Nyland and Österbotten too protect the Swedish speaking majority inQuote:
Originally Posted by anfield5
those regions if we would feel that they are being threatened by violent Finnish speaking minorities
also living there. Although that almost happened about 100 years ago which is known as the Åland crisis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_crisis
So Finnish people We Want those regions back!!!! Give it to us or else we'll deport Carl Bildt, Beatrice Ask
and Annie Lööf to Finland and be aware they are very good at creating a mess out of a country,
2. Jumping the gun and just sending allot of armed forces to Ukraine is not a good idea at the moment.
It could be seen as a provocation and as an excuse/proof for Putin that he was right and that the
Russians in Ukraine actually are in danger. It's better to call Putin's bluff and imo
the Ukraine government and Ukraine military are handling the situation just fine.
They are keeping their heads cool but still hold their ground without doing anything provocative.
Also the UN have sent a delegation under the "command" of deputy UN chief Jan Eliasson to Ukraine.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... raine&Cr1=
So UN is acting just not going in guns blazing before they can see for themselves what the situation is like,
Then the Swedish and Danish ministers of foreign affairs are also going to Ukraine to assess the situation.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... 1677ed2d64
I'm not neccessarily suggesting the UN send in a peacekeeping army to engage the Russians, just a presence to show them what (most) of the UN nationsa and the world think.
Yeah I understand what you mean but moving in foreign forces is imo not a good idea at
the moment although eventually it might become necessary. But at the moment sit still in the
boat and let Mr Eliasson do his job.
Reuters are reporting that many Russian in eastern Ukraine and Donetsk are now
out in the streets protesting against Putin saying that they don't need protection.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... 1L20140304Quote:
But in the four days since, the tide of opinion in eastern cities appears to be turning back towards Kiev.
Bearing placards with slogans such as: "I am Russian. I don't need protection," the protesters
marched near the occupied regional government building, staying far enough away to avoid clashing
with the pro-Russian youths still inside.
"My parents are from Russia. I was born in Ukraine, but I am Russian. My children and grandchildren
were born here. We are for Ukraine," said Natalia Sytnik, who turned out to protest against the prospect
of a Russian invasion.
"We did not ask for help. I don't want him, Putin, to bring tanks here. I don't want them to shoot
at my kids. Let him hear us: 'Do not defend me from anyone. No one is attacking me'."
---
Kiev says the protests - which erupted simultaneously in Kharkiv, Odessa, Dnipropetrovsk and
several other cities hours before Russia's parliament voted to grant Putin authority for armed force -
were organized by Moscow as a pretext to invade. It says most of the pro-Russian demonstrators were
Russians brought across the border in busloads.
It is certainly clear that many of Gubarev's followers are not from Donetsk, where locals speak Russian
with an easily recognizable accent. One, who said he was a miner from a nearby village, was unable to
name either the village or a single mine in a region known across the ex-Soviet Union for its coal.
This is now a siege:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26445666
11:37: The head of Russia's top natural gas producer, Gazprom, says Ukraine has informed the company it cannot pay for February gas deliveries in full, Reuters reports. Alexei Miller says Ukraine's total debt to Gazprom for gas deliveries is nearing $2bn.
11:46: Russia halts nuclear fuel supplies to Ukrainian power plants due to "instability". Their stocks will last until end of April, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitriy Rogozin says - BBC Monitoring (via Interfax).
- via the BBC, 5th Mar 2014.
That's playing fair isn't it. Don't like a country? Just unilaterally cut off energy supplies and let them all freeze to death.
Well.. in addition to the guys in Ukraine, I am the most sorry for my Russian friends. I have some good friends in research community and they are the least said.. little angry to their president. Their currency is falling, most of the loans are in Euro or Dollars, payments are increasing rapidly (they get paid in rubles), interests are increasing, stocks are falling like stones.. no additional money for science.. so basically they feel very, very dissapointed. Speaking in the manner of N.O.T. their president is living in some kind of parallel universe...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26465962 so it looks like Crimea are going to have a referendum as to becoming part of Russia.
If the population votes Yes, which they surely will, then I'm not sure there is any legitimate reason to stop them?
Nothing will stop them from declaring what they want, but it's unlikely anybody in the world will recognize their new status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
The fact that you have armed military type forces wearing no countries identification involved might surely sway the vote, and also bring it into question. Technically such forces would fall under the category of terrorists per most laws of war.
I think the US definition is illegal combatants, they are not proper military, not civilians but some sortQuote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
of para military militia, pretty much like Blackwater (although the latter have changed their name now).
Otherwise known as Russians.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Blackwater was under contract; with these guys who knows (officially) where their orders come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by BleAivano
Yeah Crimenia says they want to be part of Russia. Great News - Lets all pack up and STFU !! Peaceful ending!!! Obama knows when to keep his mouth shut.
According to this article, there are payoffs for defecting, and/or promises of equal status in the Russian military. Some things will never change.
[url]/http://time.com/17356/ukraine-troops-in-crimea-face-dilemma-to-defect-flee-or-fight/[url]
In the end, allowing this to take place will likely end up with ethnic cleansing in Crimea, and display once more that in most cases the world will do nothing unless it's motivated by money.
This claim is just utter FUD and fear mongering. What ethnic cleansing you speak of? There are millions of ethnic Ukrainians living in Russian Federation and doing just fine, as well as millions of citizens from other former USSR republics. The Muslim Tatars of Russia have an autonomous republic called Tatarstan.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Why does this matter at all? Does anyone doubt that the majority of Crimea population are Russians? Moreover, Russia's goal is not formal recognition or a demonstration of the most legal and democratic way of parting a chunk of land from the other country. They don't care about those niceties. Russia wants to show to the world that they can do what they want, and frankly they have already won. The United States has no real levers to influence Russia as there is insignificant amount of trade with them, while Europe depends on the Russian energy and Russian oligarchs stash their stolen billions in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Also, Russia probably wants to create another frozen conflict at their borders (just another in a line of many others like Transnistria, Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, etc). Once they have a frozen conflict, it will be a lever to use against the countries that get out of the line. This maybe also a warning to Ukraine. I don't exclude the possibility that later Russia could take a bolder move and try to split the eastern provinces from mainland Ukraine as well. All ingredients for that are already in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
You're free to disagree all you want but if given a choice to defect, flee, or fight is certainly drawing lines in the sand. Combined with obvious illegal military actions, bribery, and intimidation it's hardly promoting an open environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
Your first line has little to do with it. I'm ethnic German, but in no way is that an indication that I want to align myself with Germany. I'd guess that many, if not an actual majority, of ethnic Russians want to stay with Ukraine. The bottom line is still that Putin has invaded Crimea against all international law. His only goal is to expand Russian influence and he couldn't give a crap less about the ethnic Russians living there.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
That's hardly hardly a universal truth. Law? What law? Who is the judge? And besides, the international law is on the sides of those with power. Examples: Kosovo, Iraq War, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
People who demanded independence in places like East Timor, South Sudan, Erithrea, etc. had to wait and live in misery for decades before they were finally independent according to the "international law".
What do you know about what Putin and the rest of Russians feel about their ethnic keens in Crimea as well as the importance of Crimea to Russian history? To Russians, the situation of Russians in the Crimea was the main national cause celebre for the last two decades. The Black Sea Fleet was stationed there for as long as the black sea fleet existed (two centuries?). The majority of Crimea population are Russian and a huge part of their economy is tied to Russia's Black Sea Fleet. In Putin's view, he is not expanding his influence. He's just taking back what was lost a couple of decades ago. Certainly, right now is the best time to raise the issue of Crimea. After all, why would have Russia raised the issue of Crimea at the time when its relations with Ukraine are at an all time high? When Ukraine was the poster child of the soviet union, they assigned Crimea to Ukraine. On the other hand, once the relationship with Kiev reaches an all time low, it seems like the appropriate time to talk about taking Crimea back.Quote:
His only goal is to expand Russian influence and he couldn't give a crap less about the ethnic Russians living there.
You can also argue that occupying Crimea is not an expansion of Russian influence (Crimea was always filled with Russian military and many people had Russian passports even in the past, so that's nothing new). By occupying Crimea, Russia lost its influence over the much of mainland Ukraine, so I wouldn't classify that as a definitive expansion.
Lines in the sand or not, the claims of an upcoming "ethnic cleansing" in Crimea is utter BS, FUD, fear mongering, and you know it. The guys in Ukraine's military stationed in Crimea will indeed have to decide if they want to quit Ukrainian military or go back to mainland. Tough luck. Were British allowed to maintain their forts in the USA after the American Revolution?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
As I've said, you can disagree all you'd like, but I don't think it's FUD at all.
This is not a declared conflict by Russia, as Putin claims not to know who the armed Russian soldiers are. Yet it seems that identified uniform wearing Russian military people were quick to show up and offer bribes, help with defections, and safety to those being threatened by armed thugs of "unknown" origin.
The Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter all clearly define that a declaration of war must take place, and other rules to protect humanitarian rights and primarily civilians. You gave several examples were such international law allows outside intervention in the event such basic laws are not followed, the difference being that those conflicts were much more violent before the international community got involved in a direct action way.
What we have now is unidentified Russian thugs, demanding surrender of bases, weapons, etc, all while not following the most basic provisions of law regarding armed conflict. Any referendum that takes place under such conditions is obviously being influenced with the threat of further control and violence. Have you ever voted at the end of a gun barrel?
As for the British US comparison, complete apples to oranges comparison. The war was open, and the British never sent in commandos after the fact claiming they knew nothing about it.
If the people of Crimea wish to rejoin Russia I would have no problem with it, and though it might not be simple I'm sure there is a legitimate legal process to allow it. But Putin is doing what the USSR was once well known for, allowing "freedom" at the end of a gun barrel.
I think the WW2 experience was so harsh that big countries somewhat learnt a lesson from it, also from WW2 onwards we have had countries with weapons of mass destruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
Of course big countries have been fighting against each other in a third country on a smaller scale (either by sending their weapons there or even some army), but big countries avoid going directly against each other. The danger of a nuclear war exactly prevented USA and USSR from going straight against each other, and I think it applies to battling with the likes of China and maybe someone else as well.
Could Ukraine be that third party of arena, where big countries can compete against each other on a smaller scale and without nuclear weapons, like in Korea, Vietnam, other Asian countries? Have some doubts, because Ukraine is a bit too close for Russia, a bit too close to EU powers and hence a bit too close for everyone's comfort.
This is evidenced by actions. USA and EU are attempting to do something about Russia with sanctions. It remains to be seen, how far are they willing to go, but as we see, they are not prepared to go into war in Crimea. At the moment they are discussing "possible economic sanctions". However, if we had a similar situation between smallish Asian or African countries, pretty likely UN and/or USA/NATO would have decided they need to send some troops there.
That would be international law as practiced by all civilized countries in the world. Are you suggesting that every country should just make it up as they go along? Kosovo was UN sanctioned. Vietnam was the result of a treaty obligation between South Vietnam and the US. Iraq and Afghanistan were the result of an attack on the United States. (Though, IMO, Iraq was a major error on our part.)Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
And the people of Crimea have been living in misery for decades?Quote:
People who demanded independence in places like East Timor, South Sudan, Erithrea, etc. had to wait and live in misery for decades before they were finally independent according to the "international law".
The economy of places like parts of Germany, Korea, Japan, and the Philippines, to name a few, are tied to American military bases. So they should be part of America too, right?Quote:
What do you know about what Putin and the rest of Russians feel about their ethnic keens in Crimea as well as the importance of Crimea to Russian history? To Russians, the situation of Russians in the Crimea was the main national cause celebre for the last two decades. The Black Sea Fleet was stationed there for as long as the black sea fleet existed (two centuries?). The majority of Crimea population are Russian and a huge part of their economy is tied to Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
The point here is that Russia gave it away. Talking about taking Crimea back is one thing. A military invasion is quite another.Quote:
In Putin's view, he is not expanding his influence. He's just taking back what was lost a couple of decades ago. Certainly, right now is the best time to raise the issue of Crimea. After all, why would have Russia raised the issue of Crimea at the time when its relations with Ukraine are at an all time high? When Ukraine was the poster child of the soviet union, they assigned Crimea to Ukraine. On the other hand, once the relationship with Kiev reaches an all time low, it seems like the appropriate time to talk about taking Crimea back.