In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 03 2014 22:50 xDaunt wrote: In fairness, let me say this about taking a more aggressive approach on the Ukraine: I'm not sure why anyone should bother when the Ukrainians aren't even trying to oust the Russians themselves.
Because they cant. They wont win a war and considering the soldiers are already in there streets what other means do they have?
I don't think Russia has the resources or military strength to squash an openly rebelling Ukraine over the long term. Yes, the cost to Ukrainians would be horrific, but it wouldn't be pretty for Russia either.
On March 03 2014 22:50 xDaunt wrote: In fairness, let me say this about taking a more aggressive approach on the Ukraine: I'm not sure why anyone should bother when the Ukrainians aren't even trying to oust the Russians themselves.
Because they cant. They wont win a war and considering the soldiers are already in there streets what other means do they have?
I don't think Russia has the resources or military strength to squash an openly rebelling Ukraine over the long term. Yes, the cost to Ukrainians would be horrific, but it wouldn't be pretty for Russia either.
Except you have the core problem of at least 25-30% of that country taking the Russian side so even if Russia could not take them in an open and long war you would have enough defections to make it a very difficult war to win (assuming of course it remains 1 country against the other).
I'm really confused about what's happening in Ukraine, and why the US is against Russia going to Ukraine. Can anyone refer me to somewhere that explains what's really goingon?
The euromaidan thread on here has explanations, though there's a lot of people posting biased slop, so you have to sift through a fair bit to find the truth.
On March 04 2014 03:53 Z-BosoN wrote: I'm really confused about what's happening in Ukraine, and why the US is against Russia going to Ukraine. Can anyone refer me to somewhere that explains what's really goingon?
To summarize the situation fairly quickly the former president of Ukraine was over time moving further away from the EU and closer to Russia and this caused many of the citizens who wanted the opposite to protest him until he was basically forced to step down (read:flee the country). Being an ally of the EU the US of course was subtely taking the side of the demonstrators in this issue but Russia of course did not wish to give up on its influence so they have basically invaded a part of Ukraine (that used to belong to Russia) and shockingly the world does not approve of this so that brings us to where we are now.
Edit: Im pretty sure this is about as fact based bare bones a summery as you could find of the situation. I tried to keep personal bias out of it.
On March 04 2014 03:53 Z-BosoN wrote: I'm really confused about what's happening in Ukraine, and why the US is against Russia going to Ukraine. Can anyone refer me to somewhere that explains what's really goingon?
To summarize the situation fairly quickly the former president of Ukraine was over time moving further away from the EU and closer to Russia and this caused many of the citizens who wanted the opposite to protest him until he was basically forced to step down (read:flee the country). Being an ally of the EU the US of course was subtely taking the side of the demonstrators in this issue but Russia of course did not wish to give up on its influence so they have basically invaded a part of Ukraine (that used to belong to Russia) and shockingly the world does not approve of this so that brings us to where we are now.
Edit: Im pretty sure this is about as fact based bare bones a summery as you could find of the situation. I tried to keep personal bias out of it.
On March 04 2014 03:53 Z-BosoN wrote: I'm really confused about what's happening in Ukraine, and why the US is against Russia going to Ukraine. Can anyone refer me to somewhere that explains what's really goingon?
To summarize the situation fairly quickly the former president of Ukraine was over time moving further away from the EU and closer to Russia and this caused many of the citizens who wanted the opposite to protest him until he was basically forced to step down (read:flee the country). Being an ally of the EU the US of course was subtely taking the side of the demonstrators in this issue but Russia of course did not wish to give up on its influence so they have basically invaded a part of Ukraine (that used to belong to Russia) and shockingly the world does not approve of this so that brings us to where we are now.
Edit: Im pretty sure this is about as fact based bare bones a summery as you could find of the situation. I tried to keep personal bias out of it.
Much clearer now, thanks!
More than that, 60 % of Europe's gaz pass through Ukraine, and Ukraine was in deep economic trouble, suffering restrictions from the IMF, and having Russia helping (financing their economy, paying their public workers, giving them gaz at a 30% discount) in exchange for submission from Ukraine.
On March 04 2014 09:48 oneofthem wrote: romney for president
Too bad the only thing these guys are talking about is how the coverage of Ukraine is just the another attempt by obama and the liberal media to divert attention from bengazi
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolution.
On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote: Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions.
This kind of talk is getting annoying.
Again, answer this question:
What the hell is the west supposed to do?
Any economic or political actions from the U.S. are either useless or not feasible. The same goes for the EU. The UN is completely useless in this matter, and military action over this would be the single dumbest thing that the U.S. could possibly do.
So go ahead. Tell us. What should Obama do to "be a strong leader"? Huh? Because there really are no meaningful or effective responses available to anyone, let alone the U.S.
all this from a president that at one point in his life was strong enough to order the violation of the airspace of a nuclear-armed nation with launch-on-warning status with its enemy in order to kill a man without permission
On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote: Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions.
What the hell is the west supposed to do?
send in the 101st airborne, some F-35s and a couple B-2 bombers to kick Putin's ass all over the weak ass place. make these russians get into a wheelchair and roll themselves home
I would close the Bosphorus and complete the irrelevance of the rust bucket that is the Black Sea Fleet, the entire reason why Russia is acting the way they are, as a first step.
On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote: Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions.
What the hell is the west supposed to do?
send in the 101st airborne, some F-35s and a couple B-2 bombers to kick Putin's ass all over the weak ass place. make these russians get into a wheelchair and roll themselves home
Horrible, horrible, horrible idea.
Not only can we not afford to be in yet another military conflict so soon, but Russia isn't some weak third-world country that we can just bully. We haven't faced a country that is anywhere near as strong as Russia is in an armed conflict since WWII. Do you really think that they'll just take military action lying down? That they'll just slink away and surrender? Military action against the Russians would lead to something long and protracted, which is something we can't afford right now.
On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote: Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions.
What the hell is the west supposed to do?
send in the 101st airborne, some F-35s and a couple B-2 bombers to kick Putin's ass all over the weak ass place. make these russians get into a wheelchair and roll themselves home
Horrible, horrible, horrible idea.
Not only can we not afford to be in yet another military conflict so soon, but Russia isn't some weak third-world country that we can just bully. We haven't faced a country that is anywhere near as strong as Russia is in an armed conflict since WWII. Do you really think that they'll just take military action lying down? That they'll just slink away and surrender? Military action against the Russians would lead to something long and protracted, which is something we can't afford right now.
do you think raygun would take russia invading the ukraine laying down?
On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote: Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions.
What the hell is the west supposed to do?
send in the 101st airborne, some F-35s and a couple B-2 bombers to kick Putin's ass all over the weak ass place. make these russians get into a wheelchair and roll themselves home
Horrible, horrible, horrible idea.
Not only can we not afford to be in yet another military conflict so soon, but Russia isn't some weak third-world country that we can just bully. We haven't faced a country that is anywhere near as strong as Russia is in an armed conflict since WWII. Do you really think that they'll just take military action lying down? That they'll just slink away and surrender? Military action against the Russians would lead to something long and protracted, which is something we can't afford right now.
do you think raygun would take russia invading the ukraine laying down?
of course not; he would find some islamists to give money to and then invade grenada
EPT
