On March 02 2014 07:12 PaleMan wrote: i think this BBC video that acknowledges there were nazis amongs maidan protesters is a sign that so called "free world" will not interfere with russian plans
i think you, Cheerio and your little nazi friends should run
What kind of Ukrainian Nazis would speak to a reporter in pure, accent-less Russian? At least be smart like zeo, he finds Ukrainian Nazis actually speaking in Ukrainian.
so BBC made this up?
reason?
I dont know, you are the guy is using a video of a Russian guy speaking perfect Russian threatening Russians to 'prove' that Ukraine is in the grip of Nazis. I am sure zeo will be able to provide you with a reasonable explanation soon. Something like Western-Nazi conspiracy to EXTERMINATE all Russians by using perfectly accented Russian super spies. Take it away zeo, remember at least two photoshops at once.
so basically you are trying to say there were no nazis at Maidan and Mr. Yarosh didn't adress Doku Umarov?
There are as many nazis on maidan as there are in Russia. The people who won the maidan are the common people. even your BBC video says so -- if youd bothered to listen to it. And most of us in the civilized world dont rely on photoshops of social network sites as evidence of contact.
people definitely did not win at Maidan
some thiefs, terrorists, nazis and oligarch's puppets won - yes
ukrainian ppl lost badly
Yes. Everyone knows that thiefs, terorrists, nazis and oligarchs puppets love to dive under bullets in order to have elections. Those criminals, and their weird need not to be like Russia with the most glorious and handsome Czar.
thiefs, terorrists, nazis and oligarchs puppets love to lie to make ppl dive under bullets in order to reach their goals elections were sheduled to 2015, 1 year is not that much to wait
On March 02 2014 06:43 DeepElemBlues wrote: I guess next time America wants to invade a country it'll just pass a law saying it's protecting Americans in that country and everything will be fine, right?
Right?
Bueller?
Just stick with the weapons of mass destruction/chemical weapons/oppressive dictator/spreading democracy rhetoric. It's not like US hasn't stopped waging cold war by overthrowing every single government allied with Russia. Get out of here.
On March 02 2014 03:39 kukarachaa wrote: I am not 100% but haven't a lot of members of President's party left Kiev, so basically half of the Ukraine wasn't represented or was represented in a very limited capacity when those decisions were made?
Correct. To be more correct they were forced to leave Rada.
On March 02 2014 07:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Ukraine's military is not really that inferior to Russia's unless Russia brings a larger part of its army to bear and invades more than the Crimea, which would be a big war that Russia does not want. Russia is betting that the Ukraine and the West will be too pussy to do anything about it. The West maybe (at least until the next US president, either Hilary or any Republican will remember the US is stronger than Russia and act like it) but I don't think the Ukraine is going to back down.
You do realize that there is no chain of command over the armed forces since the junta took over? Titles like 'President', 'Defense minister' have absolutely no power since Yanukovych was done away with. Nobody knows who is paying them or where the money is coming from, let alone have any legal governance over them. Since coming to power the junta has done nothing but openly humiliate the officials and servicemen, even demonize them. They can expect no proper help from the police or army.
In eastern Ukraine police/military did nothing to prevent people from overtaking government offices and supporting Russia - in fact, they support it. Why do you think the 'minister of defence' for multiple days 'asked' 'his' military to give back reports about whats going on in the East, and still did not authorize any action? Its because he cant, and military structures ignore him.
A tank could go from Russia all the way to Kiev in a straight line and fire on parliament and no one would lift a finger. There is a reason why the army of Ukraine hasn't left their barracks or done anything to prepare for a Russian 'invasion'
On March 02 2014 07:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Ukraine's military is not really that inferior to Russia's unless Russia brings a larger part of its army to bear and invades more than the Crimea, which would be a big war that Russia does not want. Russia is betting that the Ukraine and the West will be too pussy to do anything about it. The West maybe (at least until the next US president, either Hilary or any Republican will remember the US is stronger than Russia and act like it) but I don't think the Ukraine is going to back down.
You do realize that there is no chain of command over the armed forces since the junta took over?
On March 02 2014 07:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Ukraine's military is not really that inferior to Russia's unless Russia brings a larger part of its army to bear and invades more than the Crimea, which would be a big war that Russia does not want. Russia is betting that the Ukraine and the West will be too pussy to do anything about it. The West maybe (at least until the next US president, either Hilary or any Republican will remember the US is stronger than Russia and act like it) but I don't think the Ukraine is going to back down.
You do realize that there is no chain of command over the armed forces since the junta took over? Titles like 'President', 'Defense minister' have absolutely no power since Yanukovych was done away with. Nobody knows who is paying them or where the money is coming from. Since coming to power the junta has done nothing but openly humiliate the officials and servicemen, even demonize them.
In eastern Ukraine police/military did nothing to prevent people from overtaking government offices and supporting Russia - in fact, they support it. Why do you think the 'minister of defence' for multiple days 'asked' 'his' military to give back reports about whats going on in the East, and still did not authorize any action? Its because he cant, and military structures ignore him.
A tank could go from Russia all the way to Kiev in a straight line and fire on parliament and no one would lift a finger.
It is amazing how you have everything figured out. I would imagine things are very complicated in Ukraine as far as chain of command goes, but you make it all sound so simple.
On March 02 2014 07:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Ukraine's military is not really that inferior to Russia's unless Russia brings a larger part of its army to bear and invades more than the Crimea, which would be a big war that Russia does not want. Russia is betting that the Ukraine and the West will be too pussy to do anything about it. The West maybe (at least until the next US president, either Hilary or any Republican will remember the US is stronger than Russia and act like it) but I don't think the Ukraine is going to back down.
You do realize that there is no chain of command over the armed forces since the junta took over?
It's a military dictatorship. They are usually pretty big on chain of command. Stop throwing around random insults.
Junta: 1. a small group ruling a country, especially immediately after a coup d'état and before a legally constituted government has been instituted. 2 : a council or committee for political or governmental purposes; especially : a group of persons controlling a government especially after a revolutionary seizure of power
If they had been legally elected there wouldn't be a problem. Armed takeover of a democratically elected government should not have pretty publicly correct names attached to them, they should be called what they are.
On March 02 2014 07:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Ukraine's military is not really that inferior to Russia's unless Russia brings a larger part of its army to bear and invades more than the Crimea, which would be a big war that Russia does not want. Russia is betting that the Ukraine and the West will be too pussy to do anything about it. The West maybe (at least until the next US president, either Hilary or any Republican will remember the US is stronger than Russia and act like it) but I don't think the Ukraine is going to back down.
You do realize that there is no chain of command over the armed forces since the junta took over? Titles like 'President', 'Defense minister' have absolutely no power since Yanukovych was done away with. Nobody knows who is paying them or where the money is coming from. Since coming to power the junta has done nothing but openly humiliate the officials and servicemen, even demonize them.
In eastern Ukraine police/military did nothing to prevent people from overtaking government offices and supporting Russia - in fact, they support it. Why do you think the 'minister of defence' for multiple days 'asked' 'his' military to give back reports about whats going on in the East, and still did not authorize any action? Its because he cant, and military structures ignore him.
A tank could go from Russia all the way to Kiev in a straight line and fire on parliament and no one would lift a finger.
It is amazing how you have everything figured out. I would imagine things are very complicated in Ukraine as far as chain of command goes, but you make it all sound so simple.
On March 02 2014 07:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Ukraine's military is not really that inferior to Russia's unless Russia brings a larger part of its army to bear and invades more than the Crimea, which would be a big war that Russia does not want. Russia is betting that the Ukraine and the West will be too pussy to do anything about it. The West maybe (at least until the next US president, either Hilary or any Republican will remember the US is stronger than Russia and act like it) but I don't think the Ukraine is going to back down.
You do realize that there is no chain of command over the armed forces since the junta took over?
It's a military dictatorship. They are usually pretty big on chain of command. Stop throwing around random insults.
Junta: 1. a small group ruling a country, especially immediately after a coup d'état and before a legally constituted government has been instituted. 2 : a council or committee for political or governmental purposes; especially : a group of persons controlling a government especially after a revolutionary seizure of power
I've only ever seen it used for military dictatorships. Where's your definition from?
On March 01 2014 23:58 Gorsameth wrote: And so it is once again shown that EU protection is a fucking joke. We will happily promise our protection but as soon as something bigger then a fly shows up we tuck our tails between our legs and run away.
Sickening to see how spineless our leadership has become.
EU protection means something if it's backed up by US power, which in practice it usually is. TBH, I don't think Russia can effectively go through with this, they will have to back down at some point. No point in sending troops to Ukraine and risk an armed conflict when there are less direct means to achieve the same goals.
Except that seems to be what is happening at this very moment.
On March 02 2014 00:03 Twoflowers wrote:
On March 01 2014 23:58 Gorsameth wrote: And so it is once again shown that EU protection is a fucking joke. We will happily promise our protection but as soon as something bigger then a fly shows up we tuck our tails between our legs and run away.
Sickening to see how spineless our leadership has become.
What EU protection? We have no treaties with the Ukraine that would justify a military intervention. We also have no forces in Ukraine, while russia has a fucking naval base near the biggest crimean city. Economic threats at russia would probably not be enough to stop an invasion. So what exactly shoulod teh EU do?
The Budapest Memorandum is why atleast the US and UK have a duty atm.
And what we should do? How about following Russians example when they moved there army to Ukraine's borders and showing them that we will respond if they invade instead of flinging harsh words. This is a game of chicken by Putin and we pulled out before it even started.
http://www.ezilon.com/maps/images/europe/political-map-of-Ukraine.gif <-- to which border do you want the uk move forces? Shit is going down a bit too fast to organize a movement of UK troops to romania, poland etc. and they would have to go through turkish territory for acces to the black sea. Also these movements would have been interpreted as agression towards russia.
And Russia moving its army to Ukrains border isn't a sign of aggression? Is it a sign when there flying military helicopters across the border? Is it a sign when they approve "war"?
Would the troops need to be there in an hour? no ofc not but when you have your people mobilizing for the move it shows Russia your serious
We're seeing the effects of doing next to nothing right now.
Internet-tough-guy act is not how real world works.
Real situation is that Russia has big amount of leverage on the situation. They can threaten to cripple Ukarainian economy even without the use of force. They have in some areas popular suppport. They have a military base on Ukrainian territory. They can hit Europe economically also. They can also block Western diplomacy on issues more important to the West than Ukraine is.
US has some leverage due to being US. US can hurt Russia economically somewhat and actual threat of force would put Putin in a bad position. But US capability to posture is limited due to last 13 years.
EU has some leverage as they can hurt Putin back economically. Militarily most likely not as Putin would know it is a bluff.
Neither of those parties wants war with one another. Putin can always ignore economical threats as his position in Russia is not weak. So he knows that if he limits himself to small gains he will risk nothing as nobody will do squat, because it is in nobody's interest to do anything.
Of course there is another possibility, very unlikely one, that Putin sees that Ukraine is lost and might be admitted to NATO and decides that it is inacceptable to him and goes for full-on aggression. But that would be such a risk and he never showed any inclination to risk too much.
Though considering that for Russia limiting NATO influence was always a priority, not restoring USSR territorially as you claim, who knows.
There's one little detail you're leaving out: The US has made a commitment to defend Ukraine against aggression. Of course the US has ignored some of its commitments before but that was always to extend their influence. The idea that they would give up something that they have promised to protect anyway is extremely unlikely.
TBH, I'm not even sure there's anything more important to US diplomacy than Ukraine. Dominant powers tend to honour security guarantees (unless they are the aggressors). It might be an inconvenience and they might make small concessions to avoid conflict but ultimately the logic of power kicks in. Ignoring a US security guarantee is a direct challenge to the US, no matter how important the country itself is.
There's the little detail of Russia's nuclear arsenal, of course. In the end if Russia said: "We are invading Ukraine and if you try to stop us we'll nuke you", then there's a reasonable chance even the US would back down. But than they would have other options.
Upon actually reading it, the only defense commitment is to seek a UNSC resolution in the case of use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Russia is in breach of their own commitments to Ukraine, but the US is only bound to consult the UK and Russia in that event.
If anything, there's likely more fruitful commitments in the preliminary negotiations between Ukraine and NATO.
On March 02 2014 07:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Ukraine's military is not really that inferior to Russia's unless Russia brings a larger part of its army to bear and invades more than the Crimea, which would be a big war that Russia does not want. Russia is betting that the Ukraine and the West will be too pussy to do anything about it. The West maybe (at least until the next US president, either Hilary or any Republican will remember the US is stronger than Russia and act like it) but I don't think the Ukraine is going to back down.
You do realize that there is no chain of command over the armed forces since the junta took over?
It's a military dictatorship. They are usually pretty big on chain of command. Stop throwing around random insults.
Junta: 1. a small group ruling a country, especially immediately after a coup d'état and before a legally constituted government has been instituted. 2 : a council or committee for political or governmental purposes; especially : a group of persons controlling a government especially after a revolutionary seizure of power
I've only ever seen it used for military dictatorships. Where's your definition from?
Your Tzar Putin will make Russia into 3rd world country if he's going to continue this imperialistic policy. Europe can find other sources for gas and oil. Without EU money for Russian resources your country will be destroyed. If this time comes (i hope not) after what the whole world sees what Russia does today, ask yourself, who will be willing to help you?
On March 02 2014 07:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Ukraine's military is not really that inferior to Russia's unless Russia brings a larger part of its army to bear and invades more than the Crimea, which would be a big war that Russia does not want. Russia is betting that the Ukraine and the West will be too pussy to do anything about it. The West maybe (at least until the next US president, either Hilary or any Republican will remember the US is stronger than Russia and act like it) but I don't think the Ukraine is going to back down.
You do realize that there is no chain of command over the armed forces since the junta took over?
It's a military dictatorship. They are usually pretty big on chain of command. Stop throwing around random insults.
Junta: 1. a small group ruling a country, especially immediately after a coup d'état and before a legally constituted government has been instituted. 2 : a council or committee for political or governmental purposes; especially : a group of persons controlling a government especially after a revolutionary seizure of power
I've only ever seen it used for military dictatorships. Where's your definition from?
russia going into ukraine is not worse as when usa protects their "american interests"
western media has made russia look like the scary neighbour ever since the cold war, while USA who are equally scary in their actions (if not more so) gets a free pass in the same media. Who would've thought western media was pro-west huh?
Their excuse is even more legit this time.
That being said, any military action is fucked up. Hope there will a peaceful solution to all of it.
not saying maiden will make all corruption go away instantly,but when common people in your country protest in the streets while getting beat up , shot and arrested, somethings not right. And to call those people thieves and nazis is just .....
On March 02 2014 08:01 5ukkub wrote: Your Tzar Putin will make Russia into 3rd world country if he's going to continue this imperialistic policy. Europe can find other sources for gas and oil. Without EU money for Russian resources your country will be destroyed. If this time comes (i hope not) ask yourself, who will be willing to help you?
Russia will just sell to Asia. Do you have any idea what will happen to Europe if half the supply of gas just stops? Nobody wants a breakdown of trade and relations.
On March 02 2014 08:02 Knuty wrote: not saying maiden will make all corruption go away instantly,but when common people in your country protest in the streets while getting beat up , shot and arrested, somethings not right. And to call those people thieves and nazis is just .....
don't make me search youtube to show you HOW potesters treated in YOUR country
EPT
