|
|
As far as I know Ukraine distanced itself from NATO after Yanukovich assumed presidency.
€: And the treaty from 1994 assures military help only for the case of a nuclear attack.
|
On March 03 2014 05:39 darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!" One may wonder why their system isn't like democracy. E.g. 50%+1 > all. Or even better to prevent possible abuse, 75% > the rest. I just don't understand why a veto cannot be overcome with votes.
In short to protect the interests of the founders of the UN aka the winners of WW2. It was never intended to be a democratic institution but as one that all of the super powers can accept IF it makes a decision.
In practice this means that things only get done if an issue doesn't involve any of the permanent members directly.
(Long version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power)
|
On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!"
NATO actually has a very important role in all of this, Ukraine do have treaties with NATO and have even asked them directly for help in this conflict.
It is also one of NATO's top interest to see that Russia doesn't get a grip on Europe.
So to simply say that NATO have nothing at all to do in this conflict is absurd.
|
On March 03 2014 05:49 Tobblish wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!" NATO actually has a very important role in all of this, Ukraine do have treaties with NATO and have even asked them directly for help in this conflict. It is also one of NATO's top interest to see that Russia doesn't get a grip on Europe. So to simply say that NATO have nothing at all to do in this conflict is absurd.
Too bad that the Ukraine government didn't organize a joint military excercise at the eastern border during the crisis. That would have been helpful
|
On March 03 2014 02:59 Ramong wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 02:50 zeo wrote:
Is it a democratically elected government? No. Did it overthrow a democratically elected government? Yes. Did it use force? Yes. I'm sorry that your media feels differently about what exactly this 'government' running Ukraine is.
I don't think anyone here claimed that it was a democratic government.
Well EU recognized it as legitimate
"The transitional government was elected by the assembly, whose legitimacy is not debatable, so we recognize it as a legitimate partner," said spokesman Commission Olivier Bailly, and added that this government "has yet to establish functioning institutions'."
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/world.php?yyyy=2014&mm=02&dd=28&nav_id=89483
|
On March 03 2014 05:56 Twoflowers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 05:49 Tobblish wrote:On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!" NATO actually has a very important role in all of this, Ukraine do have treaties with NATO and have even asked them directly for help in this conflict. It is also one of NATO's top interest to see that Russia doesn't get a grip on Europe. So to simply say that NATO have nothing at all to do in this conflict is absurd. Too bad that the Ukraine government didn't organize a joint military excercise at the eastern border during the crisis. That would have been helpful
The junta in Kiev don't have any real control over the armed forces of Ukraine. That is why there was absolutely no attempt to organize any kind of defense of Crimea, or indeed any kind of military activity outside of their barracks.
|
On March 03 2014 05:44 a-game wrote:
After doing some digging around on the issue, it seems a lot less alarming than the headlines would have had me believe. I highly doubt Russia will step foot in any other part of Ukraine than Crimea (where they already legally had a large military presence before this dispute). While it's clear Putin is staking out a claim on Crimea, Russian officials have been careful to clarify that they want Crimea to have autonomy but they are not asking for it to become a new nation separate from Ukraine.
The fact they are choosing their words carefully suggests this whole thing is a calculated power play, rather than an attempt to start a war.
You must not have been digging to far though, Crimea has been an autonomous Republic since 1993. Which is why the current 'leader' of Crimea isnt a guy from the Party of the Regions -- the Eastern Party that Yanukovich was part off and won the plurality of the votes in the last Crimean Republican elections -- but instead is a quisling -- look that word up -- from something called "Russian Unity", a party that at the last round of elections won 4% of the vote.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On March 03 2014 05:20 Saryph wrote:This might be a useful read to anyone interested in the subject. It also includes an op-ed by the former Estonian ambassador to Russia on the subject. Link
As someone who follows Estonian politics closely, Mart Helme (the ex-ambassador in question) is a nutjob. He's the leader of an nationalist homophobic xenophobic party, best illustrated in a phrase his son (his second in command in the extremely small party) said and he defended. "If the person's black, show him/her the door." Take his opinions with a large grain of salt.
|
On March 03 2014 05:59 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 05:56 Twoflowers wrote:On March 03 2014 05:49 Tobblish wrote:On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!" NATO actually has a very important role in all of this, Ukraine do have treaties with NATO and have even asked them directly for help in this conflict. It is also one of NATO's top interest to see that Russia doesn't get a grip on Europe. So to simply say that NATO have nothing at all to do in this conflict is absurd. Too bad that the Ukraine government didn't organize a joint military excercise at the eastern border during the crisis. That would have been helpful The junta in Kiev don't have any real control over the armed forces of Ukraine. That is why there was absolutely no attempt to organize any kind of defense of Crimea, or indeed any kind of military activity outside of their barracks.
if evil fascist genociders of Kiev who wish to exterminate all glorious and free Russian victims of evil fascism have no control of the Ukrainian army then why are Ukrainian army barracks being surrounded by Russian troops and Ukrainian soldiers forced to surrender their arms to the russian troops?
|
On March 03 2014 05:45 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!" That's just not true. On (1), let me quote the freshly minted NATO council report: Show nested quote +
Military action against Ukraine by forces of the Russian Federation is a breach of international law and contravenes the principles of the NATO-Russia Council and the Partnership for Peace. Russia must respect its obligations under the United Nations Charter and the spirit and principles of the OSCE, on which peace and stability in Europe rest. We call on Russia to de-escalate tensions.
Ukraine is a valued partner for NATO and a founding member of the Partnership for Peace. NATO Allies will continue to support Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, and the right of the Ukrainian people to determine their own future, without outside interference.
What this says is that there is a framework (Council and Partnership for Peace) which Russia's actions in Ukraine are violating. Furthermore, they mention the stability of Europe because any conflict with one of their European members will immediately concern NATO. Furthermore, Ukraine is a partner of NATO, and part of the above frameworks, which makes it even more a NATO concern. And, on top of all that, as the last sentence emphasizes, NATO members (UK and US) are committed by the 94 Budapest Memorandum to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which means that they are drawn into the conflict.
The PfP is something on which I'm genuinely too clueless to actually understand what it's supposed to do. Technically everyone and their mother are in it (full map can be seen here) but there is zero info on what that actually means. Also interestingly enough the NATO page on wikipedia shows Ukraine specifically not included in the PfP but lists it in its own category called "Intensified Dialogue" (which includes e.g. Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina) and then the actual text lists it as "most active member of the PfP program".
The official source on the NATO homepage is just as useless. To me the whole PfP deal sounds like something without any real commitments but hopefully someone else can elaborate with better sources.
Apart from that, sure, it's nice that they're giving statements of support but unless I misunderstand Art 4+5 NATO as an alliance is simply not allowed to act without a member state being under attack. Like, the whole point of the NATO as it being a mutual defense pact. So basically unless someone starts to argue that sending troops to the Ukraine is alright because it means self-defense from a NATO perspective... let's just hope no one starts that kind of bullshit.
|
On March 03 2014 05:59 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 05:56 Twoflowers wrote:On March 03 2014 05:49 Tobblish wrote:On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!" NATO actually has a very important role in all of this, Ukraine do have treaties with NATO and have even asked them directly for help in this conflict. It is also one of NATO's top interest to see that Russia doesn't get a grip on Europe. So to simply say that NATO have nothing at all to do in this conflict is absurd. Too bad that the Ukraine government didn't organize a joint military excercise at the eastern border during the crisis. That would have been helpful The junta in Kiev don't have any real control over the armed forces of Ukraine. That is why there was absolutely no attempt to organize any kind of defense of Crimea, or indeed any kind of military activity outside of their barracks.
I still find 'Junta' an interesting choice of words for a government that was confirmed by a parliament which was in turn democratically elected by the majority of Ukraines population.
€: yeah, PfP is not a real commitment for both sides. I mean, Russia is a member...
|
On March 03 2014 06:05 Twoflowers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 05:59 zeo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:56 Twoflowers wrote:On March 03 2014 05:49 Tobblish wrote:On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!" NATO actually has a very important role in all of this, Ukraine do have treaties with NATO and have even asked them directly for help in this conflict. It is also one of NATO's top interest to see that Russia doesn't get a grip on Europe. So to simply say that NATO have nothing at all to do in this conflict is absurd. Too bad that the Ukraine government didn't organize a joint military excercise at the eastern border during the crisis. That would have been helpful The junta in Kiev don't have any real control over the armed forces of Ukraine. That is why there was absolutely no attempt to organize any kind of defense of Crimea, or indeed any kind of military activity outside of their barracks. I still find 'Junta' an interesting choice of words for a government that was confirmed by a parliament which was in turn democratically elected by the majority of Ukraines population.
Confirmed at gunpoint, implying anyone who voted against it would not have gotten lynched.
|
On March 03 2014 06:05 Twoflowers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 05:59 zeo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:56 Twoflowers wrote:On March 03 2014 05:49 Tobblish wrote:On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!" NATO actually has a very important role in all of this, Ukraine do have treaties with NATO and have even asked them directly for help in this conflict. It is also one of NATO's top interest to see that Russia doesn't get a grip on Europe. So to simply say that NATO have nothing at all to do in this conflict is absurd. Too bad that the Ukraine government didn't organize a joint military excercise at the eastern border during the crisis. That would have been helpful The junta in Kiev don't have any real control over the armed forces of Ukraine. That is why there was absolutely no attempt to organize any kind of defense of Crimea, or indeed any kind of military activity outside of their barracks. I still find 'Junta' an interesting choice of words for a government that was confirmed by a parliament which was in turn democratically elected by the majority of Ukraines population.
He has been spamming it every chance he gets for the last few days. Just ignore it. (just like you can ignore most of his posting in general)
|
On March 03 2014 05:49 Tobblish wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!" NATO actually has a very important role in all of this, Ukraine do have treaties with NATO and have even asked them directly for help in this conflict. It is also one of NATO's top interest to see that Russia doesn't get a grip on Europe. So to simply say that NATO have nothing at all to do in this conflict is absurd.
Under which article is NATO required (or even allowed) to act in the defense of a non-member state that is part of their PfP program? I'm genuinely curious cause I can't find anything that suggests either.
|
On March 03 2014 06:04 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 05:59 zeo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:56 Twoflowers wrote:On March 03 2014 05:49 Tobblish wrote:On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!" NATO actually has a very important role in all of this, Ukraine do have treaties with NATO and have even asked them directly for help in this conflict. It is also one of NATO's top interest to see that Russia doesn't get a grip on Europe. So to simply say that NATO have nothing at all to do in this conflict is absurd. Too bad that the Ukraine government didn't organize a joint military excercise at the eastern border during the crisis. That would have been helpful The junta in Kiev don't have any real control over the armed forces of Ukraine. That is why there was absolutely no attempt to organize any kind of defense of Crimea, or indeed any kind of military activity outside of their barracks. if evil fascist genociders of Kiev who wish to exterminate all glorious and free Russian victims of evil fascism have no control of the Ukrainian army then why are Ukrainian army barracks being surrender by Russian troops and Ukrainian soldiers forced to surrender their arms?
If the Kiev government doesn't have control over the Ukrainian army, Russian troops cannot surround Ukrainian barracks?
Mind = poof
|
On March 03 2014 06:04 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 05:45 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!" That's just not true. On (1), let me quote the freshly minted NATO council report:
Military action against Ukraine by forces of the Russian Federation is a breach of international law and contravenes the principles of the NATO-Russia Council and the Partnership for Peace. Russia must respect its obligations under the United Nations Charter and the spirit and principles of the OSCE, on which peace and stability in Europe rest. We call on Russia to de-escalate tensions.
Ukraine is a valued partner for NATO and a founding member of the Partnership for Peace. NATO Allies will continue to support Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, and the right of the Ukrainian people to determine their own future, without outside interference.
What this says is that there is a framework (Council and Partnership for Peace) which Russia's actions in Ukraine are violating. Furthermore, they mention the stability of Europe because any conflict with one of their European members will immediately concern NATO. Furthermore, Ukraine is a partner of NATO, and part of the above frameworks, which makes it even more a NATO concern. And, on top of all that, as the last sentence emphasizes, NATO members (UK and US) are committed by the 94 Budapest Memorandum to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which means that they are drawn into the conflict. The PfP is something on which I'm genuinely too clueless to actually understand what it's supposed to do. Technically everyone and their mother are in it (full map can be seen here) but there is zero info on what that actually means. Also interestingly enough the NATO page on wikipedia shows Ukraine specifically not included in the PfP but lists it in its own category called "Intensified Dialogue" (which includes e.g. Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina) and then the actual text lists it as "most active member of the PfP program". The official source on the NATO homepage is just as useless. To me the whole PfP deal sounds like something without any real commitments but hopefully someone else can elaborate with better sources. Apart from that, sure, it's nice that they're giving statements of support but unless I misunderstand Art 4+5 NATO as an alliance is simply not allowed to act without a member state being under attack. Like, the whole point of the NATO as it being a mutual defense pact. So basically unless someone starts to argue that sending troops to the Ukraine is alright because it means self-defense from a NATO perspective... let's just hope no one starts that kind of bullshit.
A more likely scenario could see Ukraine applying to NATO after Putin annexes Crimea and the East, since the main reason Ukraine has not tried to apply to NATO membership before that was opposition from Moscow/East. But now what does Ukraine have to lose? Or to put it in zeo's language: the nazi fascist genocider clique who overthrew brave and heroic President Yanukovich and wish to exterminate all minorities will have no choice but to run to their puppet string puller controls for whom they are clearly just lackeys in Western Europe thus exposing Western Imperialism once again.
|
On March 03 2014 06:08 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 06:04 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 05:59 zeo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:56 Twoflowers wrote:On March 03 2014 05:49 Tobblish wrote:On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!" NATO actually has a very important role in all of this, Ukraine do have treaties with NATO and have even asked them directly for help in this conflict. It is also one of NATO's top interest to see that Russia doesn't get a grip on Europe. So to simply say that NATO have nothing at all to do in this conflict is absurd. Too bad that the Ukraine government didn't organize a joint military excercise at the eastern border during the crisis. That would have been helpful The junta in Kiev don't have any real control over the armed forces of Ukraine. That is why there was absolutely no attempt to organize any kind of defense of Crimea, or indeed any kind of military activity outside of their barracks. if evil fascist genociders of Kiev who wish to exterminate all glorious and free Russian victims of evil fascism have no control of the Ukrainian army then why are Ukrainian army barracks being surrender by Russian troops and Ukrainian soldiers forced to surrender their arms? If the Kiev government doesn't have control over the Ukrainian army, Russian troops cannot surround Ukrainian barracks? Mind = poof Invasion of Crimea is justified based on 'threat' to Russians. Since the Ukrainian army -- according to zeo -- is not responding to the evil genocide promoting fascists then the Russian troops threatening the Ukrainian barracks are not doing so to protect the one pure Russian race.
|
On March 03 2014 06:10 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 06:08 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:04 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 05:59 zeo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:56 Twoflowers wrote:On March 03 2014 05:49 Tobblish wrote:On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!" NATO actually has a very important role in all of this, Ukraine do have treaties with NATO and have even asked them directly for help in this conflict. It is also one of NATO's top interest to see that Russia doesn't get a grip on Europe. So to simply say that NATO have nothing at all to do in this conflict is absurd. Too bad that the Ukraine government didn't organize a joint military excercise at the eastern border during the crisis. That would have been helpful The junta in Kiev don't have any real control over the armed forces of Ukraine. That is why there was absolutely no attempt to organize any kind of defense of Crimea, or indeed any kind of military activity outside of their barracks. if evil fascist genociders of Kiev who wish to exterminate all glorious and free Russian victims of evil fascism have no control of the Ukrainian army then why are Ukrainian army barracks being surrender by Russian troops and Ukrainian soldiers forced to surrender their arms? If the Kiev government doesn't have control over the Ukrainian army, Russian troops cannot surround Ukrainian barracks? Mind = poof Invasion of Crimea is justified based on 'threat' to Russians. Since the Ukrainian army -- according to zeo -- is not responding to the evil genocide promoting fascists then the Russian troops threatening the Ukrainian barracks are not doing so to protect the one pure Russian race.
The role of the civilian defense force in Crimea is to protect the rights of the people in Crimea, what don't you understand? There is no legitimate control over the country, people need to protect themselves.
|
On March 03 2014 06:13 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 06:10 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 06:08 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:04 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 05:59 zeo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:56 Twoflowers wrote:On March 03 2014 05:49 Tobblish wrote:On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!" NATO actually has a very important role in all of this, Ukraine do have treaties with NATO and have even asked them directly for help in this conflict. It is also one of NATO's top interest to see that Russia doesn't get a grip on Europe. So to simply say that NATO have nothing at all to do in this conflict is absurd. Too bad that the Ukraine government didn't organize a joint military excercise at the eastern border during the crisis. That would have been helpful The junta in Kiev don't have any real control over the armed forces of Ukraine. That is why there was absolutely no attempt to organize any kind of defense of Crimea, or indeed any kind of military activity outside of their barracks. if evil fascist genociders of Kiev who wish to exterminate all glorious and free Russian victims of evil fascism have no control of the Ukrainian army then why are Ukrainian army barracks being surrender by Russian troops and Ukrainian soldiers forced to surrender their arms? If the Kiev government doesn't have control over the Ukrainian army, Russian troops cannot surround Ukrainian barracks? Mind = poof Invasion of Crimea is justified based on 'threat' to Russians. Since the Ukrainian army -- according to zeo -- is not responding to the evil genocide promoting fascists then the Russian troops threatening the Ukrainian barracks are not doing so to protect the one pure Russian race. The role of the civilian defense force in Crimea is to protect the rights of the people in Crimea, what don't you understand? There is no legitimate control over the country, people need to protect themselves.
From the Army you just said the evil fascist nazi genociders who clearly will begin to exterminate the one pure russian race at any moment dont control?
|
On March 03 2014 06:14 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 06:13 zeo wrote:On March 03 2014 06:10 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 06:08 Feartheguru wrote:On March 03 2014 06:04 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 05:59 zeo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:56 Twoflowers wrote:On March 03 2014 05:49 Tobblish wrote:On March 03 2014 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On March 03 2014 05:18 Tobblish wrote:
And people say that Russia is not capable anymore to commit stupid acts like these because of NATO and UN.
Are there any reports on how many troops Russia have inside of the Crimean territory?
I honestly can't see any other outcome other than Crimea going into Russian hands. (or at least a major part of it)
No force will be used by either side, it have potential to change the world. (Israel would be screwed instantly) Once more: 1) NATO has nothing to do with this. Period. Ukraine is not a member state. Unless Russia shows aggression towards the territory of a member state it's literally none of their business. 2) The UN is as useless as usual. Just like the US veto'd most anti-US resolutions in the past Russia will veto any resolution against them. All the security council is good for is declaring some form of "We don't really like this and the Russians veto'd us!" NATO actually has a very important role in all of this, Ukraine do have treaties with NATO and have even asked them directly for help in this conflict. It is also one of NATO's top interest to see that Russia doesn't get a grip on Europe. So to simply say that NATO have nothing at all to do in this conflict is absurd. Too bad that the Ukraine government didn't organize a joint military excercise at the eastern border during the crisis. That would have been helpful The junta in Kiev don't have any real control over the armed forces of Ukraine. That is why there was absolutely no attempt to organize any kind of defense of Crimea, or indeed any kind of military activity outside of their barracks. if evil fascist genociders of Kiev who wish to exterminate all glorious and free Russian victims of evil fascism have no control of the Ukrainian army then why are Ukrainian army barracks being surrender by Russian troops and Ukrainian soldiers forced to surrender their arms? If the Kiev government doesn't have control over the Ukrainian army, Russian troops cannot surround Ukrainian barracks? Mind = poof Invasion of Crimea is justified based on 'threat' to Russians. Since the Ukrainian army -- according to zeo -- is not responding to the evil genocide promoting fascists then the Russian troops threatening the Ukrainian barracks are not doing so to protect the one pure Russian race. The role of the civilian defense force in Crimea is to protect the rights of the people in Crimea, what don't you understand? There is no legitimate control over the country, people need to protect themselves. From the Army you just said the evil fascist nazi genociders who clearly will begin to exterminate the one pure russian race at any moment dont control?
That is why the army isn't listening to Kiev. They don't want to attack innocent citizens of Ukraine who's only crime is not listening to the illegal government in Kiev.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
