On March 03 2014 19:41 ImFromPortugal wrote: Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatseniuk says Ukraine will never give up Crimea to anyone - Interfax via @Reuters
All those Ukrainian statements in the last week aren't exactly helping to solve anything. The way they frame the issue it seems there is a genuine belief that the western world will gladly declare a war on Russia for them if push comes to shove which results in them issuing stronger and stronger comments.
I guess your idea of a correct response would have been, "We welcome Russia to annex Crimea!"?
My personal idea?
Thank Russia for the effort of peacekeeping Crimea in these desperate times.
Invite observers from various groups and EU/NATO/other allied troops to help with the peacekeeping effort in the rest of Ukraine. Aim for joining the NATO as soon as possible.
Work from there. Worst case you lose Crimea straight up, best case you get the people living there to get a vote on it a month down the road. However, you avoid any risk of Russia being able to escalate this situation any further and you avoid the possibility of dumb shit happening and escalating into a full blown war between Ukraine and Russia without any outside help whatsoever.
By choosing the line of RUSSIA IS INVADING HELP US AGAINST THEM (PS: OUR MILITARY WON'T GIVE UP ANYTHING EVER) they're putting the west in the awkward position of either not helping or risking a war with Russia. Right now this whole thing is one huge pile of explosives waiting to blow up, one single person fucking up and firing a shot can lead to an incredible disaster.
What desperate times? What peacekeeping?
There was nothing exceptional going on in crimea that asked for any forces, be it ukrainian or russian.
If the Russian narrative is "we're protecting our Russian speaking buddies" and the Ukranian narrative is "We're being invaded" and Russia simply doesn't leave, what is Ukraine gonna do? Start shooting at Russian troops?
As someone above already explained Ukraine has no leverage against a military action by Russia besides hoping for an intervention by the west. That's where you just accept the Russian narrative and use it as an explanation for why you want western troops in the rest of your country. There is no possible way of Russia being able to pull any kind of "Oh those Russians next door need our protection, too!"-bullshit if there's another block already doing the "peacekeeping", you avoid any possible worst case of Ukrainian forces shooting Russians "by accident".
The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Thats funny considering I've been calling for those troops since the start and yet im a warmonger.
On March 03 2014 19:41 ImFromPortugal wrote: Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatseniuk says Ukraine will never give up Crimea to anyone - Interfax via @Reuters
All those Ukrainian statements in the last week aren't exactly helping to solve anything. The way they frame the issue it seems there is a genuine belief that the western world will gladly declare a war on Russia for them if push comes to shove which results in them issuing stronger and stronger comments.
I guess your idea of a correct response would have been, "We welcome Russia to annex Crimea!"?
My personal idea?
Thank Russia for the effort of peacekeeping Crimea in these desperate times.
Invite observers from various groups and EU/NATO/other allied troops to help with the peacekeeping effort in the rest of Ukraine. Aim for joining the NATO as soon as possible.
Work from there. Worst case you lose Crimea straight up, best case you get the people living there to get a vote on it a month down the road. However, you avoid any risk of Russia being able to escalate this situation any further and you avoid the possibility of dumb shit happening and escalating into a full blown war between Ukraine and Russia without any outside help whatsoever.
By choosing the line of RUSSIA IS INVADING HELP US AGAINST THEM (PS: OUR MILITARY WON'T GIVE UP ANYTHING EVER) they're putting the west in the awkward position of either not helping or risking a war with Russia. Right now this whole thing is one huge pile of explosives waiting to blow up, one single person fucking up and firing a shot can lead to an incredible disaster.
What desperate times? What peacekeeping?
There was nothing exceptional going on in crimea that asked for any forces, be it ukrainian or russian.
If the Russian narrative is "we're protecting our Russian speaking buddies" and the Ukranian narrative is "We're being invaded" and Russia simply doesn't leave, what is Ukraine gonna do? Start shooting at Russian troops?
As someone above already explained Ukraine has no leverage against a military action by Russia besides hoping for an intervention by the west. That's where you just accept the Russian narrative and use it as an explanation for why you want western troops in the rest of your country. There is no possible way of Russia being able to pull any kind of "Oh those Russians next door need our protection, too!"-bullshit if there's another block already doing the "peacekeeping", you avoid any possible worst case of Ukrainian forces shooting Russians "by accident".
The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Do you realize that's what ukraine's asking for, right ? And yes, they do have to be/sound firm, because mind you, they fucking have troops inside their country.
If you don't get the reference, Russia is bullying Ukraine. They are attempting to extort land and/or resources under the auspices of protecting their property and "their" people living in Ukraine. When Germany was split after WW1, many German people were scattered in various surrounding countries and the first steps of WW2 included "reunification." This is where history teaches us a lesson. You don't let this shit happen.
On March 03 2014 19:41 ImFromPortugal wrote: Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatseniuk says Ukraine will never give up Crimea to anyone - Interfax via @Reuters
All those Ukrainian statements in the last week aren't exactly helping to solve anything. The way they frame the issue it seems there is a genuine belief that the western world will gladly declare a war on Russia for them if push comes to shove which results in them issuing stronger and stronger comments.
I guess your idea of a correct response would have been, "We welcome Russia to annex Crimea!"?
My personal idea?
Thank Russia for the effort of peacekeeping Crimea in these desperate times.
Invite observers from various groups and EU/NATO/other allied troops to help with the peacekeeping effort in the rest of Ukraine. Aim for joining the NATO as soon as possible.
Work from there. Worst case you lose Crimea straight up, best case you get the people living there to get a vote on it a month down the road. However, you avoid any risk of Russia being able to escalate this situation any further and you avoid the possibility of dumb shit happening and escalating into a full blown war between Ukraine and Russia without any outside help whatsoever.
By choosing the line of RUSSIA IS INVADING HELP US AGAINST THEM (PS: OUR MILITARY WON'T GIVE UP ANYTHING EVER) they're putting the west in the awkward position of either not helping or risking a war with Russia. Right now this whole thing is one huge pile of explosives waiting to blow up, one single person fucking up and firing a shot can lead to an incredible disaster.
What desperate times? What peacekeeping?
There was nothing exceptional going on in crimea that asked for any forces, be it ukrainian or russian.
If the Russian narrative is "we're protecting our Russian speaking buddies" and the Ukranian narrative is "We're being invaded" and Russia simply doesn't leave, what is Ukraine gonna do? Start shooting at Russian troops?
As someone above already explained Ukraine has no leverage against a military action by Russia besides hoping for an intervention by the west. That's where you just accept the Russian narrative and use it as an explanation for why you want western troops in the rest of your country. There is no possible way of Russia being able to pull any kind of "Oh those Russians next door need our protection, too!"-bullshit if there's another block already doing the "peacekeeping", you avoid any possible worst case of Ukrainian forces shooting Russians "by accident".
The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Do you realize that's what ukraine's asking for, right ? And yes, they do have to be/sound firm, because mind you, they fucking have troops inside their country.
It's not what they're asking for. They don't want to give up crimea, you tell me now how a peacekeeping mission accomplishes that.
Ukraine asked the US/UK to uphold its sovereignty. You mobile and move in some troops with there support to "observe". They dont even need to leave military bases.
That's what you said, to me it doesn't sound like a peacekeeping mission. edit, @ Gorsameth In fact, it sounds like what russia is doing right now, which we all know, is anything BUT peacekeeping.
On March 03 2014 19:41 ImFromPortugal wrote: Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatseniuk says Ukraine will never give up Crimea to anyone - Interfax via @Reuters
All those Ukrainian statements in the last week aren't exactly helping to solve anything. The way they frame the issue it seems there is a genuine belief that the western world will gladly declare a war on Russia for them if push comes to shove which results in them issuing stronger and stronger comments.
I guess your idea of a correct response would have been, "We welcome Russia to annex Crimea!"?
My personal idea?
Thank Russia for the effort of peacekeeping Crimea in these desperate times.
Invite observers from various groups and EU/NATO/other allied troops to help with the peacekeeping effort in the rest of Ukraine. Aim for joining the NATO as soon as possible.
Work from there. Worst case you lose Crimea straight up, best case you get the people living there to get a vote on it a month down the road. However, you avoid any risk of Russia being able to escalate this situation any further and you avoid the possibility of dumb shit happening and escalating into a full blown war between Ukraine and Russia without any outside help whatsoever.
By choosing the line of RUSSIA IS INVADING HELP US AGAINST THEM (PS: OUR MILITARY WON'T GIVE UP ANYTHING EVER) they're putting the west in the awkward position of either not helping or risking a war with Russia. Right now this whole thing is one huge pile of explosives waiting to blow up, one single person fucking up and firing a shot can lead to an incredible disaster.
What desperate times? What peacekeeping?
There was nothing exceptional going on in crimea that asked for any forces, be it ukrainian or russian.
If the Russian narrative is "we're protecting our Russian speaking buddies" and the Ukranian narrative is "We're being invaded" and Russia simply doesn't leave, what is Ukraine gonna do? Start shooting at Russian troops?
As someone above already explained Ukraine has no leverage against a military action by Russia besides hoping for an intervention by the west. That's where you just accept the Russian narrative and use it as an explanation for why you want western troops in the rest of your country. There is no possible way of Russia being able to pull any kind of "Oh those Russians next door need our protection, too!"-bullshit if there's another block already doing the "peacekeeping", you avoid any possible worst case of Ukrainian forces shooting Russians "by accident".
The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Thats funny considering I've been calling for those troops since the start and yet im a warmonger.
Incorrect. You called for the UK and US to mobilize and send troops to Ukraine because their sovereignty is threatened.
I'm calling for western forces to be invited to Ukraine to help stabilize their current situation and protect the civilians from riots escalating aka peacekeeping aka the exact same thing Russia is claiming to do.
That's a very, very huge difference in approaches despite the goal being similar.
On March 03 2014 19:41 ImFromPortugal wrote: Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatseniuk says Ukraine will never give up Crimea to anyone - Interfax via @Reuters
All those Ukrainian statements in the last week aren't exactly helping to solve anything. The way they frame the issue it seems there is a genuine belief that the western world will gladly declare a war on Russia for them if push comes to shove which results in them issuing stronger and stronger comments.
I guess your idea of a correct response would have been, "We welcome Russia to annex Crimea!"?
My personal idea?
Thank Russia for the effort of peacekeeping Crimea in these desperate times.
Invite observers from various groups and EU/NATO/other allied troops to help with the peacekeeping effort in the rest of Ukraine. Aim for joining the NATO as soon as possible.
Work from there. Worst case you lose Crimea straight up, best case you get the people living there to get a vote on it a month down the road. However, you avoid any risk of Russia being able to escalate this situation any further and you avoid the possibility of dumb shit happening and escalating into a full blown war between Ukraine and Russia without any outside help whatsoever.
By choosing the line of RUSSIA IS INVADING HELP US AGAINST THEM (PS: OUR MILITARY WON'T GIVE UP ANYTHING EVER) they're putting the west in the awkward position of either not helping or risking a war with Russia. Right now this whole thing is one huge pile of explosives waiting to blow up, one single person fucking up and firing a shot can lead to an incredible disaster.
What desperate times? What peacekeeping?
There was nothing exceptional going on in crimea that asked for any forces, be it ukrainian or russian.
If the Russian narrative is "we're protecting our Russian speaking buddies" and the Ukranian narrative is "We're being invaded" and Russia simply doesn't leave, what is Ukraine gonna do? Start shooting at Russian troops?
As someone above already explained Ukraine has no leverage against a military action by Russia besides hoping for an intervention by the west. That's where you just accept the Russian narrative and use it as an explanation for why you want western troops in the rest of your country. There is no possible way of Russia being able to pull any kind of "Oh those Russians next door need our protection, too!"-bullshit if there's another block already doing the "peacekeeping", you avoid any possible worst case of Ukrainian forces shooting Russians "by accident".
The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Do you realize that's what ukraine's asking for, right ? And yes, they do have to be/sound firm, because mind you, they fucking have troops inside their country.
It's not what they're asking for. They don't want to give up crimea, you tell me now how a peacekeeping mission accomplishes that.
Duh? So what you are speaking about is that they should just stay silent, not provoke the russians, and just give up on Crimea in a illegal occupation instead of calling it out in the international community?
Remember Russia is the devil here and US is the last hope of civilization
There were people who celebrated soviet invasion in czechoslovakia in 68. Does it mean soviets were the good guys? Honestly i think there is something terribly wrong with people who think of invading army as friends or saviors.
On March 03 2014 21:10 r.Evo wrote: [quote] All those Ukrainian statements in the last week aren't exactly helping to solve anything. The way they frame the issue it seems there is a genuine belief that the western world will gladly declare a war on Russia for them if push comes to shove which results in them issuing stronger and stronger comments.
I guess your idea of a correct response would have been, "We welcome Russia to annex Crimea!"?
My personal idea?
Thank Russia for the effort of peacekeeping Crimea in these desperate times.
Invite observers from various groups and EU/NATO/other allied troops to help with the peacekeeping effort in the rest of Ukraine. Aim for joining the NATO as soon as possible.
Work from there. Worst case you lose Crimea straight up, best case you get the people living there to get a vote on it a month down the road. However, you avoid any risk of Russia being able to escalate this situation any further and you avoid the possibility of dumb shit happening and escalating into a full blown war between Ukraine and Russia without any outside help whatsoever.
By choosing the line of RUSSIA IS INVADING HELP US AGAINST THEM (PS: OUR MILITARY WON'T GIVE UP ANYTHING EVER) they're putting the west in the awkward position of either not helping or risking a war with Russia. Right now this whole thing is one huge pile of explosives waiting to blow up, one single person fucking up and firing a shot can lead to an incredible disaster.
What desperate times? What peacekeeping?
There was nothing exceptional going on in crimea that asked for any forces, be it ukrainian or russian.
If the Russian narrative is "we're protecting our Russian speaking buddies" and the Ukranian narrative is "We're being invaded" and Russia simply doesn't leave, what is Ukraine gonna do? Start shooting at Russian troops?
As someone above already explained Ukraine has no leverage against a military action by Russia besides hoping for an intervention by the west. That's where you just accept the Russian narrative and use it as an explanation for why you want western troops in the rest of your country. There is no possible way of Russia being able to pull any kind of "Oh those Russians next door need our protection, too!"-bullshit if there's another block already doing the "peacekeeping", you avoid any possible worst case of Ukrainian forces shooting Russians "by accident".
The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Do you realize that's what ukraine's asking for, right ? And yes, they do have to be/sound firm, because mind you, they fucking have troops inside their country.
It's not what they're asking for. They don't want to give up crimea, you tell me now how a peacekeeping mission accomplishes that.
Duh? So what you are speaking about is that they should just stay silent, not provoke the russians, and just give up on Crimea in a illegal occupation instead of calling it out in the international community?
Eh?
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
You said "that's what they're asking for", i told you, it's not, and you tell me "duh"?
How do you think will a peacekeeping mission get rid of russians in crimea? Their mission would be to stop the ADVANCE of russian troops, not throwing them out of crimea, wtf.
edit: and yes. That's what should happen, it's what you get if you do mistakes. No country in the EU will go to war for ukraine, nor will the US. There's no weapons to get rid of the russians in the ukraine, a peacekeeping mission would, as i said, stop their advance.
On March 03 2014 19:41 ImFromPortugal wrote: Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatseniuk says Ukraine will never give up Crimea to anyone - Interfax via @Reuters
All those Ukrainian statements in the last week aren't exactly helping to solve anything. The way they frame the issue it seems there is a genuine belief that the western world will gladly declare a war on Russia for them if push comes to shove which results in them issuing stronger and stronger comments.
I guess your idea of a correct response would have been, "We welcome Russia to annex Crimea!"?
My personal idea?
Thank Russia for the effort of peacekeeping Crimea in these desperate times.
Invite observers from various groups and EU/NATO/other allied troops to help with the peacekeeping effort in the rest of Ukraine. Aim for joining the NATO as soon as possible.
Work from there. Worst case you lose Crimea straight up, best case you get the people living there to get a vote on it a month down the road. However, you avoid any risk of Russia being able to escalate this situation any further and you avoid the possibility of dumb shit happening and escalating into a full blown war between Ukraine and Russia without any outside help whatsoever.
By choosing the line of RUSSIA IS INVADING HELP US AGAINST THEM (PS: OUR MILITARY WON'T GIVE UP ANYTHING EVER) they're putting the west in the awkward position of either not helping or risking a war with Russia. Right now this whole thing is one huge pile of explosives waiting to blow up, one single person fucking up and firing a shot can lead to an incredible disaster.
What desperate times? What peacekeeping?
There was nothing exceptional going on in crimea that asked for any forces, be it ukrainian or russian.
If the Russian narrative is "we're protecting our Russian speaking buddies" and the Ukranian narrative is "We're being invaded" and Russia simply doesn't leave, what is Ukraine gonna do? Start shooting at Russian troops?
As someone above already explained Ukraine has no leverage against a military action by Russia besides hoping for an intervention by the west. That's where you just accept the Russian narrative and use it as an explanation for why you want western troops in the rest of your country. There is no possible way of Russia being able to pull any kind of "Oh those Russians next door need our protection, too!"-bullshit if there's another block already doing the "peacekeeping", you avoid any possible worst case of Ukrainian forces shooting Russians "by accident".
The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Do you realize that's what ukraine's asking for, right ? And yes, they do have to be/sound firm, because mind you, they fucking have troops inside their country.
It's not what they're asking for. They don't want to give up crimea, you tell me now how a peacekeeping mission accomplishes that.
Ukraine asked the US/UK to uphold its sovereignty. You mobile and move in some troops with there support to "observe". They dont even need to leave military bases.
That's what you said, to me it doesn't sound like a peacekeeping mission. edit, @ Gorsameth In fact, it sounds like what russia is doing right now, which we all know, is anything BUT peacekeeping.
Guess i shouldnt have put observe between quotes. But yes that is what i mean. Note the added fact that they dont need to leave there base. You just needed to have troops there before this whole thing escalated with the russian invasion.
On March 03 2014 19:41 ImFromPortugal wrote: Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatseniuk says Ukraine will never give up Crimea to anyone - Interfax via @Reuters
All those Ukrainian statements in the last week aren't exactly helping to solve anything. The way they frame the issue it seems there is a genuine belief that the western world will gladly declare a war on Russia for them if push comes to shove which results in them issuing stronger and stronger comments.
I guess your idea of a correct response would have been, "We welcome Russia to annex Crimea!"?
My personal idea?
Thank Russia for the effort of peacekeeping Crimea in these desperate times.
Invite observers from various groups and EU/NATO/other allied troops to help with the peacekeeping effort in the rest of Ukraine. Aim for joining the NATO as soon as possible.
Work from there. Worst case you lose Crimea straight up, best case you get the people living there to get a vote on it a month down the road. However, you avoid any risk of Russia being able to escalate this situation any further and you avoid the possibility of dumb shit happening and escalating into a full blown war between Ukraine and Russia without any outside help whatsoever.
By choosing the line of RUSSIA IS INVADING HELP US AGAINST THEM (PS: OUR MILITARY WON'T GIVE UP ANYTHING EVER) they're putting the west in the awkward position of either not helping or risking a war with Russia. Right now this whole thing is one huge pile of explosives waiting to blow up, one single person fucking up and firing a shot can lead to an incredible disaster.
What desperate times? What peacekeeping?
There was nothing exceptional going on in crimea that asked for any forces, be it ukrainian or russian.
If the Russian narrative is "we're protecting our Russian speaking buddies" and the Ukranian narrative is "We're being invaded" and Russia simply doesn't leave, what is Ukraine gonna do? Start shooting at Russian troops?
As someone above already explained Ukraine has no leverage against a military action by Russia besides hoping for an intervention by the west. That's where you just accept the Russian narrative and use it as an explanation for why you want western troops in the rest of your country. There is no possible way of Russia being able to pull any kind of "Oh those Russians next door need our protection, too!"-bullshit if there's another block already doing the "peacekeeping", you avoid any possible worst case of Ukrainian forces shooting Russians "by accident".
The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Thats funny considering I've been calling for those troops since the start and yet im a warmonger.
Incorrect. You called for the UK and US to mobilize and send troops to Ukraine because their sovereignty is threatened.
I'm calling for western forces to be invited to Ukraine to help stabilize their current situation and protect the civilians from riots escalating aka peacekeeping aka the exact same thing Russia is claiming to do.
That's a very, very huge difference in approaches despite the goal being similar.
You realize the Ukraine has been asking for troops to come since the start right? They have given there invitation to stabilize this a dozen times already.
On March 03 2014 21:10 r.Evo wrote: [quote] All those Ukrainian statements in the last week aren't exactly helping to solve anything. The way they frame the issue it seems there is a genuine belief that the western world will gladly declare a war on Russia for them if push comes to shove which results in them issuing stronger and stronger comments.
I guess your idea of a correct response would have been, "We welcome Russia to annex Crimea!"?
My personal idea?
Thank Russia for the effort of peacekeeping Crimea in these desperate times.
Invite observers from various groups and EU/NATO/other allied troops to help with the peacekeeping effort in the rest of Ukraine. Aim for joining the NATO as soon as possible.
Work from there. Worst case you lose Crimea straight up, best case you get the people living there to get a vote on it a month down the road. However, you avoid any risk of Russia being able to escalate this situation any further and you avoid the possibility of dumb shit happening and escalating into a full blown war between Ukraine and Russia without any outside help whatsoever.
By choosing the line of RUSSIA IS INVADING HELP US AGAINST THEM (PS: OUR MILITARY WON'T GIVE UP ANYTHING EVER) they're putting the west in the awkward position of either not helping or risking a war with Russia. Right now this whole thing is one huge pile of explosives waiting to blow up, one single person fucking up and firing a shot can lead to an incredible disaster.
What desperate times? What peacekeeping?
There was nothing exceptional going on in crimea that asked for any forces, be it ukrainian or russian.
If the Russian narrative is "we're protecting our Russian speaking buddies" and the Ukranian narrative is "We're being invaded" and Russia simply doesn't leave, what is Ukraine gonna do? Start shooting at Russian troops?
As someone above already explained Ukraine has no leverage against a military action by Russia besides hoping for an intervention by the west. That's where you just accept the Russian narrative and use it as an explanation for why you want western troops in the rest of your country. There is no possible way of Russia being able to pull any kind of "Oh those Russians next door need our protection, too!"-bullshit if there's another block already doing the "peacekeeping", you avoid any possible worst case of Ukrainian forces shooting Russians "by accident".
The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Do you realize that's what ukraine's asking for, right ? And yes, they do have to be/sound firm, because mind you, they fucking have troops inside their country.
It's not what they're asking for. They don't want to give up crimea, you tell me now how a peacekeeping mission accomplishes that.
Duh? So what you are speaking about is that they should just stay silent, not provoke the russians, and just give up on Crimea in a illegal occupation instead of calling it out in the international community?
Russia isn't calling it an occupation either. I'll try one more time.
Scenario 1) -Call it an invasion and ask for western troops to aid you against the aggressor. ---> Be stuck with no western troops in your country (because they're not risking a war with Russia), have Russians threatening your military institutions and be unable to pull them out because you called it an invasion and you can't let them get away with it. So you're stuck between a rock (going back on your word and giving it up for now) and a pretty fucking hard place (Russia) with no outside help.
Scenario 2) -Thank Russia for their peacekeeping effort in Crimea and invite western troops to do the same in your other provinces. ---> You now have western troops in your country (rendering further Russian invasions peacekeeping operations into your country impossible), look like incredibly good guys in front of everyone because you did everything you could to protect any civilian casualties and have leverage to let the people of Crimea vote on who they want to be with because, you know, Russia said they're just there until your government is properly restored and you can keep the peace yourself.
On March 03 2014 21:10 r.Evo wrote: [quote] All those Ukrainian statements in the last week aren't exactly helping to solve anything. The way they frame the issue it seems there is a genuine belief that the western world will gladly declare a war on Russia for them if push comes to shove which results in them issuing stronger and stronger comments.
I guess your idea of a correct response would have been, "We welcome Russia to annex Crimea!"?
My personal idea?
Thank Russia for the effort of peacekeeping Crimea in these desperate times.
Invite observers from various groups and EU/NATO/other allied troops to help with the peacekeeping effort in the rest of Ukraine. Aim for joining the NATO as soon as possible.
Work from there. Worst case you lose Crimea straight up, best case you get the people living there to get a vote on it a month down the road. However, you avoid any risk of Russia being able to escalate this situation any further and you avoid the possibility of dumb shit happening and escalating into a full blown war between Ukraine and Russia without any outside help whatsoever.
By choosing the line of RUSSIA IS INVADING HELP US AGAINST THEM (PS: OUR MILITARY WON'T GIVE UP ANYTHING EVER) they're putting the west in the awkward position of either not helping or risking a war with Russia. Right now this whole thing is one huge pile of explosives waiting to blow up, one single person fucking up and firing a shot can lead to an incredible disaster.
What desperate times? What peacekeeping?
There was nothing exceptional going on in crimea that asked for any forces, be it ukrainian or russian.
If the Russian narrative is "we're protecting our Russian speaking buddies" and the Ukranian narrative is "We're being invaded" and Russia simply doesn't leave, what is Ukraine gonna do? Start shooting at Russian troops?
As someone above already explained Ukraine has no leverage against a military action by Russia besides hoping for an intervention by the west. That's where you just accept the Russian narrative and use it as an explanation for why you want western troops in the rest of your country. There is no possible way of Russia being able to pull any kind of "Oh those Russians next door need our protection, too!"-bullshit if there's another block already doing the "peacekeeping", you avoid any possible worst case of Ukrainian forces shooting Russians "by accident".
The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Do you realize that's what ukraine's asking for, right ? And yes, they do have to be/sound firm, because mind you, they fucking have troops inside their country.
It's not what they're asking for. They don't want to give up crimea, you tell me now how a peacekeeping mission accomplishes that.
Ukraine asked the US/UK to uphold its sovereignty. You mobile and move in some troops with there support to "observe". They dont even need to leave military bases.
That's what you said, to me it doesn't sound like a peacekeeping mission. edit, @ Gorsameth In fact, it sounds like what russia is doing right now, which we all know, is anything BUT peacekeeping.
Guess i shouldnt have put observe between quotes. But yes that is what i mean. Note the added fact that they dont need to leave there base. You just needed to have troops there before this whole thing escalated with the russian invasion.
On March 03 2014 21:10 r.Evo wrote: [quote] All those Ukrainian statements in the last week aren't exactly helping to solve anything. The way they frame the issue it seems there is a genuine belief that the western world will gladly declare a war on Russia for them if push comes to shove which results in them issuing stronger and stronger comments.
I guess your idea of a correct response would have been, "We welcome Russia to annex Crimea!"?
My personal idea?
Thank Russia for the effort of peacekeeping Crimea in these desperate times.
Invite observers from various groups and EU/NATO/other allied troops to help with the peacekeeping effort in the rest of Ukraine. Aim for joining the NATO as soon as possible.
Work from there. Worst case you lose Crimea straight up, best case you get the people living there to get a vote on it a month down the road. However, you avoid any risk of Russia being able to escalate this situation any further and you avoid the possibility of dumb shit happening and escalating into a full blown war between Ukraine and Russia without any outside help whatsoever.
By choosing the line of RUSSIA IS INVADING HELP US AGAINST THEM (PS: OUR MILITARY WON'T GIVE UP ANYTHING EVER) they're putting the west in the awkward position of either not helping or risking a war with Russia. Right now this whole thing is one huge pile of explosives waiting to blow up, one single person fucking up and firing a shot can lead to an incredible disaster.
What desperate times? What peacekeeping?
There was nothing exceptional going on in crimea that asked for any forces, be it ukrainian or russian.
If the Russian narrative is "we're protecting our Russian speaking buddies" and the Ukranian narrative is "We're being invaded" and Russia simply doesn't leave, what is Ukraine gonna do? Start shooting at Russian troops?
As someone above already explained Ukraine has no leverage against a military action by Russia besides hoping for an intervention by the west. That's where you just accept the Russian narrative and use it as an explanation for why you want western troops in the rest of your country. There is no possible way of Russia being able to pull any kind of "Oh those Russians next door need our protection, too!"-bullshit if there's another block already doing the "peacekeeping", you avoid any possible worst case of Ukrainian forces shooting Russians "by accident".
The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Thats funny considering I've been calling for those troops since the start and yet im a warmonger.
Incorrect. You called for the UK and US to mobilize and send troops to Ukraine because their sovereignty is threatened.
I'm calling for western forces to be invited to Ukraine to help stabilize their current situation and protect the civilians from riots escalating aka peacekeeping aka the exact same thing Russia is claiming to do.
That's a very, very huge difference in approaches despite the goal being similar.
You realize the Ukraine has been asking for troops to come since the start right? They have given there invitation to stabilize this a dozen times already.
I might agree at this point, that it maybe would've been better if there were troops already now, there's just one small problem. The governmental situation in the ukraine is pretty.. murky, to say the least. There's countries that don't accept it's "legitimation", russia could use that against the peacekeeping mission.
edit: to explain what i mean, there's russians here and in russia (alot of them) who are already blaming the EU/US for what happened. If we ship in our Leo2s now, putin could call it "planned all along to get troops in the ukraine". Far fetched? Yes. Extremely far fetched? Yup. Would russians still believe bs like that? Well that's the sad part.
On March 03 2014 21:15 aksfjh wrote: [quote] I guess your idea of a correct response would have been, "We welcome Russia to annex Crimea!"?
My personal idea?
Thank Russia for the effort of peacekeeping Crimea in these desperate times.
Invite observers from various groups and EU/NATO/other allied troops to help with the peacekeeping effort in the rest of Ukraine. Aim for joining the NATO as soon as possible.
Work from there. Worst case you lose Crimea straight up, best case you get the people living there to get a vote on it a month down the road. However, you avoid any risk of Russia being able to escalate this situation any further and you avoid the possibility of dumb shit happening and escalating into a full blown war between Ukraine and Russia without any outside help whatsoever.
By choosing the line of RUSSIA IS INVADING HELP US AGAINST THEM (PS: OUR MILITARY WON'T GIVE UP ANYTHING EVER) they're putting the west in the awkward position of either not helping or risking a war with Russia. Right now this whole thing is one huge pile of explosives waiting to blow up, one single person fucking up and firing a shot can lead to an incredible disaster.
What desperate times? What peacekeeping?
There was nothing exceptional going on in crimea that asked for any forces, be it ukrainian or russian.
If the Russian narrative is "we're protecting our Russian speaking buddies" and the Ukranian narrative is "We're being invaded" and Russia simply doesn't leave, what is Ukraine gonna do? Start shooting at Russian troops?
As someone above already explained Ukraine has no leverage against a military action by Russia besides hoping for an intervention by the west. That's where you just accept the Russian narrative and use it as an explanation for why you want western troops in the rest of your country. There is no possible way of Russia being able to pull any kind of "Oh those Russians next door need our protection, too!"-bullshit if there's another block already doing the "peacekeeping", you avoid any possible worst case of Ukrainian forces shooting Russians "by accident".
The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Do you realize that's what ukraine's asking for, right ? And yes, they do have to be/sound firm, because mind you, they fucking have troops inside their country.
It's not what they're asking for. They don't want to give up crimea, you tell me now how a peacekeeping mission accomplishes that.
Duh? So what you are speaking about is that they should just stay silent, not provoke the russians, and just give up on Crimea in a illegal occupation instead of calling it out in the international community?
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
You said "that's what they're asking for", i told you, it's not, and you tell me "duh"?
How do you think will a peacekeeping mission get rid of russians in crimea? Their mission would be to stop the ADVANCE of russian troops, not throwing them out of crimea, wtf.
Here is the thing. Ukraine's goverment have an obligation towards keeping their borders intact, like pretty much any constitutional sovereign state. Telling Russia to fuck off is in their right. Calling for international assistance, wether you speak about warmongering, is the usual way to rise the problem on international circles, because guess what, nothing sells more newspapers around the world. Do you really think any state is going to start a war over this? No, but it is way more likely that Ukraine can accomplish its goals and the international community to find fast solution, by being noisy, than by being a spineless mute freak.
On March 03 2014 22:09 Gorsameth wrote: You realize the Ukraine has been asking for troops to come since the start right? They have given there invitation to stabilize this a dozen times already.
Why is this so hard.
Ukraine has asked Nato to look at all possible ways to help it protect its territorial integrity, foreign minister Sergei Deshchiritsya said today.
Those kind of statements are literally asking for troops to kick Russia out of their country which no sane western country can and will agree to. That is completely different from asking western troops to help protect the civilians in the Ukraine that's not Crimea.
Remember Russia is the devil here and US is the last hope of civilization
There were people who celebrated soviet invasion in czechoslovakia in 68. Does it mean soviets were the good guys? Honestly i think there is something terribly wrong with people who think of invading army as friends or saviors.
On March 03 2014 21:33 r.Evo wrote: [quote] My personal idea?
Thank Russia for the effort of peacekeeping Crimea in these desperate times.
Invite observers from various groups and EU/NATO/other allied troops to help with the peacekeeping effort in the rest of Ukraine. Aim for joining the NATO as soon as possible.
Work from there. Worst case you lose Crimea straight up, best case you get the people living there to get a vote on it a month down the road. However, you avoid any risk of Russia being able to escalate this situation any further and you avoid the possibility of dumb shit happening and escalating into a full blown war between Ukraine and Russia without any outside help whatsoever.
By choosing the line of RUSSIA IS INVADING HELP US AGAINST THEM (PS: OUR MILITARY WON'T GIVE UP ANYTHING EVER) they're putting the west in the awkward position of either not helping or risking a war with Russia. Right now this whole thing is one huge pile of explosives waiting to blow up, one single person fucking up and firing a shot can lead to an incredible disaster.
What desperate times? What peacekeeping?
There was nothing exceptional going on in crimea that asked for any forces, be it ukrainian or russian.
If the Russian narrative is "we're protecting our Russian speaking buddies" and the Ukranian narrative is "We're being invaded" and Russia simply doesn't leave, what is Ukraine gonna do? Start shooting at Russian troops?
As someone above already explained Ukraine has no leverage against a military action by Russia besides hoping for an intervention by the west. That's where you just accept the Russian narrative and use it as an explanation for why you want western troops in the rest of your country. There is no possible way of Russia being able to pull any kind of "Oh those Russians next door need our protection, too!"-bullshit if there's another block already doing the "peacekeeping", you avoid any possible worst case of Ukrainian forces shooting Russians "by accident".
The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Do you realize that's what ukraine's asking for, right ? And yes, they do have to be/sound firm, because mind you, they fucking have troops inside their country.
It's not what they're asking for. They don't want to give up crimea, you tell me now how a peacekeeping mission accomplishes that.
Duh? So what you are speaking about is that they should just stay silent, not provoke the russians, and just give up on Crimea in a illegal occupation instead of calling it out in the international community?
Eh?
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
You said "that's what they're asking for", i told you, it's not, and you tell me "duh"?
How do you think will a peacekeeping mission get rid of russians in crimea? Their mission would be to stop the ADVANCE of russian troops, not throwing them out of crimea, wtf.
Here is the thing. Ukraine's goverment have an obligation towards keeping their borders intact, like pretty much any constitutional sovereign state. Telling Russia to fuck off is in their right. Calling for international assistance, wether you speak about warmongering, is the usual way to rise the problem on international circles, because guess what, nothing sells more newspapers around the world. Do you really think any state is going to start a war over this? No, but it is way more likely that Ukraine can accomplish its goals and the international community to find fast solution, by being noisy, than by being a spineless mute freak.
The ukraine does not have an intact government, or an army to command (since they refuse to obey orders from what you call "the government"). You conveniently left that out, and that makes all the difference.
Their own army does not obey to their call to arms, doubting the legitimation.
If you like it or not, the whole thing is a politic kabarett - the EU etc has to tiptoe around the fact that the ukraine is led by a "junta" (not really, but the softer version of this). If there would be elections right now, and a proper, voted government would call for a peacekeeping mission, i doubt it would fail to achieve it.
On March 03 2014 22:01 aksfjh wrote: If you don't get the reference, Russia is bullying Ukraine. They are attempting to extort land and/or resources under the auspices of protecting their property and "their" people living in Ukraine. When Germany was split after WW1, many German people were scattered in various surrounding countries and the first steps of WW2 included "reunification." This is where history teaches us a lesson. You don't let this shit happen.
if the history teaches you a lesson then nato and other organisations should also start fighting against this:
On March 03 2014 21:38 Derez wrote: [quote] What desperate times? What peacekeeping?
There was nothing exceptional going on in crimea that asked for any forces, be it ukrainian or russian.
If the Russian narrative is "we're protecting our Russian speaking buddies" and the Ukranian narrative is "We're being invaded" and Russia simply doesn't leave, what is Ukraine gonna do? Start shooting at Russian troops?
As someone above already explained Ukraine has no leverage against a military action by Russia besides hoping for an intervention by the west. That's where you just accept the Russian narrative and use it as an explanation for why you want western troops in the rest of your country. There is no possible way of Russia being able to pull any kind of "Oh those Russians next door need our protection, too!"-bullshit if there's another block already doing the "peacekeeping", you avoid any possible worst case of Ukrainian forces shooting Russians "by accident".
The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Do you realize that's what ukraine's asking for, right ? And yes, they do have to be/sound firm, because mind you, they fucking have troops inside their country.
It's not what they're asking for. They don't want to give up crimea, you tell me now how a peacekeeping mission accomplishes that.
Duh? So what you are speaking about is that they should just stay silent, not provoke the russians, and just give up on Crimea in a illegal occupation instead of calling it out in the international community?
Eh?
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
You said "that's what they're asking for", i told you, it's not, and you tell me "duh"?
How do you think will a peacekeeping mission get rid of russians in crimea? Their mission would be to stop the ADVANCE of russian troops, not throwing them out of crimea, wtf.
Here is the thing. Ukraine's goverment have an obligation towards keeping their borders intact, like pretty much any constitutional sovereign state. Telling Russia to fuck off is in their right. Calling for international assistance, wether you speak about warmongering, is the usual way to rise the problem on international circles, because guess what, nothing sells more newspapers around the world. Do you really think any state is going to start a war over this? No, but it is way more likely that Ukraine can accomplish its goals and the international community to find fast solution, by being noisy, than by being a spineless mute freak.
The ukraine does not have an intact government, or an army to command (since they refuse to obey orders from what you call "the government"). You conveniently left that out, and that makes all the difference.
Their own army does not obey to their call to arms, doubting the legitimation.
If you like it or not, the whole thing is a politic kabarett - the EU etc has to tiptoe around the fact that the ukraine is led by a "junta" (not really, but the softer version of this). If there would be elections right now, and a proper, voted government would call for a peacekeeping mission, i doubt it would fail to achieve it.
actually parts of the army obeyed their orders and didn't forfeit their bases to the rrussian troops.
On March 03 2014 21:44 r.Evo wrote: [quote] If the Russian narrative is "we're protecting our Russian speaking buddies" and the Ukranian narrative is "We're being invaded" and Russia simply doesn't leave, what is Ukraine gonna do? Start shooting at Russian troops?
As someone above already explained Ukraine has no leverage against a military action by Russia besides hoping for an intervention by the west. That's where you just accept the Russian narrative and use it as an explanation for why you want western troops in the rest of your country. There is no possible way of Russia being able to pull any kind of "Oh those Russians next door need our protection, too!"-bullshit if there's another block already doing the "peacekeeping", you avoid any possible worst case of Ukrainian forces shooting Russians "by accident".
The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Do you realize that's what ukraine's asking for, right ? And yes, they do have to be/sound firm, because mind you, they fucking have troops inside their country.
It's not what they're asking for. They don't want to give up crimea, you tell me now how a peacekeeping mission accomplishes that.
Duh? So what you are speaking about is that they should just stay silent, not provoke the russians, and just give up on Crimea in a illegal occupation instead of calling it out in the international community?
Eh?
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
You said "that's what they're asking for", i told you, it's not, and you tell me "duh"?
How do you think will a peacekeeping mission get rid of russians in crimea? Their mission would be to stop the ADVANCE of russian troops, not throwing them out of crimea, wtf.
Here is the thing. Ukraine's goverment have an obligation towards keeping their borders intact, like pretty much any constitutional sovereign state. Telling Russia to fuck off is in their right. Calling for international assistance, wether you speak about warmongering, is the usual way to rise the problem on international circles, because guess what, nothing sells more newspapers around the world. Do you really think any state is going to start a war over this? No, but it is way more likely that Ukraine can accomplish its goals and the international community to find fast solution, by being noisy, than by being a spineless mute freak.
The ukraine does not have an intact government, or an army to command (since they refuse to obey orders from what you call "the government"). You conveniently left that out, and that makes all the difference.
Their own army does not obey to their call to arms, doubting the legitimation.
If you like it or not, the whole thing is a politic kabarett - the EU etc has to tiptoe around the fact that the ukraine is led by a "junta" (not really, but the softer version of this). If there would be elections right now, and a proper, voted government would call for a peacekeeping mission, i doubt it would fail to achieve it.
actually parts of the army obeyed their orders and didn't forfeit their bases to the rrussian troops.
That's not how an army behaves while being invaded. Not to mention, "parts" says it all.
Just to be clear, i am all for a proper peacekeeping mission, even though it would mean sending friends over there (served in an armored infantery batallion). But to expect this mission to do more than just protecting "whats left of the ukraine" is stupid. Crimea can only get out of russia in a political way, nothing else.
On March 03 2014 21:47 Derez wrote: [quote] The russian narrative is that events in ukraine are organized by jews/fascists/gays supported by the west and their narrative would never accept western peacekeepers. Ukraine's best bet is continuing to claim that crimea is theirs while trying to convince the west to impose sanctions on russia that'll end when the occupation ends.
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
I mean sure I understand your idea of solving this. It's just pretty damn explosive because it's all off the radar and there are lots and lots of ways for it to go wrong.
Do you realize that's what ukraine's asking for, right ? And yes, they do have to be/sound firm, because mind you, they fucking have troops inside their country.
It's not what they're asking for. They don't want to give up crimea, you tell me now how a peacekeeping mission accomplishes that.
Duh? So what you are speaking about is that they should just stay silent, not provoke the russians, and just give up on Crimea in a illegal occupation instead of calling it out in the international community?
Eh?
Just imagine for a second that there are (in whatever shape or form) western peacekeeping troops in the rest of Ukraine. *poof* - What's Russia gonna do? Shoot them? Nope, not even Putin.
You said "that's what they're asking for", i told you, it's not, and you tell me "duh"?
How do you think will a peacekeeping mission get rid of russians in crimea? Their mission would be to stop the ADVANCE of russian troops, not throwing them out of crimea, wtf.
Here is the thing. Ukraine's goverment have an obligation towards keeping their borders intact, like pretty much any constitutional sovereign state. Telling Russia to fuck off is in their right. Calling for international assistance, wether you speak about warmongering, is the usual way to rise the problem on international circles, because guess what, nothing sells more newspapers around the world. Do you really think any state is going to start a war over this? No, but it is way more likely that Ukraine can accomplish its goals and the international community to find fast solution, by being noisy, than by being a spineless mute freak.
The ukraine does not have an intact government, or an army to command (since they refuse to obey orders from what you call "the government"). You conveniently left that out, and that makes all the difference.
Their own army does not obey to their call to arms, doubting the legitimation.
If you like it or not, the whole thing is a politic kabarett - the EU etc has to tiptoe around the fact that the ukraine is led by a "junta" (not really, but the softer version of this). If there would be elections right now, and a proper, voted government would call for a peacekeeping mission, i doubt it would fail to achieve it.
actually parts of the army obeyed their orders and didn't forfeit their bases to the rrussian troops.
That's not how an army behaves while being invaded. Not to mention, "parts" says it all.
The army does what its ordered to do. They haven't been ordered to fight, they've been ordered to mobilize and those that are in bases in the crimea are ordered to stay in them and not surrender their weapons. That seems to be exactly what they're doing.
On March 03 2014 22:01 aksfjh wrote: If you don't get the reference, Russia is bullying Ukraine. They are attempting to extort land and/or resources under the auspices of protecting their property and "their" people living in Ukraine. When Germany was split after WW1, many German people were scattered in various surrounding countries and the first steps of WW2 included "reunification." This is where history teaches us a lesson. You don't let this shit happen.
if the history teaches you a lesson then nato and other organisations should also start fighting against this:
And NATO and the EU have a pretty decent track record of establishing/supporting human rights and rule of law in countries they're dealing with, especially in Europe. I don't see what your complaint is.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/PA-16086493.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bho9w2kIEAAwTjO.jpg)
