|
|
On March 04 2014 10:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Lets be serious here. Even the US donates food to North Korea. The modern international community will not contemplate or accept to deliberately starve the population of a country as a political tool, only as a tool of total war.
In any case, the political elite of any country will never be affected by food problems directly, they will always ensure themselves to be well fed, no matter the cost to their own people.
the same international community that applied some of the most crippling sanctions ever to the people Iraq in the 90's.
|
On March 04 2014 11:07 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 11:00 mcc wrote:
Actually now that I think about it, Iraq is no the best scapegoat for Russia, Kosovo is. NATO militarily forcing independence of sovereign country's region. What does that remind me ?
The problem for the West is they actually lost any high ground long ago and created the precedents themselves and now can only play the diplomatic blame game. In Kosovo there was actual mass killing occurring, in Crimea, there is not. A very, VERY big difference. And west still has moral high ground compared to Russia quite clearly.
Turns out not really. Kosovo was civil war and as such of course had its brutalities, but there was no genocide that West claimed when they intervened. When they actually got the people there it turned out the claims were not really true.
The parallel is more then close. Crimea also does not want to be part of Ukraine (based on some pre-crisis polls) and was in state of rebellion before Russian troops started arriving (of course that might have been orchestrated). As everything in history parallels are not perfect, but this one is much closer than the Iraq.
Of course West has actual moral high ground, but not the diplomatic one. That is the one I talked about. They cannot claim that territorial integrity is sacrosanct and at the same time not sound like a bunch of hypocrites.
|
On March 04 2014 11:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:57 zlefin wrote:
It would make more sense to just kill Putin and whatever oligarchs are pushing for this. Pity they can't just be good.
I never got why people opposed the leader assassination system. It seems like there'd be far fewer total casualties if both sides on a war just focused on taking out the other's leadership, rather than killing regular soldiers and risking civilian damage so much. You seem to be missing the point that this situation is not exactly a "war". In modern warfare, there generally isn't any compunctions against taking out each other's leadership; indeed it is a basis of military strategy. Except to use as a figurehead after the war in the case of certain victory, like Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi, in which case USA killed everybody around that figurehead, (especially brutal in the case of Gaddafi as virtually every male relative of his was killed).
Problematic if you have someone like putin in command though, he's not hated like Saddam for example. Not to mention, in a war, it would not be an assassination, but a strategical move. Hard to explain what i mean, english is not my mainlanguage. In this situation, if you kill putin, with that much hatred in russias population for the west anyway, you set up world war 3 - because the following president/dictator will have an agenda.
Might be different in an all out war, but since that's not the case, meh.
|
On March 04 2014 11:19 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 11:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 04 2014 10:57 zlefin wrote:
It would make more sense to just kill Putin and whatever oligarchs are pushing for this. Pity they can't just be good.
I never got why people opposed the leader assassination system. It seems like there'd be far fewer total casualties if both sides on a war just focused on taking out the other's leadership, rather than killing regular soldiers and risking civilian damage so much. You seem to be missing the point that this situation is not exactly a "war". In modern warfare, there generally isn't any compunctions against taking out each other's leadership; indeed it is a basis of military strategy. Except to use as a figurehead after the war in the case of certain victory, like Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi, in which case USA killed everybody around that figurehead, (especially brutal in the case of Gaddafi as virtually every male relative of his was killed). Problematic if you have someone like putin in command though, he's not hated like Saddam for example. Not to mention, in a war, it would not be an assassination, but a strategical move. Hard to explain what i mean, english is not my mainlanguage. In this situation, if you kill putin, with that much hatred in russias population for the west anyway, you set up world war 3 - because the following president/dictator will have an agenda. Might be different in an all out war, but since that's not the case, meh.
no one has to kill anyone. Targeted sanctions will kill support for Putin from his elite. Ban on Russian visas and some light goods that Russians love to import from the West will hurt his support among the common Russians to whom he promises stability and a European life style. Maybe if you want to get super crazy find Putin and Sechin's bank accounts in UK and Swiss banks and then handout the contents to each Russian on a proportional basis.
|
On March 04 2014 11:18 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 11:07 zlefin wrote:On March 04 2014 11:00 mcc wrote:
Actually now that I think about it, Iraq is no the best scapegoat for Russia, Kosovo is. NATO militarily forcing independence of sovereign country's region. What does that remind me ?
The problem for the West is they actually lost any high ground long ago and created the precedents themselves and now can only play the diplomatic blame game. In Kosovo there was actual mass killing occurring, in Crimea, there is not. A very, VERY big difference. And west still has moral high ground compared to Russia quite clearly. Turns out not really. Kosovo was civil war and as such of course had its brutalities, but there was no genocide that West claimed when they intervened. When they actually got the people there it turned out the claims were not really true. The parallel is more then close. Crimea also does not want to be part of Ukraine (based on some pre-crisis polls) and was in state of rebellion before Russian troops started arriving (of course that might have been orchestrated). As everything in history parallels are not perfect, but this one is much closer than the Iraq. Of course West has actual moral high ground, but not the diplomatic one. That is the one I talked about. They cannot claim that territorial integrity is sacrosanct and at the same time not sound like a bunch of hypocrites.
again, a HUGE difference. An actual civil war with large amounts of killing, even if not specifically genocide, is one thing;
what was happening in Crimea, there was no real fighting or killing involved, no mass fighting in the streets. And saying they were in an actual state of rebellion isn't accurate, maybe some civil unrest, and governmental disputes, but rebellion? Crimea didn't openly take up arms and declare itself independent, that'd be different. Nor were they engaging in combat.
Also, Russia didn't try say, asking the security council to approve a peace-keeping mission to Ukraine. Trying the diplomatic international route first is important.
|
On March 04 2014 11:19 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 11:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 04 2014 10:57 zlefin wrote:
It would make more sense to just kill Putin and whatever oligarchs are pushing for this. Pity they can't just be good.
I never got why people opposed the leader assassination system. It seems like there'd be far fewer total casualties if both sides on a war just focused on taking out the other's leadership, rather than killing regular soldiers and risking civilian damage so much. You seem to be missing the point that this situation is not exactly a "war". In modern warfare, there generally isn't any compunctions against taking out each other's leadership; indeed it is a basis of military strategy. Except to use as a figurehead after the war in the case of certain victory, like Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi, in which case USA killed everybody around that figurehead, (especially brutal in the case of Gaddafi as virtually every male relative of his was killed). Problematic if you have someone like putin in command though, he's not hated like Saddam for example. Not to mention, in a war, it would not be an assassination, but a strategical move. Hard to explain what i mean, english is not my mainlanguage. In this situation, if you kill putin, with that much hatred in russias population for the west anyway, you set up world war 3 - because the following president/dictator will have an agenda. Might be different in an all out war, but since that's not the case, meh.
Just to clarify, are you replying to me, or to zlefin? I carefully avoided the use of such a loaded word as "assasination". Indeed it seems like that you are more of agreeing with me than anything else.
|
On March 04 2014 11:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 11:19 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 11:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 04 2014 10:57 zlefin wrote:
It would make more sense to just kill Putin and whatever oligarchs are pushing for this. Pity they can't just be good.
I never got why people opposed the leader assassination system. It seems like there'd be far fewer total casualties if both sides on a war just focused on taking out the other's leadership, rather than killing regular soldiers and risking civilian damage so much. You seem to be missing the point that this situation is not exactly a "war". In modern warfare, there generally isn't any compunctions against taking out each other's leadership; indeed it is a basis of military strategy. Except to use as a figurehead after the war in the case of certain victory, like Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi, in which case USA killed everybody around that figurehead, (especially brutal in the case of Gaddafi as virtually every male relative of his was killed). Problematic if you have someone like putin in command though, he's not hated like Saddam for example. Not to mention, in a war, it would not be an assassination, but a strategical move. Hard to explain what i mean, english is not my mainlanguage. In this situation, if you kill putin, with that much hatred in russias population for the west anyway, you set up world war 3 - because the following president/dictator will have an agenda. Might be different in an all out war, but since that's not the case, meh. Just to clarify, are you replying to me, or to zlefin? I carefully avoided the use of such a loaded word as "assasination". Indeed it seems like that you are more of agreeing with me than anything else.
I actually do, wasn't arguing but agreeing. It's 2:30am for me, bit tired.. 
|
On March 04 2014 11:24 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 11:18 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 11:07 zlefin wrote:On March 04 2014 11:00 mcc wrote:
Actually now that I think about it, Iraq is no the best scapegoat for Russia, Kosovo is. NATO militarily forcing independence of sovereign country's region. What does that remind me ?
The problem for the West is they actually lost any high ground long ago and created the precedents themselves and now can only play the diplomatic blame game. In Kosovo there was actual mass killing occurring, in Crimea, there is not. A very, VERY big difference. And west still has moral high ground compared to Russia quite clearly. Turns out not really. Kosovo was civil war and as such of course had its brutalities, but there was no genocide that West claimed when they intervened. When they actually got the people there it turned out the claims were not really true. The parallel is more then close. Crimea also does not want to be part of Ukraine (based on some pre-crisis polls) and was in state of rebellion before Russian troops started arriving (of course that might have been orchestrated). As everything in history parallels are not perfect, but this one is much closer than the Iraq. Of course West has actual moral high ground, but not the diplomatic one. That is the one I talked about. They cannot claim that territorial integrity is sacrosanct and at the same time not sound like a bunch of hypocrites. again, a HUGE difference. An actual civil war with large amounts of killing, even if not specifically genocide, is one thing; what was happening in Crimea, there was no real fighting or killing involved, no mass fighting in the streets. And saying they were in an actual state of rebellion isn't accurate, maybe some civil unrest, and governmental disputes, but rebellion? Crimea didn't openly take up arms and declare itself independent, that'd be different. Nor were they engaging in combat. Also, Russia didn't try say, asking the security council to approve a peace-keeping mission to Ukraine. Trying the diplomatic international route first is important.
Kosovo intervention was also not approved by Security Council. So at what point does territorial integrity stop being important ? Frankly your arguments do nothing to even address what I said at the end : "They cannot claim that territorial integrity is sacrosanct and at the same time not sound like a bunch of hypocrites.". Serbia's territorial integrity did not matter too much, why should Ukraine's.
EDIT: By using all caps and stressing adjectives does not make the differences huge. It is your subjective opinion that they were huge. The facts are that territorial integrity does not matter to the West when it does not suit them either.
|
If you fail to see a huge difference between civil war and a situation with moderate and irregular violence, then there's no point talking.
|
On March 04 2014 11:44 zlefin wrote:
If you fail to see a huge difference between civil war and a situation with moderate and irregular violence, then there's no point talking.
If you fail to see the sameness of ignoring territorial integrity and resulting loss of diplomatic high ground it is indeed pointless.
|
On March 04 2014 11:18 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 11:07 zlefin wrote:On March 04 2014 11:00 mcc wrote:
Actually now that I think about it, Iraq is no the best scapegoat for Russia, Kosovo is. NATO militarily forcing independence of sovereign country's region. What does that remind me ?
The problem for the West is they actually lost any high ground long ago and created the precedents themselves and now can only play the diplomatic blame game. In Kosovo there was actual mass killing occurring, in Crimea, there is not. A very, VERY big difference. And west still has moral high ground compared to Russia quite clearly. Turns out not really. Kosovo was civil war and as such of course had its brutalities, but there was no genocide that West claimed when they intervened. When they actually got the people there it turned out the claims were not really true. The parallel is more then close. Crimea also does not want to be part of Ukraine (based on some pre-crisis polls) and was in state of rebellion before Russian troops started arriving (of course that might have been orchestrated). As everything in history parallels are not perfect, but this one is much closer than the Iraq. Of course West has actual moral high ground, but not the diplomatic one. That is the one I talked about. They cannot claim that territorial integrity is sacrosanct and at the same time not sound like a bunch of hypocrites.
Conceding that western governments are indeed hypocrites, there is a big difference in ignoring the sovereignty of a dictatorship and that of a democracy. Especially a democracy with a federal structure, where even the minority you are supposed to be defending has plenty of political power.
|
02:57: We're approaching the reported 03:00 GMT deadline that Ukraine says its forces in Crimea have been given to surrender. Russia has strongly denied the claim. So far we've had no reports of any incidents.
02:56: Moscow intends to discuss the Ukraine crisis with the West on two key conditions, a source at the Russian foreign ministry tells Ria Novosti news agency. The source says the 21 February agreement - signed by ousted President Yanukovych and the Ukrainian opposition - must be implemented, and that all Ukrainian political forces must take part in negotiations.
The deal that Russia didnt sign is the only deal theyll accept.
|
On March 04 2014 11:55 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 11:18 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 11:07 zlefin wrote:On March 04 2014 11:00 mcc wrote:
Actually now that I think about it, Iraq is no the best scapegoat for Russia, Kosovo is. NATO militarily forcing independence of sovereign country's region. What does that remind me ?
The problem for the West is they actually lost any high ground long ago and created the precedents themselves and now can only play the diplomatic blame game. In Kosovo there was actual mass killing occurring, in Crimea, there is not. A very, VERY big difference. And west still has moral high ground compared to Russia quite clearly. Turns out not really. Kosovo was civil war and as such of course had its brutalities, but there was no genocide that West claimed when they intervened. When they actually got the people there it turned out the claims were not really true. The parallel is more then close. Crimea also does not want to be part of Ukraine (based on some pre-crisis polls) and was in state of rebellion before Russian troops started arriving (of course that might have been orchestrated). As everything in history parallels are not perfect, but this one is much closer than the Iraq. Of course West has actual moral high ground, but not the diplomatic one. That is the one I talked about. They cannot claim that territorial integrity is sacrosanct and at the same time not sound like a bunch of hypocrites. Conceding that western governments are indeed hypocrites, there is a big difference in ignoring the sovereignty of a dictatorship and that of a democracy. Especially a democracy with a federal structure, where even the minority you are supposed to be defending has plenty of political power.
There is indeed some difference. But in places that have no relation to the rhetoric used by the Western powers.
|
http://news.yahoo.com/crimean-authorities-cut-power-water-ukrainian-troops-russian-222623578.html;_ylt=AwrBJR_nAxVT7A4Akd3QtDMD
Sergei Markov, who held meetings with pro-Russian authorities on the Ukrainian peninsula earlier on Monday, told reporters the soldiers would also be told they would not receive their next pay packet if they did not publicly renounce their loyalty to the new provisional government in Kiev, the capital.
"If they stay here and remain loyal to Kiev and the Ukrainian government, it will become more uncomfortable for them," said Markov, who sits in a Kremlin-backed public policy chamber. "The pressure is going to increase tonight."
|
i hope russia doesn't bring on its weak army we would kick their ass all over their weak ass
|
Guess that Ultimatum was kinda fake, since nothing happened, or am i missing something?
|
On March 04 2014 12:46 m4ini wrote:
Guess that Ultimatum was kinda fake, since nothing happened, or am i missing something?
They cut off all outside supplies at 3 GMT.
Water, electricity, etc
|
On March 04 2014 12:50 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 12:46 m4ini wrote:
Guess that Ultimatum was kinda fake, since nothing happened, or am i missing something? They cut off all outside supplies at 3 GMT. Water, electricity, etc
You know, gotta do it, otherwise those Fascist Nazis might start commit the genocide RT has been warning about for the last month. After they somehow get past the heavily armed and armored special forces who are totally not Russian guys who outnumber them 3-1.
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/daniel-yergin-russian-president-vladimir-putin-ukraine-crimea-104215.html?hp=l3
“Russia may have been willing to trade the prestige garnered from the Sochi Olympics for the strategic Crimean peninsula, but oil and gas revenues matter much more to Russia than figure skating,” the firm ClearView Energy Partners wrote in a research note. Russia still has a powerful grip on Europe’s natural gas supply, providing about 30 percent of European gas consumption in 2013. But Europe is less dependent on pipelines that go through Ukraine than it was in 2006 and 2009, the other instances when Russia shut off gas shipments. In addition, with spring weather moving in, seasonal demand for gas is dropping, making a shortage less likely. And EU countries are sitting on ample gas inventories, Reuters reported. “There’s certainly a lot of anxiety around gas. But from a European side, it’s more manageable,” Yergin, who is IHS vice chairman, said. “There’s a lot more flexibility and storage in the system.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/daniel-yergin-russian-president-vladimir-putin-ukraine-crimea-104215.html#ixzz2uxm0uh4T
|
04:15: Ukraine's Customs Service is reporting a "gathering of military machines" in the Kharkiv, Luhansk and Donetsk regions just across the Russian border, according to Evhen Perebyinis, a spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry.
04:02: A deputy commander at one of Ukraine's
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
