Ukraine Crisis - Page 392

On April 03 2014 02:50 Influ wrote:


this thinking is soooooooooooooooo wrong I don't even know where to start or where to end.
.

...

A newspaper editor in Vologda had a simple question for President Vladimir Putin. Considering all that Mr. Putin has done in Crimea to protect the rights of downtrodden Russian-speakers there, won't he please consider sending troops to do the same for long-suffering residents of Vologda?

...

Vologda's governor, Oleg Kuvshinnikov, did not find that the least bit amusing. "The price of words is very great," his spokesman told the online newspaper Gazeta.ru. "Such formulations are beyond my understanding or sense of humor."

Mr. Kuvshinnikov turned the case over to the regional prosecutor, who is currently investigating the post, and Romanenko himself, for signs of "extremist activity and fomenting social, ethnic, and linguistic strife."

...

The most severe penalties for the organization of an extremist community. For this crime are invited to punish by fine of 200 thousand to 500 thousand rubles., Forced labor for a term up to five years, or imprisonment for up to six years, reports RBC .

For inciting hatred or enmity (Article 282) will now be punished for four years instead of two, for public calls to extremism (Article 280 of the Criminal Code) sentence increased from three to four years.

I never said that the Ukraine wouldn't be important at all, read my posts properly before you reply.
Yes, the Ukraine does have the potential to be important, however even that wouldn't justify the massive expenses necessary for military action to keep Crimea in the Ukraine.

Documents found in Mezhyhirya show that Yanukovych’s eldest son Oleksandr owned DRFTs, a coal trading company set up by a Yanukovych family associate in the 1990s and controlled by an offshore firm in the British Virgin Islands. Letters from Oleksandr Yanukovych’s MAKO Holdings in 2010 instruct Tantalit, the company operating Mezhyhirya, to help transfer five coal enrichment plants to DRFTs. Two years later, Viktor Yanukovych made a change in state property law that allowed DRFTs to legally own for free the state share in the assets that it already effectively owned.

Yanukovych was also spending $1.25 million to rebuild a house for Viacheslav Ovcharenko, chief justice of Ukraine’s constitutional court.

Bodyguard Kobzar’s diary, which activists found in his house on the estate and turned over to the YanukovychLeaks journalists, contained a detailed account of the attack.

On April 03 2014 05:06 Sub40APM wrote:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/25-tales-of-corruption-and-control-from-documents-found-at-t
Yanukovich files getting translated and uploaded piece by piece.

and

and

On April 03 2014 05:17 m4ini wrote:


Might be naive, but how accurate is this (i don't know the page, so i'm not sure if it's more reuters or more rt)?

It's extremely mindblowing if this is accurate, and the famous statement "it all began with EuroMaidan" would look incredibly stupid against that.

edit:

The NASA-move is incredibly stupid though, i have to say. I'm not entirely sure who gets hurt more by this. Not to mention that stuff like ISS etc should be "neutral ground", even in tense times.

On April 03 2014 03:27 m4ini wrote:


I did. You were talking about crimea not being important enough. I said the Ukraine (and with that their border integrity, which includes crimea since officially it's still part of the ukraine, at least in the west) is very important.

Not to mention that nobody was talking about "massive expenses", look at what the NATO is doing now. US Jets, joint operations, etc.

Ukraine couldn't fight back against Russia, theoretically the US and Europe could have, but Crimea just isn't important enough to justify the expenses.

On April 03 2014 02:56 SilentchiLL wrote:


It's not seen as our conflict either, if Merkel would have propagated a war over Crimea the people here and her own party would have told her that she's insane, same goes for every other bigger country in western europe.
And as I said the US and the EU do have the forces necessary, it would just be way too expensive.
And for the bolded part...
Russia got a lot of shit for sending their troops to Crimea, what would it say about the NATO if they immediately send their troops into countries which think about joining, especially if siding with the west instead of Russia isn't undisputed in that particular country?
That aside, it's also not how we operate


I never said that the Ukraine wouldn't be important at all, read my posts properly before you reply.
Yes, the Ukraine does have the potential to be important, however even that wouldn't justify the massive expenses necessary for military action to keep Crimea in the Ukraine.

The president and owner of RTTV America is facing up to three years in prison for federal tax fraud after he admitted to cooking the books for the Washington-based Russian news channel by filing over $1 million in phony corporate tax deductions.

In a letter published on Navalny's blog, allegedly to a Russian Internet provider, the Moscow prosecutors complain that "groups connected with (Navalny) continue publishing information in his name."

The prosecutors' letter did not identify the people but said it was a violation of house arrest rules, particularly because the messages posted online urge Russians to attend protest rallies.

"The publications... contain calls to participate in mass public actions in violation of public order," said the letter, adding that Navalny's pages on Facebook, Russia's main social networking site VKontakte, Twitter, and Live Journal "form the readers' opinion."

Vedomosti business daily reported that similar letters were sent out to the companies that control Russian social networking sites.

On April 03 2014 05:33 Acertos wrote:

In France i don t think so.
The only good thing about Hollande is that he is willing to take military problems extremely seriously, he thinks we are indebted to our ancient colonies and i do too. In polls a majority of french were in favor with the interventions in Mali and CenterAfrica even if the majority of politicians were arguing against it.
I don t think our people would hate other military interventions if they are morally justified.

On April 03 2014 05:26 SilentchiLL wrote:


Since you seem hellbent to only see the a small part of the sentence even if I tell you about it here the actual quote:


As I said, important?
Potentially, yes.
Important enough to justify the expenses of taking Crimea back via military means?
No.
For an American soldier to actually die America would have to bring a large enough force to Crimea to actually threaten Russia's hold on Crimea.
And once again, Crimea is not important enough to justify the money that would cost.

You were talking about crimea not being important enough.

Crimea is not important enough to justify the money that would cost.

On April 03 2014 05:47 m4ini wrote:


Let me get that straight.



vs



And somehow you try to convince me that my former statement is wrong, did i miss something? Not to mention that there's no need for a large us-army to threaten the russian military in power. When i was in the Bundeswehr, we had british soldiers in our military installation. Would've been interesting to see if russians would've sieged ukrainian military installations with american "guests" in them, doesn't matter how many.

I bet you any money, the last thing putin wants, is a dead american soldier shot by a russian. He might act all high and mighty, but he knows as good as everyone else, that he wouldn't make it through the next winter.

As I said, important?
Potentially, yes.
Important enough to justify the expenses of taking Crimea back via military means?
No.
For an American soldier to actually die America would have to bring a large enough force to Crimea to actually threaten Russia's hold on Crimea.
And once again, Crimea is not important enough to justify the money that would cost.

Not to mention that there's no need for a large us-army to threaten the russian military in power. When i was in the Bundeswehr, we had british soldiers in our military installation. Would've been interesting to see if russians would've sieged ukrainian military installations with american "guests" in them, doesn't matter how many.

On April 03 2014 02:48 SilentchiLL wrote:


Ukraine couldn't fight back against Russia, theoretically the US and Europe could have, but Crimea just isn't important enough to justify the expenses.
It's a cold world, but that's the way it is, we just don't care enough.

Dmitry Firtash, a Ukrainian businessman who amassed his fortune in Russia’s gas trade, was indicted on U.S. bribery charges tied to a $500 million Indian mining project in a case he says is politically motivated.

Firtash, 48, allegedly conspired with five other men and met with Indian government officials as part of an effort to pay $18.5 million in bribes to facilitate the project, aimed at generating titanium product sales to firms including an Illinois-based company that wasn’t identified in the indictment.

“Firtash was the leader of the enterprise,” Chicago U.S. Attorney Zachary Fardon said today in a statement.

On April 03 2014 02:07 SilentchiLL wrote:


Buuuuuut armies are expensiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive

On April 03 2014 11:49 Simberto wrote:
Well, to be honest, an army is essentially utterly useless. The only reason countries have them is because other countries have one too, and if you don't have one when someone else has one you are fucked. But fundamentally they don't really serve a purpose.

But on Sunday, the American commander of NATO forces in Europe, Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, told a German Marshall Fund conference in Brussels that the alliance must reconsider the positioning and readiness of its forces because of Russian threats to Ukraine and Moldova. “Russia is acting much more like an adversary than a partner,” he said.

Jonathan Eyal, director of international security studies at the Royal United Services Institute, said that an irredentist Russia meant that “defense is coming home — we’re back to more emphasis on land forces and equipment in Europe and territorial defense, stuff that defense planners had thought were unfashionable.”

Debates in NATO, which has a summit meeting in Wales scheduled for September, will no longer emphasize “how do we send troops around the world to do good, stabilize countries and fight pirates,” Mr. Eyal said. “Subjects like tanks and soldiers will be back to the fore, and more troops will be available for training and stationing in Eastern Europe and fewer for deployments farther abroad.”

On April 03 2014 11:49 Simberto wrote:
Well, to be honest, an army is essentially utterly useless. The only reason countries have them is because other countries have one too, and if you don't have one when someone else has one you are fucked. But fundamentally they don't really serve a purpose.

On April 03 2014 05:17 m4ini wrote:


Might be naive, but how accurate is this (i don't know the page, so i'm not sure if it's more reuters or more rt)?

It's extremely mindblowing if this is accurate, and the famous statement "it all began with EuroMaidan" would look incredibly stupid against that.

edit:

The NASA-move is incredibly stupid though, i have to say. I'm not entirely sure who gets hurt more by this. Not to mention that stuff like ISS etc should be "neutral ground", even in tense times.