EPT
There's a reason why Russia is now the largest country in the world by land area...Ukraine Crisis - Page 427
| Forum Index > Closed |
There is a new policy in effect in this thread. Anyone not complying will be moderated. New policy, please read before posting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=21393711 | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
There's a reason why Russia is now the largest country in the world by land area... | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On April 16 2014 22:54 Ghanburighan wrote: Not to mention Russia has been in so many wars in the last few hundred years, it would take too long to list them all. There have already been around 20 military conflicts with Russian involvement since the Soviet Union collapsed There's a reason why Russia is now the largest country in the world by land area...Well, i suppose you can't blame Russians of 17-18th century for conquering land nobody really owned back then, can you :D? It is the reason after all. @Article, interesting read, but not exactly anything new. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6336 Posts
On April 16 2014 22:52 Simberto wrote: Irrelevant. Russia is the one starting a war and invading a country RIGHT NOW. Doesn't matter what others did in the past. Maybe you should be asking which countries funded the coup in Ukraine that started all this in the first place. | ||
|
Mc
332 Posts
I'm copy-pasting my question from earlier. My main issue is that Ukraine (and the whole world knew) Russia might start problems in E. Ukraine also. Couldn't they have responded quicker rather than waiting almost a month to react (March 13th, 2 Ukrainians were killed during pro-Russia protestors in Donetsk)? They didn't need to send troops in at the time, but just have a fucking plan for what to do if they start occupying buildings, and maybe send in Ukrainian loyal police/riot-police (they still have some outside of Berkut?). Why not be prepared for a very probably situation so you can respond quickly rather than responding after 10 towns are partially occupied and the "protestors" have fortified themselves. So the question is why they weren't prepared for this? Was it pro-Russians in the government/army/FSB sabotaging preparations or hiding information? Was it just general ineptitude? The chaotic issue of Crimea distracting from the East? All of the above? something else? | ||
|
SF-Fork
Russian Federation1401 Posts
It is not so surprising that bad plans where hastily drawn and there was a lack of preparation to deal with events in Eastern Ukraine. Russia in this sense is much more organized. They've been moving troops since the olympics ended and were probably drawing plans way before that. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11744 Posts
On April 16 2014 23:11 zeo wrote: Maybe you should be asking which countries funded the coup in Ukraine that started all this in the first place. Countries are allowed to have revolutions. Even if you don't like the result. | ||
|
SF-Fork
Russian Federation1401 Posts
On April 16 2014 23:21 Simberto wrote: Countries are allowed to have revolutions. Even if you don't like the result. This was an Everybody-hates-Yanukovich revolution. The current conflict has nothing to do with that anymore, unfortunately. If it wasn't for general power-mongering from many sides, internal and external, new elections would have given place to a new government in a short time due to Euromaidan's success. Why it didn't work that way? Whose fault is that? It is not a rethorical question. The amount of (dis)information renders me incapable of understanding what is going on and weeding out the truth from the lies. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22085 Posts
On April 16 2014 23:28 SF-Fork wrote: This was an Everybody-hates-Yanukovich revolution. The current conflict has nothing to do with that anymore, unfortunately. If it wasn't for general power-mongering from many sides, internal and external, new elections would have given place to a new government in a short time due to Euromaidan's success. Why it didn't work that way? Whose fault is that? It is not a rethorical question. The amount of (dis)information renders me incapable of understanding what is going on and weeding out the truth from the lies. Yanokovich was driving out as you say and new elections were planned for may. Then the Crimea crisis was started by Russia making up false reports of threats against the local Russian population. (There is no actual proof any Russian in the Crimea was oppressed or infringed on, the language law was vetoed down and never went into effect) If that hadn't happened it would have been more or less peaceful until the elections at which point the people of the Ukraine actually got to decide what they wanted. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
Basically he thinks that Russia's goal in Eastern Ukraine is not a landgrab. There are too many problems with trying to conquer that territory. Unlike Crimea, where Russia had overwhelming support, that is not the case in Eastern Ukraine. He thinks that their plan is to weaken Ukraine and make world forget about Crimea. And they are succeeding perfectly on both counts. Because it seems everyone forgot about Crimea already, which is exactly what Putin wanted. So much for the claims that Putin is in his own world and all that PR nonsense that was peddled here so vehemently some time ago. He seems to know what he is doing much better than some western leaders. He also thinks that the separatists are not Russian military at all (although some advisors and specialists might be present), but are military trained, possibly in Russia or by Russia. The direct goal is federalization of Ukraine, which basically accomplishes everything Russia wants without any problems that landgrab would entail. Ukraine would not join NATO or EU, Russia would retain access to factories producing their ballistic rockets and would also retain land access to Crimea. The only things that might push Russia into Eastern Ukraine are exactly the factories (but Russia probably has already some plans to deal with their loss) and access to Crimea. But they will go for it only if Ukrainian leadership fucks up too much and Ukraine shows too much weakness. He is also not very fond of current Ukrainian leadership and basically says that they are playing right into Putin's hands in the way they are dealing with the crisis. On that last thing I am not sure if I agree as they might be forced by circumstances beyond their control. The fact that Ukrainian secret service is completely infiltrated by Russian agents and that police officers in the east are not that loyal to government in Kiev (well why should they) and army seems underpaid and under-equipped also does not help. Anyway, that is basically his view, and I think it is convincing for the most part. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 16 2014 23:21 Simberto wrote: Countries are allowed to have revolutions. Even if you don't like the result. That can be also used to justify the pro-Russian activists, because not only countries are allowed to have that. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6336 Posts
On April 16 2014 23:21 Simberto wrote: Countries are allowed to have revolutions. Even if you don't like the result. So the population in Eastern Ukraine is allowed to protest against the non-elected government in Kiev? So the population in Eastern Ukraine is allowed to take government buildings by force and proclaim their independence from the government in Kiev just like the case was in western Ukraine not so long ago? | ||
|
Mc
332 Posts
On April 16 2014 23:40 mcc wrote: So I read an interview (in Czech, but can link if anyone wants) with ex-chief of Czech armed forces. I found his analysis of the situation quite convincing. Basically he thinks that Russia's goal in Eastern Ukraine is not a landgrab. There are too many problems with trying to conquer that territory. Unlike Crimea, where Russia had overwhelming support, that is not the case in Eastern Ukraine. He thinks that their plan is to weaken Ukraine and make world forget about Crimea. And they are succeeding perfectly on both counts. Because it seems everyone forgot about Crimea already, which is exactly what Putin wanted. So much for the claims that Putin is in his own world and all that PR nonsense that was peddled here so vehemently some time ago. He seems to know what he is doing much better than some western leaders. He also thinks that the separatists are not Russian military at all (although some advisors and specialists might be present), but are military trained, possibly in Russia or by Russia. The direct goal is federalization of Ukraine, which basically accomplishes everything Russia wants without any problems that landgrab would entail. Ukraine would not join NATO or EU, Russia would retain access to factories producing their ballistic rockets and would also retain land access to Crimea. The only things that might push Russia into Eastern Ukraine are exactly the factories (but Russia probably has already some plans to deal with their loss) and access to Crimea. But they will go for it only if Ukrainian leadership fucks up too much and Ukraine shows too much weakness. He is also not very fond of current Ukrainian leadership and basically says that they are playing right into Putin's hands in the way they are dealing with the crisis. On that last thing I am not sure if I agree as they might be forced by circumstances beyond their control. The fact that Ukrainian secret service is completely infiltrated by Russian agents and that police officers in the east are not that loyal to government in Kiev (well why should they) and army seems underpaid and under-equipped also does not help. Anyway, that is basically his view, and I think it is convincing for the most part. I definitely agree on most of his points. I definitely agree that Russia isn't seeking to annex E. Ukraine - it's goal is to destabilize E. Ukraine for multiple reasons: revenge for betrayal (trying to ally w/ West), to ensure Russian sees that a Euro protest is bound to fail X years down the road. Basically, a divided and economically backwards Ukraine is perfect for Russia. As to distracting from Crimea, I'm not so sure- the whole world accepted Crimean annexation as a fait accompli before the crisis started in E. Ukraine, and this is just agitating the West even more. As to the industry there it's not significant to Russia and they could care less (they'll make their own rockets if need be). Finally as to Russian troops - he's probably right. Are they actual Russian military men there? Maybe a few but not primarily. Are they supported by Russia, yes. Probably some of the arms, some training/logistics/etc. They could also be a lot of former Berkut, and simply Yanukovich thugs. Yanukovich is a very rich man who is very influential in the area - he could easily be organizing a lot of this with Russia's permission/backing. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On April 16 2014 23:53 zeo wrote: So the population in Eastern Ukraine is allowed to protest against the non-elected government in Kiev? So the population in Eastern Ukraine is allowed to take government buildings by force and proclaim their independence from the government in Kiev just like the case was in western Ukraine not so long ago? You missed some part of the timeline, as usual, friend. When exactly turned EuroMaidan from peaceful protest/demonstration into a revolution? There's a date for that, we both know it, you just conveniently (as usual, btw where were you when we were talking about that russian idiot playing three roles in TV?) swiped it under the rug. The population in the eastern ukraine is allowed to protest for whatever they want. That's the joy of civilized countries. What they're NOT allowed to do is exactly what you stated. Take government buildings by force and proclaim independence. See where they skipped the part to actually protest? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11744 Posts
On April 16 2014 23:53 zeo wrote: So the population in Eastern Ukraine is allowed to protest against the non-elected government in Kiev? So the population in Eastern Ukraine is allowed to take government buildings by force and proclaim their independence from the government in Kiev just like the case was in western Ukraine not so long ago? If that were what is happening, yes. I would usually prefer a more peaceful solution (like voting in the elections that were set for may, or demonstrations). However, that is not what is happening. What is happening is russian soldiers taking of the insignia of their uniforms and taking over government buildings. Which is an invasion and not a revolution. A popular revolution is usually something that does not only involve heavily armed young men in camouflage uniforms. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Edit: meaning, peaceful protests stay peaceful as long as you don't try to surpress them because they're inconvenient. But then, change might happen - something yanukovich definately didn't like. | ||
|
Mc
332 Posts
On April 16 2014 23:53 zeo wrote: So the population in Eastern Ukraine is allowed to protest against the non-elected government in Kiev? So the population in Eastern Ukraine is allowed to take government buildings by force and proclaim their independence from the government in Kiev just like the case was in western Ukraine not so long ago? Zeo, are you blind? How do the protests at Maidan compare to the following: These are militants attacking a sovereign nation, this is basically the very definition of terrorists- they are military groups terrorizing E. Ukraine and they aren't officially affiliated with any country (it'd be officially an invasion otherwise, rather than Russian sponsored terrorism). Euromaidan is not anything similar to what is happening in E. Ukraine. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 17 2014 00:08 Simberto wrote: If that were what is happening, yes. I would usually prefer a more peaceful solution (like voting in the elections that were set for may, or demonstrations). However, that is not what is happening. What is happening is russian soldiers taking of the insignia of their uniforms and taking over government buildings. Which is an invasion and not a revolution. A popular revolution is usually something that does not only involve heavily armed young men in camouflage uniforms. That is actually your unsupported claim. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
How about you watch that video posted just one posting before you? That's kinda more than claiming. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 17 2014 00:11 m4ini wrote: On that topic, people should read up on "Monday Demonstrations". Worked out pretty well in germany. But then again, the military/police etc back then was just on "stand by", not actually shooting people, gasing people, and whatnot. Edit: meaning, peaceful protests stay peaceful as long as you don't try to surpress them because they're inconvenient. But then, change might happen - something yanukovich definately didn't like. Actually protests as long as they are not allowed are violently suppressed everywhere. The difference is the level of violence and the fact that freedom of speech and assembly is not legally changed in attempts to suppress the protests. | ||
|
Mc
332 Posts
On April 17 2014 00:19 m4ini wrote: How about you watch that video posted just one posting before you? That's kinda more than claiming. We don't really know for sure- Russia could have just as easily trained Russian nationals (militaristic thugs, there are a LOT of them in Russia) or trained Ukranian thugs for the past year. Give them some high tech guns, and boom there you go. Also as I said Yanukovich could have been behind this - w/ Russia's support of course. As to the guy who claimed to be a Russian officer (another video), maybe he was a former officer or just lieing? Obviously, Russians are deeply involved in this unrest but exactly which ones are Russians, which are military, is hard to tell. Maybe, Russia is being 'cautious' and no actual military members are involved. I need harder evidence to be convinced  | ||
| ||
