|
|
Rename thread to Ukraine crisis.
I wonder what would US do if Mexico or Canada joined military-economic alliance with Russia? Would they take the rest of California from Mexico or bomb them to the ground? There are some people here,mostly from west,who dont realize that their countries and alliances which they are in behave exactly same as Russia. Is this off topic? I dont know anymore this thread....
|
On March 01 2014 11:13 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 10:53 m4ini wrote:On March 01 2014 10:42 zeonmx wrote:On March 01 2014 09:55 m4ini wrote:On March 01 2014 09:48 zeonmx wrote:On March 01 2014 09:44 m4ini wrote:People just loves to bring out the words "nuclear war" in every Russia-related military/incidents/crisis. Might have to do with the opinion that putin would not hesitate for a second to use his arsenal if needed. You mean the very same conventional arsenal that US has been pulling out on Middle Eastern affairs for past decades or so? Fair enough. We both know that i wasn't talking about that. What i do know is that my personal enviroment wasn't talking about nuclear wars every time the US went ham on something (stupidity etc, hipocrisis, lies, yes, but not nuclear threats). With russia they do, for the simple fact that even bush seemed alot more reasonable than putin. Actually I don't. And there is no reason for Russia to bring up nukes every time they bring up military. That is some cold-war era stuck logic. This is just Putin's plan of consolidating his power. And no, Bush and Putin are two completely different animals. For one thing, Putin isn't someone else's bitch/puppet, unlike Bush. Bush lacks any influence to be a dick, unlike Putin. That's why i said that even bush was more reasonable. Putin doesn't have "boundaries" other than those he imposes on himself. The reason russias nukes come up everytime is because other than the USs nuclear arsenal, they are a real threat. Your last paragraph plays a big role in that. Of course Putin has boundaries. The ones that real world puts on him. He is not stupid and definitely does not want to lose his power and life, which is exactly what using nukes would mean. You are completely off if you think he is more likely to use nukes than US.
Read up on russian military doctrine or google "rogozin".
|
On March 01 2014 11:04 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 21:05 radiatoren wrote: In the long run Ukraine will get better results from calling UN and NATO even though Russia will try and smack that down. I can't believe that Putin is naive enough to think that this is a good idea. Btw. both Russia proper and the Black Sea fleet are denying any responsibility even though the people doing this are clearly Russian and military. Guess they are worried their fleet basing rights in Sevastopol is threatened by Ukraines leaders, but their international reputation will be torn even further... Yes, Crimea is mostly non-ukrainian and yes, they are seeking even further authonomy, but it is not Russias to take back! Quoting this just to laugh in your face when it becomes clear how wrong you are at the end of this. So much wrong I can't even decide where to start. 1) The West promotes national self-determination through referendums all over the world, just not when it isn't convenient for them. 2) When an American friendly state in it's backyard faces a revolt (Guatemala, Panama, Chile is even more blatant than this,Cuba etc etc etc... list is too long why bother), army goes in high 5 bros job well done. When Russia faces the same situation in it's backyard, they can't even go into just the region with their ethical majority, imperialist commies! Hypocrisy at its finest. 3) UN cannot do anything when Russia is one of the permanent members of it's security council, even a verbal condemnation will be vetoed (This point alone shows how little you know) What is the difference between a thug and a policeman (real one, not some corrupt or dumb one)?
|
On March 01 2014 11:14 Liman wrote: Rename thread to Ukraine crisis.
I wonder what would US do if Mexico or Canada joined military-economic alliance with Russia? Not care. Except for all the economic refugees who would flood into America since both these countries would go from trading with the richest market in the world to an economy the size of italy
Would they take the rest of California from Mexico or bomb them to the ground?
No, this isnt the Balkans. I am sorry that your former president-dictator broke up Yugoslavia and because you were viewed as the most aggressive country you faced the most hardships. But this situation is not similar.
|
There are some people here,mostly from west,who dont realize that their countries and alliances which they are in behave exactly same as Russia.
Most people do. Some people here will voice their opinion against western idiocracy as well, but they mostly have their own threads.
|
On March 01 2014 10:43 LaNague wrote: noone is nuking anything, russia even removed ammo from most of those "covert" army guys just to not have any risk of them firing in a heated situation.
and they certainly wont start a war with EU, war against germany, france AND UK is gg air superiority.
Therein lies the problem. The EU needs to act as a single entity to stop Russia. While former Soviet bloc countries may have immediate reasons to support Ukraine for their own sovereignty, France, Germany, and the UK don't share those concerns. Since Russia exports natural gas to Western Europe, opposing Russia might not be politically salient for Merkel or Hollande and their voters at home.
|
On March 01 2014 11:24 Kamille wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 10:43 LaNague wrote: noone is nuking anything, russia even removed ammo from most of those "covert" army guys just to not have any risk of them firing in a heated situation.
and they certainly wont start a war with EU, war against germany, france AND UK is gg air superiority. Therein lies the problem. The EU needs to act as a single entity to stop Russia. While former Soviet bloc countries may have immediate reasons to support Ukraine for their own sovereignty, France, Germany, and the UK don't share those concerns. Since Russia exports natural gas to Western Europe, opposing Russia might not be politically salient for Merkel or Hollande and their voters at home. You are hoping for something that is not possible. EU has 28 members who cant agree on anything... they never did intervene together and were always slow to act... it is not hard to remember Bosnia.
|
On March 01 2014 11:19 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 11:04 Feartheguru wrote:On February 28 2014 21:05 radiatoren wrote: In the long run Ukraine will get better results from calling UN and NATO even though Russia will try and smack that down. I can't believe that Putin is naive enough to think that this is a good idea. Btw. both Russia proper and the Black Sea fleet are denying any responsibility even though the people doing this are clearly Russian and military. Guess they are worried their fleet basing rights in Sevastopol is threatened by Ukraines leaders, but their international reputation will be torn even further... Yes, Crimea is mostly non-ukrainian and yes, they are seeking even further authonomy, but it is not Russias to take back! Quoting this just to laugh in your face when it becomes clear how wrong you are at the end of this. So much wrong I can't even decide where to start. 1) The West promotes national self-determination through referendums all over the world, just not when it isn't convenient for them. 2) When an American friendly state in it's backyard faces a revolt (Guatemala, Panama, Chile is even more blatant than this,Cuba etc etc etc... list is too long why bother), army goes in high 5 bros job well done. When Russia faces the same situation in it's backyard, they can't even go into just the region with their ethical majority, imperialist commies! Hypocrisy at its finest. 3) UN cannot do anything when Russia is one of the permanent members of it's security council, even a verbal condemnation will be vetoed (This point alone shows how little you know) What is the difference between a thug and a policeman (real one, not some corrupt or dumb one)? One has a mandate, the other does not. So both Russia and US are thugs.
|
On March 01 2014 11:18 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 11:13 mcc wrote:On March 01 2014 10:53 m4ini wrote:On March 01 2014 10:42 zeonmx wrote:On March 01 2014 09:55 m4ini wrote:On March 01 2014 09:48 zeonmx wrote:On March 01 2014 09:44 m4ini wrote:People just loves to bring out the words "nuclear war" in every Russia-related military/incidents/crisis. Might have to do with the opinion that putin would not hesitate for a second to use his arsenal if needed. You mean the very same conventional arsenal that US has been pulling out on Middle Eastern affairs for past decades or so? Fair enough. We both know that i wasn't talking about that. What i do know is that my personal enviroment wasn't talking about nuclear wars every time the US went ham on something (stupidity etc, hipocrisis, lies, yes, but not nuclear threats). With russia they do, for the simple fact that even bush seemed alot more reasonable than putin. Actually I don't. And there is no reason for Russia to bring up nukes every time they bring up military. That is some cold-war era stuck logic. This is just Putin's plan of consolidating his power. And no, Bush and Putin are two completely different animals. For one thing, Putin isn't someone else's bitch/puppet, unlike Bush. Bush lacks any influence to be a dick, unlike Putin. That's why i said that even bush was more reasonable. Putin doesn't have "boundaries" other than those he imposes on himself. The reason russias nukes come up everytime is because other than the USs nuclear arsenal, they are a real threat. Your last paragraph plays a big role in that. Of course Putin has boundaries. The ones that real world puts on him. He is not stupid and definitely does not want to lose his power and life, which is exactly what using nukes would mean. You are completely off if you think he is more likely to use nukes than US. Read up on russian military doctrine or google "rogozin". Yes, and ? You are naive if you think that Putin does not think about his and his friends best interests. Even Iran would not use nukes if it had some, that Russia would use them just on a whim is even more stupid scenario.
|
On March 01 2014 11:41 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 11:18 m4ini wrote:On March 01 2014 11:13 mcc wrote:On March 01 2014 10:53 m4ini wrote:On March 01 2014 10:42 zeonmx wrote:On March 01 2014 09:55 m4ini wrote:On March 01 2014 09:48 zeonmx wrote:On March 01 2014 09:44 m4ini wrote:People just loves to bring out the words "nuclear war" in every Russia-related military/incidents/crisis. Might have to do with the opinion that putin would not hesitate for a second to use his arsenal if needed. You mean the very same conventional arsenal that US has been pulling out on Middle Eastern affairs for past decades or so? Fair enough. We both know that i wasn't talking about that. What i do know is that my personal enviroment wasn't talking about nuclear wars every time the US went ham on something (stupidity etc, hipocrisis, lies, yes, but not nuclear threats). With russia they do, for the simple fact that even bush seemed alot more reasonable than putin. Actually I don't. And there is no reason for Russia to bring up nukes every time they bring up military. That is some cold-war era stuck logic. This is just Putin's plan of consolidating his power. And no, Bush and Putin are two completely different animals. For one thing, Putin isn't someone else's bitch/puppet, unlike Bush. Bush lacks any influence to be a dick, unlike Putin. That's why i said that even bush was more reasonable. Putin doesn't have "boundaries" other than those he imposes on himself. The reason russias nukes come up everytime is because other than the USs nuclear arsenal, they are a real threat. Your last paragraph plays a big role in that. Of course Putin has boundaries. The ones that real world puts on him. He is not stupid and definitely does not want to lose his power and life, which is exactly what using nukes would mean. You are completely off if you think he is more likely to use nukes than US. Read up on russian military doctrine or google "rogozin". Yes, and ? You are naive if you think that Putin does not think about his and his friends best interests. Even Iran would not use nukes if it had some, that Russia would use them just on a whim is even more stupid scenario.
I don't give a hoot, frankly, what you think that he does. You asked/complained about the fact that as soon as russia is mentioned, the discussion at some point reaches nukes. I told you why. If he uses them or not, doesn't even matter. They threaten to use it, other than for example china. At least out of the top of my head i can't come up with an example of a chinese politician who did, especially that frequently.
There you have your reason.
PS: to assure you, the closest to a worldwide nuclear threat in my mind is not russia, nor china or the us. Just to get that out of the way.
|
Nuclear weapons again.
How exactly do you guys come up with the conclusion that that this could somehow escalate to a shooting war with nukes between the US and Russia? Just...how?
|
On March 01 2014 12:54 sgtnoobkilla wrote: Nuclear weapons again.
How exactly do you guys come up with the conclusion that that this could somehow escalate to a shooting war with nukes between the US and Russia? Just...how? Apparently because Russia = evil and putin = evil. That's their logic behind nuclear war scenario.
|
On March 01 2014 11:20 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 11:14 Liman wrote: Rename thread to Ukraine crisis.
I wonder what would US do if Mexico or Canada joined military-economic alliance with Russia? Not care. Except for all the economic refugees who would flood into America since both these countries would go from trading with the richest market in the world to an economy the size of italy Show nested quote + Would they take the rest of California from Mexico or bomb them to the ground?
No, this isnt the Balkans. I am sorry that your former president-dictator broke up Yugoslavia and because you were viewed as the most aggressive country you faced the most hardships. But this situation is not similar. I get the feeling that most pro-Russian posters in this thread don't have the slightest clue why making these comparisons is so ludicrous. Just because everything is so shitty in the wreckage of the old USSR doesn't mean it's that way everywhere else.
|
I concur; it is quite understandably though, that people judge based on what they've seen of their world. And if all they've seen is the mess Russia has always been, then they judge based on that.
|
On March 01 2014 11:14 Liman wrote: Rename thread to Ukraine crisis.
I wonder what would US do if Mexico or Canada joined military-economic alliance with Russia? Would they take the rest of California from Mexico or bomb them to the ground? There are some people here,mostly from west,who dont realize that their countries and alliances which they are in behave exactly same as Russia. Is this off topic? I dont know anymore this thread....
Both Canada and Mexico trade with Russia, the US government doesn't mind.
If they joined a military alliance with Russia we'd think they went out of their minds since Russia brings far far less to the table in a military alliance than the US does.
It's not exactly a great secret or a great scandal - except in fringe circles like say the internet - that nations behave pretty much the same way in international relations when shooting is not involved.
The difference is that the US doesn't turn entire cities into burned-out rubble anymore and in the aftermath of war we have consistently poured wealth into the countries we fought those wars in, not sucked it out the way Russia did to Eastern Europe after WW2.
|
On March 01 2014 13:51 DeepElemBlues wrote: The difference is that the US doesn't turn entire cities into burned-out rubble anymore and in the aftermath of war we have consistently poured wealth into the countries we fought those wars in, not sucked it out the way Russia did to Eastern Europe after WW2. I don't think they sucked much, in many cases they were actively donating. The problem is that the political and economical system they exported wasn't good for anything besides defending itself from change.
|
On March 01 2014 03:30 mcc wrote: ... As for persecution of minorities, the regional languages were banned in official acts nearly immediately after new government took power. ...
Sigh, here we go again. I wish people would refrain from making statements about thing they don't understand. I'll have to repeat myself: "Ukrainian is the only official language in Ukraine. This is written in our constitution and was present there since we adopted it in 1996. And everything was fine, people still used Russian in all parts of Ukraine without a problem. They just had to use Ukrainian in some formal situations. In 2012, previous government decided to pass a law that would give Russian language a status of regional. Basically it would allow some regions to use Russian as official even though this contradicts our constitution. Practically, that law had very little impact because Russian was already used everywhere in those regions.
Less than a week ago, parliament had a vote and that law was properly canceled as unconstitutional. Now, many forces are exaggerating this fact and making various scary stories even though we were living fine without that law for more than 16 years."
Even though Russian doesn't have the status of official language, it has never stopped people from using it in official situations, like government and courts. It is one of the many norms in Ukraine that aren't enforced or enforced very loosely. That law was only pushed through by the previous government to increase its ratings among the pro-russian crowd. And in practice its cancellation hardly changes anything, just like when it was adopted. All these debates about the language issue are full of speculation, some parties are simply using it as an another instrument of propaganda.
|
On March 01 2014 11:20 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2014 11:14 Liman wrote: Rename thread to Ukraine crisis.
I wonder what would US do if Mexico or Canada joined military-economic alliance with Russia? Not care. Except for all the economic refugees who would flood into America since both these countries would go from trading with the richest market in the world to an economy the size of italy Show nested quote + Would they take the rest of California from Mexico or bomb them to the ground?
No, this isnt the Balkans. I am sorry that your former president-dictator broke up Yugoslavia and because you were viewed as the most aggressive country you faced the most hardships. But this situation is not similar.
Europe is the richest tradezone atm. If USA and europe come to terms with the freetrade negotions US-Euro zone would be it.
At least that's my understanding.
|
|
Puppet state? More like annexation. Russian parliament already introduced the bill to annex Crimea.
|
|
|
|