|
In order to maintain some kind of respectable thread quality and to show some respect for those who lost friends in this tragedy, we're forced to enact a hard line policy for this thread. Any posts holding an opinion on who is responsible or making an accusation that is not held by neutral media will be banned. Policy is in effect from page 27 onwards. Specifically, citing a Ukrainian or Russian source for your claims is going to get you banned. Opinions/facts/accusations arising from neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of its puppet states) will be permitted. This policy extends to all forms of media; if a youtube video or picture has not come through a neutral media source then don't post it or you'll be banned. If you wish to discuss this policy please use this website feedback thread. Updated policy on aggressive posting and insults. |
On July 31 2014 12:20 m4ini wrote:Is it? Apart from the obvious parts of the independent "knowing" alot of the "secret stuff between germany and russia, according to (quote) "sources" being a bit.. optimistic: feel free to explain where that deal would be so incredibly outragreous? Crimea is gone either way. The ukraine will NOT get that back. They can try, forcing a war with russia, but they will lose more (or get wiped of the map completely). There's no way the EU/UN whatever can force russia to give crimea back either. So, let's be clear: crimea will not be a part of ukraine again. So, again. What's so shocking?
Its shocking that Germany would surrender the territory of a smaller weaker country to a fascist. It doesnt just fundamentally undermine any support for EU integration -- whats the point when Germany chops up your territory and feeds it to Russia to keep the exports going, which alone is terrible for Europe as Ukraine descends into chaos and further instability, another Chechnya type society but this time with a population of 44 million and bordering Europe throughout its Western territory -- it also raises the question of where does it stop. Ukraine isnt in the NATO thats obvious, but what happens if the Russians blitkreig through the Baltics next or Finland? Oh well, cant be helped, no German wants to go to war for some small eastern country when thousands of jobs are at stake!
The idea that 'Russia will never back down' is comical, in 1945 most Germans would probably said the same thing about the Baltics or Eastern Germany. Well, thats just reality, lets sell them more cars!
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/31/russia-ukraine-selfies-military-attack/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/does-this-soldiers-instagram-account-prove-russia-is-covertl
In other news, Russians + Social Media = hilarity.
|
On July 31 2014 16:04 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 12:20 m4ini wrote:Is it? Apart from the obvious parts of the independent "knowing" alot of the "secret stuff between germany and russia, according to (quote) "sources" being a bit.. optimistic: feel free to explain where that deal would be so incredibly outragreous? Crimea is gone either way. The ukraine will NOT get that back. They can try, forcing a war with russia, but they will lose more (or get wiped of the map completely). There's no way the EU/UN whatever can force russia to give crimea back either. So, let's be clear: crimea will not be a part of ukraine again. So, again. What's so shocking? Its shocking that Germany would surrender the territory of a smaller weaker country to a fascist. It doesnt just fundamentally undermine any support for EU integration -- whats the point when Germany chops up your territory and feeds it to Russia to keep the exports going, which alone is terrible for Europe as Ukraine descends into chaos and further instability, another Chechnya type society but this time with a population of 44 million and bordering Europe throughout its Western territory -- it also raises the question of where does it stop. Ukraine isnt in the NATO thats obvious, but what happens if the Russians blitkreig through the Baltics next or Finland? Oh well, cant be helped, no German wants to go to war for some small eastern country when thousands of jobs are at stake! The idea that 'Russia will never back down' is comical, in 1945 most Germans would probably said the same thing about the Baltics or Eastern Germany. Well, thats just reality, lets sell them more cars! http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/31/russia-ukraine-selfies-military-attack/http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/does-this-soldiers-instagram-account-prove-russia-is-covertlIn other news, Russians + Social Media = hilarity.
I agree, it was a bad move. We, as europeans, should act together as one.
But nobody will go to war over the baltics. NATO will find some loophole to not go to war.
Also then, what about the sanctions that were put on russia because of the annexation?
|
There is no justification to the claim that NATO would not fully respond to an invasion of the Baltics besides poisonous cynicism. It has been assured by every single government in NATO that this is what will happen, and (now) the defence plans exist and will be implemented near-automatically. Whether a defence is successful under current conditions is another matter of course, Russia has a major advantage in materiel in the region.
As a counterweight to Germany's Molotov-Ribbentrop 2.0, I'd like to emphasize that instead of the deal, Germany is in fact pushing for 3rd level sanctions. But still, consideration of these types of deals is why allies are very wary of Germany, up to the point that some are obviously spying on them.
|
Zurich15328 Posts
On July 31 2014 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
As a counterweight to Germany's Molotov-Ribbentrop 2.0, I'd like to emphasize that instead of the deal, Germany is in fact pushing for 3rd level sanctions. But still, consideration of these types of deals is why allies are very wary of Germany, up to the point that some are obviously spying on them.
So far this deal is nothing but a rumor, right? I highly, highly doubt there is anything to it.
|
On July 31 2014 11:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
if such a deal exists and goes trough, Europe is simply fucked, Germany pretty much supports the partition of Ukraine. NOt a chance in hell.
edit: That and I'm sure the Ukrainians, certain parts of Europe would love to be reminded of the time when Germany and Russia decided it was up to them on how things should be run.
Well, Germany pretty much runs the EU anyways, so I don't think it would matter much. Germany accomplished in 'peace-time' what they could never do in war-time.
|
On July 31 2014 17:32 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 11:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
if such a deal exists and goes trough, Europe is simply fucked, Germany pretty much supports the partition of Ukraine. NOt a chance in hell.
edit: That and I'm sure the Ukrainians, certain parts of Europe would love to be reminded of the time when Germany and Russia decided it was up to them on how things should be run. Well, Germany pretty much runs the EU anyways, so I don't think it would matter much. Germany accomplished in 'peace-time' what they could never do in war-time.
Oh Germany always reigned over whole of Europe in war-times as well. Their problems only started when they wanted more than Europe. :p
|
Oh well, cant be helped, no German wants to go to war for some small eastern country when thousands of jobs are at stake!
Not just "no german". You're delusional if you think anyone wants to go to war for the ukraine. And that's a good thing. While i'm certainly not with russia (quite the opposite, as you should know) - if we're talking war, nope. Sorry, but simply nope. There's not even a reason. The ukraine is neither EU, nor NATO, nor anything. They're a poor country that got dickbutted by russia, and everyone "feels" for them, but if you honestly think somebody will go to war with russia for them, you're very naive.
Not going to happen. And honestly, i'm with that decision.
Not to mention "germany surrendering territory of a smaller, weaker territory", did you even read the article or are you just being polemic? They're talking about something that has to be ratified by the UN as well as the ukraine. Merkel isn't "deciding" anything, she's offering.
In other news, the german government already stated that this "newspiece" isn't real. It is "wholly without foundation" (would also explain why only the telegraph is reporting it, reuters etc didn't even repost it).
It's bullshit. Not that it would've been a bad idea, apart from the levels of idiotism this "idea" spawned, but well.
But, since now i'm interested and you seem to have figured it out Sub40, let's hear your proposal. What do you think is the best way out of this crisis for the ukraine? Obviously, we're talking realisticly, so "well russia gives back crimea and stops the rebels and then everything is brilliant" doesn't work.
Let's hear it, champ.
|
On July 31 2014 20:04 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +Oh well, cant be helped, no German wants to go to war for some small eastern country when thousands of jobs are at stake! Not just "no german". You're delusional if you think anyone wants to go to war for the ukraine. And that's a good thing. While i'm certainly not with russia (quite the opposite, as you should know) - if we're talking war, nope. Sorry, but simply nope. There's not even a reason. The ukraine is neither EU, nor NATO, nor anything. They're a poor country that got dickbutted by russia, and everyone "feels" for them, but if you honestly think somebody will go to war with russia for them, you're very naive. Not going to happen. And honestly, i'm with that decision.
That is precisely the kind of thinking that led to the horrors of WWII. I dont want war too, but can we really let Putin grab everything he wants?
|
On July 31 2014 12:20 m4ini wrote:Is it? Apart from the obvious parts of the independent "knowing" alot of the "secret stuff between germany and russia, according to (quote) "sources" being a bit.. optimistic: feel free to explain where that deal would be so incredibly outragreous? Crimea is gone either way. The ukraine will NOT get that back. They can try, forcing a war with russia, but they will lose more (or get wiped of the map completely). There's no way the EU/UN whatever can force russia to give crimea back either. So, let's be clear: crimea will not be a part of ukraine again.
Suppose somebody murders somebody else. Not by an accident, but with a vicious intent. And then we sit down and think. There is no returning for that killed one. Imprisoning the killer would put him out of business and as a result our economy will suffer. Further more we would have to feed him for like forever and guard him, so that's a huge negative cost. For what? And even more so, he is a violent ****** who won't just give himself in and probably even more people will get hurt, like those who will try to catch him and victim's relatives (for pushing for the punishment). So let's just forget about it, everybody would be better off this way.
|
On July 31 2014 13:19 Nyxisto wrote:
To be honest the first thing I thought was "is this Molotov-Rippentrop 2.0?" I hope this is just misinformation, because if they're going to screw the Ukraine over with that backdoor deal I'll be pretty ashamed : (
So did I when I read the title. Then:
However, these attempts by Ms Merkel to act as a broker between President Putin and the Ukraine’s President, Petro Poroshenko, were put on the back-burner following the shooting down of the MH17 plane in eastern Ukraine.
If anything this is about a deal that, while recognizing Crimea as Russian, it also gives a huge boost to Ukraine in terms of money, makes Russia agree with the trades Ukraine wants to do with the EU and a stable gas supply for the upcoming winter and beyond. It's by no means some secret "German Russian pact that's trying to screw over Ukraine".
Basically the only controversial question in that article is about Crimea and who it should belong to and about Ukraine agreeing to not join NATO. Everything else mentioned is "pro-Ukraine" within those deals.
|
What's controversial is that, if true (and that's a big `if'), then Germany was dealing with Russia behind everyone's backs, bringing back very bad associations.
|
On July 31 2014 21:15 Ghanburighan wrote:
What's controversial is that, if true (and that's a big `if'), then Germany was dealing with Russia behind everyone's backs, bringing back very bad associations.
If Merkel, Putin and Poroshenko sit down at a table "behind everyone's backs" to figure out a deal I really don't think it's a huge issue. It's not different from anyone else trying to work something out between the parties involved. Those kind of deals don't exactly become super public before they're discussed thoroughly.
|
On July 31 2014 20:04 m4ini wrote:
But, since now i'm interested and you seem to have figured it out Sub40, let's hear your proposal. What do you think is the best way out of this crisis for the ukraine? Obviously, we're talking realisticly, so "well russia gives back crimea and stops the rebels and then everything is brilliant" doesn't work.
The "best" way for Ukraine by your standards was lost in winter, that was to keep Yanukovich and accept that gas price cut from Russia, while forgetting about our aspirations. It's long gone by now. Right now there is no "best" way, there is "worse" and "worser". But there is the "right" one. And that includes standing by what's ours and refusing the bones thrown to us.
|
Belgium9947 Posts
On July 31 2014 22:05 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 20:04 m4ini wrote:
But, since now i'm interested and you seem to have figured it out Sub40, let's hear your proposal. What do you think is the best way out of this crisis for the ukraine? Obviously, we're talking realisticly, so "well russia gives back crimea and stops the rebels and then everything is brilliant" doesn't work.
The "best" way for Ukraine by your standards was lost in winter, that was to keep Yanukovich and accept that gas price cut from Russia. It's long gone by now. Right now there is no "best" way, there is "worse" and "worser". But there is the "right" one. And that includes standing by what's ours and refusing the bones thrown to us.
Does that mean fighting for Crimea in your opinion? Or doing damage control and not losing Eastern Ukraine?
|
On July 31 2014 20:49 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 20:04 m4ini wrote:Oh well, cant be helped, no German wants to go to war for some small eastern country when thousands of jobs are at stake! Not just "no german". You're delusional if you think anyone wants to go to war for the ukraine. And that's a good thing. While i'm certainly not with russia (quite the opposite, as you should know) - if we're talking war, nope. Sorry, but simply nope. There's not even a reason. The ukraine is neither EU, nor NATO, nor anything. They're a poor country that got dickbutted by russia, and everyone "feels" for them, but if you honestly think somebody will go to war with russia for them, you're very naive. Not going to happen. And honestly, i'm with that decision. That is precisely the kind of thinking that led to the horrors of WWII. I dont want war too, but can we really let Putin grab everything he wants?
Not really, the annexation of the sudetenland(is that the right word?) and the allies being OK with it, was not responsible for WWII.
On July 31 2014 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
There is no justification to the claim that NATO would not fully respond to an invasion of the Baltics besides poisonous cynicism. It has been assured by every single government in NATO that this is what will happen, and (now) the defence plans exist and will be implemented near-automatically. Whether a defence is successful under current conditions is another matter of course, Russia has a major advantage in materiel in the region.
As a counterweight to Germany's Molotov-Ribbentrop 2.0, I'd like to emphasize that instead of the deal, Germany is in fact pushing for 3rd level sanctions. But still, consideration of these types of deals is why allies are very wary of Germany, up to the point that some are obviously spying on them.
I don't know.
But NATO has broken promises(even though it is more than a promise in this case) before, and I don't see NATO going to risk a nuclear war and, thus killing hundreds of millions of lives for 3 small countries. (sorry latvia,estonia and lithuania). Furthermore, I don't think the public of the NATO countries would support a war like that.
But that is just my opinion of course.
But I'm sure we won't have to deal with a case like that. Russia is not that stupid.
|
On July 31 2014 16:48 DrCooper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 16:04 Sub40APM wrote:On July 31 2014 12:20 m4ini wrote:Is it? Apart from the obvious parts of the independent "knowing" alot of the "secret stuff between germany and russia, according to (quote) "sources" being a bit.. optimistic: feel free to explain where that deal would be so incredibly outragreous? Crimea is gone either way. The ukraine will NOT get that back. They can try, forcing a war with russia, but they will lose more (or get wiped of the map completely). There's no way the EU/UN whatever can force russia to give crimea back either. So, let's be clear: crimea will not be a part of ukraine again. So, again. What's so shocking? Its shocking that Germany would surrender the territory of a smaller weaker country to a fascist. It doesnt just fundamentally undermine any support for EU integration -- whats the point when Germany chops up your territory and feeds it to Russia to keep the exports going, which alone is terrible for Europe as Ukraine descends into chaos and further instability, another Chechnya type society but this time with a population of 44 million and bordering Europe throughout its Western territory -- it also raises the question of where does it stop. Ukraine isnt in the NATO thats obvious, but what happens if the Russians blitkreig through the Baltics next or Finland? Oh well, cant be helped, no German wants to go to war for some small eastern country when thousands of jobs are at stake! The idea that 'Russia will never back down' is comical, in 1945 most Germans would probably said the same thing about the Baltics or Eastern Germany. Well, thats just reality, lets sell them more cars! http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/31/russia-ukraine-selfies-military-attack/http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/does-this-soldiers-instagram-account-prove-russia-is-covertlIn other news, Russians + Social Media = hilarity. I agree, it was a bad move. We, as europeans, should act together as one. But nobody will go to war over the baltics. NATO will find some loophole to not go to war. Also then, what about the sanctions that were put on russia because of the annexation?
I think you forget that Russia is a part of Europe. lol.
Also, what's with the Russian conquest conspiracy theories? They're only a fraction as aggressive as us, and people are talking like they're going to take over the continent of Europe lol. If they raised their military production to war-time status, it would certainly be a steamroll, but why in the heck would they have any interest in doing that? It hurts everyone, including themselves. Sorry guys, this isn't Call of Duty.
On July 31 2014 22:05 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 20:04 m4ini wrote:
But, since now i'm interested and you seem to have figured it out Sub40, let's hear your proposal. What do you think is the best way out of this crisis for the ukraine? Obviously, we're talking realisticly, so "well russia gives back crimea and stops the rebels and then everything is brilliant" doesn't work.
The "best" way for Ukraine by your standards was lost in winter, that was to keep Yanukovich and accept that gas price cut from Russia, while forgetting about our aspirations. It's long gone by now. Right now there is no "best" way, there is "worse" and "worser". But there is the "right" one. And that includes standing by what's ours and refusing the bones thrown to us.
What you call the "right" one is actually the worst possible solution. You want war, seriously? That's not smart man. That would be the most disastrous outcome for Ukraine. The war will be over as fast as Russian paratroopers can get to Kiev and that's not even the worst part. And believe it or not, Ukraine is not important enough for the US to go to war, especially not against Russia. You can't always have a win scenario, unfortunately.
|
They're only a fraction as aggressive as us,
As long as you don't live in Chechnya, or Dagestan, or Syria (awash with Russian weapons provided by the Kremlin that has kept the Assad army in business), or Lebanon (awash with Russian weapons provided indirectly via Iran), or Iraq (awash with Russian weapons openly supplied before the invasion and smuggled in afterwards provided by the Kremlin), or Colombia (awash with Russian weapons provided indirectly by the Kremlin via Venezuela and Cuba) or Georgia, or eastern Ukraine... but yes, Russia is only a "fraction" as aggressive as the West because Russia is smart enough to know they can be aggressive underneath the table and people will not call them on it 9 times out of 10. Ukraine is one of those rare occasions the 10th is reached.
The war will be over as fast as Russian paratroopers can get to Kiev and that's not even the worst part.
Ukraine would be another Afghanistan for Russia. The country is filled to the brim with anti-Russia paramilitaries that are sitting around doing nothing because Kiev has held the ones it controlsmostly in reserve while using the best ones along with its regular army in the east. There are many militias and paramilitary groups out in the Ukrainian countryside Kiev has little if any influence over at all Russian paratroopers get to Kiev? Sounds like a great way for them to be outnumbered 50 to 1 and get massacred. War against Ukraine would require a huge ground invasion and massive occupation force, not 20,000 soldiers being airlifted and facing no resistance like what happened in Crimea.
It took Russia ten years, over 100,000 Red Army and NKVD troops, and about 25,000 casualties (not to mention over 100,000 dead Ukrainians) to defeat the Ukrainian insurgents after WW2. It wouldn't be any different if Russia tried to occupy Ukraine again, except that Russia would probably not succeed.
|
On August 01 2014 01:36 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 16:48 DrCooper wrote:On July 31 2014 16:04 Sub40APM wrote:On July 31 2014 12:20 m4ini wrote:Is it? Apart from the obvious parts of the independent "knowing" alot of the "secret stuff between germany and russia, according to (quote) "sources" being a bit.. optimistic: feel free to explain where that deal would be so incredibly outragreous? Crimea is gone either way. The ukraine will NOT get that back. They can try, forcing a war with russia, but they will lose more (or get wiped of the map completely). There's no way the EU/UN whatever can force russia to give crimea back either. So, let's be clear: crimea will not be a part of ukraine again. So, again. What's so shocking? Its shocking that Germany would surrender the territory of a smaller weaker country to a fascist. It doesnt just fundamentally undermine any support for EU integration -- whats the point when Germany chops up your territory and feeds it to Russia to keep the exports going, which alone is terrible for Europe as Ukraine descends into chaos and further instability, another Chechnya type society but this time with a population of 44 million and bordering Europe throughout its Western territory -- it also raises the question of where does it stop. Ukraine isnt in the NATO thats obvious, but what happens if the Russians blitkreig through the Baltics next or Finland? Oh well, cant be helped, no German wants to go to war for some small eastern country when thousands of jobs are at stake! The idea that 'Russia will never back down' is comical, in 1945 most Germans would probably said the same thing about the Baltics or Eastern Germany. Well, thats just reality, lets sell them more cars! http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/31/russia-ukraine-selfies-military-attack/http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/does-this-soldiers-instagram-account-prove-russia-is-covertlIn other news, Russians + Social Media = hilarity. I agree, it was a bad move. We, as europeans, should act together as one. But nobody will go to war over the baltics. NATO will find some loophole to not go to war. Also then, what about the sanctions that were put on russia because of the annexation? I think you forget that Russia is a part of Europe. lol. Also, what's with the Russian conquest conspiracy theories? They're only a fraction as aggressive as us, and people are talking like they're going to take over the continent of Europe lol. If they raised their military production to war-time status, it would certainly be a steamroll, but why in the heck would they have any interest in doing that? It hurts everyone, including themselves. Sorry guys, this isn't Call of Duty. Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 22:05 Cheerio wrote:On July 31 2014 20:04 m4ini wrote:
But, since now i'm interested and you seem to have figured it out Sub40, let's hear your proposal. What do you think is the best way out of this crisis for the ukraine? Obviously, we're talking realisticly, so "well russia gives back crimea and stops the rebels and then everything is brilliant" doesn't work.
The "best" way for Ukraine by your standards was lost in winter, that was to keep Yanukovich and accept that gas price cut from Russia, while forgetting about our aspirations. It's long gone by now. Right now there is no "best" way, there is "worse" and "worser". But there is the "right" one. And that includes standing by what's ours and refusing the bones thrown to us. What you call the "right" one is actually the worst possible solution. You want war, seriously? That's not smart man. That would be the most disastrous outcome for Ukraine. The war will be over as fast as Russian paratroopers can get to Kiev and that's not even the worst part. And trust me, Ukraine is not important enough for the US to go to war, especially not against Russia.
Geographically yes, but I meant it more as in "European Union" otherwise I agree with you, we are much much more aggresive than Russia. It was basically just a matter of time before Russia stopped being so passive.
related pic:
+ Show Spoiler +
edit: I mean we are more aggresive towards russia than russia is to us, wrong wording sorry.
|
edit: I mean we are more aggresive towards russia than russia is to us, wrong wording sorry.
What's funny is the only bases in countries that actually touch Russia were put there with Russian permission and cooperation after September 11th.
I also feel so bad Russia lost all those military bases in Eastern Europe and in Africa and in Central Asia after 1989-1991, just doesn't seem fair. They should have been able to keep militarily occupying Eastern Europe and supplying communist insurgencies in Africa and South America because look at how unfair that map is now!
|
On August 01 2014 01:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:As long as you don't live in Chechnya, or Dagestan, or Syria (awash with Russian weapons provided by the Kremlin that has kept the Assad army in business), or Lebanon (awash with Russian weapons provided indirectly via Iran), or Iraq (awash with Russian weapons openly supplied before the invasion and smuggled in afterwards provided by the Kremlin), or Colombia (awash with Russian weapons provided indirectly by the Kremlin via Venezuela and Cuba) or Georgia, or eastern Ukraine... but yes, Russia is only a "fraction" as aggressive as the West because Russia is smart enough to know they can be aggressive underneath the table and people will not call them on it 9 times out of 10. Ukraine is one of those rare occasions the 10th is reached.
So Russia should not fight Islamic extremists in their own territory, and should not support a secular regime against ISIS Islamic terrorists? So are you saying you support Islamic terrorism? Okay, gotcha. Also, even the EU said the Georgia conflict was Saakashvili's own fault with his attack on Tskhinvali.
And what's with all the "Russia is responsible for violence where Russian weapons exist" talk? They're the worlds second-biggest arms supplier. The US backed Islamic terrorists in Libya and Syria, just to speak of recent events, and upholds crazy Arab Islamist extremist monarchies. And unless we're getting into Illuminati conspiracy theories, I don't think Russia determines where weapons they sell to Venezuela go. You can take that up with the corruption in Latin American countries. The US is also infamous for supplying weapons to rebel groups and factions, or regimes they back, something we've been doing for decades.
So basically, according to you Russia's biggest sin is supplying weapons, that usually (though not all the time like in Eastern Ukraine) find their way to places not intended, which should not come as any surprise considering you can find Russian weapons pretty much anywhere. However, it's much preferable to directly or largely-indirectly responsible killing off shitloads of civilians, war and destruction, supporting Islamic terrorism, or emgargo/genocides.
You say Russia is smarter than us? I don't know about that. Putin's unusually smart for a politician but I don't think the Russians are smarter than us. I was just saying they're less aggressive. I'm glad that tiny tidbit is the only thing you could get out of my last post though lol. Heaven forbid there is a nation less aggressive than the world's biggest imperial power.
Ukraine would be another Afghanistan for Russia. The country is filled to the brim with anti-Russia paramilitaries that are sitting around doing nothing because Kiev has held the ones it controlsmostly in reserve while using the best ones along with its regular army in the east. There are many militias and paramilitary groups out in the Ukrainian countryside Kiev has little if any influence over at all Russian paratroopers get to Kiev? Sounds like a great way for them to be outnumbered 50 to 1 and get massacred. War against Ukraine would require a huge ground invasion and massive occupation force, not 20,000 soldiers being airlifted and facing no resistance like what happened in Crimea.
It took Russia ten years, over 100,000 Red Army and NKVD troops, and about 25,000 casualties (not to mention over 100,000 dead Ukrainians) to defeat the Ukrainian insurgents after WW2. It wouldn't be any different if Russia tried to occupy Ukraine again, except that Russia would probably not succeed.
You forget that they don't need any direct control. Are you talking about the 1800s? They can just do imperialism the US way, by setting up a puppet regime and having their own corporations take over the country. I'm honestly surprised you didn't think of the simple reality existed for the most part since the end of WW2. People came to the realization that hegemonic imperialism is a lot easier than territorial. Although, the ancient Assyrians figured that out millenia ago.
On August 01 2014 01:49 DrCooper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 01:36 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On July 31 2014 16:48 DrCooper wrote:On July 31 2014 16:04 Sub40APM wrote:On July 31 2014 12:20 m4ini wrote:Is it? Apart from the obvious parts of the independent "knowing" alot of the "secret stuff between germany and russia, according to (quote) "sources" being a bit.. optimistic: feel free to explain where that deal would be so incredibly outragreous? Crimea is gone either way. The ukraine will NOT get that back. They can try, forcing a war with russia, but they will lose more (or get wiped of the map completely). There's no way the EU/UN whatever can force russia to give crimea back either. So, let's be clear: crimea will not be a part of ukraine again. So, again. What's so shocking? Its shocking that Germany would surrender the territory of a smaller weaker country to a fascist. It doesnt just fundamentally undermine any support for EU integration -- whats the point when Germany chops up your territory and feeds it to Russia to keep the exports going, which alone is terrible for Europe as Ukraine descends into chaos and further instability, another Chechnya type society but this time with a population of 44 million and bordering Europe throughout its Western territory -- it also raises the question of where does it stop. Ukraine isnt in the NATO thats obvious, but what happens if the Russians blitkreig through the Baltics next or Finland? Oh well, cant be helped, no German wants to go to war for some small eastern country when thousands of jobs are at stake! The idea that 'Russia will never back down' is comical, in 1945 most Germans would probably said the same thing about the Baltics or Eastern Germany. Well, thats just reality, lets sell them more cars! http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/31/russia-ukraine-selfies-military-attack/http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/does-this-soldiers-instagram-account-prove-russia-is-covertlIn other news, Russians + Social Media = hilarity. I agree, it was a bad move. We, as europeans, should act together as one. But nobody will go to war over the baltics. NATO will find some loophole to not go to war. Also then, what about the sanctions that were put on russia because of the annexation? I think you forget that Russia is a part of Europe. lol. Also, what's with the Russian conquest conspiracy theories? They're only a fraction as aggressive as us, and people are talking like they're going to take over the continent of Europe lol. If they raised their military production to war-time status, it would certainly be a steamroll, but why in the heck would they have any interest in doing that? It hurts everyone, including themselves. Sorry guys, this isn't Call of Duty. On July 31 2014 22:05 Cheerio wrote:On July 31 2014 20:04 m4ini wrote:
But, since now i'm interested and you seem to have figured it out Sub40, let's hear your proposal. What do you think is the best way out of this crisis for the ukraine? Obviously, we're talking realisticly, so "well russia gives back crimea and stops the rebels and then everything is brilliant" doesn't work.
The "best" way for Ukraine by your standards was lost in winter, that was to keep Yanukovich and accept that gas price cut from Russia, while forgetting about our aspirations. It's long gone by now. Right now there is no "best" way, there is "worse" and "worser". But there is the "right" one. And that includes standing by what's ours and refusing the bones thrown to us. What you call the "right" one is actually the worst possible solution. You want war, seriously? That's not smart man. That would be the most disastrous outcome for Ukraine. The war will be over as fast as Russian paratroopers can get to Kiev and that's not even the worst part. And trust me, Ukraine is not important enough for the US to go to war, especially not against Russia. Geographically yes, but I meant it more as in "European Union" otherwise I agree with you, we are much much more aggresive than Russia. It was basically just a matter of time before Russia stopped being so passive. related pic: + Show Spoiler +edit: I mean we are more aggresive towards russia than russia is to us, wrong wording sorry.
Just to clarify, when I said "we", I meant my own country, the US, and not in regards to Russia, but overall. Although yes, we do not like Russia. They're an obstacle to us having more control and power. And EU isn't bad, except when some NATO/EU states decide to "follow" our lead for god knows what Righteous crusade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/russia_wants_war_look_how_closely_they_put_country_to_our_military_bases.jpg?w=500&h=360)
