Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Military Crisis in Ukraine

2,454 replies to this topic
Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#1951

Posted 25 August 2014 - 08:54 PM Edited by gtaxpert, 25 August 2014 - 09:36 PM.

Overt Russian forces in Crimea? You mean the military base they had there?

(not to start a silly discussion but that is a shot for open goal..)


Kampioen
  • Kampioen

    CenMan

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2005
  • None

#1952

Posted 25 August 2014 - 10:02 PM

Overt Russian forces in Crimea? You mean the military base they had there?

(not to start a silly discussion but that is a shot for open goal..)

 

There were lots of camo items on that base.

 

But it sounds very plausible to me that Russia used covert operations in Crimea as well as overt ones. Countries rarely set themseves up for annexation so nicely.

  • Eutyphro likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1953

Posted 26 August 2014 - 07:04 AM

Overt Russian forces in Crimea? You mean the military base they had there?

(not to start a silly discussion but that is a shot for open goal..)


Russian SF as in Alpha Group, GRU and Interior ministry forces. Rather than Russian Naval Infantry who AFAIK aren't technically special forces. They were operating fairly overtly, with Spetsnaz camouflage and weaponry, just no insignias. Nice try though ;)

Apparently Ukraine have captured 10 Russian servicemen during operations in the East of the country.
  • Eutyphro likes this

poklane
  • poklane

    So now what?

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • Netherlands

#1954

Posted 26 August 2014 - 12:13 PM Edited by poklane, 26 August 2014 - 12:15 PM.

Bv9qQskIIAAhuYQ.jpg

Donetsk, woman suspected of aiding Ukrainian military was forced to be publicly humiliated and physical abused.

http://www.nytimes.c...raine.html?_r=0


Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • European-Union
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#1955

Posted 26 August 2014 - 02:55 PM

Absolutely deplorable. Pretty telling as to what the the "Donetsk People's Republic" is all about. A travesty of the highest order, not that they hadn't made that paintstakingly obvious already.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#1956

Posted 27 August 2014 - 03:04 PM

Apparently Ukraine have captured 10 Russian servicemen during operations in the East of the country.

Russia now insists that they wondered in by mistake.

I bet they were using GLONASS.
  • Street Mix and sivispacem like this

poklane
  • poklane

    So now what?

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • Netherlands

#1957

Posted 27 August 2014 - 10:20 PM Edited by poklane, 27 August 2014 - 10:39 PM.

Hearing a lot of things of Russia invading Ukraine as we speak. And apparently, it's the actual Russian army, not fake Pro-Russian rebels. https://twitter.com/...kraine?src=hash

Some tweets: https://twitter.com/...753023902810114 https://twitter.com/...746268099629057 https://twitter.com/...741462027030528

EDIT: http://bostonherald....stonHerald.com)


DarrinPA
  • DarrinPA

    Orange Grove Member

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2009
  • None

#1958

Posted 27 August 2014 - 10:34 PM Edited by DarrinPA, 27 August 2014 - 10:40 PM.

This is blowing up fast on twitter, even the official Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine is claiming that it's being invaded. Something serious is probably happening right now...

 

Here's a news story.

 

I guess they're saying it's the regular russian army.

 

 

I live nowhere near an army base, yet I can't even count the number of dark [military] helicopters that have flown over in the past hour. It may be unrelated and they are simply be moving forces around, or doing war games, but one military chopper a month is rare, over a dozen has never happened.


poklane
  • poklane

    So now what?

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • Netherlands

#1959

Posted 27 August 2014 - 10:48 PM

Ukraine Says Russian Forces Lead Major New Offensive in East

NOVOAZOVSK, Ukraine — Tanks, artillery and infantry have crossed from Russia into an unbreached part of eastern Ukraine in recent days, attacking Ukrainian forces and causing panic and wholesale retreat not only in this small border town but also a wide section of territory, in what Ukrainian and Western military officials described on Wednesday as a stealth invasion.

The attacks outside this city and in an area to the north essentially have opened a new, third front in the war in eastern Ukraine between government forces and pro-Russian separatists, along with the fighting outside the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk.

More: http://www.nytimes.c...l?smid=tw-share


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#1960

Posted 28 August 2014 - 12:04 AM

Why do we even have NATO if they aren't doing sh*t against the specific threat they are supposed to be organized against?

  • Street Mix likes this

Moth
  • Moth

    Sheamus McF*ckyourself

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2006
  • Canada

#1961

Posted 28 August 2014 - 12:16 AM

Why do we even have NATO if they aren't doing sh*t against the specific threat they are supposed to be organized against?

Cause everyone is so against having a war in mainland Europe, again. Reminds me of something

  • Toke likes this

GKS Sahara
  • GKS Sahara

    GoldRush 5/30

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2014
  • None

#1962

Posted 28 August 2014 - 12:18 AM Edited by Vishnu1111, 28 August 2014 - 12:20 AM.

Anyone watch the VICE News coverage of this?

 

EDIT: Is there a thread on here regarding to the issue in Iraq right now?


Moth
  • Moth

    Sheamus McF*ckyourself

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2006
  • Canada

#1963

Posted 28 August 2014 - 12:24 AM

 

 

EDIT: Is there a thread on here regarding to the issue in Iraq right now?

Yep, here

  • GKS Sahara likes this

RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Left to rust

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#1964

Posted 28 August 2014 - 12:26 AM

Yeah, it’s ridiculous the apparent immovility of the NATO considering the amount of evidences of the Russian operations in Ukrainian land but what would NATO do in this case, a direct military intervention or aid? Wouldn't it be seen in a similar way as if Russia (officialy) put their troops on Ukrainian territory? Has the Ukrainian Government requested the help of the NATO yet?

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#1965

Posted 28 August 2014 - 01:47 AM

Yes. Ukraine has formally asked for NATO's help. I don't know if they've requested troops, but if they didn't, it's mostly because NATO hasn't so far agreed to provide any help, short of some non-military aid.

 

I can understand some hesitance in moving NATO closer to Russia. NATO likes to have some buffer. But Poland is a member of NATO. And right now, the situation is that either NATO shifts its borders closer to Russia, or it lets Russian shift borders closer to NATO. The net difference is land-gain by Russia, as well as purely psychological effect of this advance on Poland and Baltic states.

 

Honestly, this would be a very good time to drop some NATO bases in Ukraine. Kharkiv and Kherson regions would be my first calls, putting pressure on Russian troops both in rebel territories and in Crimea. Nothing big. Just enough for them to guarantee own security against local threats. Again, I don't know if Ukraine has been asking for something like this, or even if they want to ask for it, but they can certainly be persuaded. They have Russian tanks rolling through their territory, and it's not something they can handle on their own. Now, if Russians will have to deal with NATO troops, who are legally in Ukraine, rather than Ukrainian hastily put together army, they might stop and think about this for a while.

 

This would require minimal commitment from NATO. It would expand its sphere of influence. And it would put a damper on Russian aggression, which is what NATO is supposed to do. I'm not sure why this isn't in motion yet. Other than the fact that European leaders have grown so spineless of late that it's hard to even call them leaders.

 

And I completely agree with parallels that Moth draws. This is not a situation that's going to be resolved with inaction and empty words.

  • Moth, Toke and RoadRunner71 like this

GKS Sahara
  • GKS Sahara

    GoldRush 5/30

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2014
  • None

#1966

Posted 28 August 2014 - 01:59 AM

Curious to know why Russia sent those repainted military aid vehicles that ended up being half empty, went back into russia, and now they're going back into Ukraine. I dont know why, but something tells me that original aid convoy was mapping out positions/terrains for the "invasion" everyone's been speculating about. 


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#1967

Posted 28 August 2014 - 03:01 AM

Curious to know why Russia sent those repainted military aid vehicles that ended up being half empty, went back into russia, and now they're going back into Ukraine. I dont know why, but something tells me that original aid convoy was mapping out positions/terrains for the "invasion" everyone's been speculating about.

There are probably a whole bunch of little things about it. Intel, probing borders, making a political statement. There are some rumors that it's more about the stuff it brought back from the area. There have been a few hundred Russian soldiers who "died in accidents during exercises near Ukraine" buried in Russia in just the past few days. It's entirely possible that trucks carried cargo 200 home.

This, by the way, is hitting Russia worse than anything West has done so far. Hundreds of mothers crying over dead sons, asking why Russia won't recognize their sacrifice, and hundreds more still not knowing where their sons are, asking questions. It hasn't become a PR disaster yet, but it's gaining momentum really fast. Russia can claim that documents from dead soldiers published by Ukrainians are fake, but when the graves with the same names start showing up in Russia, it's not something even their state media can cover up.
  • GKS Sahara likes this

D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#1968

Posted 28 August 2014 - 05:17 AM Edited by D- Ice, 28 August 2014 - 09:57 AM.

I find the reports that the trucks are only half-full interesting.

If true, could it be to maximise the number of Russian military sorties into eastern Ukraine, and/or the number of trucks and military personnel for the given amount of aid?


ddyoung
  • ddyoung

    Get freaky... Not that freaky

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2010
  • England

#1969

Posted 28 August 2014 - 05:54 AM

I find the reports that the trucks are only half-full interesting.

If true, could it be to maximisethe number of Russian military sorties into eastern Ukraine, and/or the number of trucks and military personnel for the given amount of aid?

VICE News did a video on this, it was one of their Russian Roulette dispatches. They were given access to any truck and they saw they were almost empty, with only a few pieces of aid in each truck.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1970

Posted 28 August 2014 - 09:25 AM

I reckon K^2 is spot on (as usual) with his analysis of the purpose of the half-full lorries. Current events shows some serious desperation on the part of Russia in trying to push Ukraine into a less powerful bargaining position given their recent advances against the separatists. It feels rather like a last-ditch attempt to remain in control of a situation which was very much out of their hands.

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#1971

Posted 28 August 2014 - 10:34 AM

I think the warmongering encouraging NATO to create permanent bases in former Soviet states, which is in violation of an agreement between Russia and NATO from 1997, is extremely irresponsible and counter productive. An initiative to violate such an agreement with a nuclear power like Russia is quite insane and dangerous.

I think the main solution to the problem is for regions in Ukraine with Russian populations being able to self determine. A referendum should have been encouraged when it was still possible. I heard that a realistic region for such a referendum would have been any municipiality east of the Dnieper river. The ousting of Yanukovych was a big mistake. If instead of a coup the protesters had pressured for fair presidential elections on a short term this would have all been prevented.

So the coup, and the prevention of east Ukraine for self determination in the light of the big political changes, were big mistakes. I support sanctioning Russia as response to their annexation of Crimea, and their covert military actions and support in east Ukraine, but I don't think a NATO led war in east Ukraine is in the interest of that region. I also suspect the people living there do not support a NATO mission there. I think that that is relevant to consider too.

  • Doc Rikowski likes this

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • European-Union
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#1972

Posted 28 August 2014 - 10:47 AM

I think the main solution to the problem is for regions in Ukraine with Russian populations being able to self determine. A referendum should have been encouraged when it was still possible. I heard that a realistic region for such a referendum would have been any municipiality east of the Dnieper river.

Self determine seceding from Ukraine and Joining mother Russia? There isn't even a Russian Majority in East-Ukraine, there's absolutely no reason why Ukraine should even consider giving up part of their nation. That's not even touching on how pivotal the East is for the Ukrainian economy. 

 

The ousting of Yanukovych was a big mistake. If instead of a coup

 

You're making it sound as if Maydan protestors dragged his arse out of his chair, whilst in reality he fled with his tail between his legs to Moscow out of his volition.


the protesters had pressured for fair presidential elections on a short term this would have all been prevented.

 

 

There were fair presidential elections relatively shortly after the Ukrainian parliament had relieved Yanukovych of his duties. Porosjenko was elected.

  • Street Mix likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1973

Posted 28 August 2014 - 11:33 AM

I think the warmongering encouraging NATO to create permanent bases in former Soviet states, which is in violation of an agreement between Russia and NATO from 1997, is extremely irresponsible and counter productive. An initiative to violate such an agreement with a nuclear power like Russia is quite insane and dangerous.


So it's NATO's fault that most of the ex-Warsaw Pact nations want closer ties with Europe, largely due to the best part of 50 years worth of de facto Russian hegemony and violent oppression? Yeah, not sure I buy that.

In fact, what ex-Soviet non-NATO member states have NATO bases in them? I can only think of Kazakhstan off-hand. What part of the 1997 founding agreement is violated by the voluntary sighting of NATO bases on foreign soil? And if this is a violation solely on NATO's part, what about the various Russian overseas bases like those in Crimea, Armenia, Belarus, Syria, Vietnam et cetera? What about Russia's sighting of military bases in contested territories internationally recognised as belonging to other states, like South Ossetia and Abkhazia? The only active international aggressor in territories neighbouring Russia these days is Russia; if they're afraid of NATO expansionism they should be- and they only have their own historic and recent conduct to blame for it.

Your posts in this thread swing so wildly between rational analysis and Kremlin apologism it's almost like they're written by two different people.
  • JJ_Judge, ddyoung and Raavi like this

G's Ah's
  • G's Ah's

    Hello, My Children

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014
  • New-Zealand

#1974

Posted 28 August 2014 - 11:55 AM

Why do we even have NATO if they aren't doing sh*t against the specific threat they are supposed to be organized against?

 

Think about the political ramifications of a NATO intervention. Russia would be able to use this as a casus belli for the all out invasion of Ukraine the Kremlin has been clamoring for. A NATO intervention could, and most likely would, result in a direct military confrontation with Russia, something which NATO, despite being created to counter, wants to avoid. Do you want this to escalate from an internal conflict into one between NATO and Russia? Remember, Russia isn't a pushover. Granted, it's not as powerful as it was, say, 30 or 40 years ago, but it still possesses a punch that would be more than capable of dealing NATO forces multiple bloody noses. And intervening on what appears to be little more than anecdotal evidence seems a bit reckless, don't you think? 

 

And this is before we get to the fact that under no circumstances is NATO required nor mandated to come to the aid of Ukraine. 

  • sivispacem likes this

G's Ah's
  • G's Ah's

    Hello, My Children

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014
  • New-Zealand

#1975

Posted 28 August 2014 - 12:15 PM

I think the warmongering encouraging NATO to create permanent bases in former Soviet states, which is in violation of an agreement between Russia and NATO from 1997, is extremely irresponsible and counter productive. 

 

NATO isn't war mongering. Countries like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia joined because they feared Russian interference and possible intervention in their countries because of Russia's ethno-centric foreign policy when it comes to ethnic Russians living in the borders of the former Soviet Union. Russian government policy is to push for the "rights" of ethnic Russians outside of Russia itself and it has a history of intervening to protect Russians if conflict breaks out. At the time of the 2004 enlargement, Russia had intervened overtly in the affairs of Georgia and Moldova, helping to secure the independence of Russian speaking regions and the ethnic Russians that lived there. Because the Baltic states do not collectively guarantee the rights of Russians to speak Russian (something which is considered an affront to most Russians), they fear that Moscow will put political and military pressure and intervene militarily to "protect" Russians living there. Hence, why they turned to NATO for protection. 

 

As for NATO bases, there are no NATO bases or military installations in former Soviet states. Members of NATO do have military bases in former Soviet states for supporting combat operations in Afghanistan. These had the approval of both the local and Russian governments and will likely be handed over once combat operations end in Afghanistan. As for the missile defense system, these would be installed in the Czech Republic and Poland, which are not former Soviet states but were members of the Warsaw Pact. Whether or not Russia thinks it can influence local government decisions with regards to the system remains to be seen as it's unlikely the Czechs and the Poles will be intimidated by (albeit legitimate) Russian belligerence. 

 

 

 

I think the main solution to the problem is for regions in Ukraine with Russian populations being able to self determine. A referendum should have been encouraged when it was still possible. I heard that a realistic region for such a referendum would have been any municipiality east of the Dnieper river. 

 

The problem with self determination is whether or not the areas in question should have self determination within Ukraine (i.e an autonomous republic like Crimea was governed) or as an independent vassal state of Russia (which is likely what will happen if by some miracle the rebels achieve independence without overt Russian help). The chance of dialogue before the rebels suffered major losses was nil, primarily because the rebels were dealing Ukraine a series of blows and they did not feel that negotiations were necessary. A UN sponsored referendum would be the best possible way of determining what eastern Ukrainians actually want, though. That is something we can agree on. 

 

 

 

The ousting of Yanukovych was a big mistake. If instead of a coup the protesters had pressured for fair presidential elections on a short term this would have all been prevented.

 

Fair democratic elections are not something that would have likely resulted had Yanukovych remained in power. Don't forget that this was a man living in the lap of luxury and siphoning of billions of dollars from Ukrainian public coffers into personal bank accounts. If you have what is essentially free money being shoveled into your wallet, why stop it in the name of "democracy"? Yanukovych had to be ousted. There was no other way around it.

  • Street Mix and sivispacem like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#1976

Posted 28 August 2014 - 12:29 PM Edited by gtaxpert, 28 August 2014 - 12:33 PM.

I am aware there are no permanent NATO bases in post Soviet states. My comment was a reaction to another comment claiming that this would be a good idea. I thought that was obvious but apparently it was not, and thus I hope I have now appropriately rectified it.

On one hand some commenters seem to think military aggression is a good response when Russia is using unauthorised force in east Ukraine (covertly up to this point). When the United States uses unauthorised force in the Middle East not many would still agree.

Soviet oppression in east Europe is nothing compared to US violent suppression in South America, but I don't see anyone lobbying for Russian military bases in South America. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1977

Posted 28 August 2014 - 12:49 PM

Soviet oppression in east Europe is nothing compared to US violent suppression in South America, but I don't see anyone lobbying for Russian military bases in South America. 

Sorry but that's utter nonsense and even if it weren't, is a ridiculous straw man. I don't recall the US effectively forcing unelected puppet governments on what, 10? 12? South American nations, enforced with direct military intervention, for 50 years. You also seem to like pretending that a) US "oppression" in South America is actually still taking place, and b) handily ignore the fact that the Soviet Union did have an active and rather extensive military presence in most of Southern and Latin America during the time at which the US was exercising particular influence there. The same is also true- perhaps to an even greater extent- of the Cold War Middle Eastern, North and sub-Saharan African landscape. The list of active Soviet military bases there is fairly impressive

I've hard some silly analogies but that one...
  • Moth and Failure like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Democratic-Republic-of-the-Congo

#1978

Posted 28 August 2014 - 04:52 PM Edited by gtaxpert, 28 August 2014 - 05:02 PM.

US support for the contras or the military coup in El Salvador was more recent than 50 years ago.

 

How about the 2001 coup on Chavez where CIA led snipers committed a false flag attack, or the 2004 coup in Haiti? Support for a the extremely repressive 'plan Colombia' is still ongoing, and support for repressive Argentina and Chile and the Chile coup détat is also more recent than 50 years ago. The US is still torturing Cuba with embargos, but when Russia threatens Ukraine with such embargos all the hypocrites rise up.

I've still forgotten about many things probably. I'm still educating myself on these matters. You probably don't agree with much I said in this comment, but I think I'm making a fair point.


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#1979

Posted 28 August 2014 - 05:31 PM

I think the warmongering encouraging NATO to create permanent bases in former Soviet states, which is in violation of an agreement between Russia and NATO from 1997, is extremely irresponsible and counter productive. An initiative to violate such an agreement with a nuclear power like Russia is quite insane and dangerous.

The agreement assumed Russia guaranteeing security of these states. Russia has pissed on this agreement, as they have pissed on the '94 accord with Ukraine, according to which Russia, United States, and United Kingdoms guarantee security of Ukraine in exchange for nuclear disarmament.

NATO has not only a right, but a responsibility to react, and establishment of military presence should have been the first response.

I think the main solution to the problem is for regions in Ukraine with Russian populations being able to self determine.

Like they did in Crimea? There is a f*cking invasion going on. Russian forces are destroying Ukraininan cities, killing civilians and military personel alike. The f*ck you're talking about self-determination? Under a gun point?

but I don't think a NATO led war in east Ukraine is in the interest of that region.

Of course, you don't. That would require actually being involved, rather than sitting on your ass, waiting to see if things would resolve themselves. How did that attitude work out for you lot the past two World Wars?

Think about the political ramifications of a NATO intervention.

NATO's only purpose is to intervene. They were not created with task of sitting on their hands. This is specifically the situation they are meant to resolve. With military force, because nothing else is working.


Seriously, are you people f*cking insane? This isn't a quiet invasion of Georgia, which was done with an overwhelming force against country with no military to speak of, and which was done in two weeks. This is not even like Soviet occupation of ChechoSlovakia anymore, which was also relatively quiet. This isn't some local civil war with some external support, like it was in Yugoslavia. Russia has crossed all of the lines you could imagine. They have began an open ground war in another country, fighting from city to city. Tanks, artillery, troops, the works.


Nothing like this has happened in Europe on this scale since World War II. Check your history books. Then think for a bit how Europe actually ended up in that mess, and watch how European Union is repeating all the same steps. This might not be the start of WWIII, but if you think for a moment that this is going to sort itself out in Ukraine, you've been huffing too much paint as a kid.

Poland is a NATO member, and they will not want Russia for a neighbor. Baltic states are also uneasy. Also NATO members. This is a powder keg. And doing bugger all is not going to appeace Russia. If they get away with this war, they will start another. Take it from someone who reads Russian media. NATO is viewed as a bad joke. You think Russia won't start unrest in Moldova, Estonia, or Latvia? You think they'll worry about last two being NATO states after they get away with an overt invasion in Ukraine?

Wake up. Right now is the last chance to use military force in Ukraine to stop Russia from advancing without starting a full out war. Force is the only thing Russia understands. You try to resolve this peacefully, with more sanctions and stern talking at Russia, you are going to have a full out war. One in which Russia might actually end up deploying tactical nuclear arsenal against European territory.

All of you saying this won't happen, you've also said Russia would never invade Ukraine. Think about that. Then think about what you are going to be saying when there is a war involving multiple European states starts in your backyard with your friends and neighbors getting shipped of to the grinder.
  • Moth likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#1980

Posted 28 August 2014 - 05:34 PM

US support for the contras or the military coup in El Salvador was more recent than 50 years ago.

Please go back and re-read my post. I never mentioned "50 years ago". Also, I don't think US support in South America is exactly comparable with half a century's worth of forced totalitarian governance by one-party puppet regimes of the Soviet Union.
 

How about the 2001 coup on Chavez where CIA led snipers committed a false flag attack

You mean the 2002 coup attempt? The one there's actually no empirical evidence to suggest the CIA had any involvement in? The one where the only person who ever alleged direct CIA involvement was Chavez himself, who let's not forget thinks that HAARP is an earthquake machine and that the US has a weapon they use to give Latin American leaders cancer? The coup which was also blamed on Spain by Chavez, despite there being no evidence to support that hypothesis either? Jimmy Carter went as far as to say that the US was probably aware and entertained the possibility of US involvement but it was hardly a categorical claim or even a real suggestion. So I don't know where you've got the idea from that it was undisputed fact that the US was involved?

or the 2004 coup in Haiti?

Yeah, it wasn't so much the US supporting (albeit not directly) the Haiti coup as...well most of South America, Europe, Canada...the allegation made by Aristide that he was forced by US special forces to abdicate or kidnapped by the US is just that- an allegation. Which isn't to say that the US, France, Brazil et al didn't benefit directly from his removal from power- he had basically rigged the 2000 election and it was pretty clear well before his flight and the UNSTAMIH that the country's armed forces had no interest in fighting against the National Revolutionary Front, which was supported by cross-border paramilitaries and financed by the wealthier members of Haitian society. The US certainly facilitated his departure, but there's no real evidence they forced it.

And, lest I remind you again, we're trying to draw comparisons to 50 years of puppet government and forced one-party states, backed by Soviet-sponsored all-pervasive intelligence agencies and the threat of Soviet direct military involvement against any organisation looking to upset the existing order. Not really comparable IMO.

Support for a the extremely repressive 'plan Colombia' is still ongoing

Which again, though of questionable effectiveness as a policy and certainly open to abuse, particularly by right-wing paramilitary groups, isn't really an enforcing of US hegemony or strategic interests on the population of another nation to their detriment and against the will of them or their political administration. The US training, funding and arming of the Colombian military and police for the purposes of combating narcoterrorism and the cartels.

and the Chile coup détat

Which the US, aside from extensive economic sanctions before the events actually took place, played no direct part in.

The US is still torturing Cuba with embargos, but when Russia threatens Ukraine with such embargos all the hypocrites rise up.

This we can agree on.

but I think I'm making a fair point.

I don't think a single thing you've mentioned there really compares with complete and total hegemony over, what, about a dozen separate nations as part of the USSR, for several decades, plus establishing de facto puppet governments via Soviet-sponsored Communist coups in neighbouring countries which were the enforced with the constant threat of Soviet violence and the establishment of all-pervasive secret police forces and intelligence agencies, all of which to a greater or lesser extent were under the direct control of the KGB.
  • Moth likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users