Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

acmilano

Military Crisis in Ukraine

Recommended Posts

Frank Brown

But what, in your opinion, can and should be done by the West in response?

 

Cold War Part Two. Threaten them with MAD and be done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

 

But what, in your opinion, can and should be done by the West in response?

Cold War Part Two. Threaten them with MAD and be done with it.

The USSR never believed in MAD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blitz

I have a bad feeling about this.

 

7HdMSBU.png

 

(Russian flag replacing Ukrainian one.)

Edited by blitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Brown

 

 

But what, in your opinion, can and should be done by the West in response?

Cold War Part Two. Threaten them with MAD and be done with it.

The USSR never believed in MAD

 

 

Why do you gotta correct me, Sivi? Can't you just be satisfied with being the forums Encyclopedia Sivtanncia? Do you really have to correct lil' ol' me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theadmiral

I have a bad feeling about this.

 

7HdMSBU.png

 

(Russian flag replacing Ukrainian one.)

What is David Beckham doing over there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

I really wonder what is the red line for the United States in this conflict. If Putin successfully annexes Crimea, he could get the idea to go on with the eastern part of the Ukraine with Kharkiv and Donetsk. I could imagine that this would be the red line and a war between the NATO and Russia could happen.

Edited by Stephan90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Brown

I could imagine that this would be the red line and a war between the NATO and Russia could happen.

 

I doubt this would happen, honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

 

I could imagine that this would be the red line and a war between the NATO and Russia could happen.

 

I doubt this would happen, honestly.

 

 

I doubt that Putin would try it, because I think that he also thinks that this is the red line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

Once more. Stop embarrassing yourself. You've been wrong on absolutely everything so far as demonstrated by news sources, arguments from members other than myself, and several people beside myself who are aware of the situation. Seriously, just stop talking nonsense and go and try to learn something.

 

 

 

Wonderful example of how a "democratic" debates a different opinion. Basically if it's different from your one it is nonsense and the person voicing it needs to learn something.

Well, I won't stop voicing my opinion and in fact I keep learning every single day. Luckily I'm not so self-entitled on things like you!

No wonder "democracies" are becoming every day more intolerant towards alternative points of view. Independent thinking is what you fear the most.

Embarrassing to watch...

Edited by Doc Rikowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

 

I could imagine that this would be the red line and a war between the NATO and Russia could happen.

 

I doubt this would happen, honestly.

 

 

It is indeed doubtful, but some line has to be drawn somewhere. However for now, anything more than Rasmussen saying that what Russia is doing threatens peace and security in Europe (Reuters) is unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Brown

 

Once more. Stop embarrassing yourself. You've been wrong on absolutely everything so far as demonstrated by news sources, arguments from members other than myself, and several people beside myself who are aware of the situation. Seriously, just stop talking nonsense and go and try to learn something.

 

 

 

Wonderful example of how a "democratic" debates a different opinion. Basically if it's different from your one it is nonsense and the person voicing it needs to learn something.

Well, I won't stop voicing my opinion and in fact I keep learning every single day. Luckily I'm not so self-entitled on things like you!

No wonder "democracies" are becoming every day more intolerant towards alternative points of view. Independent thinking is what you fear the most.

Embarrassing to watch...

 

 

We hate independent thinking so much we allow you to vote for leaders you think are the best. Even when they're not.

 

Funny how it works, innit?

 

 

 

 

I could imagine that this would be the red line and a war between the NATO and Russia could happen.

 

I doubt this would happen, honestly.

 

 

It is indeed doubtful, but some line has to be drawn somewhere. However for now, anything more than Rasmussen saying that what Russia is doing threatens peace and security in Europe (Reuters) is unlikely.

 

 

I don't think we will get involved directly, we being NATO, unless full-annexation of Ukraine becomes a likely possibility. We may condemn their actions in Crimea, but I don't believe it will escalate into anything more than maybe a G8 suspension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Doc, you kind of undermine your own argument by complaining about Western hypocrisy and then claiming Russia is justified in invading to protect people because of a common language. Kinda hard to take anything you say seriously when you're sounding like something between a Kremlin apologist and a Russian nationalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

We hate independent thinking so much we allow you to vote for leaders you think are the best. Even when they're not.

 

Funny how it works, innit?

 

Not really what is happening in my country where we are already at the 3rd PM not elected by the people...

 

@ sivi: I said that Russia's actions are "justified" in a tactical/moral (their own moral) perspective just as any other similar strategical action carried by the West.

I simply try to keep ideas balanced. I don't like one sided discussions sold to the public like objective ones. Just as I dislike propaganda from both sides.

Either people admit they are partizan of one side or it is hypocritical to portray themselves like they were being super partes.

 

Actually I do not support Russia nor the West when it comes to situations like this one.

I simply disagree with both. I'm fed up by all these penis size contests on a worldwide scale.

I believe that the policy of countries/powers like USA, Russia, China, EU etc (the list is long) are a cancer for the human race.

They actively stop the planet from progressing towards a better society and honestly,

these policies, make them all look like a bunch of immature cave men fighting over an ephemeral and delusional sense of power.

 

Too philosophical? Maybe yes but that's how I feel and think.

I can understand the causes and legitimate objectives of these policies but I will never approve them

cause they are plain wrong under the perspective of human progress.

 

Anyway, too off topic so feel free to not reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Max

Reports that the newly appointed Ukrainian Navy chief has 'defected' to an Independent Crimea. Maybe its legitimate, or maybe it has something to do with the fact he's surrounded by the Russian navy in Sevastopol making it essentially defection at gun point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geralt of Rivia

Reports that the newly appointed Ukrainian Navy chief has 'defected' to an Independent Crimea. Maybe its legitimate, or maybe it has something to do with the fact he's surrounded by the Russian navy in Sevastopol making it essentially defection at gun point.

If the soldiers in the army base can stand tall against the Russians, so can this guy.

 

Which means he's either a woose, or he actually defected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UtricularEwe001

^ Yep,

 

 

 

 

I, Berezovsky Denys Valentynovych, pledge allegiance to the residents of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the hero city of Sevastopol. I vow to strictly follow orders from the commander-in-chief of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and hero city of Sevastopol, as well as orders by military commanders appointed by them, demands placed by the military code. I vow to fulfil my military duty properly and bravely defend the life and property of the people of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D- Ice

 

Does anyone else find it interesting (detached from the main issue and situation at hand here) that certain countries are allowed to use military intervention in far off lands when the international community condemns it, but it's now a bloody outrage that Russia is doing so in a destabilized neighboring country?

There are two positions you can take on this issue. You can look at it as military intervention always being wrong. In which case it's the outrage no matter who is behind it. Or you can take the position that military action is a necessity, at times, and should be taken when it benefits the country. Kind of a moral vs utilitarian point of view. In that case, military action isn't an outrage. But then you get to look at what's in your interest. Do you want an authoritarian country with backwards social positions and zero respect for human rights increase its political and military influence? Or do you want more moderate countries to step in and prevent the imperialist expansion of the former. I suspect, most people in civilized world would pick the second one, in which case the only outrage is how weak the reaction of the West has been so far.

 

Sometimes, these two positions align, as in this case and you get massive outrage. But that alone is a pretty good indicator that this is one of these cases where something should be done about it.

 

Good analysis man. But utilitarianism is highly subjective to individual people. What you said about closer ties with the EU/West being the utilitarian option definately stands for Ukraine as a whole. However, what the people in the Crimea region think regarding Russian involvement and their autonomy from Ukraine is uncertain (IMO anyway). It could well be that autonomy from Ukraine and closer ties to what me and you view as a highly corrupt, oppressive and nationalist regime is what they prefer, and thus is the utilitarian option for them.

 

I really wonder what is the red line for the United States in this conflict. If Putin successfully annexes Crimea, he could get the idea to go on with the eastern part of the Ukraine with Kharkiv and Donetsk. I could imagine that this would be the red line and a war between the NATO and Russia could happen.

There is no "Red Line" for United States direct military action against Russia. No two nuclear states would militarily engage each other directly. I believe nuclear weapons completely fulfill their purpose as deterrents, and understanding of the concept of mutually assured destruction, or just the high chance of having your country obliterated prevents leaders of nuclear-armed countries from ever engaging each other directly.

I have said pretty much the same thing multiple times on all sorts of topics relating to war - though it is usually in response to the posts talking about nuclear armageddon.

Russia could invade the entirity of Ukraine (incredibly unlikely) and NATO won't engage them directly.

Although military assistance to the Ukrainian armed forces and/or other proxies is definately not out of the question. That is also the West's/NATO's best military option.

 

 

We hate independent thinking so much we allow you to vote for leaders you think are the best. Even when they're not.

 

Funny how it works, innit?

 

Not really what is happening in my country where we are already at the 3rd PM not elected by the people...

 

@ sivi: I said that Russia's actions are "justified" in a tactical/moral (their own moral) perspective just as any other similar strategical action carried by the West.

I simply try to keep ideas balanced. I don't like one sided discussions sold to the public like objective ones. Just as I dislike propaganda from both sides.

Either people admit they are partizan of one side or it is hypocritical to portray themselves like they were being super partes.

 

Actually I do not support Russia nor the West when it comes to situations like this one.

I simply disagree with both. I'm fed up by all these penis size contests on a worldwide scale.

I believe that the policy of countries/powers like USA, Russia, China, EU etc (the list is long) are a cancer for the human race.

They actively stop the planet from progressing towards a better society and honestly,

these policies, make them all look like a bunch of immature cave men fighting over an ephemeral and delusional sense of power.

 

Too philosophical? Maybe yes but that's how I feel and think.

I can understand the causes and legitimate objectives of these policies but I will never approve them

cause they are plain wrong under the perspective of human progress.

 

Anyway, too off topic so feel free to not reply.

 

Firstly, I really don't think it is all just over an "ephemeral and dillusional sense of power." I believe there are some far more pragmatic and material reasons for the expansionist foreign policies you talk about.

Secondly, expansionism is far from isolated to the modern foreign policies of major geopolitical powers like the US and Russia. The exact same has been the case for millennia - you had ancient empires formenting unrest and invading foreign lands just as Russia is doing to Ukraine now. And before that, I am sure cave-dwelling neolithic clans were doing something similar on smaller scales. And as I said in my first point, pragmatic reasons were behind these.

 

For Russia's actions in Ukraine, I'd guess the reason was to set an example for other ex-Soviet countries wanting closer economic ties with the EU instead of Russia. Russia hope this will dissuade countries from breaking economically beneficial ties with Russia, as well as undermining the West as a viable protector.

Another thing is that Russia hope to salvage at least some of the economic ties that the new pro-EU government broke off - Russia hope to reap at least some economic benefit from the Crimean region.

Edited by D- Ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161isaiah161

I was going to go to a s.t.a.l.k.e.r role play type thing to chernobyl but looks like its canceled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geralt of Rivia

Apparently the Ukraine Flagship didn't defect, and is at a NATO base: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1zd570/reports_that_ukraine_flagship_is_at_a_nato/

 

Poland is moving troops to the Ukrainian border: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1zd570/reports_that_ukraine_flagship_is_at_a_nato/

 

Russian troops break into Sevastopol Navy Base: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1zd6iv/ukraine_conflict_russian_troops_break_into/

 

Russia is desperately trying to get Ukraine to fire the first shot, and if Poland gets involved, NATO gets involved. World War 3 if that happens.

 

This isn't looking good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

 

Russia is desperately trying to get Ukraine to fire the first shot, and if Poland gets involved, NATO gets involved. World War 3 if that happens.

 

Article 5 only protects NATO members if they are attacked. The Polish-Ukranian border is so far from the Russian Federation (and Poland borders the West-friendly part of Ukraine anyway), that it is unlikely to matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geralt of Rivia

 

 

Russia is desperately trying to get Ukraine to fire the first shot, and if Poland gets involved, NATO gets involved. World War 3 if that happens.

 

Article 5 only protects NATO members if they are attacked. The Polish-Ukranian border is so far from the Russian Federation (and Poland borders the West-friendly part of Ukraine anyway), that it is unlikely to matter.

 

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

 

So, anyone wanna bet that Ukraine joins NATO after all is said and done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Max

Absolutely no way Ukraine will be allowed to join NATO while under partial occupation. Even if Russia withdraws and this calms down Ukraine would be far too high risk to accept as a NATO member state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

 

 

 

Russia is desperately trying to get Ukraine to fire the first shot, and if Poland gets involved, NATO gets involved. World War 3 if that happens.

 

Article 5 only protects NATO members if they are attacked. The Polish-Ukranian border is so far from the Russian Federation (and Poland borders the West-friendly part of Ukraine anyway), that it is unlikely to matter.

 

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

 

So, anyone wanna bet that Ukraine joins NATO after all is said and done?

 

 

Since 1994, Ukraine has a NATO partner (not member, mind you and not protected by Article 5). In 2008, NATO considered proposing Ukraine full membership, but in 2010, now ousted president Viktor Yanukovych declined the offer, but wanted to remain a partner with NATO.

 

The new government, however, are far more keen on the idea, as they have already called on NATO to help them. However, NATO might be more reluctant following the Russo-Georgian War in 2008 and the current intervention. It should not be in NATO's interest to piss Russia off too much.

 

In 2001, a EU research group decided that 'Ukraine has the same chance as being a member of the EU as New Zealand'. However, much have happened since 2001, and now EU members are talking about a possible membership for Ukraine. Although, Ukraine still has much corruption to fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uNi

Anyone has more information on a "loud explosion has been heard Simferopol"?

 

EDIT:

 

Breaking News German ‏@GermanyAktuell 1m RT @PzFeed: Reports of a second explosion in Simferopol, Ukraine. Russian forces are storming Ukrainian ammunition stores in Sevastopol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

No two nuclear states would militarily engage each other directly. I believe nuclear weapons completely fulfill their purpose as deterrents, and understanding of the concept of mutually assured destruction, or just the high chance of having your country obliterated prevents leaders of nuclear-armed countries from ever engaging each other directly.

I believe this to be grossly incorrect. Even Waltz in many of his writings on nuclear weapons did not hold that they would all out prevent war. It is VERY possible for great powers to go to war with one another conventionally and not use nuclear weapons. When it comes down to the US pounding on the gates of Moscow, then perhaps nuclear weapons would become an issue. A limited war like this that would likely result simply in Russian forces being pushed back home? Nuclear weapons aren't an issue. The idea that NATO would not go to war against Russia simply because they have nukes is frankly ridiculous.

 

With Kerry now going to Kiev on Tuesday, do you honestly think if Russian tanks roll into Kiev, the US military and NATO are going to do absolutely nothing about it?

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frantz Fuchs

Let me put it in perspective for you.

 

It's 1960. Warsaw Pact members, principally the Soviet Union, back communist rebels in Canada, who riot, burn government buildings, attack police and SWAT, until their current govt. collapses. Communist take over Parliament Hill and establish a new regime.

 

Now, the US has a Navy base, military assets and technology in Canada. What will they do? I'm pretty sure they would've invaded Canada before the original government could even collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uNi

Anyone has more information on a "loud explosion has been heard Simferopol"?

 

EDIT:

 

Breaking News German ‏@GermanyAktuell 1m RT @PzFeed: Reports of a second explosion in Simferopol, Ukraine. Russian forces are storming Ukrainian ammunition stores in Sevastopol.

 

Pretty much every source now says it's not confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D- Ice

 

 

No two nuclear states would militarily engage each other directly. I believe nuclear weapons completely fulfill their purpose as deterrents, and understanding of the concept of mutually assured destruction, or just the high chance of having your country obliterated prevents leaders of nuclear-armed countries from ever engaging each other directly.

I believe this to be grossly incorrect. Even Waltz in many of his writings on nuclear weapons did not hold that they would all out prevent war. It is VERY possible for great powers to go to war with one another conventionally and not use nuclear weapons. When it comes down to the US pounding on the gates of Moscow, then perhaps nuclear weapons would become an issue. A limited war like this that would likely result simply in Russian forces being pushed back home? Nuclear weapons aren't an issue. The idea that NATO would not go to war against Russia simply because they have nukes is frankly ridiculous.

 

With Kerry now going to Kiev on Tuesday, do you honestly think if Russian tanks roll into Kiev, the US military and NATO are going to do absolutely nothing about it?

 

I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you too mate. I'm unfamiliar with Waltz - I'll try to read up on him if I have time. Yes there is a possibility of anything happening, but the possiility of two nuclear states going to war is absolutely minuscule. I can think of an example of it happening once in the past - when India and Pakistan has border clashes in 1999 (about a year after Pakistan's first successful nuclear test), but Pakistan denied involvement of it's regulars until it was found out after the war. There were also some Russian intelligence officials and military advisors killed in Vietnam by the US armed forces, but again, there was deniability. I guess what I should have said is that no two nuclear armed states go into direct open conflict.

My opinion is based on history - including the 44-year Cold War where the two bitter enemies never engaged each other directly.

 

Your scenario is pretty much an impossibility. Russia isn't dumb enough to attack Kiev when Kerry is there. And even if they do kill him directly and intentionally, I'll hazard a guess that the US still won't start war with Russia. And the reasons for both, I am still convinced, are those of nuclear weapons.

I guess time will tell. Hopefully though, not too much blood will be spilled because of this.

Edited by D- Ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geralt of Rivia

 

Anyone has more information on a "loud explosion has been heard Simferopol"?

 

EDIT:

 

Breaking News German ‏@GermanyAktuell 1m RT @PzFeed: Reports of a second explosion in Simferopol, Ukraine. Russian forces are storming Ukrainian ammunition stores in Sevastopol.

 

Pretty much every source now says it's not confirmed.

 

The explosions have been confirmed. The Russians storming ammo stores in unconfirmed.

 

Either way, some sh*t's going down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.