Russia vs Ukraine: Crimean Crisis

Status
Not open for further replies.
Splinter. Beam.
 
Matthew 7:3 "Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye but not the beam in your eye."
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Matthew 7:3 "Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye but not the beam in your eye."
Click to expand...


Is this where it's from? I must confess i should give the Good Book a harder look!
The version i knew is a little bit less PC and involves the beam in a different part of one's anatomy ;D
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Its a pretty silly strategy by the Russians. Don't they want to drive the Ukrainian forces and government out of the Crimea? So why are they blockading one of the Ukrainian Navy ships so it can't escape? Shouldn't they be offering it a port tug, free fuel, a course to Odessa? Blocking the port is something they should do AFTER the Ukrainians put to sea so they can never return.

This Russian gambit seems to be very poorly thought out and planned. The Ukrainian's response of just sitting tight has confounded the Russian strategy of using threatening force to try and drive them out.
Click to expand...

Nope, they want the opposite, they want to force the Ukrainian forces in Crimea to "defect" to the Russian backed Crimean administration thus legitimising its secession from Ukraine and de-legitimising the new Ukrainian government. That is why those fine insigniaphobic gentlemen with the guns are being so restrained and supposedly trying to convince senior Ukrainian officers in the Crimea to declare their allegiance to Simferopol, with the occasional success. The last thing the Russians want is Ukrainian forces in Crimea running anywhere, because then the absurd story of Crimean self-liberation from Kiev's facist tyranny completely falls apart. As ridiculous as the pretence is the Russians crave the sense of legitimacy they feel it gives them.
 
could this be linked to reports of firing on a Ukranian Diamond (manned) observation aircraft?
 
Point 1) from reply #50

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/200350-european-nations-call-for-more-us-natural-gas-exports
 
Orionblamblam said:
Sigh. Nobody reads the classics anymore.
Click to expand...

Another good one for this thread is Proverbs 23:9. "Speak not to (a) fool(s) for t(he)y will scorn the wisdom of your words."
 
bobbymike said:
Point 1) from reply #50

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/200350-european-nations-call-for-more-us-natural-gas-exports
Click to expand...
We're already pulling the gas out pretty fast, and are the #1 exporter in the world. The problem is building a giant gas refrigeration and transport facility. That will take a while....
 
Orionblamblam said:
Abraham Gubler said:
Matthew 7:3 "Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye but not the beam in your eye."
Click to expand...

Zooom. Waaaay overhead, it seems.

Sigh. Nobody reads the classics anymore.
Click to expand...

John 11:35 ::) ::)
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Or you just pump the gas out raw and use it to inflate LTAs and fly it over.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but... how do you get your LTA *back?* Have to put it on a ship, I guess, or use another LTA filled with, say, H2 to carry it.

Oops, never mind, I see they plan to use helium.

What might work: LTAs filled with hydrogen towing cheapo blimps filled with natural gas, and each also carrying some LNG to make them neutrally bouyant. Great big long sky-trains.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Not really sure how you draw that conclusion.
Click to expand...
In both cases a stronger neighbor took parts of adjacent country just because it could. Of course, there are hundreds of similar examples throughout the history. I used that example because Monroe foreign policy doctrine which is still in effect (or it was during the Reagan times) reminded me of the behavior of Russia in post-communist world.

Uh-huh. And has, within living memory, the US invaded a neighbor and annexed chunks of their territory?
Click to expand...
Living memory would be an argument if the political goals changed. They didn’t. US considers North and South America as it’s backyard, Russia feels the same about former soviet republics. They both act in accordance to those policies. If those policies change (for instance in the US), the US wouldn’t need a military base near its border, in a foreign country which does not want to have a US military base in its territory but it is powerless to do anything about it. Another example could be a remnant of former British imperial policies embodied in British naval bases in Cyprus.

From the perspective of European history... it's just a natural part of the swing of the pendulum of history. For generations much of Europe has been under the boot heel of the far left; now there are some less-far-left movements such as you are complaining about.

Of course, it would be nice if Europe could get some *real* far-right movements, such as the Libertarians or Objectivists. But Europe seems mired in Big Government Solutions.
Click to expand...
The Europe looks like it is going back to the thirties. All those tens of millions of dead in WW2 ceased to be the reminder of what happens when you have extremists in the power.
Any form of government that is not mainstream will eventually get crushed. Again, we are the prime example of that. Yugoslavia wasn’t democracy in western meaning of the word (no political pluralism, no independent press, and no elections) but it wasn’t a communist country in a western meaning of the word either. Funny thing is, according to a few pools from recent years, people would gladly replace political pluralism and elections for that system which offered free education, health care and more secure job.
Non mainstream type governments can only survive in dual or multi power world.

And what movements should be "suppressed?" And what happens when you suppress movements?
Click to expand...
It has to be done on case per case basis. If it promotes ideas that are in collision with basic human rights, they should be banned. We saw what happened when you do not suppress them. Education is the key here, people forgot how many people died, and in what horrible ways. I am afraid to pick up any history books in former Yugoslav republics. Revisionist are in full steam ahead mode.
The problem in this case too is, economy comes before the principles. The UK won’t sanction Russian oligarchs, EU won’t jeopardize its exports to Russia. US won’t say a word against medieval government of Saudi Arabia. The basic human rights can be exercised on countries that can’t harm you politically, militarily or economically.

And so... Putin should do it?
Click to expand...
No. He is a despot that fears the same movements in Russia but who nonetheless took the opportunity to annex the part of his neighbor. I said in my first post in this thread, Ukraine needs a new interim government consisted of all parliamentary parties which will prepare the next elections. People who are currently in power in Kiev are no better than Yanukovitch was. I don’t know why EU recognized the current government.
Both of the Klitchko brothers were enforcers for the Ukrainian mob.
http://grahamwphillips.com/2014/01/05/klitschko-and-ukraines-love-of-cars-and-cash/


Look: if you want to get rid of fascists, sending a commie stooge to prove the fascists fears true is not the way to do it. If you want to *embolden* fascists, having foreigners come in and chop up your country would seem to do the job nicely.

Support of the Russian conquest of Crimea is, in effect, support of Nazis.
Click to expand...
True. That’s why I said poor people. They are not given a viable choice. They are lied that they will be part of EU (they won’t) soon (similar to what our politicians were telling us in 2000, that we will be a part of EU in 2007). Russian occupation of Crimea will increase the support for far right parties in the west of Ukraine, and decisions such as the removal of Russian as official language and lifting the ban on promotion of far right ideologies will spur support for Russia in the East. After failed general mobilization, the Kiev is now trying with the partial one.
Parties of the left or left center weren’t given permission to protest against Yanukovitch. Communist party was banned in the west of the country. The smartest thing the Ukrainians could do in these circumstances is to stay at home.

bobbymike said:
Point 1) from reply #50

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/200350-european-nations-call-for-more-us-natural-gas-exports
Click to expand...
Abraham Gubler said:
sublight is back said:
We're already pulling the gas out pretty fast, and are the #1 exporter in the world. The problem is building a giant gas refrigeration and transport facility. That will take a while....
Click to expand...

Or you just pump the gas out raw and use it to inflate LTAs and fly it over.

http://www.worldskycat.com/markets/skygas.html
Click to expand...
Unless the US taxpayers want to subsidize the EU consumer market for the next 30-40 years (until the fusion becomes a viable choice) this will not happen.
http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2014/03/05/an-energy-weapon-vs-russia/
It was really a matter of days.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/03/11/288980634/crimean-parliament-passes-declaration-of-independence

This is the result of what happens when you assess international law on case per case basis instead of uniform way. Autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija declared independence as Republic of Kosovo in 2008. International court of law said that that declaration was in accordance with international law. The principle of self determination became more important that the principle of territorial sovereignty of countries. This is the result. Yes, the EU and US politicians said again and again that that was a unique case and no one else should ever do that again. Seems that they like fairy tales a lot.

In this crisis another pandora box was open, it became OK to topple elected government in a coup (even with the help of nazis) if the goal is right.
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26540602


EDIT: Thought this photo gallery might be of some interest:

r

[ORIGINAL CAPTION - Photo 8 / 32
A cat walks outside Livadia Palace where U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin held the Yalta Conference in Yalta March 11, 2014.
REUTERS/Thomas Peter]
http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slideshow?articleId=USRTR3GNZS​
 
bigvlada said:
Orionblamblam said:
Not really sure how you draw that conclusion.
Click to expand...
In both cases a stronger neighbor took parts of adjacent country just because it could. Of course, there are hundreds of similar examples throughout the history. I used that example because Monroe foreign policy doctrine which is still in effect (or it was during the Reagan times) reminded me of the behavior of Russia in post-communist world.
Click to expand...

Where does the Monroe Doctrine dictate that the US go on conquest against it's neighbors? I don't seem to recall the US taking over Canada, Mexico (not that we'd want that), the Bahamas, etc.
 
sferrin said:
bigvlada said:
In both cases a stronger neighbor took parts of adjacent country just because it could. Of course, there are hundreds of similar examples throughout the history. I used that example because Monroe foreign policy doctrine which is still in effect (or it was during the Reagan times) reminded me of the behavior of Russia in post-communist world.
Click to expand...

Where does the Monroe Doctrine dictate that the US go on conquest against it's neighbors? I don't seem to recall the US taking over Canada, Mexico (not that we'd want that), the Bahamas, etc.
Click to expand...

Panama, Cuba, Virgin Islands, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Mexican territories, Puerto Rico - ooops! ::) ::)

It provides a moral justification for a whole of invasion and mayhem, now doesn't it?
 
sferrin said:
bigvlada said:
Orionblamblam said:
Not really sure how you draw that conclusion.
Click to expand...
In both cases a stronger neighbor took parts of adjacent country just because it could. Of course, there are hundreds of similar examples throughout the history. I used that example because Monroe foreign policy doctrine which is still in effect (or it was during the Reagan times) reminded me of the behavior of Russia in post-communist world.
Click to expand...

Where does the Monroe Doctrine dictate that the US go on conquest against it's neighbors? I don't seem to recall the US taking over Canada, Mexico (not that we'd want that), the Bahamas, etc.
Click to expand...

There would almost certainly have been a second attempt against Canada in the 19th century if you guys hadn't exhausted yourselves in civil-war. The Monroe doctrine isn't probably good, but - if you look at how U.S. foreign policy developed it quickly became a servant of imperialist manifest destiny. It did nothing to prevent westward expansion of the United States, it was used as a justification to control Hawaii and Texas, as well as a justification for the Spanish-American war.

...which goes to show why such policies are dangerous.
 
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
bigvlada said:
Orionblamblam said:
Not really sure how you draw that conclusion.
Click to expand...
In both cases a stronger neighbor took parts of adjacent country just because it could. Of course, there are hundreds of similar examples throughout the history. I used that example because Monroe foreign policy doctrine which is still in effect (or it was during the Reagan times) reminded me of the behavior of Russia in post-communist world.
Click to expand...

Panama, Cuba, Virgin Islands, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Mexican territories, Puerto Rico - ooops! ::) ::)

Where does the Monroe Doctrine dictate that the US go on conquest against it's neighbors? I don't seem to recall the US taking over Canada, Mexico (not that we'd want that), the Bahamas, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

See Post #155.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cdU611LWqwA
http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/09/diamond-da-42-dazzled/
 
From earlier in the crisis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gXf0Xb0_CkE
http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/04/choppers-cross-strait-of-kerch/
 
As the balloon seems to be going up in the Ukraine, members of the Command community are already busy recreating the military balance and unfolding events in the simulation and trying out different what-if scenarios. This is a screenshot from a multiplayer session between Baloogan and dandin384, posted on the Matrix Games forum (click for full size):



The locations of all static facilities & mobile units are straight from public information on the forces arrayed in the region at the moment.
This represents a fine example of Command being used to visualize events and experiment with what-ifs nearly as fast as history unfolds.
 

Attachments

  • 103F4B4E619849E69E9E22CB9262CD2E.jpg
    103F4B4E619849E69E9E22CB9262CD2E.jpg
    395.6 KB · Views: 174
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
bigvlada said:
Orionblamblam said:
Not really sure how you draw that conclusion.
Click to expand...
In both cases a stronger neighbor took parts of adjacent country just because it could. Of course, there are hundreds of similar examples throughout the history. I used that example because Monroe foreign policy doctrine which is still in effect (or it was during the Reagan times) reminded me of the behavior of Russia in post-communist world.
Click to expand...

Panama, Cuba, Virgin Islands, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Mexican territories, Puerto Rico - ooops! ::) ::)

Where does the Monroe Doctrine dictate that the US go on conquest against it's neighbors? I don't seem to recall the US taking over Canada, Mexico (not that we'd want that), the Bahamas, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

See Post #155.
Click to expand...

See post #157. ::)
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ntY4LuIopDM​

What has been identified over at MilitaryPhotos.net as a 'polite mechanized rifle company' with attached EW capability. 15 BTR-82A, 2 BREM-K & 2 BTR-80 'Infauna'. Video shot near Sovietskyi, Crimea, March 13th, 7:30 am local time.
 
Thanks for keeping us informed. This is history in the making
 
A few more short clips via MilitaryPhotos.net, last two videos are of Ukrainian helicopters near Odessa, apparently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a0iMm-3t1Ao


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qmaqJlnlq1A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d09z7pcGv7g
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10696387/Ukrainians-warn-against-Russian-invasion.html
 
The Europe looks like it is going back to the thirties. All those tens of millions of dead in WW2 ceased to be the reminder of what happens when you have extremists in the power.
Any form of government that is not mainstream will eventually get crushed. Again, we are the prime example of that. Yugoslavia wasn’t democracy in western meaning of the word (no political pluralism, no independent press, and no elections) but it wasn’t a communist country in a western meaning of the word either. Funny thing is, according to a few pools from recent years, people would gladly replace political pluralism and elections for that system which offered free education, health care and more secure job.
Non mainstream type governments can only survive in dual or multi power world.
Click to expand...

Have you spent a lot of time in Germany? I haven't been to Russia, I must grant that. But saying Europe is like in the thirties is a weird view. There are some far right movements but they are small and don't have any real power anywhere. Germany is doing relatively well and certainly is not acting aggressively towards its neighbors.

We have some second hand evidence that Putin thinks that the countries that separated from Soviet Union and with whom Russia has made treaties now suddenly retroactively are said to have separated "illegally". It puts Russia in a bad light. Don't they respect treaties? Can they be trusted on anything? What should Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania think? That they're next? How far do you want to go back in history? What about Poland? Finland? There's lots of territories that Russia has occupied at some point in history.

If you look at what's going on in Crimea, it's following what Stalin did to Estonia in 1939. Occupation and fake elections. Resulting in 50 years of totalitarian occupation and saying "but the locals want it".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states

If Russia wants success and prestige, this is getting the opposite. If they instead concentrated on lesser corruption, more political freedom, education and cultural exchange, they would get far more positive reactions. The flip side is that indeed Putin has kept things stable (at the cost of political freedom) and it has had lots of positive effects so far as well, something that's maybe a bit hard for people from another political system to realize. But war is something more universally bad. If the climate gets bad, who would like to do business in Russia - invest in something else than just bulk export of oil and natural gas, that would bring Russia forward too? This may sound harsh, but from a European point of view, Russia is getting the image of the school bully who hangs around looking for trouble long after everyone else graduated and got real jobs.

Even if you look at only pure strength - land is not a prime resource like it was a hundred years ago. If you occupy some territory, it will in large part only use up your resources.

And what movements should be "suppressed?" And what happens when you suppress movements?
Click to expand...
It has to be done on case per case basis. If it promotes ideas that are in collision with basic human rights, they should be banned. We saw what happened when you do not suppress them. Education is the key here, people forgot how many people died, and in what horrible ways. I am afraid to pick up any history books in former Yugoslav republics. Revisionist are in full steam ahead mode.
The problem in this case too is, economy comes before the principles. The UK won’t sanction Russian oligarchs, EU won’t jeopardize its exports to Russia. US won’t say a word against medieval government of Saudi Arabia. The basic human rights can be exercised on countries that can’t harm you politically, militarily or economically.

And so... Putin should do it?
Click to expand...
No. He is a despot that fears the same movements in Russia but who nonetheless took the opportunity to annex the part of his neighbor. I said in my first post in this thread, Ukraine needs a new interim government consisted of all parliamentary parties which will prepare the next elections. People who are currently in power in Kiev are no better than Yanukovitch was. I don’t know why EU recognized the current government.
Click to expand...

This I somewhat agree with.
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26564851
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0
 
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579437523037894270?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304914904579437523037894270.html (Registration may be required.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom