2nd Crimean War?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by exchemist, Feb 28, 2014.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    So the problem boils down to this, bite the Putin bullet now or bite a much bigger Putin bullet later.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,411
    I don't get how so many people sat back complacent for more than a decade while this guy sold guns, missiles and plutonium breeder reactors to radical regimes that actively seek the destruction of American society. Yeah, he attended a Paul McCartney concert, I'll bet he's a real swell fella.

    Truly, I'd like to give Putin the benefit of the doubt, wish I could believe his side of the story about the world needing some kind of neutral balance, Russia is too corrupt for open democracy to function, blah blah blah. I'm gonna go with the "completely detached from reality" label for now rather than conjuring up the image of Hitler licking his chops, although even Genghis Khan got his start on penny stocks. Thousands of troops on the rampage, plenty of professional soldiers named Boris but apparently none of them Russian, it's utterly absurd.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RedRabbit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    139
    Are you guys advocating war against Russia? ???

    If that was the case I'd have to wonder who really was "completely detached from reality".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,411
    I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't notice anyone here actively advocating for war. I personally advocate for economic sanctions, but if that's not enough and Russia were to invade the rest of Ukraine, then what? We'll just wait until they end up at the gates of Berlin before we finally do something?
     
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    If you are serious, I suggest you go back and read our posts. It's really not that difficult. The only one using military force now is Putin.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I don't think Putin is any kind of swell fella. But I think the world gave Putin the benefit of the doubt for the last 14 years mostly out of hope. With this and his other actions, he has proven himself to be an untrustworthy kind of fella and a very dangerous kind of fella. The mask is clearly off.
     
  10. RedRabbit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    139
    My apologies. I pressed "new posts" button and it inserted me at #121, missing the last couple of pages. That with #122 sounded like, "Let's get him now".
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    No, let's stop him from menacing his neighbors and international law.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    If you want him, you can have him.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2014
  12. RedRabbit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    139

    No thanks. I like my autocrats with a bit more hair.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It being Russia I'm pretty much guaranteed he should be along in a couple of years.
     
  13. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,411
    Is that meant to be deliberate sarcasm? With the nonsense he's stirring up now for domestic consumption, he'll be in charge for another 5 years at minimum.
     
  14. RedRabbit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    139
  15. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    inadvertently, he saved many peoples lives.

    1) Economy in Russia has reversed demographics of population, many with jobs highly paid.
    2) South Ossetia saved from Georgian aggression the people and supported them thereafter
    3) Protecting the Russian population in Crimea and eventually in Ukraine
    4) Syrian Western War escalation machine stopped by using tactic of "Removal of chemical weapons by Syrian government" vs. Obama's "Chemical Weapons against peaceful citizens" card on Syria.
    5) Stabilized Chechnya

    6) THE MOST IMPORTANT. Stopping USA from staged rebellions across the world (Venezuela in progress).
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Has he? When Putin came to power, Russia was in a pretty low place. So small changes have big effects. And most of the economic progress in Russia has been because of foreign investment. With Putin’s actions, that foreign investment will dry up rather quickly.

    And just how is it Putin has saved lives?

    Protecting them from who and what exactly? Where is your evidence that those folks wanted or needed protection? You have none.

    SO IN YOUR WORLD PROETCTING DICTATORS AND THEIR CHEMICAL WEAPONS, THE VERY SAME WEAPONS THESE DICATAORS HAVE USED ON THEIR PEOPLE IS A GOOD THING….REALLY?

    Well I guess that explains why you like Putin.

    Did he now? I guess that explains all the need for heavy security at the Olympic Games and the suicide explosions in public places. You are seriously deluded.

    LOL, ok where is your proofs? Oh that’s right you don’t have any nor do you have any need for them.  In you world it is much better to make shit up. Just like Putin has been doing.

    The fact is the excuses Putin is using for his invasions, occupations and annexations are the same excuses Hitler used. Hitler improved Germany’s economy too. And when he invaded, occupied and annexed his neighbors, he too claimed he was protecting German citizens from some fictitious threat. Hitler’s people were not so thrilled with Hitler after he led them into a war which he lost. And Russians will similarly not be too happy with Putin if he persists with the invasions and occupations and annexations of his neighbors. Putin has proven he is untrustworthy. Economic forecasts for Russia are bleak. And this military aggression isn’t helping the Russian economy.

    Here are some hard facts for you. Life is going to get real difficult in Russia if Putin persists. His military is less than half that of the US. His military equipment is old and dated and his troops are ill equipped. His troops were robbing journalists of their body armor…I mean really. His troops are not as well trained and the US economy is about 10 times larger than his. So Russia just cannot compete with the US. And here is the kicker; the West can bring Putin to his knees without firing a single shot. Putin is playing with the tail of a bull. He keeps it up, he will get kicked. Putin obviously has dreams of world domination, but the unfortunate fact for him is the world doesn’t want to be dominated. People around the globe like freedom. And that is a problem for Putin and his dreams of global domination.
     
  17. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,411
    You forgot

    7) By attempting to deliberately provoke the Ukrainian army into shooting first and nearly triggering WW3, he inadvertently scared off the surprise Martian invasion that was just about to wipe out the entire US eastern seaboard. The guy's more of an accidental genius than even Mr. Magoo.

    Talk about national insecurities. I've said it many times on these forums in the past, that Russia's foreign policy and its substantial contribution to every conflict on the globe over the last two decades is basically all about proving that they've got bigger lumps in their pants than their American rivals.
     
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Putin and his ilk have their heads up their collective butts. Win-Win is infinately better than Win - Lose.
     
  19. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,411
    Well there's the whole thing- if all these conflicts with the USSR 2.0 are about Russia protecting its national interests, they could have simply cooperated more closely with the US and ended up with twice the wealth they currently enjoy, like all those ex-communist countries that went over to the EU side. They could have been the #2 leader in NATO too if they had wanted it.
     
  20. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,608
    The pro-Russian Ukrainians voted in a President (who turned out to be a totally corrupt jerk). Ostensibly pro-Western Ukrainians overthrew the elected President through violent mob action and street-warfare. The West rushed to recognize the new unelected revolutionary regime. And Russia wasn't willing to watch a country that they consider vital to their national interests slip away, so they sent in their troops.

    An important point to notice is that Russia has never recognized the new pro-Western revolutionary government in Kiev. As far as they are concerned, the democratically elected pro-Russian regime was overthrown by anarchical mob action and currently Ukraine has no legimate government at all. With the exception of the Crimean autonomous region's government, I guess, which Russia seems to be treating as if it is soverign since from Moscow's point of view there's no national government above it.

    Something that hasn't been reported on very much in the Western press is Russia's insistence that Ukraine return to the agreement obtained by the foreign ministers of Germany, Poland and France in the third week of February between then-president Viktor Yanukovych and the rebel leaders, calling for the establishment of a national emergency government with participation of elements both pro-Russian and anti-Russian. (Yanukovych's government collapsed the very next day.) That agreement is important to acknowledge, since insistence upon it seems to represent Russia's negotiating position.

    Putin seemingly wants to use Crimea as a bargaining chip to roll back the Kiev revolution.

    Several days ago Obama's government put out its own set of talking points, intended to serve as the basis of a settlement. These points treat the current Kiev government simply as a given and suggest that the only outstanding issue at this point is rolling back Russian aggression.

    The difference between those two positions is the crux of the matter, diplomatically speaking, and it's where any negotiation that occurs is going to inevitably focus.

    If Putin doesn't see any movement on rolling back the Kiev revolution, his plan-B is obviously to have Russia simply annex Crimea. I suspect that the recent movement in that direction in Simferopol was him exerting some pressure to kick-start negotiations on his terms, putting the composition of the Kiev govenment back on the table. Crimea's the stick that he holds and it might remain more useful to him if he holds off on finishing the deal there. If Russia finally does annex Crimea, then Moscow loses the leverage that it gives them over the rest of Ukraine and will likely lock Kiev into a pro-Western course. Putin has to hold open the possibility that Crimea (albeit highly autonomous and Russian-dominated) might (conditionally) stay in Ukraine, provided that Ukraine satisfactorily addresses Russia's other concerns.

    Putin's playing chess right now.

    I think that's probably the real-politik game that's being played, beneath all the rhetoric that's being emitted like smoke by the media on both sides in hopes of stirring up their own popular support. (Standing up to aggression! Protecting ethnic Russians!)

    The thing is, I'm not sure that the Kiev government is even able to give Putin what he wants. If they back down and invite Yanukovych to return, Kiev would almost certainly erupt in renewed street-fighting. Any national unity government that the diplomats contemplate would have to exclude Yanukovych. Putin would likely agree to that, since he blames Yanukovych for screwing everything up. Russia probably doesn't want him back either. So that's a spot where compromise might be achievable. But the Russians would doubtless still insist on a national unity government giving the pro-Russian side half the influence and power in Ukraine. And I don't think that the Maidan would accept letting the pro-Russian side back in like that. They think that they have already won, so why should they turn around and immediately give their hard-won victory away?

    Any solution that would be satisfactory to Putin would likely result in a resumption of street fighting in Kiev.

    I don't know how things will turn out. My guess (that's all it is) is that the Ukrainians won't roll back their revolution and Putin won't get his national unity government. So he will follow through on his annexation of Crimea. That's looking more and more likely.
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,207
    Thanks again for a thoughtful analysis. It's a good point about the doubtful constitutional legitimacy of the new Kiev interim government. What is unclear to me is exactly why the agreement was not adhered to. It rather sounds as if Yanukovich's personal police protection melted away, leaving him little choice but to run away for his own safety. So not really an "abdication" as such, because made under duress. But as you say, Yanukovich is seen by Putin too as a busted flush, so it's unclear what or who he hopes might be installed, pending new elections under the agreement.

    Where I am sure you are right is that if Putin does annex Crimea, the western part of Ukraine, and possibly all of it, will resent it deeply and Russia will have lost it completely, for good - unless Putin is prepared to retake it by a war of invasion. He'll have his Black Sea port, and I don't suppose the West would really begrudge him that, as it is obviously of vital strategic significance to Russia. But an invasion of Ukraine? Where would that lead? Partition, I suppose, as I doubt the NATO countries would go to war to stop it - militarily it would be a long and tough front to defend. But Ukraine has considerable military resources, inherited from USSR days, and with Western backing they might turn it into a long and bloody affair, which would cost Russia a great deal.
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Actually, the “revolutionary regime” is the legally elected Ukrainian parliament and the legally elected president. The former Ukrainian president fled the country as arrest warrants had been issued for his role in the murders of protestors. A new “regime”, that is to say a new president was elected by the legally elected parliament. That is generally how things work in a parliamentary system. In any democratic system, the chief executive can be removed by the legislative body – especially in parliamentary systems. So Putin’s claim that the Ukrainian government isn’t legitimate, like his other statements, is not consistent with the known facts.

    The regime that hasn’t been elected is the pro-Russian and Russian appointed, Crimean Parliament.
     
  23. RedRabbit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    139
    I think that's a little mixed up. Technically it was a coup. A justified coup, but a coup nonetheless. In order to remove a sitting President he must be dead, incapacitated, have resigned or been impeached following strict procedures. None of these things happened. Not that it matters now of course. Anyone who thinks that it justifies invasion must also be looking longingly towards Egypt.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I also think the arrest warrant happened after he had fled not as he had fled.

    What I find amusing, if one can in this situation, is that the basis for annexing Crimea (and really people should have no illusions that this is what is happening), is that the Ukrainian government is illegal therefore any agreements signed with the Ukraine should be illegal, except those trade agreements that allow Russia to sell stuff to the Ukraine. Funny that.
     

Share This Page