1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ukraine Crisis

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Mar 3, 2014.

  1. dsl987

    dsl987 Member

  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    No, he won't, he will stop here. He's not stupid and he really doesn't need the Eastern Ukraine. He got his port and his gas line destination. Now he will just start charging the rest of Ukraine the prices EU pays and Ukraine will be fucked.
     
  3. dsl987

    dsl987 Member

    Well he didn't really need Crimea either.
     
  4. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Yeah he did. Best part of Ukraine.
     
  5. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    I'm pretty sure Putin hasn't finished yet. One thing for sure, in the end Ukraine will be a puppet of Russia irrespective if it remains as an "independent" country or is annexed to the Russian mainland.

    If he doesn't actually take over Ukraine there's nothing we can do this late in the game. If he intends to take Ukraine by force the only way to stop him is to place US and NATO troops on the Ukraine-Russia border, to act as more or less hostages, in that killing US/NATO troops would be an act of war. I don't think Ukraine is in NATO but I believe the legitimate Ukraine government could invite the US/NATO troops in to help, if they wanted to do that. Whether the US/NATO would go for it I can't say.

    I heard a short discussion about a heavily Russian part of Ukraine between it and Moldova, including an old but large previously Russian military base. Seems to me it would be easy for Putin to annex that strip with the cooperation of its heavily Russian population.

    Looks like how we put out brush fires. Establish a perimeter and when the fire is completely surrounded you just let it burn out.

    Anybody who thinks Putin isn't going to take more lands, give me a good reason why. Particularly considering Putin's ally in the Oval Office.
     
  6. dsl987

    dsl987 Member

    What's worrying is the precedent this is setting. The international community has basically said that if you can rush in and grab something without force and occupy it, then it's yours. There are a lot of long simmering territorial disputes, and China must be taking notice and thinking that if it can rush in and occupy the Senkaku islands nobody will dare to dislodge them.
     
  7. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    The next area is not Ukraine, it's the Pole.
     
  8. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    No argument from me, except that Russia taking Poland amounts to throwing down the gauntlet. Once that happens it's up to NATO and US to either put up and shut up or put forces in action.

    That's my only reservation that Poland won't be next, is because that's tantamount to declaring war. If that happens there will be troops deployed and lives lost.

    Wow, modern times are so interesting! Will WW III start in eastern EU or will it start in the Middle East?

    Or both?? I say "both" at the same time that Obama wants to reduce US forces thus ensuring that we will no longer of maintaining a war on two fronts. Although I doubt we are capable of that even at present. Maybe two Mickey Mouse wars....
     
  9. rockotman

    rockotman Blown on the steel breeze

    Ummm.... when Leon said "The Pole", I assumed he meant "the North Pole". :p
     
  10. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Yes... but he's on a roll.
     
  11. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Um I assumed Poland, what has to be noted as at risk. But go ahead and have your fun.
     
  12. Andrey

    Andrey A man who sold the world

    Here are 3 contrary instances:

    Remember 2008 and Russian-Georgian conflict: the leaders of former georgian areas: South Ossetia and Abkhazia were asking Russia to incorporate their territories since 1995. They were asking the same after conflict in 2008. Yes, Putin recognized their independence, but didn't made these lands the part of our country.

    Look at another ex-USSR country, Moldova,they had Transnistria (by the way it's close to Crimea) They also has been asking Russia about incorporation last time in 18 march 2014, in 2006 they also have referendum where aprx. 97% of citizens voted for joining to Russia.

    So what? These 3 territories are asking about joining to our country for years, we support them with money but they are not the parts of Russia.

    Crimea is a special case (and not because Russians are majority of its population), I like that we've joined it, but I am not very happy about it because I understand that we've done that not because of our strength, but because of our weakness (yes, I agreed with Obama in this case). We are loosing Ukraine continuously since 2004, if we loose Crimea, we will lost most power of our fleet in Black sea. But at present Ukraine will have some problems with joining to EU and NATO (as Georgia has now) because it has territorial problems. Also if we break our relations with Ukraine we will not have to ask it about our fleet in Sevastopol and to make so large gas discount for Ukraine as we made before.

    If Ukraine prefer Europe, let Europe Union (not us) support them with money. Just realpolitik.

    Yes, there is some probability that South and East Ukraine (donetsk, kharkov etc) will empower their separation activities but it mainly depends on Ukraine government than on Russian one.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2014
  13. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I never miss that opportunity. :)
     
  14. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    And to answer your question, here's a compelling reason why he won't go after anything. Screenshot from 2014-03-27 09:45:59.png
     
  15. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    Yikes! That's not good at all!
     
  16. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    I just realized one really big fail in the US policy against RU...

    Name all the countries that can access the space station, send personnel and resupply.
     
  17. dsl987

    dsl987 Member

    Only 3 countries have successfully launched and retrieved a rocket, USA, Russia, China.
    I heard that when NASA retired the shuttle, Russia really jacked up the price of using their rockets to send personnel and supplies to the space station. I was so happy when SpaceX was successful in sending supplies to the station for a tiny fraction of what it used to cost NASA, and they are now working on being able to send personnel as well.

    Go SpaceX !
     
  18. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    No, NASA's new mission is Muslim outreach.
     
  19. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Well with idiots in the White House and Senate it does not surprise me that they forgot that we depend on Russia (at present) to resupply the Space Station with supplies and personnel.

    The Space Station may yet become another casualty of Obama's Robin Hood policy of stealing from those who are willing to work to give the money to lazy fat-ass welfare queens.

    After all what is the space station doing for the United Socialist States of America? We could do just as good with CGI and unmanned vehicles, and give space to the Russians, Chinese and perhaps Iran. At least we probably have better CGI than them.
     
  20. Chui

    Chui Full Member

    We should mind our business and concern ourselves with our own border.

    Crimea has "always" been Russian since it was removed from the violent Tartars. That was in the 1700s. 1730's IIRC.

    It was "gifted" to Ukraine (more in a second) in 1954 by Brezhnev or Gorbachev. I forget which.

    The Ukraine.

    The Orthodox Russians began where???

    Kiev. That's where.

    When?

    832 AD

    LOOK UP "KIEVAN RUS".


    -------------------------------------
    "One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
     

Share This Page