scrim 1 Posted February 28, 2014 I'm thinking this would be a great opportunity to Tomahawk the hell out of the Syrian regime, and various other Russian friendly regimes around the world. Considering that Putin seems to be looking for more Lebensraum, sorry, I mean, protect Russians from persecution abroad, he can't really complain too much about NATO being aggressive. Maio: Fine, I'm just sort of miffed about seeing the world take one giant step back towards the Cold War because a certain Russian dictator doesn't understand the meaning of "sovereign state". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistyronin 1181 Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) Indeed, nobody will move to prevent Russia from taking control of Crimea, probably not the Crimean people themselves. And i agree that Ukrainian Army seems to have dropped off the face of the Earth. Yeah, as long as everything ends here. I can't forget about Czechoslovakia and Austria. For now we have Georgia and probably Ukraine's Crimea... I'm thinking this would be a great opportunity to Tomahawk the hell out of the Syrian regime, and various other Russian friendly regimes around the world. Would be a nice way to start another world war. IConsidering that Putin seems to be looking for more Lebensraum, sorry, I mean, protect Russians from persecution abroad. As I said before, I agree with this point, Putin's excuses look really similar to the Hitler's one... you know, protect the ethnic germans... Edited February 28, 2014 by MistyRonin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spooky lynx 73 Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) Come on, open your eyes : "Ukraine's foreign ministry has lodged an official protest to Russia about the "violation of Ukrainian airspace and non-compliance" with the bilateral agreement about the status of the Black Sea Fleet on Ukraine's territory." Oh that's usual rumors about Russian spetsnaz hiding near Rada, Russian OMON dressing in Berkut uniforms and attacking civil protesters, Russian paratroopers ready to land in Borispol etc. I've got used to it and try not to run in front of the train. Russian and Ukrainian armed forces have quite many of identical equipment. So I'd like to wait for more evidence. Yeah, the Berkut has been disbanded. And what we've seen isn't local militia, it's one or two civvies with AKs, and a shit tonne of soldiers wearing the latest Russian uniforms, armour, helmets and AK-74Ms, with traces off ripped of insignia on some, driving around in Russian military vehicles, occupying airports and government facilities.In other words, at the least a very clear provocation, if not an outright attempt at occupying and annexing the Crimea. And as we all know, invading and annexing a sovereign nation is the crime for which several Germans were hung for after the war. At this stage, Putin is starting to deserve the same. You know, maidanuts were not recognized as official authorities in all Ukraine and somewhere their act about disbanding Berkut hadn't been executed. Latest Russian uniforms you say? It is freely sold at many internet shops, I have some parts of it too:) Russian military vehicles may be either from Ukrainian army/MVD/SBU or even civilian (yes all that trucks may be bought by civilians either directly from manufacturer or written off by some enterprise or military - I could buy Ural or Kamaz written off from Gazprom for about $3000-4000). Ural or Kamaz painted in green does not always belong to some military. Invading a sovereign nation is a crime? Had any Qatari official been prosecuted for attack of Libya? Or maybe US, French, British one for attack of Iraq in 2003...? Please stop all that pathetic words about crimes. As I said before, I agree with this point, Putin's excuses look really similar to the Hitler's one... you know, protect the ethnic germans... Common practice - from protecting navy vessels from attack of torpedo boats to protection of tourists. Rule of strong, nothing more. Edited February 28, 2014 by Spooky Lynx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ProfTournesol 956 Posted February 28, 2014 Invading a sovereign nation is a crime? Had any Qatari official been prosecuted for attack of Libya? Or maybe US, French, British one for attack of Iraq in 2003...? Please stop all that pathetic words about crimes. France never attacked Irak in 2003, and Libya wasn't invaded :rolleyes: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scrim 1 Posted February 28, 2014 Latest Russian uniforms you say? It is freely sold at many internet shops, I have some parts of it too:)... Invading a sovereign nation is a crime? Had any Qatari official been prosecuted for attack of Libya? Or maybe US, French, British one for attack of Iraq in 2003...? Please stop all that pathetic words about crimes. I am not, most people on these forums are not, nor are most people in the world stupid. There's a huge difference between just uniforms, and uniforms, armour, helmets, AK74Ms kitted up with the latest Russian military accessories, and all of this is worn by disciplined, military aged males. Don't pretend you didn't read what I wrote. It is a very serious crime to unlawfully invade, and under any circumstances annex a country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ProfTournesol 956 Posted February 28, 2014 Ukraine's interim President Oleksandr Turchynov accuses Russia of aggression, saying Moscow has deployed troops in Crimea and is "trying to provoke" Kiev into an "armed conflict". (BBC News) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spooky lynx 73 Posted February 28, 2014 France never attacked Irak in 2003, and Libya wasn't invaded :rolleyes: Sorry, France hadn't been involved in OIF indeed, though was one of the latest Libya bombardment campaign leaders. And violation if airspace and attacks on both military and civil facilities is not invasion, yes? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scrim 1 Posted February 28, 2014 No, that's not an invasion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ProfTournesol 956 Posted February 28, 2014 And violation if airspace and attacks on both military and civil facilities is not invasion, yes? Well, nope, but it was a mistake anyway. But you can't honestly deny that Russia is taking control of Crimea. "Ukraine's acting leader also said that the "Ukrainian army is not responding" to the provocations in Crimea." But is the Army even willing to do something ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonci87 163 Posted February 28, 2014 Well, nope, but it was a mistake anyway.But you can't honestly deny that Russia is taking control of Crimea. "Ukraine's acting leader also said that the "Ukrainian army is not responding" to the provocations in Crimea." But is the Army even willing to do something ? I think the real question is: Are they capable of doing something? I honestly don´t think so, and Putin knows it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ProfTournesol 956 Posted February 28, 2014 I think the real question is: Are they capable of doing something? I honestly don´t think so, and Putin knows it. At least they could make movements toward Crimea... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistyronin 1181 Posted February 28, 2014 Common practice - from protecting navy vessels from attack of torpedo boats to protection of tourists. Rule of strong, nothing more. "Common practice" among bully superpowers, but that doesn't make it right nor legal (its against international conventions ). Besides that this is one of the reasons why the US gov is one of the most hated in the world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spooky lynx 73 Posted February 28, 2014 I am not, most people on these forums are not, nor are most people in the world stupid. There's a huge difference between just uniforms, and uniforms, armour, helmets, AK74Ms kitted up with the latest Russian military accessories, and all of this is worn by disciplined, military aged males. I don't want to make you sad but even in 'elite' detachments such as VDV or Naval infantry accessories like grips, handguards with rails are still rare. On the other side I've seen rather many of this stuff at the rifles and MGs of those guys. Don't pretend you didn't read what I wrote. It is a very serious crime to unlawfully invade, and under any circumstances annex a country. Seems that according to your logic it's a crime only for Russia and countries that are friendly to it. Others are okay about such things. BTW I'm even pleased to see such massive butthurt of some 'falcons' and 'neocon-style' folks. Keep it up. Again I may perform just simple count of conflicts and wars after 1945 that were with direct involvement of 'democracy palladin' and 'bloody commie Russkies'. And the comparison may be not in favor of first one. So I ask you again to calm down falcon rhetorics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scrim 1 Posted February 28, 2014 I won't even bother regarding the very obvious Russian soldiers, it's ridiculous. The entire world knows what it is. Specify the latest time a Western country invaded and annexed another nation. Yeah, didn't think so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spooky lynx 73 Posted February 28, 2014 Well, nope, but it was a mistake anyway. Mistake that is still not condemned and even recognized as mistake. But you can't honestly deny that Russia is taking control of Crimea. I honestly say I do not know who are thos guys. I want to believe that it is indeed our army, but looking at recent past (leaving Libya and Syria for ripping apart, moving our peacekeepers out of Kosovo, selling advanced weapon systems to rather unfriendly Azerbaycan instead of supporting Armenia) I still don't believe that Putin has balls for doing such things. "Ukraine's acting leader also said that the "Ukrainian army is not responding" to the provocations in Crimea." But is the Army even willing to do something ? Looking at the attitude to MVD troops and other law enforcement departments IMHO army does not hurry with help to maidanuts. And yes, formally according to all Ukrainian laws and constitution both government and 'president' are illigetimate. Formally still army superior chief is Yanuk. None of any legal ways of him leaving his duty was performed. I think the real question is: Are they capable of doing something? I honestly don´t think so, and Putin knows it. They aren't capable of doing something while Yanuk is alive and hadn't left president chair via legal procedures. All they can do is to act like some Lviv or Ternopol MVD troops that took the side of maidan. And this is fully dependent on local commanders, whether they are ready for going against law or not. "Common practice" among bully superpowers, but that doesn't make it right nor legal (its against international conventions ). Besides that this is one of the reasons why the US gov is one of the most hated in the world. Well, if I'm not mistaken one of early Geneva conventions prohibited deployment of any weapon systems on aircraft. Well, you all know about WW1 air battles... The world is cruel. Conventions and international laws are used only if it is useful at the particular moment. Sad but true. ---------- Post added at 00:41 ---------- Previous post was at 00:30 ---------- I won't even bother regarding the very obvious Russian soldiers, it's ridiculous. The entire world knows what it is. "I won't say for the whole Odessa, whole Odessa is too big"©. Don't speak for the whole world please. Specify the latest time a Western country invaded and annexed another nation. Yeah, didn't think so. 2011 - Libya 2003 - Iraq 2001 - Afghanistan 1999 - Yugoslavia (annexion of Kosovo) 1994 - Invasion of Haiti Early 90's - participation in civil war in Yugoslavia on the side of Croats and Bosniaks 1986 - Libya bombardments 1983 - Grenada 1982 - airstrikes at Syrian army in Lebanon 1960-1970's - Vietnam 1965-1966 - Operation 'Power Pack' Enough? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistyronin 1181 Posted February 28, 2014 Well, if I'm not mistaken one of early Geneva conventions prohibited deployment of any weapon systems on aircraft. Well, you all know about WW1 air battles... The world is cruel. Conventions and international laws are used only if it is useful at the particular moment. Sad but true. Indeed, but anyone who has read human history knows what happens to bully superpowers when then go too far. Because its easy to take weak enemies one by one, but if everyone gets allied against the bully... But that would take lots of deads. So let's hope Putin will calm down and stop its warmongering menace all over Russian's neighbors, for the good sake of everyone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonci87 163 Posted February 28, 2014 Well, if I'm not mistaken one of early Geneva conventions prohibited deployment of any weapon systems on aircraft. Well, you all know about WW1 air battles... The world is cruel. Conventions and international laws are used only if it is useful at the particular moment. Sad but true. You can go farher back in past than that. In Medieval times the pope banned crossbows since they were too brutal (the real reason beeing that those things were incredibly dangerous to armored knights (in fact one of the very few weapons that could kill a fully armored knight without much of a problem) and could easily be used by common people). Well guess what, they were used anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spooky lynx 73 Posted February 28, 2014 Indeed, but anyone who has read human history knows what happens to bully superpowers when then go too far. Because its easy to take weak enemies one by one, but if everyone gets allied against the bully... But that would take lots of deads.So let's hope Putin will calm down and stop its warmongering menace all over Russian's neighbors, for the good sake of everyone. I don't know any case of punishing any bully 'superpower' or just regional powerful country if its actions don't hurt someone's income interests. Africans may slaughter eachother for years with hundreds of thousands, but if it does not interrupt flow of natural resources - everything is okay, nobody cares. As for Putin... If I would at his place I would bomb the craep out of all that Pravy sektor and Svolota, far right crooks should not get the power in any of neighboring countries. We still remember their 'heroic' actions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scrim 1 Posted February 28, 2014 2011 - Libya2003 - Iraq 2001 - Afghanistan 1999 - Yugoslavia (annexion of Kosovo) 1994 - Invasion of Haiti Early 90's - participation in civil war in Yugoslavia on the side of Croats and Bosniaks 1986 - Libya bombardments 1983 - Grenada 1982 - airstrikes at Syrian army in Lebanon 1960-1970's - Vietnam 1965-1966 - Operation 'Power Pack' Enough? Yeah, I reckoned as much; You don't even know what annexation means. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spooky lynx 73 Posted February 28, 2014 Yeah, I reckoned as much; You don't even know what annexation means. Care to write your list? Or maybe stop butthurting? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maio 293 Posted February 28, 2014 Spooky and scrim please stop or you will be tempo-banned from the topic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sudayev 27 Posted March 1, 2014 They are pumping more and more troops to Crimea, the final push will be commenced from dawn. By the way have a look at this... Ukraine demanded from Russia, the USA, France and the United Kingdom a written statement that these powers undertook to extend the security guarantees to Ukraine. Instead security assurances to Ukraine (Ukraine published the documents as guarantees given to Ukraine[5]) were given on 5 December 1994 at a formal ceremony in Budapest (known as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances[6]), may be summarized as follows: Russia, the UK and the USA undertake to respect Ukraine's borders in accordance with the principles of the 1975 CSCE Final Act, to abstain from the use or threat of force against Ukraine, to support Ukraine where an attempt is made to place pressure on it by economic coercion, and to bring any incident of aggression by a nuclear power before the UN Security Council.In a joint statement on December 4, 2009 the presidents of the United States and Russia, Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, confirmed the assurances of security to Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus given on the heels of these countries' consent in 1994 to give up their nuclear weapons.[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine American president made a comment within last hour regarding the situation http://www.wptv.com/news/national/president-obama-comments-on-ukraine-situation-live-video-stream Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
batto 17 Posted March 1, 2014 As I said before, I agree with this point, Putin's excuses look really similar to the Hitler's one... you know, protect the ethnic germans... IMHO it only makes sense for Putin to take pro-Russian territories by force show-off when current government tries to separate Ukraine from Russia as much as possible. In other words, resisting it would be stupid (and deadly). Sure, Putin may only be interested in strategic positions. But as side effect it'd make Russian speaking pro-Russian minority part of Russia and new Ukraine wouldn't have to deal with new protests. Maybe I'm oversimplifying a bit... Of course full Ukraine invasion would be something very different but I don't think it'll happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akm74 1 Posted March 1, 2014 IMHO it only makes sense for Putin to take pro-Russian territories by force show-off when current government tries to separate Ukraine from Russia as much as possible. In other words, resisting it would be stupid (and deadly). Sure, Putin may only be interested in strategic positions. But as side effect it'd make Russian speaking pro-Russian minority part of Russia and new Ukraine wouldn't have to deal with new protests. Maybe I'm oversimplifying a bit... Of course full Ukraine invasion would be something very different but I don't think it'll happen. well "pro-Russian minority part" is more like a 50% of territory. Also keep in mind most of economy, resources and infrastructure is on the east. This situation become very interesting. 1954 "man with the golden shoe" gifted (for no reason) this territory to Ukraine. I If they let Krym to slip away (and it look like they have no way to stop it) others will follow shortly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vilas 474 Posted March 1, 2014 gifted (for no reason) not for no reason but as compensation for Stalin era hunger i know that talking on and on about WW2 or 30s is "boring" , but many times due to not solving historical issues, such things are in minds of people no matter if 1 year passed or 80 years Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
