Hey why don't you go back to telling us how wonderful and benign Russian invasions are.
I noticed you weren't too keen to talk about the butchery in Chechnya, was there a reason for that?
The West is NOT perfectly innocent in all of this. A lawfully elected pro-Russian Ukranian president was illegally ousted by force and the west IMMEDIATELY recognized his illegal replacement who favored the west over Russia. That was a slap in the face of the Russians and extremely provocative. Now the west is calling foul in Crimea over the same type of actions. At least try for a semblance of consistency.
^^^Shoot on sight? Say goodbye to Ukraine if that's the case.
The west must organize and act to prevent the spread of this Russian contagion. No further. Military mobilization is required in Europe.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukrain...-to-use-weapons-by-acting-president-1.2577236Ukrainian soldiers serving in Crimea have been authorized to use their weapons to defend themselves, according to the acting Ukrainian president's press service.
The order comes only hours after a Ukrainian serviceman was shot and killed on Tuesday at a Ukrainian base that came under attack in Crimea's main town of Simferopol and acting Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk said the Crimean conflict has now entered a "military phase."
Until now, forces deployed on the Black Sea peninsula, taken over three weeks ago by Russian forces, had been told to avoid using arms against attack.
A defence ministry order issued after the incident said: "In connection with the death of a Ukrainian serviceman ... Ukrainian troops in Crimea have been allowed to use weapons to defend and protect the lives of Ukrainian servicemen."
Unknown assailants
Vladislav Seleznyov, speaking to Reuters by telephone from Crimea about the earlier assault, said one serviceman at the base had died of his wounds. A second man, a captain, was injured.
Seleznyov said it was unclear who had staged the assault, but described the attackers, as "unknown forces, fully equipped and their faces covered".
Yatseniuk also accused Russia of committing a "war crime" by firing on Ukrainian servicemen.
"The conflict is moving from a political one to a military one because of Russian soldiers," he told a meeting at Ukraine's defence ministry.
"Today, Russian soldiers began shooting at Ukrainian servicemen and this is a war crime without any expiry under a statute of limitations."
Yatseniuk said he had ordered Ukraine's defence minister to call a meeting with his counterparts from Britain, France, and Russia - signatories to a 1994 treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's borders to "prevent an escalation of the conflict."
Ukraine, fearing a large-scale Russian invasion, has called upon 20,000 Ukrainians with some degree of military training to report for service. On Tuesday, groups of reservists trained outside Kyiv.
Ukrainian officials said there are more than 20,000 Russian soldiers on its borders — troops Russia claims are merely training.
not exactly, they don't have to shoot but they also don't have to get permission to do so.
Scary. That might wind up being the shot that starts WWIII.[
I think you do them too little credit. Ukraine too suffered as a slave state of the bear and outside of the areas where the people were largely killed off and replaced with Russians, have little desire to return to those days. Just remains to be seen if the West will choose risking World War III or turn a blind eye to the recreation of the Soviet empire in return for "peace in our time."They are much more likely to desert to Russia then to shoot.
No one is going to declare War on Russia over Ukraine just like no one bothered to life a finger when Poland was attacked in 1939. The west cares primarily about the money, always has.
One thing is for certain:
Putin > Obama
No one is going to declare War on Russia over Ukraine just like no one bothered to life a finger when Poland was attacked in 1939. The west cares primarily about the money, always has.
If Obama took part of Mexico, do you think Putin would have been able to do anything about it?
I'd put it a bit differently. I'd say Putin looks like the second coming of Stalin and Obama looks like Truman who had the ability to remove Stalin and his regime from the Earth but wasn't willing to spend several million lives to do it.Dunno. I can only say Putin looks like the second coming of christ and Obama looks like a little girl.
I'd put it a bit differently. I'd say Putin looks like the second coming of Stalin and Obama looks like Truman who had the ability to remove Stalin and his regime from the Earth but wasn't willing to spend several million lives to do it.
Mitt Romney said:"This [Russia] is without question our number one geopolitical foe, they fight for every cause for the world's worst actors.
Dunno. I can only say Putin looks like the second coming of christ and Obama looks like a little girl.
I'd put it a bit differently. I'd say Putin looks like the second coming of Stalin and Obama looks like Truman who had the ability to remove Stalin and his regime from the Earth but wasn't willing to spend several million lives to do it.
exactly. I'd rather a war not escalate over this--One of the reasons I'm glad there is no McCain or Romney in the WH right now.
However, I remain concerned that if things continue to escalate, Obama and the US wont' be willing to show up when absolutely needed. Only when diplomacy has absolutely failed should we consider military action.
That being said, is the occupation of Crimea the failure of all diplomacy?
exactly. I'd rather a war not escalate over this--One of the reasons I'm glad there is no McCain or Romney in the WH right now.
However, I remain concerned that if things continue to escalate, Obama and the US wont' be willing to show up when absolutely needed. Only when diplomacy has absolutely failed should we consider military action.
That being said, is the occupation of Crimea the failure of all diplomacy?
Obama surged when needed in Afghanistan and wanted to go to war with Syria. I think if needed he'll be there, but G-d help us all if this devolves into war with Russia.exactly. I'd rather a war not escalate over this--One of the reasons I'm glad there is no McCain or Romney in the WH right now.
However, I remain concerned that if things continue to escalate, Obama and the US won't be willing to show up when absolutely needed. Only when diplomacy has absolutely failed should we consider military action.
That being said, is the occupation of Crimea the failure of all diplomacy?
LOL "Tiniest of tiny sticks" - I like that!hey, i don't want a war either. i also don't want obama on tv waving the tiniest of tiny sticks at russia.
Personally, I'd rather the US take the Chinese or Indian approach ^_^
As part of diplomacy, yes, we must be prepared to go to war. No diplomacy will stop the likes of Putin unless he believes he will pay a cost beyond the value of adding Ukraine to his resurgent Russian empire. But there's a big difference between preparing for military action (which we and Europe must do to have any credibility at the bargaining table) and actually considering military action.Your idea of military "action" is almost backwards. We have limited capacity to threaten the use of it in eastern Europe at this time. We need the west to organize a unified military build up that may present a credible threat to Russian forces.
We have to be prepared to move in and take military action to defend Europe / Ukraine at a moment's notice. That means having large scale forces in place ahead of time.
Russia may invade / do whatever it wants until a credible threat from the west presents itself. Then diplomacy over Crimea may begin.
I'm unsure what the Chinese or India approach would be.
Oh. But Putin knows that Europe alone cannot stop him from taking and holding Ukraine. Without the US, NATO is hollow.the chinese/indian approach has been shut the &*^%& up and abstain.
As part of diplomacy, yes, we must be prepared to go to war. No diplomacy will stop the likes of Putin unless he believes he will pay a cost beyond the value of adding Ukraine to his resurgent Russian empire. But there's a big difference between preparing for military action (which we and Europe must do to have any credibility at the bargaining table) and actually considering military action.
I don't believe Russia will ever leave Crimea short of a military conflict - the naval base in Sevastopol is too important for them to give away and leave the future up to chance.