TheChosen1
Moving Target
It was even the same airline.
Russian-Ukrainian war
- Thread starter Tagaziel
- Start date
welsh
Junkmaster
Yep, same airline. Bad year for Malaysian Air. Lots of folks thought it was terrorists. I am guessing that the crew and everyone died pretty quick and the plane went on autopilot and crashed. That's happened before.
But then it might be another plane was shot down, this time over Mali.
As for Ukraine- sounds like its the Ruskies behind it. https://news.vice.com/article/its-time-to-assign-blame-for-everything-happening-in-ukraine
But then it might be another plane was shot down, this time over Mali.
As for Ukraine- sounds like its the Ruskies behind it. https://news.vice.com/article/its-time-to-assign-blame-for-everything-happening-in-ukraine
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
The BEST (hands down, no contest) analysis over the situation between Russia, Ukraine, and the U.S. (from a U.S. perspective), that was ever uttered, written, or conceived of, comes from this article by Pat Buchanan, one of the most reasonable U.S. politicians who only seems to speak when it's about logic or common sense, rather than agendas that fly in the face of reason. A regular Mr. Smith gone to Washington, if you will. Historically, there haven't been many of those types; once you go to Washington, you're part of their Game of Thrones or you're politically dead.
It's a nice read, and a good call to reason that's sorely lacking in most discussion on the matter. Of course, it's certain to not resonate with people if their hearts aren't dedicated to the truth and want superficial victories, like personal pride. But for those who have a rational mind who know to spot bullshit when they see it, this should be something you can appreciate.
Source: http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan/is-putin-worse-than-stalin.html
It's a nice read, and a good call to reason that's sorely lacking in most discussion on the matter. Of course, it's certain to not resonate with people if their hearts aren't dedicated to the truth and want superficial victories, like personal pride. But for those who have a rational mind who know to spot bullshit when they see it, this should be something you can appreciate.
Last edited:
heh
Too Bad Ukraine Didn't Keep Its 2,000 Nuclear Weapons
Too Bad Ukraine Didn't Keep Its 2,000 Nuclear Weapons
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/too-bad-ukraine-didnt-kee_b_5235374.html
Last edited:
welsh
Junkmaster
Snapslav- Buchanan is a reasonable politician? Really? The guy has been squarely hardline conservative for a very long time. That said, comparing Putin as worse than Stalin is kind of stupid rhetoric meant to heat up an audience. It is a matter of comparing two autocrats with blood on their hands, which is worse?
Crni- Things do change. But the question is whether a country sees its obligation to commit as important enough to take action.
TheChosen1- Perhaps but what you are suggesting is a massive conspiracy established and run by a free and competitive press that is being opinioned by a webpage that advocates such conspiracy theory to gain attention. Who do you trust? The easy answer is one side or the other based on your own assumptions and suspicions- but assumptions and suspicions are not facts. The long answer it to accept the smoking gun and view the evidence fairly and without bias until you've got a reasonably valid reason to adjudicate the dispute. The concept of "a clear smoking gun" or "direct evidence" is rarely established - whether in law or in life. In this case, what was a tragedy has become a major PR screw up that we might reasonably assume was due to "fog of war" type problems and it would make sense for one side or the other to point fingers at the other. Unless you are dogmatically tied to one or the other, it pays not to join that fray but merely point out the evidence and consider it fairly- which includes both the evidence and the source.
I really don't know who was at fault in this, but the story seems to point to the rebels, who have managed to shoot down other planes recently, so it is possible they brought this plane down by mistake. Who ever is at fault in this, however, I think we can all agree that this conflict has gotten out of control and those responsible for letting it get out of control are at least in part responsible.
On Europe's response-
An interesting bit of analysis on Europe's slow response- http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...2ee906-1367-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html
Crni- Things do change. But the question is whether a country sees its obligation to commit as important enough to take action.
TheChosen1- Perhaps but what you are suggesting is a massive conspiracy established and run by a free and competitive press that is being opinioned by a webpage that advocates such conspiracy theory to gain attention. Who do you trust? The easy answer is one side or the other based on your own assumptions and suspicions- but assumptions and suspicions are not facts. The long answer it to accept the smoking gun and view the evidence fairly and without bias until you've got a reasonably valid reason to adjudicate the dispute. The concept of "a clear smoking gun" or "direct evidence" is rarely established - whether in law or in life. In this case, what was a tragedy has become a major PR screw up that we might reasonably assume was due to "fog of war" type problems and it would make sense for one side or the other to point fingers at the other. Unless you are dogmatically tied to one or the other, it pays not to join that fray but merely point out the evidence and consider it fairly- which includes both the evidence and the source.
I really don't know who was at fault in this, but the story seems to point to the rebels, who have managed to shoot down other planes recently, so it is possible they brought this plane down by mistake. Who ever is at fault in this, however, I think we can all agree that this conflict has gotten out of control and those responsible for letting it get out of control are at least in part responsible.
On Europe's response-
An interesting bit of analysis on Europe's slow response- http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...2ee906-1367-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
I said WE. As in, the Netherlands. I don't recall any big international accidents that mainly concerned our country. (Although other countries as well of course, no doubt.)
TheChosen1
Moving Target
And what evidence is this? YouTube videos? The call that was "intercepted" was proven to be a fake and was made from a discussion about a different plane. Using such evidence will put the other "evidence" to question, isn't it just a bit suspicious that all the evidence comes from YouTube and the "official evidence" is "highly classified"? Also, like I've mentioned before, the plane was at extremely high altitudes. Were you ever at a gun range? If you were, then you would know how difficult it is to actually hit a target at even 20m, now turn your rifle into a missile system and the push the target 10km into the air, make it move and then try to shoot it down. What I am saying is that the rebels have no people with that kind of training with that type of weapon, when the Ukrainian army certainly does.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
Whether or not you perceive him as a hardliner conservative, what does that have anything to do with him being reasonable and rational as far as politicians go? The man IS reasonable and frequently calls for practical, rational assessment of matters, frequently in direct contrast with his party's (every party's, really) much more simplistic "condemn everything, think about nothing" approach. Shit, did you even read the article? I guess not. Either way, the title was not meant to draw upon ANY sensationalism, it was meant to answer the question as directly as possible: No. I dunno where you're living, but right now in the U.S. people DO equate Putin with the worst dictators who ever lived, and it's ridiculous. Equations of Putin with Stalin are not uncommon at all, sadly, and Buchanan's article was targeting that misled sentiment, debunking it for the absurdity that it is, using historical citations one after the other.
Anyway, if you think "We shouldn't jump to 'let's go to war', we should open up a discourse. We should try some diplomacy." is hardliner conservative, I shudder to think what hardliner liberals are, to you.
Last edited:
welsh
Junkmaster
When you go from an argument about the logic of an idea and turn it into a personal attack, you engage in ad hominem fallacy http://skepdic.com/adhominem.html . While such attacks might be justified under some circumstances, my position thus far has been on the discussion above and I don't think I picked a personal attack. Of course, the line is easy to cross. But I think conspiracy theory seems to be a stretch here, and I am not sure of the credibility of the evidence that it was the Ukrainians who did it- but accept that the evidence is still uncertain. I am not going to deny that evidence can be fabricated and both sides might have an interest in doing so to cover their ass. Right now, however, it seems the rebels are the ones who look more guilty. Sorry, I really don't have a bone in this argument, but neither the rebels nor their Russian patrons appear to be trustworthy.
TheChosen- Well, I'll be honest with ya, I don't follow this story perhaps quite as closely as you do because I don't see much likelihood of the US getting aggressive because the US will isn't there. We've just fought 2 1/2 wars and are focusing on problems in Syria and Iraq. Ukraine's problems seem to be largely a consequence of EU waffling about whether to bring in Ukraine to the fold or not. US guarantees to Ukrainian sovereignty not-withstanding, and increased sanctions, but a real shooting war seems a big stretch.
BUT- I do keep hearing about Ukrainian aircraft getting shot down by the rebels. Could the rebels bring down an a jumbo jet? If they can bring down a fighter, I'll bet they can bring down an airliner.
So yes, my guess would be that the shooting down of the airliner was something of a clusterfuck by someone who shot down a plane that they shouldn't have. Given that this is a war zone and mistakes happen, that seems more likely that the Ukrainians or the Russians or even the rebels really wanted to put a Malaysian plane in the ground and were willing to accept the political fallout. That would just be too stupid.
As for what we can expect. Seizing Ukraine or even Ukrainian soil is probably a bad idea for the Russians but it's their neck of the woods. Ukraine has been having serious economic difficulties for the past few years, but in the end, I doubt the Eastern provinces will do better going to Russia. Russia seems willing to engage in these wars in its "near abroad" and hang on to political significance, but sadly it is a declining if nuclear armed power. That means its a dangerous player and while Putin wants to do what he can to hold on to Russia's power, plays on nationalism, and becomes increasingly authoritarian, I suspect that won't save Russia's decline in the long-term. That decline is unfortunate and driven largely for political reasons.
SnapSlav- I glanced at the article quickly, but as I never thought Putin was worse or even equal to Stalin, it didn't hold much interest. Its a dumb and sensational ideal that only has gravity with people who don't really appreciate reality or politics. It's just a dumb idea and not worth the time for more consideration. And I admit, on occasion Pat Buchanan said a few things that were smart and reasonable. I have thought the same about Thomas Friedman, but even a broken watch gets the time right twice a day.
As for why Buchanan should probably not be seen as a reasonable, practical or rational thinker- here is the evidence of why that requires some reconsideration. I don't want to derail this thread with a critique on Pat Buchanan, who is largely a "has been" in the political realm, for good reason.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...ust-crazy-quotes-from-pat-buchanan-s-new-book
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012...t-buchanan-his-10-most-outrageous-statements/
Look Snap, there were things Pat said that I actually did like, but he tended to spew off nonsense and put his foot in his mouth when a bit more reserve and thought should have led him to rethink his position and not make an ass of himself. That he made an ass of himself speaks to his reasonable, practical or rational thinking. Perhaps his problem is that he's often been an ideologue and ideologues tend to be more dogmatic than rational, but whatever. Perhaps Pat Buchanan couldn't help but make an ass of himself. I don't know.
But I do know that if your are trying to build a reputation for being reasonable, practical and rational, that you do yourself no favor by holding in high regard a person who regularly, repeatedly and without reserve tends to make an ass of himself.
TheChosen- Well, I'll be honest with ya, I don't follow this story perhaps quite as closely as you do because I don't see much likelihood of the US getting aggressive because the US will isn't there. We've just fought 2 1/2 wars and are focusing on problems in Syria and Iraq. Ukraine's problems seem to be largely a consequence of EU waffling about whether to bring in Ukraine to the fold or not. US guarantees to Ukrainian sovereignty not-withstanding, and increased sanctions, but a real shooting war seems a big stretch.
BUT- I do keep hearing about Ukrainian aircraft getting shot down by the rebels. Could the rebels bring down an a jumbo jet? If they can bring down a fighter, I'll bet they can bring down an airliner.
So yes, my guess would be that the shooting down of the airliner was something of a clusterfuck by someone who shot down a plane that they shouldn't have. Given that this is a war zone and mistakes happen, that seems more likely that the Ukrainians or the Russians or even the rebels really wanted to put a Malaysian plane in the ground and were willing to accept the political fallout. That would just be too stupid.
As for what we can expect. Seizing Ukraine or even Ukrainian soil is probably a bad idea for the Russians but it's their neck of the woods. Ukraine has been having serious economic difficulties for the past few years, but in the end, I doubt the Eastern provinces will do better going to Russia. Russia seems willing to engage in these wars in its "near abroad" and hang on to political significance, but sadly it is a declining if nuclear armed power. That means its a dangerous player and while Putin wants to do what he can to hold on to Russia's power, plays on nationalism, and becomes increasingly authoritarian, I suspect that won't save Russia's decline in the long-term. That decline is unfortunate and driven largely for political reasons.
SnapSlav- I glanced at the article quickly, but as I never thought Putin was worse or even equal to Stalin, it didn't hold much interest. Its a dumb and sensational ideal that only has gravity with people who don't really appreciate reality or politics. It's just a dumb idea and not worth the time for more consideration. And I admit, on occasion Pat Buchanan said a few things that were smart and reasonable. I have thought the same about Thomas Friedman, but even a broken watch gets the time right twice a day.
As for why Buchanan should probably not be seen as a reasonable, practical or rational thinker- here is the evidence of why that requires some reconsideration. I don't want to derail this thread with a critique on Pat Buchanan, who is largely a "has been" in the political realm, for good reason.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...ust-crazy-quotes-from-pat-buchanan-s-new-book
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012...t-buchanan-his-10-most-outrageous-statements/
Look Snap, there were things Pat said that I actually did like, but he tended to spew off nonsense and put his foot in his mouth when a bit more reserve and thought should have led him to rethink his position and not make an ass of himself. That he made an ass of himself speaks to his reasonable, practical or rational thinking. Perhaps his problem is that he's often been an ideologue and ideologues tend to be more dogmatic than rational, but whatever. Perhaps Pat Buchanan couldn't help but make an ass of himself. I don't know.
But I do know that if your are trying to build a reputation for being reasonable, practical and rational, that you do yourself no favor by holding in high regard a person who regularly, repeatedly and without reserve tends to make an ass of himself.
Last edited:
I think someone said once, it would be better to teach the bad guys not to shoot down planes instead of teaching planes not to fly over the bad guys teritory. Of course, to say something like that is always easy. To achieve it, not so much.
TheChosen1
Moving Target
Please compare: Ukrainian fighters fly at an altitude of about 5Km. The Boeing 777 was flying at about 13Km.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
I never said that he was perfect and never said anything stupid. I said that as far as politicians are concerned, he was easily at the front of the pack in terms of making any sense. That was both a compliment of his character as well as a scathing indictment of politicians in general. You COULD say "well that's not saying very much" if I'm complimenting someone among a not-particularly-complimentary crowd, but my comments were far more on the positive end of the spectrum than otherwise. As far as a human being goes, I don't know the man, so I can't say what he believes in or whether I feel he's a good person, or anything of that nature (which many people mistakenly perform on those they can see but can't know, such as celebrities) but as a politician he can be judged, and in that regard he's been noteworthy. Does he put his foot in his mouth? Well after checking out those links I do suppose so. But every time I see him on the McLaughlin group, the ONLY person on that panel who isn't trying their hardest to give themselves a lobotomy is Buchanan.
The situation is dangerous. When the Crimea occupation operations began in March Russia conducted military exercises from its naval base in Kaliningrad in the Baltic sea. It primarily consisted of anti-submarine and anti-air exercises. At the same time naval exercises were conducted in the North sea fleet. In close span also several Topol-M ICBM tests were done. In the past under the Zapad and Ladoga exercises military exercises have been conducted that simulated offensive operations against the Baltic states. The legend was that "terrorists" from Lithuania assaulted Kaliningrad and in response a naval and air blockade was established over the Baltics. After that land forced established a land bridge with Kaliningrad through Lithuania, effectively isolating the Baltics. After a counter offensive of a Estonian and Nato brigade was repelled the Russian army proceeded to complete the occupation of the Baltics. The exercise culminated with a simulated tactical nuclear attack on Warssav to cripple the Nato war effort. There also was a separate incident where a Russian strategic air force bomber tactical group turned off course without warning over the Baltic sea and looked like it was about to head for Stockholm Sweden. The bombers usually carry tactical warheads. The group aborted just before entering Swedish air space.
Now if I would be a paranoid man I would believe that the exercises conducted in March were a message to Nato: dont help Ukraine or you will face problems in your Baltic frontier states. Also the ever increasing scale and intervals of Baltic orientated exercises coupled with increased Russian aggressiveness leads me to believe that Ukraine is most certainly a "make or break" point for general peace in at least Eastern Europe: If the west fails to effectively contain Putins aggression he will be out for more blood. This derives primarily from several aspects:
a) for one Putin and his power clans believe that the breakup of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical error because it meant the loss of most of Russias influence it exercised on the global scale. The pretext for these intentions is that a large portion of Russians were separated from their homeland when they were left behind in new emerging nations. Similar to the pretext Nazi-Germany used in the conflicts leading up to World War 2.
b) the West is depraved and in a downfall. Russian orthodox nationalism represents the "true way into the future". It is also known as the Messianic complex- ie the need to constantly "save" others from themselves.
c) Russian "deržaava" mentality- if they fear us they respect us. This is closely tied to point a and is quite alien and thus difficult to understand for most westerners. It is most simple to explain that it is quite similar to a typical school bullies understanding of life- pray on the weak because you can. Only communicate with those who you consider equal (ie talk only with those with similar or greater brute strength). As for the rest, once again, if they fear us they respect us. The important thing to note about this is that in this mindset the Empire comes first- even before your own welfare. As long as the state is big and mighty a typical russian is happy- even if they are dirt-poor. This is one of the primary reasons why economical sanctions will not be effective as the West likes to believe. If anything for your typical russki it will be even more food for their brain-washing propaganda- "see, the West is trying to lead Russia into squalor. They fear us and are our enemies after all!"
Now its far from doom and gloom- despite its aggressivness Russia is but a former shadow of the Soviet Union. With its economy similar to a third world state with its major income from the sale of natural resources its military is also crippled from the lack of resources on which to expand on- both in quality and quantity. What this means is that it cant afford a full scale conventional war against the West and it shows in Ukraine. Instead of openly marching under the Russian flag the regular army has its identification stripped and are sent as "volunteers". Even offical contracts are reformed: for example I know of some Pskov regulars who said that they were sent to Rostov for "military exercises". Arriving they were given new uniforms, gear etc and then sent to the Ukraine border. They were also said that their contracts had been cancelled and replaced with papers that said that they were "volunteers" in the Donetsk/Lugansk "Peoples Republics" armed forces. If anybody refused they were immediately discharged without honors. What is specially ghastly is that their presence in Ukraine is also hidden from their relatives: those killed in combat are sent back home for funerals and their relatives are told that they died during "routine exercise accidents". They are prohibited to talk to anyone what happened to them or they are stripped from the support they get from losing their member. They also probably will get offical charges under some pretext.
But like I said- the usage of such murky practices that borders on the grey zones of international warfare rules goes to show that they know that they are by far not as strong as they believe and are currently testing the limits of how far they can go. But make no mistake: if they dont meet effective punishment Putin will continue expand. In ukraine currently the consolidation of Donetsk, Lugansk. After that probably a land based bridgehead to establish connection to Crimea. After that most likely Odessa and Harkiv- the first to establish connection with Transistia and form a bridgehead to harrash Moldova. Harkov for its military-industrial complex- the city has one of the largest tank production sites in the former Soviet Union and after modernization would make a excellent future base for Russias armor R&D+ production. Now if they are allowed to achieve their objectives in Ukraine the Baltics are most certainly next on the hit list. For one thing the Baltics provide major strategic positions in the form of access to the Baltic searoutes and it also is a good position for the forward air defense positions for the protection of St Peterburg. Not to mention forward position for offensive weapons. Most prominently mid-ranged nuclear warheads. Finally according to the Russian Empire mentality the Baltics were several centuries their provinces and even officaly they have shown it- they consider them to be "provinces they temporary lost control of". Finally it can not be under estimated what a victory it would be for the Russian propaganda machine and general morale if they could openly humiliate and undermine Nato by even achieving the separation of some parts of the Baltic states.
If the West wants general long-term stability they immediately need to provide military assistance to Ukraine- both in the form of military know-how and equipment. While Ukraine inherented a large portion of the Soviet Unions military arsenal most of it has fallen in the wayside thanks to lack of funds, corruption and general slopiness. In the longer scope the West needs to establish effective defences in Poland and the Baltics- both to repel a large scale conventional operation and also quick reaction forces to immediately crush any attempts of Russia to export "peoples republics" and try to flame insurgent warfare under the banner of the "peoples will". These objectives can be achieved by providing the Baltic nations and Poland with the equipment they need to counter their current short falls and also as a additional deterrent by establishing forward division bases- basically military equipment is stocked in warehouses and ready to use on the go. If anything fishy is going on the units to man the structures are brought in by airlift.
Just my two cents.
Now if I would be a paranoid man I would believe that the exercises conducted in March were a message to Nato: dont help Ukraine or you will face problems in your Baltic frontier states. Also the ever increasing scale and intervals of Baltic orientated exercises coupled with increased Russian aggressiveness leads me to believe that Ukraine is most certainly a "make or break" point for general peace in at least Eastern Europe: If the west fails to effectively contain Putins aggression he will be out for more blood. This derives primarily from several aspects:
a) for one Putin and his power clans believe that the breakup of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical error because it meant the loss of most of Russias influence it exercised on the global scale. The pretext for these intentions is that a large portion of Russians were separated from their homeland when they were left behind in new emerging nations. Similar to the pretext Nazi-Germany used in the conflicts leading up to World War 2.
b) the West is depraved and in a downfall. Russian orthodox nationalism represents the "true way into the future". It is also known as the Messianic complex- ie the need to constantly "save" others from themselves.
c) Russian "deržaava" mentality- if they fear us they respect us. This is closely tied to point a and is quite alien and thus difficult to understand for most westerners. It is most simple to explain that it is quite similar to a typical school bullies understanding of life- pray on the weak because you can. Only communicate with those who you consider equal (ie talk only with those with similar or greater brute strength). As for the rest, once again, if they fear us they respect us. The important thing to note about this is that in this mindset the Empire comes first- even before your own welfare. As long as the state is big and mighty a typical russian is happy- even if they are dirt-poor. This is one of the primary reasons why economical sanctions will not be effective as the West likes to believe. If anything for your typical russki it will be even more food for their brain-washing propaganda- "see, the West is trying to lead Russia into squalor. They fear us and are our enemies after all!"
Now its far from doom and gloom- despite its aggressivness Russia is but a former shadow of the Soviet Union. With its economy similar to a third world state with its major income from the sale of natural resources its military is also crippled from the lack of resources on which to expand on- both in quality and quantity. What this means is that it cant afford a full scale conventional war against the West and it shows in Ukraine. Instead of openly marching under the Russian flag the regular army has its identification stripped and are sent as "volunteers". Even offical contracts are reformed: for example I know of some Pskov regulars who said that they were sent to Rostov for "military exercises". Arriving they were given new uniforms, gear etc and then sent to the Ukraine border. They were also said that their contracts had been cancelled and replaced with papers that said that they were "volunteers" in the Donetsk/Lugansk "Peoples Republics" armed forces. If anybody refused they were immediately discharged without honors. What is specially ghastly is that their presence in Ukraine is also hidden from their relatives: those killed in combat are sent back home for funerals and their relatives are told that they died during "routine exercise accidents". They are prohibited to talk to anyone what happened to them or they are stripped from the support they get from losing their member. They also probably will get offical charges under some pretext.
But like I said- the usage of such murky practices that borders on the grey zones of international warfare rules goes to show that they know that they are by far not as strong as they believe and are currently testing the limits of how far they can go. But make no mistake: if they dont meet effective punishment Putin will continue expand. In ukraine currently the consolidation of Donetsk, Lugansk. After that probably a land based bridgehead to establish connection to Crimea. After that most likely Odessa and Harkiv- the first to establish connection with Transistia and form a bridgehead to harrash Moldova. Harkov for its military-industrial complex- the city has one of the largest tank production sites in the former Soviet Union and after modernization would make a excellent future base for Russias armor R&D+ production. Now if they are allowed to achieve their objectives in Ukraine the Baltics are most certainly next on the hit list. For one thing the Baltics provide major strategic positions in the form of access to the Baltic searoutes and it also is a good position for the forward air defense positions for the protection of St Peterburg. Not to mention forward position for offensive weapons. Most prominently mid-ranged nuclear warheads. Finally according to the Russian Empire mentality the Baltics were several centuries their provinces and even officaly they have shown it- they consider them to be "provinces they temporary lost control of". Finally it can not be under estimated what a victory it would be for the Russian propaganda machine and general morale if they could openly humiliate and undermine Nato by even achieving the separation of some parts of the Baltic states.
If the West wants general long-term stability they immediately need to provide military assistance to Ukraine- both in the form of military know-how and equipment. While Ukraine inherented a large portion of the Soviet Unions military arsenal most of it has fallen in the wayside thanks to lack of funds, corruption and general slopiness. In the longer scope the West needs to establish effective defences in Poland and the Baltics- both to repel a large scale conventional operation and also quick reaction forces to immediately crush any attempts of Russia to export "peoples republics" and try to flame insurgent warfare under the banner of the "peoples will". These objectives can be achieved by providing the Baltic nations and Poland with the equipment they need to counter their current short falls and also as a additional deterrent by establishing forward division bases- basically military equipment is stocked in warehouses and ready to use on the go. If anything fishy is going on the units to man the structures are brought in by airlift.
Just my two cents.
Last edited:
I simply fail to understand how so many Russians I have considered to be at least somewhat intelligent fall for this propaganda. I cannot talk to them because they regurgitate the same stuff they heard on TV - 'Crimea is ours', 'Kiev is a nazi junta', 'Poroshenko is US puppet'. "How has Crimea improved the life of the average Russian?", I ask them. And then they go on about the EU, Obama, and whatever else 'attempts to make their lives miserable'.
There has been some major change with this nation. If during the invasion of Czechoslovakia seven Soviet citizens found the courage to have a say against the agression, now there's just one.
I believe that one of the many reasons the US is intersted in the Ukraine is to get Europe in to it. You can call me a lunatic, but it would not surprise me if their target is to drive a wedge between the European Union and Russia. Think about it, the closer we get to Russia, the worse for the US, I think we will see more conflicts between Europe and the US in the future, at least as far the economy and politics goes, not with the military. I am not saying what happens in the Ukraine is awesome or anything like that or that Russia is right, I really dont know enough to have an opinion about it, the history of the people there or the Russians. But I always ask my self. What the fuck are we doing down there? What are we trying to achieve? And why the fuck has the US such an interest there to both humilate and sanction the Russians? I mean the Ukraine is not really something special. What makes the Ukraine for the EU and US more interesting then lets say, Chechnya? Do we suddenly care about "estern europe"? The people are not dump. If Russia would start a war tomorrow conquering the Ukraine, there is absolutely nothing that either the US or EU could do about. So why the hell are we getting in to it? I don't believe even for 5 sec. that our "politicans" are concerned about the well beeing of the Ukraine, their citizens or their future. Don't get me wrong! I would love to see the Ukraine beeing a better place for its citizens. But I also know my "own" politicans. I mean we all know them, dont we? Different names. But same shit. No one of them is really doing something just out of pure love ... if they could not find the time to help 1 million dieing africans, or no clue dieing kurds or what ever, why do they suddenly care about the Ukrainian. Doesnt make sense in my opinion. Particularly for the US.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
Crni, are you familiar with what was going on in the US during the late 90s when the illegal NATO bombings on Beograd started?
The Lewinsky Scandal. In short, a country was bombed, and a return-to-form demonization of its people to justify it and make the bombings seem "heroic" was ALL the result of a president trying to divert public attention from a sex scandal. Oh, he still got impeached, and EVERYBODY who was living here in the US at the time remembers the Lewinsky Scandal yet damn-near NOBODY remembers that Serbia was bombed for weeks-on-end, but just to get the news off his ass for a few weeks was more than enough cause to warrant destroying a country that did no harm. It was the perfect, short-term scapegoat. To hell with the long-term consequences.
My point being, your assessments for why the US is involved in the current situation between Russia and ANYTHING Russia is interested in has far less to do with actual planning, or longevital goals, or anything that makes any sense whatsoever. Sometimes, politicians make waves just because they want attention. Look at topicwhichshallnotbenamed: certain politician becomes a laughing stock because of the manner he loses a certain election, so he raises a gigantic crusade against a nonexistent threat to make his public image into an unforgettable hero... and tragically it's worked perfectly. His parade is followed every day, and his failures are practically forgotten.
The Lewinsky Scandal. In short, a country was bombed, and a return-to-form demonization of its people to justify it and make the bombings seem "heroic" was ALL the result of a president trying to divert public attention from a sex scandal. Oh, he still got impeached, and EVERYBODY who was living here in the US at the time remembers the Lewinsky Scandal yet damn-near NOBODY remembers that Serbia was bombed for weeks-on-end, but just to get the news off his ass for a few weeks was more than enough cause to warrant destroying a country that did no harm. It was the perfect, short-term scapegoat. To hell with the long-term consequences.
My point being, your assessments for why the US is involved in the current situation between Russia and ANYTHING Russia is interested in has far less to do with actual planning, or longevital goals, or anything that makes any sense whatsoever. Sometimes, politicians make waves just because they want attention. Look at topicwhichshallnotbenamed: certain politician becomes a laughing stock because of the manner he loses a certain election, so he raises a gigantic crusade against a nonexistent threat to make his public image into an unforgettable hero... and tragically it's worked perfectly. His parade is followed every day, and his failures are practically forgotten.
That is an incredibly uncharitable reading of events.
Not to justify those bombings, at all, because they were bullshit. But that doesn't mean they were motivated by Clinton wanting to distract people. In fact, that's fairly unlikely given the broad international involvement and support. Such reasonings also turn international affairs into issues of personal distraction and manipulation, rather than the immoral realpolitik they generally represent. By framing those things in terms of what the most visible leader would personally find beneficial, you ignore the structure behind the much larger and more damaging movement as a whole.
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Would that it was the only time he did so. Clinton had a habit of firing off cruise missiles, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Sudanese aspirin factories as well, on the eves of impending impeachment and testimony from Lewinsky. He served in probably the most contentiously partisan regime up unto the current one, yet the GOP backed him wholeheartedly like marionettes every time. Slick Willy y'all, dude knew how to operate.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
The statement you took an entire 16 hours to evaluate is the product of 15 years I've had to stare that situation in the face, meticulously scrutinizing it to endless levels. Trust me, my assessments "ignore" nothing.
But hey, at least you acknowledged that they happened. You have no idea how facepalmingly frustrating it is to live among people who don't realize that even happened, or worse, will insist that it DIDN'T happen, because it's not on the news right now.