Serious Crimean war (Russia seizing Ukraine). Discussion and thoughts?

What do you believe the outcome will be?


  • Total voters
    105
Actually, the use of snipers by the government is now heavily disputed. If you look at the Estonian foreign minister's leaked phone call to Catherine Ashton (EU), there are strong suspicions that it was the leaders of the Maidan that ordered the snipers to hit policeman and civilians, which makes it a potentially a false flag event.



A) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program and http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v30/d342

The Dalai Lama was paid by the CIA to lead an uprising. This isn't even up for debate, the CIA released declassified documents on this stuff. They weren't opposed to violence either. There is significant evidence to show that Tibet was a serfdom where the DL and his oligarchs in the temple pretty much kept the rest of Tibetans as slaves, and mutilation was a common punishment for people who stepped out of line.

B) Well, that's one reason for mobilising its troops, the other reason for doing so may be because you have Svoboda leaders (who have great say in the new government) openly calling for war with Russia. Do you really expect them to sit still while this sort of rhetoric is going on?

C) Oh, so a Ukrainian government is now legitimate because of US/EU/NATO influence? The Americans invested $5 billion dollars in this coup.

==

Now, Soul Fly :

I'm just going to make it relatively short on your response about Tibet, since this is a thread about Ukraine and I don't want to go off-topic. Firstly, if you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate, you will see that it says:





So, Tibet was not really an independence country in its own right, but an autonomous region under a larger country, a bit like Hong Kong, Taiwan, and... Crimea. This will be important a bit later.



This is just naive. If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program and http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v30/d342 and
(In Chinese, but has English subtitles, the guy's from Taiwan too), it is clear Tibet was provided with funding and arms support. So, I don't think it was "humanitarian support". Actually, I guess you could call it humanitarian support, if you use the traditional US definition (which is bombing the crap out of another country). It is also incredibly naive to think that Tibet has no value to the Americans (or any other great power). Tibet has/had incredible geopolitical significance, especially in the Cold War when it was right next to the Soviet Union and the newly founded PRC. Geostrategically, the Himalayas are an incredible barrier to project power across, it's almost like an ocean. There was very little way of projecting power onto the PRC mainland or onto the Soviet Union (note when the problem actually started, in 1951, just at the height of the Korean War). There was a reason why Britain invaded Tibet in 1904. Also, if you read http://www.theglobalist.com/tibet-and-21st-century-water-wars/ you will know why Tibet is so important to China and the rest of SE Asia. If you control Tibet, you control most of the water supply that goes into the region, giving you a huge leverage over those countries.

Anyway, even if Tibet is truly an independent country that China invaded (again, I'm going to drop this because this thread is about Ukraine, not Tibet), there are couple of major inconsistencies in your argument regarding Ukraine, if you put it together with your assessment of Tibet.

1) Tibet was "invaded" (by your own terms) back in the 1950s. If you follow your argument about historical ties and how they play no impact on the conduct of today, then you can safely say Tibet is no longer its own country and is now legally part of the PRC, just as most of North America is now legally part the US and Canada and a bunch of other states, not the former American Indians.

2) As mentioned above, Tibet was not actually an independent country more than an autonomous region just like Crimea was. So if you want to say that Tibet IS its own independent country, you must also recognise that Crimea is now ITS own independent nation. The parallels are actually pretty close if you think about it. In 1949, Tibet was an autonomous region under China, which changed its central government through a revolution. If your analysis is correct, Tibet no longer wanted to be a part of that system and the PRC was hostile to it. Fast forward 65 years to 2014, you have Crimea that was an autonomous region of Ukraine, happily minding its own business. The central government of Ukraine was changed through a violent coup and Crimea no longer feels that it should be a part of Ukraine. You can accuse Russia of having massive influence in Crimea, but the same was in Tibet, which was funded by America, Britain and India. What's the difference? You can't have your cake and eat it at the same time. Which is it? Is Crimea still a part of Ukraine or is Tibet independent from China? You can't pick both (Actually, you can't pick either because neither are correct, but I'm not going to stretch out this point, I'm just picking on the contradiction of your argument).

Finally,


Find me a line in the Ukrainian constitution that allows its central government to be overthrown in a coup and you can have your assertion that the Crimea referendum is illegitimate. Crimea is in the pocket of Russia, yes, but the new Ukrainian government is firmly in the pocket of US/EU/NATO's agenda (and bribed $5 billion by Victoria Nuland too!)
Just responding for my part, no one else's: I looked through both links thoroughly, and while yes, the CIA gave money to the Dalai Lama, he only used it for awareness and promotional purposes, and at no point does it even suggest he raised some kind of army to fight China, whereas you blatantly claim he started some kind of rebellion. I also said Buddhists were anti-violence, but you said I claimed all of Tibet was anti-violence, which is false.
Some government officials saying let's go to war with Russia, they took our stuff... Don't even get me started. It's Ukraine, at this point are they gonna try to go to war with Russia? Hell no, at least if they aren't backed up by the UN they won't. No, Russia is definitely the one being the aggressor. I mean they have troops mobilizing and setting up base at the border. I feel like they aren't exactly scared of Ukraine, cause it's RUSSIA.
LASTLY I don't really get what your saying here... Like your arguing against me but what your saying is agreeing with what I said... So um yeah. Thanks I guess... Or something. What your forgetting is that the area where the USSR used to be, has always had a very different way of life that us. To them, especially in Russia, everything is based on bribes. School, politics, anything and everything. You name it. Just because Ukraine is influenced heavily by many other countries, as well as it's politics being corrupt in a westerner's point of view, does not make them any less of an Independent country.
Also I get a strong vibe your really into conspiracy theories... That's fine but just cause it's on the internet on an officious looking website doesn't always mean everything it says is completely legitimate.. Not saying your wrong, just pointing it out.
 

shrang

General Kenobi
is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Just responding for my part, no one else's: I looked through both links thoroughly, and while yes, the CIA gave money to the Dalai Lama, he only used it for awareness and promotional purposes, and at no point does it even suggest he raised some kind of army to fight China, whereas you blatantly claim he started some kind of rebellion. I also said Buddhists were anti-violence, but you said I claimed all of Tibet was anti-violence, which is false.
He was at the very least, the figurehead of the rebellion.

Some government officials saying let's go to war with Russia, they took our stuff... Don't even get me started. It's Ukraine, at this point are they gonna try to go to war with Russia? Hell no, at least if they aren't backed up by the UN they won't. No, Russia is definitely the one being the aggressor. I mean they have troops mobilizing and setting up base at the border. I feel like they aren't exactly scared of Ukraine, cause it's RUSSIA.
I'm not denying Russia's being aggressive, but you cannot ignore what is coming out of Kiev either. Like I said, the members of Svoboda (which again, I stress hold a lot of power in the new Ukrainian government) are openly anti-Russian. They are also neo-Nazis with ties back to Nazi Germany. Maybe you don't understand the Russian sentiment, but from what I've heard, the vehemence that Russia had for Nazi Germany could only be rivaled by the enmity of Israel-Palestine and China-Japan. They lost millions of lives defending themselves from the Germans. So, not to excuse Russia, but if there was a coup in a country right on your border and the new government had ties to an organisation that kill tens of millions of people in your country in the last war and those people have openly in the past called for "the destruction of Russia", you'd be freaking the fuck out too.

Besides, what IF Ukraine started a war with Russia? You obviously haven't read enough geopolitics to know that they are currently in talks with the EU and NATO. If thy were to start a war and Russia responds, the west has two options - get involved or not get involved. The west already looks incredibly weak with the sanctions handed down to Russia already (those sanctions seriously carry no weight whatsoever). Russia pretty much spat the US/EU's face and walked away with Crimea. Do you think they'd want to be humiliated like that again? Now, I'm pretty sure the Ukrainian government knows this. It could potentially test western powers and attack Russia. This is speculation, true, but do not underestimate Ukraine's ability to start a war here.

LASTLY I don't really get what your saying here... Like your arguing against me but what your saying is agreeing with what I said... So um yeah. Thanks I guess... Or something. What your forgetting is that the area where the USSR used to be, has always had a very different way of life that us. To them, especially in Russia, everything is based on bribes. School, politics, anything and everything. You name it. Just because Ukraine is influenced heavily by many other countries, as well as it's politics being corrupt in a westerner's point of view, does not make them any less of an Independent country.
I pretty much pointed out the hypocrisy in the assertion that "the Crimean referendum is illegitimate because Russia backed them". I'm questioning what makes the Ukrainian coup any more legitimate than the Crimean referendum, especially when that coup is known to have foreign backing. In a sense, the Ukrainian coup is worse. It was violent and was carried out through a small number of people. On the other hand, the Crimean referendum had 80% turnout and 97% for independence. It was way more democratic than what happened in Kiev.


Also I get a strong vibe your really into conspiracy theories... That's fine but just cause it's on the internet on an officious looking website doesn't always mean everything it says is completely legitimate.. Not saying your wrong, just pointing it out.
There's a difference between a conspiracy theory and actual evidence. Everything I've said here has been backed up by evidence (for example the Nuland leaks and the Estonian prime minister phone call). Also, I read about 10 different news sites, those coming from both the mainstream in the west, as well as news coming out of Russia, China, Japan, Al Jeezera and other alternative sources (and I can tell you, the news is highly variant across the different sources. I'm aware all the different news providers have their different agendas and have different propaganda attached, but only when you've seen different news sources can you balance and cut out propaganda and form an informed opinion, and I can tell you if you're only watching the mainstream media such as on CNN and what have you, you are being thoroughly lied to.
 
He was at the very least, the figurehead of the rebellion.



I'm not denying Russia's being aggressive, but you cannot ignore what is coming out of Kiev either. Like I said, the members of Svoboda (which again, I stress hold a lot of power in the new Ukrainian government) are openly anti-Russian. They are also neo-Nazis with ties back to Nazi Germany. Maybe you don't understand the Russian sentiment, but from what I've heard, the vehemence that Russia had for Nazi Germany could only be rivaled by the enmity of Israel-Palestine and China-Japan. They lost millions of lives defending themselves from the Germans. So, not to excuse Russia, but if there was a coup in a country right on your border and the new government had ties to an organisation that kill tens of millions of people in your country in the last war and those people have openly in the past called for "the destruction of Russia", you'd be freaking the fuck out too.

Besides, what IF Ukraine started a war with Russia? You obviously haven't read enough geopolitics to know that they are currently in talks with the EU and NATO. If thy were to start a war and Russia responds, the west has two options - get involved or not get involved. The west already looks incredibly weak with the sanctions handed down to Russia already (those sanctions seriously carry no weight whatsoever). Russia pretty much spat the US/EU's face and walked away with Crimea. Do you think they'd want to be humiliated like that again? Now, I'm pretty sure the Ukrainian government knows this. It could potentially test western powers and attack Russia. This is speculation, true, but do not underestimate Ukraine's ability to start a war here.



I pretty much pointed out the hypocrisy in the assertion that "the Crimean referendum is illegitimate because Russia backed them". I'm questioning what makes the Ukrainian coup any more legitimate than the Crimean referendum, especially when that coup is known to have foreign backing. In a sense, the Ukrainian coup is worse. It was violent and was carried out through a small number of people. On the other hand, the Crimean referendum had 80% turnout and 97% for independence. It was way more democratic than what happened in Kiev.




There's a difference between a conspiracy theory and actual evidence. Everything I've said here has been backed up by evidence (for example the Nuland leaks and the Estonian prime minister phone call). Also, I read about 10 different news sites, those coming from both the mainstream in the west, as well as news coming out of Russia, China, Japan, Al Jeezera and other alternative sources (and I can tell you, the news is highly variant across the different sources. I'm aware all the different news providers have their different agendas and have different propaganda attached, but only when you've seen different news sources can you balance and cut out propaganda and form an informed opinion, and I can tell you if you're only watching the mainstream media such as on CNN and what have you, you are being thoroughly lied to.
He was at the very least, the figurehead of the rebellion.



I'm not denying Russia's being aggressive, but you cannot ignore what is coming out of Kiev either. Like I said, the members of Svoboda (which again, I stress hold a lot of power in the new Ukrainian government) are openly anti-Russian. They are also neo-Nazis with ties back to Nazi Germany. Maybe you don't understand the Russian sentiment, but from what I've heard, the vehemence that Russia had for Nazi Germany could only be rivaled by the enmity of Israel-Palestine and China-Japan. They lost millions of lives defending themselves from the Germans. So, not to excuse Russia, but if there was a coup in a country right on your border and the new government had ties to an organisation that kill tens of millions of people in your country in the last war and those people have openly in the past called for "the destruction of Russia", you'd be freaking the fuck out too.

Besides, what IF Ukraine started a war with Russia? You obviously haven't read enough geopolitics to know that they are currently in talks with the EU and NATO. If thy were to start a war and Russia responds, the west has two options - get involved or not get involved. The west already looks incredibly weak with the sanctions handed down to Russia already (those sanctions seriously carry no weight whatsoever). Russia pretty much spat the US/EU's face and walked away with Crimea. Do you think they'd want to be humiliated like that again? Now, I'm pretty sure the Ukrainian government knows this. It could potentially test western powers and attack Russia. This is speculation, true, but do not underestimate Ukraine's ability to start a war here.



I pretty much pointed out the hypocrisy in the assertion that "the Crimean referendum is illegitimate because Russia backed them". I'm questioning what makes the Ukrainian coup any more legitimate than the Crimean referendum, especially when that coup is known to have foreign backing. In a sense, the Ukrainian coup is worse. It was violent and was carried out through a small number of people. On the other hand, the Crimean referendum had 80% turnout and 97% for independence. It was way more democratic than what happened in Kiev.




There's a difference between a conspiracy theory and actual evidence. Everything I've said here has been backed up by evidence (for example the Nuland leaks and the Estonian prime minister phone call). Also, I read about 10 different news sites, those coming from both the mainstream in the west, as well as news coming out of Russia, China, Japan, Al Jeezera and other alternative sources (and I can tell you, the news is highly variant across the different sources. I'm aware all the different news providers have their different agendas and have different propaganda attached, but only when you've seen different news sources can you balance and cut out propaganda and form an informed opinion, and I can tell you if you're only watching the mainstream media such as on CNN and what have you, you are being thoroughly lied to.
Dalai Lama played no willing role in any violent action whatsoever. I'm just saying you say he did, when he didn't and was used as a symbol for others, but he himself never supported violence of any sort.
As for war, not gonna happen. Ukraine is NOT going to go to war with Russia, because the west would never engage in a war with Russia. They made a law saying war is illegal... So no, they aren't going to break that, especially not just for Ukraine. The one thing the EU and west fear more than anything is war! After WWII the world saw something it had to see: the power of nuclear weapons. The world used to have wars and things roughly every 50 years, because until they witnessed WWI, the weapons were muskets and not so amazing weapons. With the introduction of machine guns in WWI, people realized wars were becoming too destructive. WWII was Germany's revenge attempt, which simply made it more obvious how dangerous modern warfare is on a global scale. The west will never engage in a war with Russia, or any other major power, because it would end in a nuke fight between them one way or another. Which means the end of mankind, because of something called nuclear winter, which basically kills 99% of all life on earth. The west is not "humiliated". They're cautious and don't want to end the human race. So no, nobodies gonna be going to war with Russia except Ukraine by itself, which, well... Doesn't end well for Ukraine. This has nothing to do with Nazis or Germany or anything. It's Putin and his government being greedy for power, that's it, and they've thought it out very well.
 

shrang

General Kenobi
is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Of course the US/EU/NATO don't want war. No-one prefers war if they can get what they want without it. Sun Zi/Tsu once said that to get what your want without having to fight for it is the epitome of skill. However, you'd be naive to think that they would rule out that option if they really wanted their objective (which if you read behind the lines, is to incorporate Ukraine into the EU and drive out Russia's Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol). I know I sound alarmist here, but I'm being realistic that throughout history, the ones who always claim the do not want war usually end up in one.

See
 
Of course the US/EU/NATO don't want war. No-one prefers war if they can get what they want without it. Sun Zi/Tsu once said that to get what your want without having to fight for it is the epitome of skill. However, you'd be naive to think that they would rule out that option if they really wanted their objective (which if you read behind the lines, is to incorporate Ukraine into the EU and drive out Russia's Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol). I know I sound alarmist here, but I'm being realistic that throughout history, the ones who always claim the do not want war usually end up in one.

See
Yeah but with that being said, throughout history they didn't have the power to destroy the Earth 15 times over. I'm just saying, yeah politics haven't changes, but the stakes have. And they're as high as ever.
 

shrang

General Kenobi
is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Yeah but with that being said, throughout history they didn't have the power to destroy the Earth 15 times over. I'm just saying, yeah politics haven't changes, but the stakes have. And they're as high as ever.
True, I'll give you that. However, the decisions to go to war are in the end, human decisions, and you never know what kind of psychopath might come into power who won't give a crap about what the human and environmental costs are.

Leading from that:

Seriously this would be absolutely comical if there were a million dead Iraqis and many more refugees on their conscience. Obama needs to fire his scriptwriter, seriously who came up with it? "We did not take over their country and steal their resources". I'm in between rolling around with laughter and crying in despair at the state of our world to see this man say something like that.
 
Last edited:
http://scgnews.com/the-ukraine-crisis-what-youre-not-being-told

Interesting stuff this guy's saying here. Here's a quote:

"Well yeah, that's the official narrative that the U.S. media outlets are peddling, but real story is much more ominous. It turns out that the most powerful and influential contingent in the opposition is a coalition of literal fascists and Neo-Nazis, and they aren't peaceful. In fact they are extremely brutal."

"We're not throwing the term Neo-Nazi around as an empty slur here. The leader of Svoboda, Oleh Tyahnybok, has openly targeted Jews and ethnic Russians in Ukraine for many years. In 2004 he was kicked out of Viktor Yushenko's government for a speech calling for Ukrainians to fight against a "Muscovite-Jewish mafia", and in 2005 he signed his name to an open letter to the leadership of Ukraine entitled "Stop the Criminal Activities of Organised Jewry.And none of this was a secret. The BBC was already reporting on the danger that Svoboda's rise posed back in 2012, and the EU passed a resolution that same year condemning Svoboda, as "racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic". Yet somehow the U.S. government thought it was appropriate to back these extremists.Why would the U.S. government work with Neo-Nazis?"
 
http://scgnews.com/the-ukraine-crisis-what-youre-not-being-told

Interesting stuff this guy's saying here. Here's a quote:

"Well yeah, that's the official narrative that the U.S. media outlets are peddling, but real story is much more ominous. It turns out that the most powerful and influential contingent in the opposition is a coalition of literal fascists and Neo-Nazis, and they aren't peaceful. In fact they are extremely brutal."

"We're not throwing the term Neo-Nazi around as an empty slur here. The leader of Svoboda, Oleh Tyahnybok, has openly targeted Jews and ethnic Russians in Ukraine for many years. In 2004 he was kicked out of Viktor Yushenko's government for a speech calling for Ukrainians to fight against a "Muscovite-Jewish mafia", and in 2005 he signed his name to an open letter to the leadership of Ukraine entitled "Stop the Criminal Activities of Organised Jewry.And none of this was a secret. The BBC was already reporting on the danger that Svoboda's rise posed back in 2012, and the EU passed a resolution that same year condemning Svoboda, as "racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic". Yet somehow the U.S. government thought it was appropriate to back these extremists.Why would the U.S. government work with Neo-Nazis?"
Money. There's money for them somewhere in there. And the fact of the matter is that everything in politics is about money. So rarely do most governments actually put the civilian populations of countries and the well being of the people before that of personal gain, that it is sickening. Now, while I'll give creds to the US for pulling the military out of everywhere and trying to be a bit more righteous and justified and all that good stuff, everyone still does everything they do, at least on the political scale, for money. It happens to almost everyone, they start with only the best intentions. But eventually, money, power, and overall personal gain take over their mind and judgement. I do not claim to know a solution to this. However I believe there must be a change of some sort at some point in the future.
 
As of now I would not call it a war, definately a conflict but not war. It is a shame that the Ukraine - Russia bond has been violated in this way but it largely cannot be helped. (at least not externally) There are probably other factors to consider but I say if the eastern Ukraine citizens want to join Russia then let them. That will make it easier for the government to consolidate what military they have and to defend the part of the country that is still loyal to Ukraine.
 
As of now I would not call it a war, definately a conflict but not war. It is a shame that the Ukraine - Russia bond has been violated in this way but it largely cannot be helped. (at least not externally) There are probably other factors to consider but I say if the eastern Ukraine citizens want to join Russia then let them. That will make it easier for the government to consolidate what military they have and to defend the part of the country that is still loyal to Ukraine.
At this point in time, civil war is very likely. The UN wants to send in NATO for exactly that reason, while meanwhile Russia is doing everything it can to spark an all-out civil war. Civil war in Ukraine would be nothing but good for Russia, mainly because they'd almost certainly gain more land out of it in the end when Ukraine would so predictably split apart.
 
I would have to disagree, due to the makeup of the region. According to news reports, the eastern side of the country is largely favorable to Russia to begin with. Add to that the continuous degrading of the Ukrainian military because of senior level corruption in the previous administration and accusations of widespread involvement from Russian special forces and the outcome starts to become clear. Not that I agree with it but when you cannot even deploy army units without local civilians interfering then it is time to fall back and take another look at the situation.
 
I would have to disagree, due to the makeup of the region. According to news reports, the eastern side of the country is largely favorable to Russia to begin with. Add to that the continuous degrading of the Ukrainian military because of senior level corruption in the previous administration and accusations of widespread involvement from Russian special forces and the outcome starts to become clear. Not that I agree with it but when you cannot even deploy army units without local civilians interfering then it is time to fall back and take another look at the situation.
Kay so what part are you disagreeing with?
 
Maybe not disagree exactly but just that I think it is too early for us to predict that civil war is likely.
Civil war is unavoidable at this point. It's already begun in a couple of areas, ethnic Russian speaking Ukrainian citizens fighting and insulting ethnic Ukrainians, and vice-versa. Look into it, civil war is now unavoidable. The question is how devastating and severe will it actually turn out to be.
 
I would think it much more likely that Russia would swoop in and take over if the situation got bad enough. Given that both pro Ukrainian and pro Sepratist sides seem to have large numbers of potentially violent protesters, Russia might turn out to be doing the Ukraine a favor by keeping an army on the border. (as bizzare as that sounds)
 
I would think it much more likely that Russia would swoop in and take over if the situation got bad enough. Given that both pro Ukrainian and pro Sepratist sides seem to have large numbers of potentially violent protesters, Russia might turn out to be doing the Ukraine a favor by keeping an army on the border. (as bizzare as that sounds)
That's the whole plan, both the EU and North America have accused Russia of illegally supplying separatists with weapons, and trying to spark a civil war. From what most people can tell, there's 2 reasons for this. 1) if there's a civil war, it gives Russia a fairly excusable reason to go in with military units, and regain control over all of Ukraine. Their reasons would be to protect the best interests of both Ukrainians and Russians alike. Reason 2) To punish Ukraine, and the west, for what has happened. To teach Ukraine to never try to leave Russia influence again, as well as to basically say to the west, "THIS is what will happen when you try to come within OUR sphere of influence."
 
That's the whole plan, both the EU and North America have accused Russia of illegally supplying separatists with weapons, and trying to spark a civil war. From what most people can tell, there's 2 reasons for this. 1) if there's a civil war, it gives Russia a fairly excusable reason to go in with military units, and regain control over all of Ukraine. Their reasons would be to protect the best interests of both Ukrainians and Russians alike. Reason 2) To punish Ukraine, and the west, for what has happened. To teach Ukraine to never try to leave Russia influence again, as well as to basically say to the west, "THIS is what will happen when you try to come within OUR sphere of influence."
I think this is probably the biggest reason why Russia is invading at all, other than the convenient warm ports from Crimea. Anything that is not western most definitely would like a territorial buffer state in between, and since Ukraine went in the other direction, Russia decided to make its move. Hence why China went silent after the invade on Crimea.

On another note, I really see the western accusations on Russia taking Crimea as pretty weak. They recognize the government overthrow yet when Russia and 96% of Crimea don't want any part of that, it is suddenly illegal to join Russia? It only looks to me like if the west likes it: it's fair game, otherwise it's illegal. Russia seems to be crossing the line by preparing their troops on the new border though. Reports are saying the conflicts going on within Ukraine are actually run by Russians (not Russian descent.. I mean: Russians).
 

shrang

General Kenobi
is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
To understand what's really going on, I'd suggest people go and read "The Grand Chessboard - American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives" by Zbigniew Brzezinski (who was the US National Security Advisor and is also one of Obama's advisors). It spells out the American agenda so plainly it's not funny. It's not really a long read either, only 109 pages.
 
Personally, while I wanted to put the real world Crimea in a comical joke with Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn's Crimea Plot, a part of me thinks that in the end, it will be all on the people of both countries to decide the outcome. I mean, it's still their own problems in the end. Too bad it only got more tangled with Europe and America were forced to settle the dispute.

So, people power at its finest? Sigh, I don't know. I just recall the EDSA revolution right now
 

Rotosect

Banned deucer.
I voted for the second option.
Ukraine isn't an economically or culturally relevant country in Europe so they won't lift a finger for that. In fact, Western Europe sees Ukraine the same way the U.S. sees Mexico (the "less fortunate neighbor").
 
Personally, not much else to say but both countries are just desperate. Just watch the CNN news channel. I feel bad for Crimea and its other neighbors now. To think that Putin could have put too much pressure on its political situation, sigh. Hope their own history won't repeat against them.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top