Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'll probably get dog piled for saying this, but am I the only guy here who doesn't have a huge issue with what Russia did to Crimea? I mean, most of the region obviously wants to be Russian, nobody got killed, and it's not like Ukraine is a shining beacon of democracy anyway. I think Putin is a son of a bitch and if he goes any further he needs a smackdown, but this isn't the time or place for a fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 19.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Swerve points out Turkey as farther east in NATO, I'd wager, on the shores of the Black Sea.

Correct.

 

Mr 239 seems to be a little hazy on the geography of NATO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1) Why do you think Syria is more important to NATO than Ukraine?

 

Because of the security of Israel, and the potential for nuclear war in the ME if it is threatened.

 

 

2) Why the obsession with insurgency?

 

Insurgency is the way the west is being fought these days.

 

One of the arguments given against a Russian invasion of the rest of Ukraine is a Russian fear of a Ukrainian insurgency, based on the much larger numbers of Ukrainians than Russians in Ukraine, their large stocks of weapons, their technical sophistication, their long borders with friendly countries, the wider distribution of Ukrainians than the concentrated urban Russian populations, & the more favourable terrain (much more forested) in the overwhelmingly Ukrainian areas than in the areas with large Russian populations. Given that, why do you mention only the possibility of an insurgency by the smaller, less well situated, population?

 

 

Why would the Russian population of Ukraine have to march over to the west of the country in order to have an insurgency in the east by the Russian border? In the maps I've seen, about three quarters of the Ukraine is overwelmingly Ukrainian. The rest is along the Russian border.

 

As for 'too far east' - NATO's already further east on the shores of the Black Sea.

 

The danger of going too far east magically disappears because Rumania borders the Black Sea?

 

At last, you're paying attention.

 

But - what has Israel to do with NATO? It isn't allied to NATO. And anyway, it's perfectly capable of dealing with anything coming out of Syria, without needing to use nuclear weapons.

 

Doesn't explain why you think Ukraine is such a ripe area for an anti-western insurgency. You keep ignoring the factors I've pointed out to you. Even in the east, Russians are in a minority in every oblast, & in almost every district except major cities, & those cities are surrounded by mainly Ukrainian countryside & towns. Why do you think that is good territory for an insurgency?

 

Why do you think I meant Romania? I've stood on the Black Sea coast, further east than any part of Ukraine, on NATO soil, when Romania was still in the Warsaw Pact.

Edited by swerve
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Good find. And worrying. You dont use formations like that to just sabre rattle.

 

 

Kit trains. I feel a Brixmis moment coming on. :)

 

 

Only if you've got an Opel Senator of a G Wagon - you walt, you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll probably get dog piled for saying this, but am I the only guy here who doesn't have a huge issue with what Russia did to Crimea? I mean, most of the region obviously wants to be Russian, nobody got killed, and it's not like Ukraine is a shining beacon of democracy anyway. I think Putin is a son of a bitch and if he goes any further he needs a smackdown, but this isn't the time or place for a fight.

Texas, N. Mexico, Arizona, and California should just cede their southern border to Mexico if Mexico says they want it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'll probably get dog piled for saying this, but am I the only guy here who doesn't have a huge issue with what Russia did to Crimea? I mean, most of the region obviously wants to be Russian, nobody got killed, and it's not like Ukraine is a shining beacon of democracy anyway. I think Putin is a son of a bitch and if he goes any further he needs a smackdown, but this isn't the time or place for a fight.

Texas, N. Mexico, Arizona, and California should just cede their southern border to Mexico if Mexico says they want it?

 

That would depend on whether a large majority of the population of those areas actually wanted to be part of Mexico - which I suspect they wouldn't, no matter what their ethnic origins !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll probably get dog piled for saying this, but am I the only guy here who doesn't have a huge issue with what Russia did to Crimea? I mean, most of the region obviously wants to be Russian, nobody got killed, and it's not like Ukraine is a shining beacon of democracy anyway. I think Putin is a son of a bitch and if he goes any further he needs a smackdown, but this isn't the time or place for a fight.

No you're not the only one here who thinks that way. The population of the Crimea is mainly ethnic Russian and they have voted for a reunion with Russia.

 

Politicians, particularly in the west have an irritating habit of backing "Self determination" when it suits them, and being critical when it doesn't. The popular unrest in the Ukraine deposed the elected government (as they did in Egypt). The way to change an unpopular government is via the ballot box - not by violence and uprising. It's a principal of democracy that politicians ignore when it suits them.

 

That said - Putin is a potential threat to other nations and the west are right to warn him off planning more adventures.

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That would depend on whether a large majority of the population of those areas actually wanted to be part of Mexico - which I suspect they wouldn't, no matter what their ethnic origins !

 

 

Say Mexico rigs the referendum as most suppose happened in Crimea. El Paso, Tuscon, and San Diego might remain as city states, but I'm sure Mexico could ensure enough votes went their way across the rest of the border region. Or, Mexico could make a case that Texas south of a line drawn through Houston-San Antonio to the border with N. Mexico rightfully belongs to Mexico as it was stolen from Mexico in 1848.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That would depend on whether a large majority of the population of those areas actually wanted to be part of Mexico - which I suspect they wouldn't, no matter what their ethnic origins !

 

 

Say Mexico rigs the referendum as most suppose happened in Crimea. El Paso, Tuscon, and San Diego might remain as city states, but I'm sure Mexico could ensure enough votes went their way across the rest of the border region. Or, Mexico could make a case that Texas south of a line drawn through Houston-San Antonio to the border with N. Mexico rightfully belongs to Mexico as it was stolen from Mexico in 1848.

 

I douibt they needed to rig the referendum in Crimea - given many of the native Ukrainians boycotted it, and the majority population is Russian.

 

I was impressed though with the speed it was introduced........almost like they had plans in place for it.... !

 

As for Mexico rigging a referendum in Texas etc - do you think they would have the competency to actually pull it off ? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that Mexican immigrants tend to move to the US because they want to live in the US instead of Mexico, right?

Exactly what does that have to do with anything?

 

Before Russia militarily occupied Crimea, was there a great exodus of ethnic Russians to Russia? I don't recall, was there turmoil in Crimea I'm not aware of? Were ethnic Russians demonstrating in the streets of Sevastopol demanding independence from Ukraine before the Russian military took occupation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution for that problem is to cede Mexico and its possession, Texas, back to Spain, but require them to also take Puerto Rico and Cuba in the process. At least we'd have a NATO neighbor on the south as well the north.

Edited by Ken Estes
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah! Puerto Rico did not want independence in 1898, after all.

 

And that would be a deal, but only if we do not have to take back Argentina also. Give us Texas, Mexican, and Venezuelan oil, Chilean copper...

 

Oh, my, my!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ukrainian troops guarding border to Crimea

 

A bit reminiscent of Iraqis in 1991 :mellow:

Edited by ink
Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, who'd have thought that Ukraine would be putting T-64s and BMPs on its border (well, "new" border now) for possible defense against the motherland.

 

It's just not right.

Edited by BLAH
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had enough T-64s in good condition and able crewmen, they'd probably put up a decent defensive fight against T-90s; it doesn't seem like they have enough of the former, even if they have some professional tankers. As they appear, they could probably cause some casualties on the attackers before being overrun/blasted into nothing by air/artillery, though probably nothing severe.

 

Pretty much a speed bump that could be bypassed if desired.

 

Hopefully Russia doesn't go insane.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were ethnic Russians demonstrating in the streets of Sevastopol demanding independence from Ukraine before the Russian military took occupation?

 

 

Yes. There were attempts to declare Crimea independent starting 1992

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/06/world/crimea-parliament-votes-to-back-independence-from-ukraine.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea#Autonomous_Republic_within_Ukraine_.281991.E2.80.93Present.29

On 17 December 1992, the office of the Ukrainian presidential representative in Crimea was created, which caused wave of protests a month later. Among the protesters that created the unsanctioned rally were the Sevastopol branches of the National Salvation Front, the Russian Popular Assembly, and the All-Crimean Movement of the Voters for the Republic of Crimea. The protest was held in Sevastopol on 10 January at Nakhimov Square.

 

In 2006, protests broke out on the peninsula after U.S. Marines arrived at the Crimean city of Feodosiya to take part in the Sea Breeze 2006 Ukraine-NATO military exercise. Protesters greeted the marines with barricades and slogans bearing "Occupiers go home!" and a couple of days later, the Crimean parliament declared Crimea a "NATO-free territory." After several days of protest, the U.S. Marines withdrew from the peninsula

 

On 24 August 2009, anti-Ukrainian demonstrations were held in Crimea by ethnic Russian residents. Sergei Tsekov (of the Russian Bloc and then deputy speaker of the Crimean parliament) said then that he hoped that Russia would treat the Crimea the same way as it had treated South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...