If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Crimea river   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 60
    More: News, Crimean, Russians, Ukraine, combat readiness, territorial integrity, Russian Navy, President Vladimir Putin, Secretary of State John Kerry  
•       •       •

15575 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 2:48 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-28 03:04:48 AM
5 votes:
Don't worry folks, it's OK, Putin would never order the Russian military to invade a sovereign nation that used to be a Soviet satellite, in order to lay claim by Russia to a small border region that is ethnically different from the Western-leaning majority of the nation.

Oh I'm sorry, Georgia, did you have something to add?
2014-02-28 02:55:53 AM
5 votes:
F*ck you Putin you shirtless bear-fighting bastard. F*ck you.
2014-02-28 06:47:10 AM
4 votes:

Errk: violentsalvation: And there is nothing the west can do.

Maybe we'll just sit this one out for a change.


For a change? Eastern Europe would consider this anything but a change.
2014-02-28 02:52:48 AM
4 votes:
Cannon to right of them
Cannon to left of them
Cannon in front of them
Vollyed and thunder'd
2014-02-28 05:04:20 AM
3 votes:

NobleHam: Fail in Human Form: Nothing that's been happening so far supports that view. Russia sees a chance to move in to the Crimea and by all indications they're taking it.

Nothing supports that view either. Why not just take the Crimea if that's their goal? Or at least openly declare that Russian forces will secure Crimean ports until stability is reached? This isn't permanent and it's not meant to be, because Russia knows they can't take Crimea. They want things back to the way they were six months ago, not a new unstable conflict in the region. They'll use what leverage and threats they have to get back to that position of being a favored, dominant power in Ukraine, but they won't risk armed conflict or sanctions over a new province they could do without. This isn't Abkhazia, it's farking Crimea. They can't have it.


They ARE taking it and doing so in a very calculated way.  Look into what they did in Afghanistan.  It's the same playbook.  By doing it this way they can essentially seize the area before they "officially" move in troops on a "humanitarian mission."
2014-02-28 03:51:13 AM
3 votes:

Boojum2k: Boojum2k: If the Ukraine can get its shiat together fast enough, they can petition for EU or even NATO membership. Russia would get noisy about it, but they'd be in a bind then

Ukraine, I mean, not "the" Ukraine.


That has always bugged me. The extra "the" that always used to be used with Ukraine is a way to denote that it is a region and not a country, like is done in Russian. When using prepositions of place in Russian, "v" translates to in, and "na" translates to on. So for every country in the world, you use v...except for Ukraine. Since the origins of the word Ukraine come from the slavic word for "edge", you are essentially saying that you are on the edge (of Russia). So the continued use of "the" with Ukraine in English just plays into the Russian mentality that it is part of Russia.
2014-02-28 03:24:46 AM
3 votes:

violentsalvation: And there is nothing the west can do.


Now that's not true. The U.N. can make plans to schedule a phone call to discuss calling a meeting to vote on a resolution to form a committee to draft a strongly worded letter.

Which Russia will veto.
2014-02-28 03:11:25 AM
3 votes:

White_Scarf_Syndrome: Resident gun nut here.

Is it just me or are every single one of those AK-74's (yes 74) being carried with no magazine in the rifle?


Someone on Twitter said one of the armed men looked like he was carrying an AK-103.

https://twitter.com/alessaprentice/status/439309361593462784
2014-02-28 03:08:59 AM
3 votes:
2014-02-28 12:21:46 PM
2 votes:

traylor: nullptr: No that is just the regular muzzle device/brake.


[img.fark.net image 755x794]

Here's a closer pic.

I don't know if it is real, but an expert on my local news site commented that the plug is well visible in the barrel.


Hmm... doesn't look quite right. Here is the AK-74m blank adapter:

img.fark.net

The thing on the muzzle that you pointed out is a non-blued (in the white) Muzzle Brake like this:

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

Example on muzzle:

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com


Example in the white:

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
2014-02-28 04:03:35 AM
2 votes:

HotWingAgenda: jchuffyman: Boojum2k: Boojum2k: If the Ukraine can get its shiat together fast enough, they can petition for EU or even NATO membership. Russia would get noisy about it, but they'd be in a bind then

Ukraine, I mean, not "the" Ukraine.

That has always bugged me. The extra "the" that always used to be used with Ukraine is a way to denote that it is a region and not a country, like is done in Russian. When using prepositions of place in Russian, "v" translates to in, and "na" translates to on. So for every country in the world, you use v...except for Ukraine. Since the origins of the word Ukraine come from the slavic word for "edge", you are essentially saying that you are on the edge (of Russia). So the continued use of "the" with Ukraine in English just plays into the Russian mentality that it is part of Russia.

Tell it to the Netherlands, New England and West Virginia.


The Netherlands has made the "the" an official part of its name (also strange that they have one the few cities in the world with an article in its name as well). That is different in that as far as I know, the officially supported English translation of the country name is simply Ukraine without an article. As Slavic languages generally lack articles, the preposition thing is how they make the difference, and it serves the same purpose with this..
2014-02-28 03:43:19 AM
2 votes:

violentsalvation: And there is nothing the west can do.


img.fark.net
2014-02-28 03:25:03 AM
2 votes:

violentsalvation: And there is nothing the west can do.


Maybe we'll just sit this one out for a change.
2014-02-28 03:20:52 AM
2 votes:

Boojum2k: White_Scarf_Syndrome: Resident gun nut here.

Is it just me or are every single one of those AK-74's (yes 74) being carried with no magazine in the rifle?

Looks that way to me.


The rifle intimidates. Keeping the magazines in their pounches minimizes accidents. 'scuze me, "accidents".
2014-02-28 03:15:47 AM
2 votes:
From Twitter:
Moscow Interfax admits forces occupying Sebastopol airport are Russian military deployed "to prevent the arrival of some militants."

https://twitter.com/20committee/status/439312010845495296
2014-02-28 03:08:49 AM
2 votes:
sounds like things could get real sketchy real fast.
2014-02-28 02:59:53 AM
2 votes:
He totally waited until the Olympics was over to do this, too.

That's totally hilarious.
2014-02-28 02:55:33 AM
2 votes:
2014-02-28 10:40:17 PM
1 votes:
So then Russia should offer to buy Crimea from the Ukraine, that needs they money to fend off years of debt bondage to the IMF.

Russia is no longer the global enemy of the USA: that function has been bought by China. Russia should be cultivated as an ally against China or at least a benevolent neutral, as should India, Japan, the Philippines and Iran.

China must be destroyed.
2014-02-28 07:15:32 PM
1 votes:

chuggernaught: vygramul: washington-babylon: vygramul: washington-babylon: Anyway, I don't believe the U.S. will get involved, as China will probably take that to mean that they can move on Japan relatively unhindered, and Best Korea would also take the chance to push south in that event.

No.

First of all, China would be engaging in the million-man swim. It's not clear they could do anything against Taiwan, much less Japan.

Second, North Korea is lucky the South doesn't roll North. Ain't no way they're rolling South.

Third, if the US can't handle two MTWs on the budget we have, why the fark bother?

Hmm, let's see here... China's PLAN has 3 amphibious transport docks  (each capable of carrying between 500-800 troops), 26 LST's (each can carry about 217 troops and twenty-two 25 ton tanks), Add to this the plethora of other vessels (including auxiliary troop transports) and I would say they could land a decent force (Around 8000 troops to start with including 600+ armored units)  long enough to secure an airfield to use for their invasion, so your assertion that they would be engaging in a million man swim is absurd to the nth degree. As for the Norks, they won't move on their own (nobody suggested that) but you can damn well be sure that they would move if China attacked Japan.

Ooh. 8000 troops. 600 armored units. Well, lord knows how the US could POSSIBLY deal with that just with in-theater assets. I mean, how on EARTH would the Japanese survive if there are only 50,000 US military personnel in Japan?

And the South Koreans don't need our help to stop the North.

Don't forget the carrier units we have in place in the area, and the LRB's that be called in force.

/suggesting Russia, China, and NK would move in unison in this day and age is simply silly.


If we honor our treaty obligations and get in a war with Russia, it really isn't. As it our forces stand right now, we would need to split between at least 3 Naval fronts in a destabilization event, and those troops quartered in Japan don't do shiat if you focus your initial landing on the Islands that they want anyway. Better yet, all China has to do to dampen our response is a conventional missile attack followed by drones to keep the main forces occupied. This is not only well within China's ability to do, it is also very difficult for the U.S. troops stationed on Japan to defend against. And if you think about their alliance with China, basically Russia has this one locked up strategically. We will have to give up on helping Ukraine militarily (or let Britain handle it), or risk Russia honoring their obligations to assist China with their assault. And Yes, Chuggernaught, Submarine forces do have that affect on LST's but China is decently equipped to handle protecting a small invasion force against submarine threats. The gravest mistake you can make in a situation like this is underestimating the opposing forces (like forgetting Russia's aid) and overestimating how many trained boots we can put on the ground in short order.
2014-02-28 05:38:48 PM
1 votes:

washington-babylon: vygramul: washington-babylon: Anyway, I don't believe the U.S. will get involved, as China will probably take that to mean that they can move on Japan relatively unhindered, and Best Korea would also take the chance to push south in that event.

No.

First of all, China would be engaging in the million-man swim. It's not clear they could do anything against Taiwan, much less Japan.

Second, North Korea is lucky the South doesn't roll North. Ain't no way they're rolling South.

Third, if the US can't handle two MTWs on the budget we have, why the fark bother?

Hmm, let's see here... China's PLAN has 3 amphibious transport docks  (each capable of carrying between 500-800 troops), 26 LST's (each can carry about 217 troops and twenty-two 25 ton tanks), Add to this the plethora of other vessels (including auxiliary troop transports) and I would say they could land a decent force (Around 8000 troops to start with including 600+ armored units)  long enough to secure an airfield to use for their invasion, so your assertion that they would be engaging in a million man swim is absurd to the nth degree. As for the Norks, they won't move on their own (nobody suggested that) but you can damn well be sure that they would move if China attacked Japan.


And it's a million-man swim because they need way way way more than they can transport. They would need a quarter million, but million-man is alliterative and a call back to the million-man march, which didn't have a million men either.
2014-02-28 05:36:55 PM
1 votes:

washington-babylon: vygramul: washington-babylon: Anyway, I don't believe the U.S. will get involved, as China will probably take that to mean that they can move on Japan relatively unhindered, and Best Korea would also take the chance to push south in that event.

No.

First of all, China would be engaging in the million-man swim. It's not clear they could do anything against Taiwan, much less Japan.

Second, North Korea is lucky the South doesn't roll North. Ain't no way they're rolling South.

Third, if the US can't handle two MTWs on the budget we have, why the fark bother?

Hmm, let's see here... China's PLAN has 3 amphibious transport docks  (each capable of carrying between 500-800 troops), 26 LST's (each can carry about 217 troops and twenty-two 25 ton tanks), Add to this the plethora of other vessels (including auxiliary troop transports) and I would say they could land a decent force (Around 8000 troops to start with including 600+ armored units)  long enough to secure an airfield to use for their invasion, so your assertion that they would be engaging in a million man swim is absurd to the nth degree. As for the Norks, they won't move on their own (nobody suggested that) but you can damn well be sure that they would move if China attacked Japan.


Ooh. 8000 troops. 600 armored units. Well, lord knows how the US could POSSIBLY deal with that just with in-theater assets. I mean, how on EARTH would the Japanese survive if there are only 50,000 US military personnel in Japan?

And the South Koreans don't need our help to stop the North.
2014-02-28 03:57:26 PM
1 votes:

T-Servo: F*CK.

I hate it when my job gets interesting like this.

Where's the guy from the thread yesterday telling me that Ukraine was united and this would never happen?

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x387]


He was either talking out of his ass, or he's a Russia expert and thinks that makes him a Ukraine expert. In my experience, either could be true.

/Few people have the capacity to be condescending pricks and profoundly wrong like Russia experts talking about what non-Russians think.
2014-02-28 12:29:31 PM
1 votes:
Found a good up-to-date live feed about all the news coming out:  http://www.reddit.com/live/3rgnbke2rai6hen7ciytwcxadi
2014-02-28 09:47:50 AM
1 votes:

Esn: danzak: Jeezus, you pulling that out of your ass? Did you follow events starting in November? And, there's a real obsession with neo nazis on fark, what's with that? Turn off Interfax and watch some real news, or go to YouTube and experience it without commentary.

Here's a source.
Here's a recent video.
Here's a Western Ukrainian priest calling for a campaign of assassination and terror. (yes, this was a while ago - but many of the armed people on the streets are directly inspired by this ideology)

And I was mistaken, the house (belonging to the Communist Party leader) was not blown up; it was destroyed by fire.


RT is a Russian news source, used to called Russia Today. Not exactly a neutral source
The video of the priest is from 2010, not sure what that has to do with your points
The guy telling biatch to shut up is again, from RT.  Still, one pissed off guy telling someone who has been part of of the problem to shut up does not back up your claims

what about the protesters shooting at police?
Don't pick and choose and try not using Russian media sources
2014-02-28 09:17:54 AM
1 votes:
This is the ideal time for Neville Obama to reduce our military to pre ww2 levels.
2014-02-28 08:51:59 AM
1 votes:

Esn: vygramul: Esn: the US wants to hurt Russia as much as possible.  We have all seen the total lack of effectiveness of the EU bureaucrats and their naive attempts at finding a negotiated solution.  The US foreign policy goal has the advantage of being simple yet clear: f*ck Russia and f*ck the EU!  From the US point of view, the worse the situation becomes, the better it is for Uncle Sam.  At the very least, this hurts Russia, at the very best, it gives the US a wonderful pretext to "protect" Europe from the "resurgent Russian bear" while standing up for civilization, democracy and progress.  A Neocon's wet dream...

Well, that's predictably preposterous. I have more reason than most Americans to detest the Russians and my general attitude is that it's unnecessary to hurt them these days. They're perfectly capable of doing it themselves. But I don't like when they (for the n+1th time) hurt their neighbors, which they've been doing since before there even was a United States of America.

To quote from the analysis in this article...

Hillary Clinton said 2 years ago:
"There is a move to re-Sovietise the region," (...) "It's not going to be called that. It's going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that,"   (...) "But let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it."

You also have to look at the writings of Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose paradigm is very popular among a major branch of US foreign policy thinkers:
Without Ukraine Russia ceases to be empire, while with Ukraine - bought off first and subdued afterwards, it automatically turns into empire...According to him, the new world order under the hegemony of the United States is created against Russia and on the fragments of Russia. Ukraine is the Western outpost to prevent the recreation of the Soviet Union.

Under this theory, all the U.S. has to do to win is create chaos in Ukraine. Which they are doing very well (not that this is all their fault, not by a long shot).

Again, just because you are unaware of your leaders' strategy, doesn't mean that it's not their strategy.

Did the Western media mention the phoned threats that were made to opposition lawmakers? Or the opposition leader's house that was blown up? Or the police officers who were killed by "peaceful protesters" before those police finally fired back? (I wonder how the American police would've reacted if a crowd began to kill some of them?) Or the very strong neo-Nazi presence in the new security forces? Or that Yanukovich (the imbecile) had ALREADY signed a surrender agreement, but the armed crowd (which is not really controlled by the "official" political leaders) reneged on the agreement? They did not, because those sorts of things ruin their story.


Jeezus, you pulling that out of your ass? Did you follow events starting in November? And, there's a real obsession with neo nazis on fark, what's with that? Turn off Interfax and watch some real news, or go to YouTube and experience it without commentary.
2014-02-28 08:33:45 AM
1 votes:

Esn: vygramul: rev. dave: Crimea likes being in wars.  Russia must think it is now strong enough to take on the west.

Why would it need to think that, since it has done all kinds of things to Ukraine that are far, far worse than this over the last hundred years, sometimes barely rating a complaint, much less any kind military threat from the West.

I assume you're talking about the terrible tragedy of the Holodomor, the reality of which is rather more complex than often portrayed (good article about the different views on it here). In short: Russians have no reason to do horrible things to Ukrainians, because many Russians consider them to be the same people (isn't this part of what underlies the current conflict?). But there WERE centuries-long conflicts against the Catholic-aligned West of what is currently Ukraine (formerly Poland and crusader territory). Also, the early Soviet leadership had rather repressive attitudes against the rural agricultural population, and instituted policies which caused a humanitarian catastrophe not only in Ukraine, but in parts of Russia adjacent to it as well.


The Holodomor was intentional. The proof is in the process in other Soviet Republics, including the Russian SSR. It was a genocide, clear to anyone who actually looks at the actions of the Russian government.
2014-02-28 08:22:03 AM
1 votes:

Esn: All the Western news channels are now complaining about armed groups "taking over" parliament buildings and airports in Crimea - but were saying NOTHING back when the pro-Maidan armed groups were doing the same thing in Western Ukraine. Like always with the West, it's only a problem when the OTHER side uses those tactics.

I am reluctantly beginning to think now that the West's consistently slanted coverage and actions have nothing to do with human rights or ideology, but are motivated by ethnic hatred of Russians, pure and simple. I live here, so I really don't WANT to think that, but I really don't have many options.

There's a really good summary of all the background and history to this current conflict over here. There are also other good recent articles on that blog about the recent events.

Here's a particularly nice quote from the end of that article:

...as I recently wrote, the US and the EU have very different objective in the Ukraine: the EU wants a market for its goods and services, the US wants to hurt Russia as much as possible.  We have all seen the total lack of effectiveness of the EU bureaucrats and their naive attempts at finding a negotiated solution.  The US foreign policy goal has the advantage of being simple yet clear: f*ck Russia and f*ck the EU!  From the US point of view, the worse the situation becomes, the better it is for Uncle Sam.  At the very least, this hurts Russia, at the very best, it gives the US a wonderful pretext to "protect" Europe from the "resurgent Russian bear" while standing up for civilization, democracy and progress.  A Neocon's wet dream...

And then, there is the "S factor": stupidity, plain and simple.  What often seems to be the result of some Machiavellian plan cooked up in a deep basement of the White House, the CIA or the Pentagon is often a mind-blowing example of the truly phenomenal stupidity, ignorance and arrogance of our leaders.  They believe themselves to be so powerful as to be free from the need to u ...


Oh, get a f*cking grip. You and everybody else biatching about the "western media". The western media as opposed to what? The Russian media, which has a long history of destroying any dissenting voices and routinely imprisons or murders journalists? The Chinese media, who will avoid at all costs showing a successful people's revolution in case some one at home suddenly thinks "hey, that looks like a good idea"? Al-Jazeera? Well, OK but are they saying anything different than anybody else?

Not to mention the fact that  there is a vast difference between an angry populace taking government buildings and a heavily armed military force not wearing any insignia (by the way, if these guys are Russian military then unmarked uniforms are whooping breach of the Geneva Convention) who are also refusing to disclose their objectives, orders or affiliation.

I lived in Moscow for two years. I have nothing against the Russian people. Putin however is a megalomaniacal thug, playing on Russian people's long-held and deep-rooted (and historically not without cause) fear of invasion and subjugation.
2014-02-28 07:36:42 AM
1 votes:

Esn: the US wants to hurt Russia as much as possible.  We have all seen the total lack of effectiveness of the EU bureaucrats and their naive attempts at finding a negotiated solution.  The US foreign policy goal has the advantage of being simple yet clear: f*ck Russia and f*ck the EU!  From the US point of view, the worse the situation becomes, the better it is for Uncle Sam.  At the very least, this hurts Russia, at the very best, it gives the US a wonderful pretext to "protect" Europe from the "resurgent Russian bear" while standing up for civilization, democracy and progress.  A Neocon's wet dream...


Well, that's predictably preposterous. I have more reason than most Americans to detest the Russians and my general attitude is that it's unnecessary to hurt them these days. They're perfectly capable of doing it themselves. But I don't like when they (for the n+1th time) hurt their neighbors, which they've been doing since before there even was a United States of America.
2014-02-28 07:24:21 AM
1 votes:

White_Scarf_Syndrome: "What's Tatars, precious?"


Win.

/I would also have accepted a Ron White reference
2014-02-28 07:21:50 AM
1 votes:

NobleHam: Fail in Human Form: NobleHam: Fail in Human Form: Nothing that's been happening so far supports that view. Russia sees a chance to move in to the Crimea and by all indications they're taking it.

Nothing supports that view either. Why not just take the Crimea if that's their goal? Or at least openly declare that Russian forces will secure Crimean ports until stability is reached? This isn't permanent and it's not meant to be, because Russia knows they can't take Crimea. They want things back to the way they were six months ago, not a new unstable conflict in the region. They'll use what leverage and threats they have to get back to that position of being a favored, dominant power in Ukraine, but they won't risk armed conflict or sanctions over a new province they could do without. This isn't Abkhazia, it's farking Crimea. They can't have it.

They ARE taking it and doing so in a very calculated way.  Look into what they did in Afghanistan.  It's the same playbook.  By doing it this way they can essentially seize the area before they "officially" move in troops on a "humanitarian mission."

No, what they're doing is establishing their power and threat. Their goal is probably to restore Yanukovych to power, or if not to get someone equally favorable to them put in his place. They have repeatedly shown a strong interest in opposing uprisings and revolutions as a means of regime change. Their goal isn't to take Crimea, it's to put enough pressure on Ukraine that they bend to Russia's will. They aren't asserting a claim to Crimean territory, they aren't controlling anything but entry and exit points (and maybe the parliament, there's as yet no evidence they're directly involved in that though), they're just flexing their muscles. They're not stupid enough to incite what would likely be a very bloody civil war or to so directly oppose Western interests as to actually forcibly seize Ukrainian sovereign territory which they have been obliged by treaty for sixty years to respect. The very worst case scenario here is that, like with the Georgian provinces, they withdraw but Ukraine tacitly acknowledges greater autonomy for Crimea, and/or Yanukovych or someone similarly aligned regains power.


Nope.

I admit to being fairly ignorant on these geopolitics, but your scenario doesn't even sound right.

After all the protests, no *way* the people of western (and pro-Western) Ukraine are letting Yanukovych back into Kiev, much less the presidency. And don't make the mistake of thinking the politicians are in charge there. The people are too fresh off the barricades.

I might concede your idea about "reminding" Ukraine about keeping Crimean waters and ports friendly to Russian interests. But otoh I wouldn't put it past Putin to encourage a civil war, splitting the country and *then* installing Yanukovych as president of Eastern Ukraine. Taking the Crimea might be a start, a military tactic to ensure an air and naval foothold for Russian forces.

Honestly, I think that, as in Georgia, Putin is also testing world world reaction to see what he can annex if the old empire-- er, Republic.
2014-02-28 07:20:03 AM
1 votes:

spawn73: Boojum2k:

violentsalvation: And there is nothing the west can do.
If the Ukraine can get its shiat together fast enough, they can petition for EU or even NATO membership. Russia would get noisy about it, but they'd be in a bind then.

Obtaining EU membership is a long process, and Ukraine is a poor and corrupt nation without a chance to join the EU.

Russia is doing this the correct way, they're simply "providing monitoring forces", for the upcomming elections for independence of the autonomous republic of Crimea. They might even provide "peace keeping forces" should the situation in Crimea escalate.

By the general acceptance of self determination, there's not much Ukraine can do if Crimea votes to leave Ukraine IMHO. Unless they want to provoke an millitary conflict by rolling in tanks about now.


Meanwhile, in Grozny, this newfound respect for self-determination is welcome news...
2014-02-28 07:15:01 AM
1 votes:
Just a guess, but I'm betting that if you asked a dozen of those guys in unmarked uniforms to take off their shirts, you'd see rather a lot of tattoos that would indicate that they "used to" serve in the Russian military.

/Plus, shirtless men with guns, so the Republicans will be happy.
//NTTAWWT.
2014-02-28 06:29:26 AM
1 votes:

White_Scarf_Syndrome: I can't farking read this Twitter bullshiat hashtag language.  What the fark.  Just stop with the farking POUND symbol.  PLEASTOP!


Heh, wait until you see whatever the next iteration is...it'll probably be about as comprehensible to older fogies like me as heiroglyphics.
2014-02-28 06:19:35 AM
1 votes:
i1182.photobucket.com
2014-02-28 05:51:35 AM
1 votes:
"What's Tatars, precious?"
2014-02-28 05:49:26 AM
1 votes:

Fail in Human Form: NobleHam: Fail in Human Form: Nothing that's been happening so far supports that view. Russia sees a chance to move in to the Crimea and by all indications they're taking it.

Nothing supports that view either. Why not just take the Crimea if that's their goal? Or at least openly declare that Russian forces will secure Crimean ports until stability is reached? This isn't permanent and it's not meant to be, because Russia knows they can't take Crimea. They want things back to the way they were six months ago, not a new unstable conflict in the region. They'll use what leverage and threats they have to get back to that position of being a favored, dominant power in Ukraine, but they won't risk armed conflict or sanctions over a new province they could do without. This isn't Abkhazia, it's farking Crimea. They can't have it.

They ARE taking it and doing so in a very calculated way.  Look into what they did in Afghanistan.  It's the same playbook.  By doing it this way they can essentially seize the area before they "officially" move in troops on a "humanitarian mission."


No, what they're doing is establishing their power and threat. Their goal is probably to restore Yanukovych to power, or if not to get someone equally favorable to them put in his place. They have repeatedly shown a strong interest in opposing uprisings and revolutions as a means of regime change. Their goal isn't to take Crimea, it's to put enough pressure on Ukraine that they bend to Russia's will. They aren't asserting a claim to Crimean territory, they aren't controlling anything but entry and exit points (and maybe the parliament, there's as yet no evidence they're directly involved in that though), they're just flexing their muscles. They're not stupid enough to incite what would likely be a very bloody civil war or to so directly oppose Western interests as to actually forcibly seize Ukrainian sovereign territory which they have been obliged by treaty for sixty years to respect. The very worst case scenario here is that, like with the Georgian provinces, they withdraw but Ukraine tacitly acknowledges greater autonomy for Crimea, and/or Yanukovych or someone similarly aligned regains power.
2014-02-28 05:09:20 AM
1 votes:

Kittypie070: Isn't it kind of a bad idea to piss off Tatars!?


I would guess that they're necessary from Russia's POV.  Seize the airports, the sea ports, the parliament, setup roving military patrols, and setup checkpoints on the roads leaving the region.  All of which have been done.  Then when they get attacked use it as a pretense to be "invited" in by the pro Russian groups to deal with the terrorists.  Look at what happened in Georgia.
2014-02-28 04:59:10 AM
1 votes:

Ishkur: He totally waited until the Olympics was over to do this, too.

That's totally hilarious.


Of course he did...However, the real funny thing is that it probably cost him Ukraine. Had the Olympics been somewhere else or not happening, he would have been able to send forces in to break up the protests and prop up the Ukraine President. Hell, had it been outside of Russia, he could have gone in strong and let the Olympics divert some of the attention.

 But with all the international attention, he didn't want "his" games to become about the Ukraine.
2014-02-28 04:55:27 AM
1 votes:

ransack.: lumiere: RINO: lumiere: From Twitter:
Moscow Interfax admits forces occupying Sebastopol airport are Russian military deployed "to prevent the arrival of some militants."

https://twitter.com/20committee/status/439312010845495296

If that's actually true and not just an excuse, that is very interesting.

You know what Mark Twain said: "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."  Especially when it involves Russia.

White_Scarf_Syndrome: lumiere: White_Scarf_Syndrome: Resident gun nut here.

Is it just me or are every single one of those AK-74's (yes 74) being carried with no magazine in the rifle?

Someone on Twitter said one of the armed men looked like he was carrying an AK-103.

https://twitter.com/alessaprentice/status/439309361593462784

I was not aware that rifle existed.  So, they replaced the AK47 with a smaller more accurate caliber in the AK74, only to put out a new rifle based on the 74 that's in the OLD caliber of the 47 but not actually a 47.

The More You Knooooowww!!!

You know us Texans, if we can't recognize a gun, we'll find one who can.

cynicalminion: violentsalvation: And there is nothing the west can do.

[img.fark.net image 565x348]

Not to detract from the topic at hand, but, I'll throw another monkey wrench in the works:

Why is that Saudi drinking whisky?


He's got Affluenza, he can't help it.
2014-02-28 04:53:32 AM
1 votes:
Russia's just trying to remind Ukraine what it could do. It doesn't want an anti-Russian government revoking its leases in Sevastopol, so it's asserting that it could just take the whole Peninsula if it really wanted to. Obviously, of course, it couldn't. The Tatars wouldn't allow it, and the Russians don't do that well in hostile occupations, not to mention the international consequences. Russia likes to play tough enough to get what it wants, but it doesn't step over lines that could hurt it economically or its leaders financially.

Ukraine will gain control over Crimea again before long, but Russia will push for a unity government to ensure its interests are looked after and it will likely seek concessions from Ukraine, such as continued favorable trade agreements and an agreement not to seek further integration with the EU and continuing to abstain from NATO.
2014-02-28 04:38:44 AM
1 votes:

Rev.Killjoy: Cliffnotes bro style

Ukraine: dood Russia.. why you at our party bro?

Russia: uhh those guys aren't with us. Probably followed someone else in.

Ukraine: d00d.. isnt that your boat?

Russia: bro swear. We totally didnt invite those doods.


Go on...
2014-02-28 04:17:58 AM
1 votes:
From the article:
"Russia, along with the US, UK and France, pledged to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine in a memorandum signed in 1994."
Wonder if anyone is waving that piece of paper at the populace of the Ukraine saying "We will have peace in our time."
2014-02-28 04:04:20 AM
1 votes:

cynicalminion: violentsalvation: And there is nothing the west can do.

[img.fark.net image 565x348]


Small error: the bracket for "the West" needs to encompass both Western Europe and all of the Americas. The concept of East and West is based on projecting the Mediterranean as the center of the world.
2014-02-28 03:51:34 AM
1 votes:
Flights canceled
Guess operating normally was a bit off.

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26380336
2014-02-28 03:50:57 AM
1 votes:
The west did nothing in the partition of Georgia.  What makes anyone think that the west will do anything if a few regions are plucked from Ukraine? Who is going to oppose Russia?  Germany, France, Poland, UK? They may have some soldiers but they are mostly reliant on heavy support from the US in many key areas such as logistics, intelligence, and supplying the advanced weapons in useful quantities.  So even if there was the will by several of these countries to act, they lack the means to effectively do so unless the US goes along with it and there is almost zero US interest in applying anything beyond moral support to Ukraine.  I suspect the same with the rest of the NATO countries that, while they may talk a good game, when the rubber meets the road, no one wants to risk a shooting war over the Ukraine with Russia.
2014-02-28 03:39:06 AM
1 votes:

Errk: violentsalvation: And there is nothing the west can do.

Maybe we'll just sit this one out for a change.


Oh, we will. Please don't think I'm welcome to another war, cold or hot.
2014-02-28 03:34:15 AM
1 votes:

lumiere: White_Scarf_Syndrome: Resident gun nut here.

Is it just me or are every single one of those AK-74's (yes 74) being carried with no magazine in the rifle?

Someone on Twitter said one of the armed men looked like he was carrying an AK-103.

https://twitter.com/alessaprentice/status/439309361593462784


I was not aware that rifle existed.  So, they replaced the AK47 with a smaller more accurate caliber in the AK74, only to put out a new rifle based on the 74 that's in the OLD caliber of the 47 but not actually a 47.

The More You Knooooowww!!!
2014-02-28 03:30:32 AM
1 votes:

Errk: violentsalvation: And there is nothing the west can do.

Maybe we'll just sit this one out for a change.


Gawd I hope so.
2014-02-28 03:27:24 AM
1 votes:
Oh FARK, you sonofabiatch.
2014-02-28 03:26:40 AM
1 votes:

wildcardjack: Boojum2k: White_Scarf_Syndrome: Resident gun nut here.

Is it just me or are every single one of those AK-74's (yes 74) being carried with no magazine in the rifle?

Looks that way to me.

The rifle intimidates. Keeping the magazines in their pounches minimizes accidents. 'scuze me, "accidents".


Which is fairly smart. Putin is a thug, but if he's behind this he's being a smart thug.

violentsalvation: And there is nothing the west can do.

If the Ukraine can get its shiat together fast enough, they can petition for EU or even NATO membership. Russia would get noisy about it, but they'd be in a bind then.
2014-02-28 03:18:59 AM
1 votes:
I think the Ukraine used to have a whole bunch of nukes back in the Cold War days.
I'm sure they were all accounted for.
2014-02-28 03:14:55 AM
1 votes:
And there is nothing the west can do.
2014-02-28 03:08:51 AM
1 votes:
I thought Eastern Europe was a haven of peace, political stability, and human rights.
2014-02-28 03:08:40 AM
1 votes:
This happens here in Indiana. Every now and then, the town is patrolled by hundreds of stony faced armed men in riot gear and gas masks with no insignias and brandishing automatic rifles who will not speak of their identities or intentions. They just stand around and look intimidating for a few days, and then they disappear as mysteriously and quickly as they arrived.
Is this not normal?
2014-02-28 03:08:21 AM
1 votes:

White_Scarf_Syndrome: Resident gun nut here.

Is it just me or are every single one of those AK-74's (yes 74) being carried with no magazine in the rifle?


Looks that way to me.
2014-02-28 03:06:36 AM
1 votes:
Forced headline is forced.

White_Scarf_Syndrome: Is it just me or are every single one of those AK-74's (yes 74) being carried with no magazine in the rifle?


Are you sure that the magazine just isn't in backwards?

/here all week, the veal is delicious
2014-02-28 03:02:23 AM
1 votes:
Resident gun nut here.

Is it just me or are every single one of those AK-74's (yes 74) being carried with no magazine in the rifle?
2014-02-28 03:00:15 AM
1 votes:
img.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 60 of 60 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report