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.

(Special Broadcasting Service)   Ukraine: Hey there NATO. Say, you guys remember that wacky treaty we signed in 1994 where you promised to defend us if we were attacked in exchange for us giving up our nukes? Yeah, funny thing, never thought we actually need that, but   (sbs.com.au) divider line 291
    More: Scary, NATO, Ukraine, interim leader, Viktor Yanukovych, Russian forces  
•       •       •

15721 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 1:50 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



291 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-28 12:51:45 PM
Defend? That's a typo. We probably meant defund. Give us a few weeks to review the conference notes, and access to all your banking information.
 
2014-02-28 12:54:16 PM
Let's ask Georgia how that worked out.
 
2014-02-28 12:54:58 PM
  In 1879 Bismarck concluded the Dual Alliance, a mutual defense pact with Austria-Hungary. He expanded this agreement in 1882 to include Italy, forming the Triple Alliance.
Bismarck realized that an alliance between France and Russia would be a fundamental threat to German security because in the event of war with either power Germany would be forced to fight on two fronts. Bismarck arranged the Emperors' Alliance (1881) and the Reinsurance Treaty (1887) with Russia, agreements that guaranteed Russian neutrality in the event of a Franco-German conflict.

To offset the threat of the Triple Alliance, France and Russia formed their own Dual Alliance in 1894. France also improved relations with Great Britain by entering into an informal understanding with the British known as the Entente Cordiale (1904). This was expanded into the Triple Entente in 1907 with the inclusion of Russia.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-02-28 12:55:14 PM
I forgot about that in the thread the other day. If you'll excuse me I need to pack up to take a vacation farther away from Boston than the 5 PSI overpressure radius.
 
2014-02-28 01:00:40 PM
Wow, that's kind of a pickle. On the one hand, no WAY we'll get involved in that. On the other hand, that's it for credibility in treaties...
 
2014-02-28 01:04:29 PM
Seems like it'd be pretty easy for us to sit this out on the basis that this is basically a civil war.
 
2014-02-28 01:07:46 PM

DamnYankees: Seems like it'd be pretty easy for us to sit this out on the basis that this is basically a civil war.


Civil war until the Russians cross the border
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-28 01:09:21 PM
It didn't specify what methods we would use to protect them from aggression.  I think that Ukraine would have to commit it's own armed forces before they would plausible demand that anyone send them military help.

Besides, the Crimea seceding from Ukraine is probably not what most people would regard as "outer aggression", even if Ukraine sends in troops to hold on to it.
 
2014-02-28 01:09:58 PM

netizencain: DamnYankees: Seems like it'd be pretty easy for us to sit this out on the basis that this is basically a civil war.

Civil war until the Russians cross the border


Meh, once you call it a civil war, you can sit it out. If Russians then cross the border, you can just say they are assisting one side of a civil war, not invading Ukraine.
 
2014-02-28 01:15:18 PM
Well, boys, I reckon this is it - nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies
 
2014-02-28 01:22:46 PM

netizencain: DamnYankees: Seems like it'd be pretty easy for us to sit this out on the basis that this is basically a civil war.

Civil war until the Russians cross the border


which they did yesterday in military helicopters

and the "People mIlitia of Crimea" the so called "ordinary people" who seized Crimea's Airports yesterday?

they all just happened to be dressed exactly alike in the latest Russian Military-issued full battle kit:
cdn.theatlantic.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-28 01:27:51 PM
DamnYankees:
Meh, once you call it a civil war, you can sit it out. If Russians then cross the border, you can just say they are assisting one side of a civil war, not invading Ukraine.

Russia has a military base there so crossing the border doesn't mean much by itself.  They likely have transit rights to and from the base.

They could even claim that they are helping the legitimate government of Ukraine.
 
2014-02-28 01:34:35 PM
Hey, we sent in Putin. You're welcome
 
2014-02-28 01:52:40 PM

DamnYankees: Seems like it'd be pretty easy for us to sit this out on the basis that this is basically a civil war.


There are reports that Russian tanks are rolling into Crimea, which makes this a very different situation.
 
IP
2014-02-28 01:54:04 PM
Well that's an interesting complication...
 
2014-02-28 01:54:13 PM

Voiceofreason01: DamnYankees: Seems like it'd be pretty easy for us to sit this out on the basis that this is basically a civil war.

There are reports that Russian tanks are rolling into Crimea, which makes this a very different situation.


Not sure it does. If there's a civil war, it's hard to make the argument that Russia is 'invading' Ukraine, since they could just as plausible claim they are invited.
 
2014-02-28 01:54:50 PM
Shoulda kept the nukes.
 
2014-02-28 01:55:32 PM
Wait... you guys actually fell for that one?
 
2014-02-28 01:55:50 PM
We'll at least Harold Ramis can save them!

www.morethings.com
 
2014-02-28 01:55:56 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-28 01:56:09 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-28 01:57:41 PM
The scary part was seeing Biden making commentary in a link below the article.

I did not click the link to see what it said or if it was legit.

Just the threat of Biden shooting off his mouth qualifies for a [Holy shiat] tag.
 
2014-02-28 01:58:25 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Let's ask Georgia how that worked out.


Georgia had nukes?
 
2014-02-28 01:58:33 PM
It sounds to me like Russia is helping out the Ukraine by stopping a civil war.

They're just not helping out like the West wants them to help.
 
2014-02-28 01:59:06 PM

Magorn: netizencain: DamnYankees: Seems like it'd be pretty easy for us to sit this out on the basis that this is basically a civil war.

Civil war until the Russians cross the border

which they did yesterday in military helicopters

and the "People mIlitia of Crimea" the so called "ordinary people" who seized Crimea's Airports yesterday?

they all just happened to be dressed exactly alike in the latest Russian Military-issued full battle kit:
[cdn.theatlantic.com image 675x474]


Plus, Honda apparently sent at least one of their soldiers which is pretty unnerving.
 
2014-02-28 02:00:28 PM

DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: DamnYankees: Seems like it'd be pretty easy for us to sit this out on the basis that this is basically a civil war.

There are reports that Russian tanks are rolling into Crimea, which makes this a very different situation.

Not sure it does. If there's a civil war, it's hard to make the argument that Russia is 'invading' Ukraine, since they could just as plausible claim they are invited.


true, although the Ukrainian government is claiming that the initial coup was Russian troops.
 
2014-02-28 02:00:50 PM
Hey, Putin. Maybe we need to stand down now?

/I have very little sympathy for the aggressor, and promising to defend them means we need to act on that promise.
//Hopefully there's a way to solve this behind the scenes before war starts, but now we actually  need to intervene, and this phrase will never again be uttered by myself in this context.
 
2014-02-28 02:02:12 PM
Belgium and Slovenia can take this one.      The US is kind of in a stand down right now.

Get back to us later
 
2014-02-28 02:03:20 PM

Kuta: It sounds to me like Russia is helping out the Ukraine by stopping a civil war.

They're just not helping out like the West wants them to help.


Still dreaming about civil war?
 
2014-02-28 02:03:30 PM
Pooty-poot will visit the front lines
russianreport.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-28 02:04:54 PM

Voiceofreason01: There are reports that Russian tanks are rolling into Crimea, which makes this a very different situation.


[citation needed]

/I can't find anything about this on the net
 
2014-02-28 02:05:31 PM
Might as well play this in the streets.

upload.wikimedia.org

/This game nearly killed my chances to go to college
 
2014-02-28 02:05:47 PM
What would be the downside be if the nation simply split?  The southeastern Ukranians pretty much consider themselves Russian anyway.  Is there a national resources reason, a la Iraq, that they couldn't just splinter off?  Apart from all the tradgedy of divided families and the death of the velvet revolution and all that.
 
2014-02-28 02:06:17 PM

LewDux: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Let's ask Georgia how that worked out.

Georgia had nukes?


Well, sure.
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-28 02:06:40 PM
Everyone from Serbia to Ukraine should put "Inciting World Wars" as a skill on their LinkedIn.
 
2014-02-28 02:06:54 PM

Odoriferous Queef: Voiceofreason01: There are reports that Russian tanks are rolling into Crimea, which makes this a very different situation.

[citation needed]

/I can't find anything about this on the net


I agree.  That kind of statement at least warrants a link.
 
2014-02-28 02:07:27 PM

Publikwerks: [i.imgur.com image 800x495]


I'd piss on a sparkplug if I thought it would do any good
 
2014-02-28 02:08:28 PM
I'm sure Russian has no further territorial demands in Europe.  What could possibly go wrong...
 
2014-02-28 02:08:41 PM
We should have sent troops there the moment Russia started holding invasion drills.

Russia wouldn't have invaded if we were there because they don't want war with us any more than we do with them.

This could escalate into a war because we were too pussy to stand our ground.
 
2014-02-28 02:09:01 PM

PsiChick: Hey, Putin. Maybe we need to stand down now?

/I have very little sympathy for the aggressor, and promising to defend them means we need to act on that promise.
//Hopefully there's a way to solve this behind the scenes before war starts, but now we actually  need to intervene, and this phrase will never again be uttered by myself in this context.


It'd be really cool if, in the event of civil war, the UN could come in and stabilize the situation.  Then, a Swiss elections team could come in, administer a democratic election for a temporary government, and then everyone packs up and goes home.  No disputing the results (democracy, and all that).  No accusations of bias (Switzerland is a paragon of neutrality).  And very little bloodshed.
 
2014-02-28 02:09:12 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Pooty-poot will visit the front lines
[russianreport.files.wordpress.com image 604x350]


Much like Chuck Norris "visits" a bar-fight?
 
2014-02-28 02:09:43 PM

fireclown: What would be the downside be if the nation simply split?  The southeastern Ukranians pretty much consider themselves Russian anyway.


I thought half of Ukraine loves Putin?
 
2014-02-28 02:10:00 PM

CleanAndPure: We should have sent troops there the moment Russia started holding invasion drills.

Russia wouldn't have invaded if we were there because they don't want war with us any more than we do with them.

This could escalate into a war because we were too pussy to stand our ground.


See?  This is what happens when liberals demonize "stand your ground."
 
2014-02-28 02:10:35 PM

Makh: Everyone from Serbia to Ukraine should put "Inciting World Wars" as a skill on their LinkedIn.


Serbia?  Spark a World War?  Nah, that's crazy-talk.
 
2014-02-28 02:11:00 PM

Tomahawk513: PsiChick: Hey, Putin. Maybe we need to stand down now?

/I have very little sympathy for the aggressor, and promising to defend them means we need to act on that promise.
//Hopefully there's a way to solve this behind the scenes before war starts, but now we actually  need to intervene, and this phrase will never again be uttered by myself in this context.

It'd be really cool if, in the event of civil war, the UN could come in and stabilize the situation.  Then, a Swiss elections team could come in, administer a democratic election for a temporary government, and then everyone packs up and goes home.  No disputing the results (democracy, and all that).  No accusations of bias (Switzerland is a paragon of neutrality).  And very little bloodshed.


This would never happen because there's simply too much at stake for Russia to lose the Crimea.  Lose that, they lose their access to their warm water ports and navy.
 
2014-02-28 02:11:14 PM
Hey, Dave. What do we have in the bag for Russia in The Ukraine?

Looks like we drew 'issue platitude'.

Nobody seriously thinks we were going to do anything other than mouth off and stir up the shiat covertly.
 
2014-02-28 02:13:37 PM

Infernalist: This would never happen because there's simply too much at stake for Russia to lose the Crimea.  Lose that, they lose their access to their warm water ports and navy.


You know that they had access to all of that through all those 20+ years of Ukrainian independence, right?
 
2014-02-28 02:13:59 PM

Tomahawk513: PsiChick: Hey, Putin. Maybe we need to stand down now?

/I have very little sympathy for the aggressor, and promising to defend them means we need to act on that promise.
//Hopefully there's a way to solve this behind the scenes before war starts, but now we actually  need to intervene, and this phrase will never again be uttered by myself in this context.

It'd be really cool if, in the event of civil war, the UN could come in and stabilize the situation.  Then, a Swiss elections team could come in, administer a democratic election for a temporary government, and then everyone packs up and goes home.  No disputing the results (democracy, and all that).  No accusations of bias (Switzerland is a paragon of neutrality).  And very little bloodshed.


That would be a  really awesome solution.
 
2014-02-28 02:14:00 PM

FarkingReading:


All that picture needs is a shirtless Putin.

BBC this morning said that the route to Simferopol airport was blocked by troops wearing no insignia and they wouldn't respond when asked who they "belonged" to. The Ukrainians are claiming it's Russian naval forces.

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26 379722

/sorry, mo-bile farking
//slava ukraini
 
2014-02-28 02:14:28 PM

fireclown: Odoriferous Queef: Voiceofreason01: There are reports that Russian tanks are rolling into Crimea, which makes this a very different situation.

[citation needed]

/I can't find anything about this on the net

I agree.  That kind of statement at least warrants a link.


eh, I may have jumped the gun. It looks like it's just the one Washington Post article and the Russians are saying they're just moving forces in to secure their naval base.
 
2014-02-28 02:14:58 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Pooty-poot will visit the front lines


Must be nice to be a major world leader, and get to do that stuff for free. I usually have to pay extra if I want to ride bare-back.
 
2014-02-28 02:15:39 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Let's ask Georgia how that worked out.


houseofgeekery.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-28 02:16:01 PM
Thanks a lot Clinton
 
2014-02-28 02:17:16 PM
Make that the Sevastopol airport.

Reports are that a militia took the Simferopol airport.
 
2014-02-28 02:18:01 PM

LewDux: Infernalist: This would never happen because there's simply too much at stake for Russia to lose the Crimea.  Lose that, they lose their access to their warm water ports and navy.

You know that they had access to all of that through all those 20+ years of Ukrainian independence, right?


Of course, but most of that 20 years was spent with a pro-Russian government in Russia's back pocket and I don't know if you've noticed or not, but this new Ukrainian government is pretty much 'fark the Russians and the bears they rode in on.'

I'm not saying that the Ukrainian government will revoke Russia's lease on those port facilities, but if you're Putin do you 'really' want to take the chance of losing access to your only warm water ports?
 
2014-02-28 02:18:25 PM
If you have any friends or family in Ukraine, you should let them know now's a good time to leave.
 
2014-02-28 02:18:55 PM

Odoriferous Queef: Voiceofreason01: There are reports that Russian tanks are rolling into Crimea, which makes this a very different situation.

[citation needed]

/I can't find anything about this on the net


You better believe it because its on the net now. Fark is on the net and thats where you found it.


/oh yea, its the internet!
 
2014-02-28 02:18:56 PM

CleanAndPure: We should have sent troops there the moment Russia started holding invasion drills.

Russia wouldn't have invaded if we were there because they don't want war with us any more than we do with them.

This could escalate into a war because we were too pussy to stand our ground.


How long has it been since this situation really started to go beyond public protests?  A couple of weeks?  It's not the easiest (or smartest) thing to do to just send an army halfway around the world with no warning.
 
2014-02-28 02:19:00 PM
Let me help by putting this in Europa Universalis 4 terms.  Russia still has core claims on several Ukrainian provinces that still have the Russian culture. This causes 9.5% increased local revolt risk. Although Ukraine and NATO do not have a formal alliance yet, NATO has warned Russia, which will call them to war should Russia attack any neighbors. So for the moment, Russia isn't declaring open war, but has chosen to maintain a diplomat in Ukraine to fund revolts. However that diplomat has been discovered, and although progress continues, Russia has accrued 15 Aggressive Expansion points and is dangerously close to triggering a Coalition. Meanwhile the local rebels have managed to finish siegeing the province of Crimea and are close to enforcing their separatist demands.
 
2014-02-28 02:19:06 PM

Coconice: The scary part was seeing Biden making commentary in a link below the article.

I did not click the link to see what it said or if it was legit.

Just the threat of Biden shooting off his mouth qualifies for a [Holy shiat] tag.


It was support for the formation of the new government, not necessarily military support. Plus, Biden's greatest strength is his foreign affairs experience from his time in the Senate, so this is one of those areas where you'd expect him to step up.
 
2014-02-28 02:19:18 PM

fireclown: What would be the downside be if the nation simply split?  The southeastern Ukranians pretty much consider themselves Russian anyway.  Is there a national resources reason, a la Iraq, that they couldn't just splinter off?  Apart from all the tradgedy of divided families and the death of the velvet revolution and all that.


Because they are the ones who moved in from Russia after Stalin "relocated" all the original inhabitants.
 
2014-02-28 02:19:30 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, boys, I reckon this is it - nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies


As someone who grew up in the cold war, I'll be uselessly hiding under my desk.
 
2014-02-28 02:20:13 PM

CleanAndPure: We should have sent troops there the moment Russia started holding invasion drills.

Russia wouldn't have invaded if we were there because they don't want war with us any more than we do with them.

This could escalate into a war because we were too pussy to stand our ground.


You're cute.

It's still a sovereign nation, we can't just "send in troops". And they didn't invade, they are occupying their own military bases. The US would do the same if Italy fell into chaos, especially with the nukes on those bases and whatnot.

And I'll give you a 2/10 for the 'stand your ground'.

/haven't been following too closely, so I could be 100% not right
 
2014-02-28 02:21:03 PM

bidness: Let me help by putting this in Europa Universalis 4 terms.  Russia still has core claims on several Ukrainian provinces that still have the Russian culture. This causes 9.5% increased local revolt risk. Although Ukraine and NATO do not have a formal alliance yet, NATO has warned Russia, which will call them to war should Russia attack any neighbors. So for the moment, Russia isn't declaring open war, but has chosen to maintain a diplomat in Ukraine to fund revolts. However that diplomat has been discovered, and although progress continues, Russia has accrued 15 Aggressive Expansion points and is dangerously close to triggering a Coalition. Meanwhile the local rebels have managed to finish siegeing the province of Crimea and are close to enforcing their separatist demands.


You.  I like you.
 
2014-02-28 02:22:54 PM
Hi Ukraine.  We've transferred the management of that treaty to Best Buy.  We'll transfer you to a rep.

BBRep: Hello?  How can I help you?
Ukraine:  We have a treaty that says you'll come to our defense.
BBRep: Hello?  How can I help you?
Ukraine:  I said we have a treaty that needs enforced.
BBRep:  You can use words like "Help" or "Agent"
Ukraine:  Help I need an agent.
BBRep:  Thank you.  Transferring...  Billing and Contracts.  How can I help you?
Ukraine:  We have a treaty with Nato for common defense...
BBRep:  Oh sorry.  I only handle billing questions.  I don't know how you got this number.  I'll transfer you to Treaty Fullfillment.  One moment please.  No.  That's not the right one.  Glenda.  What number is treat full fill?  I got another moron that can't dial a .... Oh (Click)
BBRep:  Treat Full Fillment.  this is Dave.  How can I help  you?
Ukraine:  Finally!  I have a treaty with NATO to provide common defense.  We've got Russians on our border.  I need help now!
BBRep:  Yes, sir.  We'll have a carrier group sent right away.  I just need your Treaty Verification Number.  It's on your treaty.
Ukraine:  I have a Treaty Number and a Verification Number.  Which one do you want?
BBRep:  I need the Treaty Verification Number.  It's a 16 digit number.  Should be on your treaty.
Ukraine:  Can it start with a "T"?  I have one of those.
BBRep:  No.  That's a Treaty Authorization Code.  It should be a sixteen digit number. All numbers.
Ukraine:  I don't see that.
BBRep:  Well, I'll start processing the request to NATO anyways.  But we'll need that number.  I'll give you a 1-800 number that you can call when you find that number.  Would you be interested in an upgrade to your current treaty, Ukraine?
Ukraine:  Nyet!
BBRep:  No problem, Ukraine.  Is there anything else I can do for you today?
Ukraine:  Nyet.
BBRep:  Are you ready for that 1800 number Ukraine?
Ukraine:  Nyet.
BBRep:  Well, when  you are, you can call me back at any time.  Our desk services are from 11 AM to 1130 AM Central Swazitime and 3420 to 4260 Universal Metric Time.  Can I help you with anything else?
Ukraine:  Da!  Does Poland have same treaty vit NATO?  Just asking, da?
 
2014-02-28 02:23:13 PM
Tomahawk513:  (Switzerland is a paragon of neutrality).

They will take anyone's nazi gold and stolen renaissance art.
 
2014-02-28 02:23:46 PM

Voiceofreason01: fireclown: Odoriferous Queef: Voiceofreason01: There are reports that Russian tanks are rolling into Crimea, which makes this a very different situation.

[citation needed]

/I can't find anything about this on the net

I agree.  That kind of statement at least warrants a link.

eh, I may have jumped the gun. It looks like it's just the one Washington Post article and the Russians are saying they're just moving forces in to secure their naval base.


No problem.  Thanks for double checking.  I TOTALLY believe they're shoring up their bases, They'd be nuts not to.
 
2014-02-28 02:23:58 PM

Tomahawk513: PsiChick: Hey, Putin. Maybe we need to stand down now?

/I have very little sympathy for the aggressor, and promising to defend them means we need to act on that promise.
//Hopefully there's a way to solve this behind the scenes before war starts, but now we actually  need to intervene, and this phrase will never again be uttered by myself in this context.

It'd be really cool if, in the event of civil war, the UN could come in and stabilize the situation.  Then, a Swiss elections team could come in, administer a democratic election for a temporary government, and then everyone packs up and goes home.  No disputing the results (democracy, and all that).  No accusations of bias (Switzerland is a paragon of neutrality).  And very little bloodshed.


as someone who has four great grandparents who were born in Ukraine, that would be fantastic.  Odds of Russia letting that happen? divide by zero. :(
 
2014-02-28 02:26:06 PM

ShadowKamui: fireclown: What would be the downside be if the nation simply split?  The southeastern Ukranians pretty much consider themselves Russian anyway.  Is there a national resources reason, a la Iraq, that they couldn't just splinter off?  Apart from all the tradgedy of divided families and the death of the velvet revolution and all that.

Because they are the ones who moved in from Russia after Stalin "relocated" all the original inhabitants.


Ah.  The ol' East Jereusalem gambit.  Looks like it worked, because for whatever (absolutely reprehensible) reasons, the southeast is Russian.

/God I hate that corner of the world.
 
2014-02-28 02:29:49 PM
pact or no pact I would rank this request up high on the UMM HOW BOUT DEFINITELY NO List.

The odds of US or NATO troops/assets engaging in a DIRECT confrontation with Russian troops is almost nil.
 
2014-02-28 02:29:51 PM

fireclown: Odoriferous Queef: Voiceofreason01: There are reports that Russian tanks are rolling into Crimea, which makes this a very different situation.

[citation needed]

/I can't find anything about this on the net

I agree.  That kind of statement at least warrants a link.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/28/russia-invades-crime a- sends-armored-personnel-carr/
 
2014-02-28 02:30:39 PM

Magorn: netizencain: DamnYankees: Seems like it'd be pretty easy for us to sit this out on the basis that this is basically a civil war.

Civil war until the Russians cross the border

which they did yesterday in military helicopters

and the "People mIlitia of Crimea" the so called "ordinary people" who seized Crimea's Airports yesterday?

they all just happened to be dressed exactly alike in the latest Russian Military-issued full battle kit:
[cdn.theatlantic.com image 675x474]


Sorry boys - those faces give it away - only soldiers are that uniform in the LACK of facial hair.
 
2014-02-28 02:30:41 PM

Publikwerks: [i.imgur.com image 800x495]


i met barry corbin, wonderful guy.
 
2014-02-28 02:30:46 PM
Interesting. I feel pretty damn strong about your word being your bond, and your word being all you really have.

I want to see Ukraine free and safe from Russia. I know much, much more is ultimately at stake.

I don't have a problem with this.
 
2014-02-28 02:31:09 PM

Loris: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, boys, I reckon this is it - nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies

As someone who grew up in the cold war, I'll be uselessly hiding under my desk.


Move over

/I learned to duck and cover, too
 
2014-02-28 02:31:13 PM

LewDux: Infernalist: This would never happen because there's simply too much at stake for Russia to lose the Crimea.  Lose that, they lose their access to their warm water ports and navy.

You know that they had access to all of that through all those 20+ years of Ukrainian independence, right?


Not to mention that Khrushchev `gifted' the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954.

Tatars are pi*sed, but this is just as internecine BS as West allows it to be (and Europe loves that Russian Gas).
 
2014-02-28 02:32:05 PM
I say NATO should go in and wipe out those gunmen... Putin would lose face with his military, the Russians lose a ton of Spetznaz on a "disavowed" mission, and the Russian loyalists in the region suddenly get a lot meeker (and regional stability goes up).

Putin's attempt only works if the west backs down from its promises... and if it succeeds, its bad news for the rest of Eastern Europe.
 
2014-02-28 02:32:36 PM

unlikely: Wow, that's kind of a pickle. On the one hand, no WAY we'll get involved in that. On the other hand, that's it for credibility in treaties...


americangallery.files.wordpress.com

Uhhh....
 
2014-02-28 02:32:48 PM
Fire up the drones.
 
2014-02-28 02:33:10 PM

Kuta: It sounds to me like Russia is helping out the Ukraine by stopping a civil war.

They're just not helping out like the West wants them to help.


do yuu mean "The West" or the western half of Ukrania? There's a difference.
 
2014-02-28 02:33:19 PM

beefoe: We'll at least Harold Ramis can save them!

[www.morethings.com image 308x465]


well not any more, which is what the ruskies were waiting for.
 
2014-02-28 02:35:13 PM

CygnusDarius: Might as well play this in the streets.



/This game nearly killed my chances to go to college


Hell march time!
 
2014-02-28 02:35:24 PM
Make no mistake about it, no one in the West wants to get involved in this mess.  It's Russia's backyard, after all.  That said, the Ukrainians are screaming blood murder about the whole mess and we don't live in an age of 'official information' anymore where the US can tell its networks that everything over there is fine.

Publicly, we'll tell the Russians to play nice.  Privately, deal-making will be made with an eye upon maintaining Ukrainian independence while allowing the Russians to have their warm water ports.
 
2014-02-28 02:35:26 PM

Andy Andy: Magorn: netizencain: DamnYankees: Seems like it'd be pretty easy for us to sit this out on the basis that this is basically a civil war.

Civil war until the Russians cross the border

which they did yesterday in military helicopters

and the "People mIlitia of Crimea" the so called "ordinary people" who seized Crimea's Airports yesterday?

they all just happened to be dressed exactly alike in the latest Russian Military-issued full battle kit:
[cdn.theatlantic.com image 675x474]

Plus, Honda apparently sent at least one of their soldiers which is pretty unnerving.


He's just there to slap the shiat out of anyone who steps out of line.

/He's lost a lot of weight since last time I saw him.
 
2014-02-28 02:35:48 PM
Who cares?  They have no nukes and 20 year old peace of paper.  We have nukes and the world's best military.
 
2014-02-28 02:35:58 PM

bidness: Let me help by putting this in Europa Universalis 4 terms.  Russia still has core claims on several Ukrainian provinces that still have the Russian culture. This causes 9.5% increased local revolt risk. Although Ukraine and NATO do not have a formal alliance yet, NATO has warned Russia, which will call them to war should Russia attack any neighbors. So for the moment, Russia isn't declaring open war, but has chosen to maintain a diplomat in Ukraine to fund revolts. However that diplomat has been discovered, and although progress continues, Russia has accrued 15 Aggressive Expansion points and is dangerously close to triggering a Coalition. Meanwhile the local rebels have managed to finish siegeing the province of Crimea and are close to enforcing their separatist demands.


And like the sun suddenly emerging from behind clouds, I see everything clearly now.
 
2014-02-28 02:36:03 PM
So... how long till we restart the cold war?  Or maybe skip that and go straight to surface of the sun war.
 
2014-02-28 02:36:04 PM

lindalouwho: Interesting. I feel pretty damn strong about your word being your bond, and your word being all you really have.

I want to see Ukraine free and safe from Russia. I know much, much more is ultimately at stake.

I don't have a problem with this.


It's a lot more than just keeping our word.  If NATO abrogates a treaty guaranteeing Ukrainian sovereignty, there are a lot of countries in that area who will start having second thoughts about their diplomatic alignment. NATO has to do something or it's the same as letting the Germans occupy the Rhineland.
 
2014-02-28 02:37:27 PM

Crazy Lee: LewDux: Infernalist: This would never happen because there's simply too much at stake for Russia to lose the Crimea.  Lose that, they lose their access to their warm water ports and navy.

You know that they had access to all of that through all those 20+ years of Ukrainian independence, right?

Not to mention that Khrushchev `gifted' the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954.

Tatars are pi*sed, but this is just as internecine BS as West allows it to be (and Europe loves that Russian Gas).


He gifted it to them because Crimea has 0 drinkable water w/o access to Ukraine.  Its about as dumb as Vegas trying to split from Nevada w/o Lake Mead
 
2014-02-28 02:37:37 PM

LewDux: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Let's ask Georgia how that worked out.

Georgia had nukes?


Yes and no. They had nuclear reactors and research facilities, not weapons the way Ukraine did.
 
2014-02-28 02:38:01 PM
Well subs, the article says that the treaty was signed by the US, the UK and Russia.
Maybe we're only allowed to defend them against countries that didn't sign the treaty?
 
2014-02-28 02:38:26 PM

PreMortem: It's still a sovereign nation, we can't just "send in troops". And they didn't invade, they are occupying their own military bases. The US would do the same if Italy fell into chaos, especially with the nukes on those bases and whatnot.



The Russian "Militia" (who are wearing identical sets of kit which Russia started issuing to its regulars 2-3 years ago) are occupying the civilian (non-military and fully Ukrainian) airports in the Simferopol and Sevastopol areas.  Military forces crossing borders to occupy foreign territory is the classic definition of an invasion.

Plus back in Kosovo circa 1999 Russian troops pulled something similar (seizing the main airport) in order to allow them to quickly fly in reinforcements (a full Brigade IIRC).
 
2014-02-28 02:38:32 PM

LesserEvil: I say NATO should go in and wipe out those gunmen... Putin would lose face with his military, the Russians lose a ton of Spetznaz on a "disavowed" mission, and the Russian loyalists in the region suddenly get a lot meeker (and regional stability goes up).


Wait a second. You mean foreign troops, which were most explicitly NOT invited by local population, should invade the foreign country without a declaration of war and wipe out local civilian population (doesn't matter if they are or aren't; they would be local civilian population by the time you have finished executing them)?

And you feel it's a proper behavior?

And you think _Russians_ are evil?
 
2014-02-28 02:38:39 PM

Voiceofreason01: DamnYankees: Seems like it'd be pretty easy for us to sit this out on the basis that this is basically a civil war.

There are reports that Russian tanks are rolling into Crimea, which makes this a very different situation.


And somebody shut down all of our A-10s because we were never going to need tankbusters again.
 
2014-02-28 02:38:51 PM

Born_Again_Bavarian: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/28/russia-invades-crime a- sends-armored-personnel-carr/


It's the Washington Times. They're not a legitimate source for anything. From all the other sources out there (starting with BBC) it looks like there may be a few armored personnel carriers on the roads to and from the naval base, but nothing that warrants a "they're sending in the tanks" kind of headline.

//Putin's not stupid. He's not going to send the whole damn army rolling into Ukraine. Just gradually take control of the region step by step such that there's no one particularly overt act that the west can use to justify force.
 
2014-02-28 02:39:46 PM

LesserEvil: I say NATO should go in and wipe out those gunmen... Putin would lose face with his military, the Russians lose a ton of Spetznaz on a "disavowed" mission, and the Russian loyalists in the region suddenly get a lot meeker (and regional stability goes up).

Putin's attempt only works if the west backs down from its promises... and if it succeeds, its bad news for the rest of Eastern Europe.


I'm glad you're not POTUS then because I believe that is EXACTLY what Putin wants. He's laying a bear trap for the Ukranians and foreign/NATO intervention into Ukraine will mostly likely play into his hands. It means he will get back Crimea. All he needs is a single NATO troops or a single tire track of NATO vehhicle on Ukranian soil and you just gave him a bunch of leverage to exercise his plan.
 
2014-02-28 02:40:20 PM

hawcian: Coconice: The scary part was seeing Biden making commentary in a link below the article.

I did not click the link to see what it said or if it was legit.

Just the threat of Biden shooting off his mouth qualifies for a [Holy shiat] tag.

It was support for the formation of the new government, not necessarily military support. Plus, Biden's greatest strength is his foreign affairs experience from his time in the Senate, so this is one of those areas where you'd expect him to step up.


I think the Urainians already have all of the shot guns they need.
 
2014-02-28 02:40:59 PM

PreMortem: CleanAndPure: We should have sent troops there the moment Russia started holding invasion drills.

Russia wouldn't have invaded if we were there because they don't want war with us any more than we do with them.

This could escalate into a war because we were too pussy to stand our ground.

You're cute.

It's still a sovereign nation, we can't just "send in troops". And they didn't invade, they are occupying their own military bases. The US would do the same if Italy fell into chaos, especially with the nukes on those bases and whatnot.

And I'll give you a 2/10 for the 'stand your ground'.


/haven't been following too closely, so I could be 100% not right


Sorry let me help you with that.
 
2014-02-28 02:41:42 PM

fireclown: What would be the downside be if the nation simply split?  The southeastern Ukranians pretty much consider themselves Russian anyway.  Is there a national resources reason, a la Iraq, that they couldn't just splinter off?  Apart from all the tradgedy of divided families and the death of the velvet revolution and all that.


Take a look at this map of Ukraine
www.lib.utexas.edu
You see that peninsula at the bottom?  That's Crimea.  If it breaks away from Ukraine, it will, de acto or de jure become part of Russia.   If that happens Russia gets a bottleneck that effectively allow it to control access to the Black Sea for nearly Half of Ukraine land mass and many of its major cities.   It would make Ukraine itself a satellite of Russia just as surely as if it still had an SSR after its name
 
2014-02-28 02:41:44 PM

jaybeezey: Kuta: It sounds to me like Russia is helping out the Ukraine by stopping a civil war.

They're just not helping out like the West wants them to help.

do yuu mean "The West" or the western half of Ukrania? There's a difference.


The article said that Ukraine has a treaty with the US, UK and Russia.

Russia is "helping" out. Is that sufficient for the terms of the treaty? Yeah, sucks to be in Kiev right now, but the UK and US will probably not do anything militarily--Russia already is.

So, eastern Ukraine will join the already autonomous Crimea in a separate state. Russia will get what it wants. Kiev will get what it wants. If Russia marches on Kiev, there could be serious trouble, but I hope they don't go there.
 
2014-02-28 02:42:19 PM

Grahor: Wait a second. You mean foreign troops, which were most explicitly NOT invited by local population, should invade the foreign country without a declaration of war and wipe out local civilian population (doesn't matter if they are or aren't; they would be local civilian population by the time you have finished executing them)?


There are an awful lot of people on here who seem to think its no big deal for NATO troops to just waltz into Ukraine, occupy a territory where they seemingly would NOT be welcomed, and then dispatch the Russian troops they may find there. As if everyone would look around and say "well, I guess that settles it."

There's a reason why, even in Vietnam and Korea, we stopped short of directly engaging the Russians in open warfare.
 
2014-02-28 02:42:46 PM

MylesHeartVodak: And somebody shut down all of our A-10s because we were never going to need tankbusters again.


Hagerstown Maryland checking in: You want more A-10s, we'll be happy to start building 'em again.   Just show up at Town Hall with a purchase order.
 
2014-02-28 02:42:53 PM

vpb: It didn't specify what methods we would use to protect them from aggression.  I think that Ukraine would have to commit it's own armed forces before they would plausible demand that anyone send them military help.

Besides, the Crimea seceding from Ukraine is probably not what most people would regard as "outer aggression", even if Ukraine sends in troops to hold on to it.


I don't even see anything in the actual agreement that says they will defend Ukraine in the event of outer aggression.  What am I missing?  I'm asking seriously, not sarcastically (all the summaries say it means that, so I'll admit the problem is probably on my end).
 
2014-02-28 02:43:46 PM

LesserEvil: I say NATO should go in and wipe out those gunmen... Putin would lose face with his military, the Russians lose a ton of Spetznaz on a "disavowed" mission, and the Russian loyalists in the region suddenly get a lot meeker (and regional stability goes up).

Putin's attempt only works if the west backs down from its promises... and if it succeeds, its bad news for the rest of Eastern Europe.


Well, it would be a good test of the NATO Response Force, which mostly has just handed out humanitarian relief supplies the few times it's deployed.
 
2014-02-28 02:45:16 PM

fireclown: MylesHeartVodak: And somebody shut down all of our A-10s because we were never going to need tankbusters again.

Hagerstown Maryland checking in: You want more A-10s, we'll be happy to start building 'em again.   Just show up at Town Hall with a purchase order.


Sorry, but you've been diverted to building crappy outlet malls.
 
2014-02-28 02:45:30 PM

Grahor: LesserEvil: I say NATO should go in and wipe out those gunmen... Putin would lose face with his military, the Russians lose a ton of Spetznaz on a "disavowed" mission, and the Russian loyalists in the region suddenly get a lot meeker (and regional stability goes up).

Wait a second. You mean foreign troops, which were most explicitly NOT invited by local population, should invade the foreign country without a declaration of war and wipe out local civilian population (doesn't matter if they are or aren't; they would be local civilian population by the time you have finished executing them)?

And you feel it's a proper behavior?

And you think _Russians_ are evil?


I'm assuming the Ukraine asks for military intervention, at which point, we honor the treaty and give it to them.

Those aren't locals they'd be fighting, they're Russian military. Certainly not a cakewalk, but unless Russia is prepared to fully support them (logistics are still a thing, you know), they are toast if a multi-national force comes in.

I could care less what separatists think. That doesn't come into play with treaty obligations - the Ukraine is still the legal government, in the world's eyes.

Let Putin get away with this, and he'll take it to the next level. As others have mentioned, Crimea can't really stand alone and hostile to the Ukraine, anyway, but who knows what sort of play comes next?
 
2014-02-28 02:45:46 PM

dukeblue219: Born_Again_Bavarian: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/28/russia-invades-crime a- sends-armored-personnel-carr/

It's the Washington Times. They're not a legitimate source for anything. From all the other sources out there (starting with BBC) it looks like there may be a few armored personnel carriers on the roads to and from the naval base, but nothing that warrants a "they're sending in the tanks" kind of headline.

//Putin's not stupid. He's not going to send the whole damn army rolling into Ukraine. Just gradually take control of the region step by step such that there's no one particularly overt act that the west can use to justify force.


Agree.  It could very well be just that.  But the statement was that Russian APCs and tanks were rolling into Crimea.  Someone asked for a link.  I provided the link.
 
2014-02-28 02:46:49 PM

Magorn: You see that peninsula at the bottom? That's Crimea. If it breaks away from Ukraine, it will, de acto or de jure become part of Russia. If that happens Russia gets a bottleneck that effectively allow it to control access to the Black Sea for nearly Half of Ukraine land mass and many of its major cities. It would make Ukraine itself a satellite of Russia just as surely as if it still had an SSR after its name


Thanks for elevating the thread.  Wouldn't that also be the case for any of the Russian territory to the East of the pennensula?  Could they not build a port in Tuapse, for example and still pretty much own the black sea?
 
2014-02-28 02:46:59 PM

Via Infinito: Well subs, the article says that the treaty was signed by the US, the UK and Russia.
Maybe we're only allowed to defend them against countries that didn't sign the treaty?

Not only that, but the legitimate elected government of Ukraine is the ousted one that is on the side of Russia against the protesters who have simply taken over the government buildings. If we honored the treaty, we would have to side with the elected government which is the side the Russians are backing -- not the protesters.
 
2014-02-28 02:47:26 PM

Marcellinus: fireclown: MylesHeartVodak: And somebody shut down all of our A-10s because we were never going to need tankbusters again.

Hagerstown Maryland checking in: You want more A-10s, we'll be happy to start building 'em again.   Just show up at Town Hall with a purchase order.

Sorry, but you've been diverted to building crappy outlet malls.


It's not like we're HAPPY about that.
 
2014-02-28 02:47:30 PM
It also bears repeating that most of the Pro-Russian types in Crimea and the other southern/eastern regions are Russians that immigrated into the region after Papa Stalin sent a lot of Ukrainians to Siberia.
 
2014-02-28 02:48:55 PM
media.washtimes.com
Oh please, is this a joke picture? It's hard to get too worked up about this.
Those APCs were scary, in 1965.
These days we could take them out with drones. I guess we have to take them seriously, but it hard.
 
2014-02-28 02:49:27 PM

fireclown: MylesHeartVodak: And somebody shut down all of our A-10s because we were never going to need tankbusters again.

Hagerstown Maryland checking in: You want more A-10s, we'll be happy to start building 'em again.   Just show up at Town Hall with a purchase order.


Stand by - could be a windfall of work headed your way.
 
2014-02-28 02:51:10 PM

JK47: PreMortem: It's still a sovereign nation, we can't just "send in troops". And they didn't invade, they are occupying their own military bases. The US would do the same if Italy fell into chaos, especially with the nukes on those bases and whatnot.


The Russian "Militia" (who are wearing identical sets of kit which Russia started issuing to its regulars 2-3 years ago) are occupying the civilian (non-military and fully Ukrainian) airports in the Simferopol and Sevastopol areas.  Military forces crossing borders to occupy foreign territory is the classic definition of an invasion.

Plus back in Kosovo circa 1999 Russian troops pulled something similar (seizing the main airport) in order to allow them to quickly fly in reinforcements (a full Brigade IIRC).


Daily Beast has an exclusive that claims those troops are Russian civilian contractors, a la Blackwater. Nice cutout for the Russians, gives them plausible deniability while still getting what they want.
 
2014-02-28 02:51:22 PM
Well I'm sure the UK will be into going into Crimea again.
 
2014-02-28 02:52:07 PM

SuperNinjaToad: LesserEvil: I say NATO should go in and wipe out those gunmen... Putin would lose face with his military, the Russians lose a ton of Spetznaz on a "disavowed" mission, and the Russian loyalists in the region suddenly get a lot meeker (and regional stability goes up).

Putin's attempt only works if the west backs down from its promises... and if it succeeds, its bad news for the rest of Eastern Europe.

I'm glad you're not POTUS then because I believe that is EXACTLY what Putin wants. He's laying a bear trap for the Ukranians and foreign/NATO intervention into Ukraine will mostly likely play into his hands. It means he will get back Crimea. All he needs is a single NATO troops or a single tire track of NATO vehhicle on Ukranian soil and you just gave him a bunch of leverage to exercise his plan.



Yea, if I were Ukraine I'd just divert all civil aircraft away from that airport (or airports), and encircle it with my own troops, but without moving in or making any effort to engage.  Allow any Russian aircraft to depart the airport without restriction.  Basically the ball would be in Russia's court.
 
2014-02-28 02:53:45 PM
Nothing will happen because the treaty is (deliberately) vaguely worded so that so that any obligation to act can be negated by arguing over legal definitions of words like "attack" and "defend".

This is what happened in Rwanda back in the 90s, when the wrangling over the the definition of "genocide" was used as an excuse for inaction, despite 800,000 people murdered in ~100 days because of their ethnicity.
 
2014-02-28 02:55:54 PM
The nice thing about living in DC is that I will probably never know what hit me.
 
2014-02-28 02:55:58 PM
I wonder how practical it would be to split the Ukraine into a Ukrainian and a Russian state?

Probably not a good idea, I know. It smacks of appeasement and the Russians would be sure to grab the other half back on some flimsy pretext some day. I wouldn't care to betray the Ukrainians that way, but the geography is sound at least.

I sure hope that we are not sleep-walking our way to World War "x" (where x is any whole number from 3 to 5).

The souring relations between China and Japan are a worry also, as is the risk of China simply taking over Siberia rather than infiltrating it as they have been doing.

China needs resources and have been buying land and agricultural companies every where from Central Asia to the US (they bought your biggest pork producers, Smithfield whatchamacallem in pursuit of food security which may or may not be a will-o-the-wisp.

So many potential hot zones that could be turned volcanic by climate change and the economic aspirations of the not-so-poor developing countries (first BRIC and now MINT).

Brazil
Russia
India
China

Mexico
Indonesia
Nigeria
Turkey.

These have long been military and economic threats for some of the world. They may soon be threats for all of the world.

I'm an optimist. I expect the worst and hope for the best. It's so much better than expecting all of those black swans waiting in the wings, because them babies are a thousand times worse than the worst you can count on. Being a pessimist is a sorry business. THERE'S NO BOTTOM TO WHAT IS POSSIBLE, ONLY TO WHAT IS CREDIBLE.
 
2014-02-28 02:56:26 PM
I don't think it's fair to say that most Crimeans want to be Russians. Some do. Quite a lot of them don't, even if they want the Russian language to be officially recognized.
 
2014-02-28 02:56:45 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-28 02:56:58 PM

tinyarena: [media.washtimes.com image 630x365]
Oh please, is this a joke picture? It's hard to get too worked up about this.
Those APCs were scary, in 1965.
These days we could take them out with drones. I guess we have to take them seriously, but it hard.


Those are BTR-80s, which are the equivalent of American Strykers. Not obsolete at all. Better than the Bradley in some ways. Drones can take out most tanks; that's what the Hellfire missile was originally designed for.
 
2014-02-28 02:57:20 PM

fireclown: MylesHeartVodak: And somebody shut down all of our A-10s because we were never going to need tankbusters again.

Hagerstown Maryland checking in: You want more A-10s, we'll be happy to start building 'em again.   Just show up at Town Hall with a purchase order.


You should look into another line of work.   At least for the next few years.
 
2014-02-28 02:58:05 PM
I'd be interested to see how many soldiers from different Russian battalions "retired" to go work for these companies about 2 weeks ago?
 
2014-02-28 02:58:37 PM

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: The nice thing about living in DC is that I will probably never know what hit me.


I have it on good authority that the metro tunnels will survive more or less intact.
 
2014-02-28 02:59:02 PM

LesserEvil: Those aren't locals they'd be fighting, they're Russian military. Certainly not a cakewalk, but unless Russia is prepared to fully support them (logistics are still a thing, you know), they are toast if a multi-national force comes in.



Russia doesn't have far to go and its forces are positioned adjacent to the Ukrainian frontier.  It will likely bolster it's hold on Crimea using the Sevastopol fleet base as well as the military airports they possess and civilian ones they seize.  That would allow them to bring in their airborne forces while their mechanized forces in the north keep the over-matched and undermanned Ukrainian military pinned down.  In the meantime NATO naval forces will basically be operating from the Aegean until the Russian Navy is neutralized since transiting the Bosporus and Dardanelles would be extremely unwise if Russian Naval forces are in range with ASM's (also assuming they don't mine both straits).  So absent access to the Black Sea for amphibious operations that leaves the overland option meaning NATO will need bases and infrastructure in eastern Poland (likely too close to Belarus for this scenario) or Romania (added difficulty being no ocean access (see above).  Also, reinforcements from the West will have to contend with that Russia supported pocket in Moldova as well as with Serbia who would, no doubt, look forward to an opportunity to frustrate NATO's goals.

Basically, you're thinking of the old Russian military and not how it current functions, and while you're right that logistics are an issue they are more of an issue for NATO than Russia.  Advantage Russia.
 
2014-02-28 03:01:42 PM
wac.9ebf.edgecastcdn.net
 
2014-02-28 03:02:43 PM
3rd ACR and 1st armored could move in and really fark some things up - also the German tankers are VERY good - we could run 24hr drone based warfare on the Russians in theater from air bases in Germany. The brits could jump in with some bombers and their pocket carriers would be a welcome addition to naval forces in the area.
 
2014-02-28 03:03:12 PM

Magorn: fireclown: What would be the downside be if the nation simply split?  The southeastern Ukranians pretty much consider themselves Russian anyway.  Is there a national resources reason, a la Iraq, that they couldn't just splinter off?  Apart from all the tradgedy of divided families and the death of the velvet revolution and all that.

Take a look at this map of Ukraine

You see that peninsula at the bottom?  That's Crimea.  If it breaks away from Ukraine, it will, de acto or de jure become part of Russia.   If that happens Russia gets a bottleneck that effectively allow it to control access to the Black Sea for nearly Half of Ukraine land mass and many of its major cities.   It would make Ukraine itself a satellite of Russia just as surely as if it still had an SSR after its name


They would still have a port on the black sea, with similar access as Romania and Bulgaria, and access to the west via NATO and EU members Poland and Slovakia and Hungary.
 
2014-02-28 03:04:36 PM
Tomahawk513:

It'd be really cool if, in the event of civil war, the UN could come in and stabilize the situation.  Then, a Swiss elections team could come in, administer a democratic election for a temporary government, and then everyone packs up and goes home.  No disputing the results (democracy, and all that).  No accusations of bias (Switzerland is a paragon of neutrality).  And very little bloodshed.

Uh yeah. Untill the dude they elect does something that is good for the Ukrainian economy, but unpopular with the population, and we have the same shiat again.

Once people gets used to being able to topple legitimate elected governments, see Egypt, you might as well just have a millitary dictatorship.
 
2014-02-28 03:05:23 PM

brantgoose: I wonder how practical it would be to split the Ukraine into a Ukrainian and a Russian state?Probably not a good idea, I know. It smacks of appeasement


Did it "smack of appeasement" when Czechoslovakia was split up? Did it "smack of appeasement" when Yugoslavia was split up? Did it "smack of appeasement" when Sudan was split up? Did it "smack of appeasement" when Ethiopia was split up?

Is the right of self-determination only applicable to certain groups and not others?
 
2014-02-28 03:05:37 PM
(Switzerland is a paragon of neutrality)

This was disproven a decade ago.  They NEVER were nuetral.
 
2014-02-28 03:05:59 PM
From the Guardian:

"Political leaders moved fast in Moscow with the parliament rapidly introducing a law that would make it easier for new territories to be added to Russia's existing borders, a move that seemed directly linked to events in Crimea. The bill would allow for regions to join Russia by referendum if its host country does not have a "legitimate government". "If as the result of a referendum, Crimea appeals to Russia with a desire to join us, we should have the legal mechanisms to answer," said MP Elena Mizulina."

Probably just a coincidence that they voted on this just now, right?
 
2014-02-28 03:06:02 PM
Crimea river.
 
2014-02-28 03:06:42 PM
Is this a landwar in Asia?

www.slowmuse.com
 
2014-02-28 03:06:58 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Well I'm sure the UK will be into going into Crimea again.


'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldiers knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
 
2014-02-28 03:07:23 PM

Alien Robot: Did it "smack of appeasement" when Czechoslovakia was split up?


That's pretty much the prototypical example of appeasement, yes.

ww2gravestone.com
 
2014-02-28 03:07:36 PM
No worries, Ukraine. The US has a long and proud tradition of ALWAYS fully honoring every single treaty it signs. Well, almost always.

indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com
 
2014-02-28 03:08:12 PM

Keith Dudemeister: From the Guardian:

"Political leaders moved fast in Moscow with the parliament rapidly introducing a law that would make it easier for new territories to be added to Russia's existing borders, a move that seemed directly linked to events in Crimea. The bill would allow for regions to join Russia by referendum if its host country does not have a "legitimate government". "If as the result of a referendum, Crimea appeals to Russia with a desire to join us, we should have the legal mechanisms to answer," said MP Elena Mizulina."

Probably just a coincidence that they voted on this just now, right?


They're showing their hand.  They're not willing to go full 'invasion' on Ukraine, so they're going to use a political method to absorb Crimea.
 
2014-02-28 03:09:38 PM

mbillips:
Those are BTR-80s, which are the equivalent of American Strykers. Not obsolete at all. Better than the Bradley in some ways. Drones can take out most tanks; that's what the Hellfire missile was originally designed for.


Nope, sorry, scroll through the pictures moar, based on the egg shape of their forward hatches, those are BTR-70s
And they really were built in the 1960s

Slow, cramped, easy to kill
meh
 
2014-02-28 03:09:49 PM

youmightberight: 3rd ACR and 1st armored could move in and really fark some things up - also the German tankers are VERY good - we could run 24hr drone based warfare on the Russians in theater from air bases in Germany. The brits could jump in with some bombers and their pocket carriers would be a welcome addition to naval forces in the area.


How long to clear through all the dead EU protestors littering the highways?
 
2014-02-28 03:10:06 PM
youmightberight: "... The brits could jump in with some bombers and their pocket carriers would be a welcome addition to naval forces in the area."

Thier what ?

  Brits....  carriers ?
 
2014-02-28 03:10:53 PM

PreMortem: CleanAndPure: We should have sent troops there the moment Russia started holding invasion drills.

Russia wouldn't have invaded if we were there because they don't want war with us any more than we do with them.

This could escalate into a war because we were too pussy to stand our ground.

You're cute.

It's still a sovereign nation, we can't just "send in troops". And they didn't invade, they are occupying their own military bases. The US would do the same if Italy fell into chaos, especially with the nukes on those bases and whatnot.

And I'll give you a 2/10 for the 'stand your ground'.

/haven't been following too closely, so I could be 100% not right


They want us there. So yes... they would welcome our troops.

Russia has sent troops. Military jets and helicopters(and by some reports tanks) into Crimea without Ukraine's approval. That is a mini invasion.

I would probably support Crimea's call for independence from Ukraine. The people will it and people should chose their own governance.

However Russia sending military there is worrying. I can see Russia overstepping Crimea and taking the whole country.

They got their way in Georgia. They kinda got their way in Syria propping up their despot friend.

They've been testing the west for a while and starting slowly chipping away new territories. It will be Poland before long.
 
2014-02-28 03:11:03 PM

AngryDragon: lindalouwho: Interesting. I feel pretty damn strong about your word being your bond, and your word being all you really have.

I want to see Ukraine free and safe from Russia. I know much, much more is ultimately at stake.

I don't have a problem with this.

It's a lot more than just keeping our word.  If NATO abrogates a treaty guaranteeing Ukrainian sovereignty, there are a lot of countries in that area who will start having second thoughts about their diplomatic alignment. NATO has to do something or it's the same as letting the Germans occupy the Rhineland.


Are you saying that everyone agrees that Crimea belongs to Russia?
 
2014-02-28 03:11:19 PM

youmightberight: PreMortem: CleanAndPure: We should have sent troops there the moment Russia started holding invasion drills.

Russia wouldn't have invaded if we were there because they don't want war with us any more than we do with them.

This could escalate into a war because we were too pussy to stand our ground.

You're cute.

It's still a sovereign nation, we can't just "send in troops". And they didn't invade, they are occupying their own military bases. The US would do the same if Italy fell into chaos, especially with the nukes on those bases and whatnot.

And I'll give you a 2/10 for the 'stand your ground'.

/haven't been following too closely, so I could be 100% not right

Sorry let me help you with that.


I'm sorry, what was wrong with that and what evidence do you have to support your counter aguements?

I thought so. Go take a nap. Mad Dog 20/20 is not for the weak.
 
2014-02-28 03:11:53 PM

jshine: Alien Robot: Did it "smack of appeasement" when Czechoslovakia was split up?

That's pretty much the prototypical example of appeasement, yes.


Zombie Chamberlain was involved in the post soviet split of the Czech Republic and Slovakia?!? Woah.
 
2014-02-28 03:11:56 PM
images.sodahead.com
 
2014-02-28 03:11:59 PM

youmightberight: 3rd ACR and 1st armored could move in and really fark some things up - also the German tankers are VERY good - we could run 24hr drone based warfare on the Russians in theater from air bases in Germany. The brits could jump in with some bombers and their pocket carriers would be a welcome addition to naval forces in the area.



The 3rd is now the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, equipped with Strykers, and located at Fort Hood.  Likewise the 1st Armored is now garrisoned at Fort Bliss.  Both of the heavy brigades in Germany (the 170th and 172nd) were drawn down over the last couple years.  We have one airborne and one stryker brigade in Germany, that's it.

As for the German Army, they're down to 60,000 men with five armored brigades and in the near future they'll only be operating 225 Leopard 2's.

As for the Royal Navy, all three of the Invincible Class carriers were mothballed years ago and their Harrier aircraft were sold off.
 
2014-02-28 03:12:23 PM
www.streetsblog.org

Troops, tighten your chin straps!
 
2014-02-28 03:14:05 PM

Infernalist: LewDux: Infernalist: This would never happen because there's simply too much at stake for Russia to lose the Crimea.  Lose that, they lose their access to their warm water ports and navy.

You know that they had access to all of that through all those 20+ years of Ukrainian independence, right?

Of course, but most of that 20 years was spent with a pro-Russian government in Russia's back pocket and I don't know if you've noticed or not, but this new Ukrainian government is pretty much 'fark the Russians and the bears they rode in on.'

I'm not saying that the Ukrainian government will revoke Russia's lease on those port facilities, but if you're Putin do you 'really' want to take the chance of losing access to your only warm water ports?



You keep saying that but you need to look at a map.  Russia has plenty of ports on the Black Sea.  Sochi, for one
 
2014-02-28 03:14:12 PM

netcentric: youmightberight: "... The brits could jump in with some bombers and their pocket carriers would be a welcome addition to naval forces in the area."

Thier what ?

  Brits....  carriers ?


Invincible-class aircraft carriers.
 
2014-02-28 03:15:27 PM
We would be taking this treaty a lot more seriously if this was happening on the White Sea. Typical.
 
2014-02-28 03:16:26 PM

JK47: youmightberight: 3rd ACR and 1st armored could move in and really fark some things up - also the German tankers are VERY good - we could run 24hr drone based warfare on the Russians in theater from air bases in Germany. The brits could jump in with some bombers and their pocket carriers would be a welcome addition to naval forces in the area.


The 3rd is now the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, equipped with Strykers, and located at Fort Hood.  Likewise the 1st Armored is now garrisoned at Fort Bliss.  Both of the heavy brigades in Germany (the 170th and 172nd) were drawn down over the last couple years.  We have one airborne and one stryker brigade in Germany, that's it.

As for the German Army, they're down to 60,000 men with five armored brigades and in the near future they'll only be operating 225 Leopard 2's.

As for the Royal Navy, all three of the Invincible Class carriers were mothballed years ago and their Harrier aircraft were sold off.


Nothing is as sad as the Royal Canadian Navy with 8,500 regulars.  I do think we need to cut back troop numbers and it's time the rest of the free world to start subsidizing us.
 
2014-02-28 03:16:54 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: jshine: Alien Robot: Did it "smack of appeasement" when Czechoslovakia was split up?

That's pretty much the prototypical example of appeasement, yes.

Zombie Chamberlain was involved in the post soviet split of the Czech Republic and Slovakia?!? Woah.



Czechoslovakia had been "split up" before that.  Zombie Chamberlain (well, live-Chamberlain at the time) was involved in negotiating the Munich Agreement of 1938 which also split up Czechoslovakia & precipitated the "peace for our time" quote.

Your sentence was ambiguous as to which split-up you meant, and one of them -- the one I referenced -- is basically the prototypical example of failed appeasement.
 
2014-02-28 03:17:17 PM

Infernalist: Keith Dudemeister: From the Guardian:

"Political leaders moved fast in Moscow with the parliament rapidly introducing a law that would make it easier for new territories to be added to Russia's existing borders, a move that seemed directly linked to events in Crimea. The bill would allow for regions to join Russia by referendum if its host country does not have a "legitimate government". "If as the result of a referendum, Crimea appeals to Russia with a desire to join us, we should have the legal mechanisms to answer," said MP Elena Mizulina."

Probably just a coincidence that they voted on this just now, right?

They're showing their hand.  They're not willing to go full 'invasion' on Ukraine, so they're going to use a political method to absorb Crimea.


It's fascinating. I mean, psychotically dangerous in the sense that it could trigger WW III, but fascinating nonetheless. Putin is gambling that Europe and Amurica have no appetite for an actual war, and that the response from the west will be a bunch of blustery talk from diplomats and maybe some trade sanctions of some kind. The Russian response will be jerking off motions on a national level. Like Putin gives a fark about sanctions.
 
2014-02-28 03:17:58 PM
Whynare the St Barry Fanbois wanting war with Russia? War with Russia will not end well. In fact if the US and Russia go at it I,'m gonna try and make it to the other hemisphere before the nuclear fallout is in the air.
 
2014-02-28 03:18:03 PM

youmightberight: netcentric: youmightberight: "... The brits could jump in with some bombers and their pocket carriers would be a welcome addition to naval forces in the area."

Thier what ?

  Brits....  carriers ?

Invincible-class aircraft carriers.


The 2 invicibles are now Amphibious assault ships.   The Brits sold all the Harriers years ago.

If you want to wait for the Brits to have a 'carrier'.... you need to give them about 6 years to complete the welding and painting.
 
2014-02-28 03:18:22 PM

mbillips: tinyarena: [media.washtimes.com image 630x365]
Oh please, is this a joke picture? It's hard to get too worked up about this.
Those APCs were scary, in 1965.
These days we could take them out with drones. I guess we have to take them seriously, but it hard.

Those are BTR-80s, which are the equivalent of American Strykers. Not obsolete at all. Better than the Bradley in some ways. Drones can take out most tanks; that's what the Hellfire missile was originally designed for.


This plus eleventy...

BTR are like everyother APC... glorified offroad schoolbuses... Same for the Ural truck in the back... It's not dissuasive weapons... It's not even weapons per se... It's cool-ish offroaders that can be repared with tractor parts... Since they where made with farming equipment parts... But they get the job done...
 
2014-02-28 03:19:13 PM

Magorn:   In 1879 Bismarck concluded the Dual Alliance, a mutual defense pact with Austria-Hungary. He expanded this agreement in 1882 to include Italy, forming the Triple Alliance.
Bismarck realized that an alliance between France and Russia would be a fundamental threat to German security because in the event of war with either power Germany would be forced to fight on two fronts. Bismarck arranged the Emperors' Alliance (1881) and the Reinsurance Treaty (1887) with Russia, agreements that guaranteed Russian neutrality in the event of a Franco-German conflict.

To offset the threat of the Triple Alliance, France and Russia formed their own Dual Alliance in 1894. France also improved relations with Great Britain by entering into an informal understanding with the British known as the Entente Cordiale (1904). This was expanded into the Triple Entente in 1907 with the inclusion of Russia.


You left out the part about the Double Cross.

static.guim.co.uk
 
2014-02-28 03:19:44 PM

JK47: youmightberight: 3rd ACR and 1st armored could move in and really fark some things up - also the German tankers are VERY good - we could run 24hr drone based warfare on the Russians in theater from air bases in Germany. The brits could jump in with some bombers and their pocket carriers would be a welcome addition to naval forces in the area.


The 3rd is now the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, equipped with Strykers, and located at Fort Hood.  Likewise the 1st Armored is now garrisoned at Fort Bliss.  Both of the heavy brigades in Germany (the 170th and 172nd) were drawn down over the last couple years.  We have one airborne and one stryker brigade in Germany, that's it.

As for the German Army, they're down to 60,000 men with five armored brigades and in the near future they'll only be operating 225 Leopard 2's.

As for the Royal Navy, all three of the Invincible Class carriers were mothballed years ago and their Harrier aircraft were sold off.


You forgot about France and Turkey
 
2014-02-28 03:20:56 PM

Rembrant_Q_Einstein: You keep saying that but you need to look at a map.  Russia has plenty of ports on the Black Sea.  Sochi, for one



It's not even the only base used by the Black Sea Fleet.  They're building a replacement for Sevastopol in Novorossiysk for one.
 
2014-02-28 03:21:45 PM
Ukraine is not part of NATO.

Russia is not part of NATO.

Britain and the United States are part of NATO but the pact Ukraine signed with Britain, the U.S., and Russia has nothing to do with NATO.
 
2014-02-28 03:22:07 PM

ShadowKamui: Crazy Lee: LewDux: Infernalist: This would never happen because there's simply too much at stake for Russia to lose the Crimea.  Lose that, they lose their access to their warm water ports and navy.

You know that they had access to all of that through all those 20+ years of Ukrainian independence, right?

Not to mention that Khrushchev `gifted' the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954.

Tatars are pi*sed, but this is just as internecine BS as West allows it to be (and Europe loves that Russian Gas).

He gifted it to them because Crimea has 0 drinkable water w/o access to Ukraine.  Its about as dumb as Vegas trying to split from Nevada w/o Lake Mead


And it would be fair to say he was just redrawing lines inside the Soviet sandbox.  But the history adds to the complexion of the current imbroglio.  Putin's holding the weaker hand and, primarily for internal consumption, he'll beat his muscled chest and pound his fists against the ground.  Short of rolling armor into Kiev and reinstating Yanukovych, his plays are on the margins.

Europe is, in large part, ever more dependent on Russian gas (strategically a very poor move by Europe - at least France has its reactor fleet),  I suspect the fab foam will settle out, Putin & the IMF will work some flourish to dump a few more billions down a slightly less ratty hole and everyone will go back to aspiring to, or feathering their particular oligarchies & plutocracies.

/cynically optimistic
 
2014-02-28 03:22:20 PM

JK47: youmightberight: 3rd ACR and 1st armored could move in and really fark some things up - also the German tankers are VERY good - we could run 24hr drone based warfare on the Russians in theater from air bases in Germany. The brits could jump in with some bombers and their pocket carriers would be a welcome addition to naval forces in the area.


The 3rd is now the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, equipped with Strykers, and located at Fort Hood.  Likewise the 1st Armored is now garrisoned at Fort Bliss.  Both of the heavy brigades in Germany (the 170th and 172nd) were drawn down over the last couple years.  We have one airborne and one stryker brigade in Germany, that's it.

As for the German Army, they're down to 60,000 men with five armored brigades and in the near future they'll only be operating 225 Leopard 2's.

As for the Royal Navy, all three of the Invincible Class carriers were mothballed years ago and their Harrier aircraft were sold off.


Well, farkme... I thought the brits held off on mothballing the Invincible-class carriers till the Elizabeth class hits (2018 time frame?) as for 3rd ACR looks like it is still kicking as a heavy cav unit and with all the new goodies we have. From Global Security (most recent history)

"The Regiment arrived at Fort Hood with almost no equipment. The primary combat systems, the M1 Abrams and M3 Bradleys, had been left in Kuwait when the Regiment was redeploying. Thus began an intensive effort to outfit 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment with all of the newest gear the Army had to offer. Starting in September, 2nd Squadron fielded the first M1A2 SEP Version 2 tanks. In October 2006, Sabre Squadron also received the Regiment's first M3A3 Block 2 Cavalry Fighting Vehicles.
In March 2007, the Regiment was fully equipped with its 123 tanks and 125 Bradleys. In addition to these critical platforms, 4th Squadron had been completely outfitted with the latest AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters, with its 3 troops replacing the previous 3 Troops of OH-58D Kiowa Warriors. The Regiment subsequently completed the fielding and certification of its indirect fire assets, both M109A6 Paladin and M1064A3 120mm mortar systems. The Regiment was as lethal as ever before, ready to tackle the missions ahead."
 
2014-02-28 03:23:12 PM

CygnusDarius: Might as well play this in the streets.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 256x290]

/This game nearly killed my chances to go to college


I was addicted to this for the longest time.  Against the computer you just had to hold off the first couple of waves and then your ok.  The real fun was playing against other people.
 
2014-02-28 03:24:13 PM
Good luck with that.

The Russians are going to welcome new/old territories back into the fold, if the ask. They will defend their new citizens. Same as it ever was. Look at Georgia and the Ossetian situation as your go to. In Ossetia, they defended folks with dual citizenship from tanks fielded against ground forces with no armor. It ended fair swift after that. The Russians will follow the law, because they want no challenges. They will paint the Ukraine as the aggressors, and point to the petition for membership if it's put forward. And they'll have law on their side. If they happened to bring the situation to a head, that's diplomacy at work--which is the art of saying "nice doggie" until you get a big enough stick in hand...
 
2014-02-28 03:24:14 PM

uber humper: Nothing is as sad as the Royal Canadian Navy with 8,500 regulars.  I do think we need to cut back troop numbers and it's time the rest of the free world to start subsidizing us.



I dunno...I think the Irish Army is a bit worse off...they're basically selling real estate to stay afloat.
 
2014-02-28 03:24:24 PM
Travel warning.

LINK
 
2014-02-28 03:24:27 PM

Oldiron_79: Whynare the St Barry Fanbois wanting war with Russia? War with Russia will not end well. In fact if the US and Russia go at it I,'m gonna try and make it to the other hemisphere before the nuclear fallout is in the air.


This is what happens when you don't bomb a Syrian airfield to stop Assad from gassing his own people.  The rest of the world sees your weak knees. **Looking at you Barry
 
2014-02-28 03:24:41 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Magorn: fireclown: What would be the downside be if the nation simply split?  The southeastern Ukranians pretty much consider themselves Russian anyway.  Is there a national resources reason, a la Iraq, that they couldn't just splinter off?  Apart from all the tradgedy of divided families and the death of the velvet revolution and all that.

Take a look at this map of Ukraine

You see that peninsula at the bottom?  That's Crimea.  If it breaks away from Ukraine, it will, de acto or de jure become part of Russia.   If that happens Russia gets a bottleneck that effectively allow it to control access to the Black Sea for nearly Half of Ukraine land mass and many of its major cities.   It would make Ukraine itself a satellite of Russia just as surely as if it still had an SSR after its name

They would still have a port on the black sea, with similar access as Romania and Bulgaria, and access to the west via NATO and EU members Poland and Slovakia and Hungary.


They would, but Russia could effectively Starve out, or just wreck the economy of half of Ukraine anytime it wanted to show its displeasure.   If they  had control of the city of Kerch,  the can do a blockade and cut  off the Black Sea access for several major Ukrainian cities and would force them to go overland to import and export which would be ruinously expensive
 
2014-02-28 03:26:13 PM

JK47: uber humper: Nothing is as sad as the Royal Canadian Navy with 8,500 regulars.  I do think we need to cut back troop numbers and it's time the rest of the free world to start subsidizing us.


I dunno...I think the Irish Army is a bit worse off...they're basically selling real estate to stay afloat.


Yea, They're tiny.  Population of Ireland is smaller (by 25%) than the Dallas/Fort Worth Metro.
 
2014-02-28 03:26:35 PM

youmightberight: Well, farkme... I thought the brits held off on mothballing the Invincible-class carriers till the Elizabeth class hits (2018 time frame?) as for 3rd ACR looks like it is still kicking as a heavy cav unit and with all the new goodies we have. From Global Security (most recent history)

"The Regiment arrived at Fort Hood with almost no equipment. The primary combat systems, the M1 Abrams and M3 Bradleys, had been left in Kuwait when the Regiment was redeploying. Thus began an intensive effort to outfit 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment with all of the newest gear the Army had to offer. Starting in September, 2nd Squadron fielded the first M1A2 SEP Version 2 tanks. In October 2006, Sabre Squadron also received the Regiment's first M3A3 Block 2 Cavalry Fighting Vehicles.
In March 2007, the Regiment was fully equipped with its 123 tanks and 125 Bradleys. In addition to these critical platforms, 4th Squadron had been completely outfitted with the latest AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters, with its 3 troops replacing the previous 3 Troops of OH-58D Kiowa Warriors. The Regiment subsequently completed the fielding and certification of its indirect fire assets, both M109A6 Paladin and M1064A3 120mm mortar systems. The Regiment was as lethal as ever before, ready to tackle the missions ahead."



They completed their conversion in 2012 (link)
 
2014-02-28 03:27:27 PM

Voiceofreason01: eh, I may have jumped the gun. It looks like it's just the one Washington Post article and the Russians are saying they're just moving forces in to secure their naval base.


No prob.  Thanks for the link.  Glad it's just APCs
 
2014-02-28 03:27:34 PM

p4p3rm4t3: Travel warning.

LINK


All that means is that its the right time to get a good deal! Just bring cash -- and a piece.
 
2014-02-28 03:29:27 PM

dukeblue219: Born_Again_Bavarian: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/28/russia-invades-crime a- sends-armored-personnel-carr/

It's the Washington Times. They're not a legitimate source for anything. From all the other sources out there (starting with BBC) it looks like there may be a few armored personnel carriers on the roads to and from the naval base, but nothing that warrants a "they're sending in the tanks" kind of headline.

//Putin's not stupid. He's not going to send the whole damn army rolling into Ukraine. Just gradually take control of the region step by step such that there's no one particularly overt act that the west can use to justify force.


Salami tactics

www.wearysloth.com

He warned you about them.
\\Hot like the exhaust of an ss-18
 
2014-02-28 03:30:08 PM

uber humper: p4p3rm4t3: Travel warning.

LINK

All that means is that its the right time to get a good deal! Just bring cash -- and a piece.


Merc vacation spot?.
 
2014-02-28 03:30:43 PM

uber humper: This is what happens when you don't bomb a Syrian airfield to stop Assad from gassing his own people.


The fark are you babbling about?
 
2014-02-28 03:32:24 PM

generallyso: uber humper: This is what happens when you don't bomb a Syrian airfield to stop Assad from gassing his own people.

The fark are you babbling about?


It's not deep.
 
2014-02-28 03:32:50 PM
 
2014-02-28 03:33:07 PM

Magorn: They would, but Russia could effectively Starve out, or just wreck the economy of half of Ukraine anytime it wanted to show its displeasure.   If they  had control of the city of Kerch,  the can do a blockade and cut  off the Black Sea access for several major Ukrainian cities and would force them to go overland to import and export which would be ruinously expensive



From what I've found roughly 2/3rds of the port traffic for the Ukraine goes through three ports (Odessa, Illichivsk, Yuzhny) in the western portion of the country (unaffected by losing access to the Sea of Azov).

On the other hand losing Kerch would mean the Ukraine loses it's major shipbuilding center.
 
2014-02-28 03:33:16 PM
France is tied up in Central Africa
UK is... well, the UK.   They aren't going to do anything if they can't ride the US's coattails.
US is war weary and broke.


Russia...   I believe you could take that as a green light.
 
2014-02-28 03:38:11 PM

LewDux: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Let's ask Georgia how that worked out.

Georgia had nukes?


No, something scarier...Newt.
 
2014-02-28 03:43:25 PM

CygnusDarius: uber humper: p4p3rm4t3: Travel warning.

LINK

All that means is that its the right time to get a good deal! Just bring cash -- and a piece.

Merc vacation spot?.


Or a banker.  Ukraine just put capital controls down on currency conversion: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-28/ukraine-imposes-capital-cont r ols-limits-foreign-currency-withdrawals

In other news, mail order wives are up to 50% off
 
2014-02-28 03:46:49 PM

Rembrant_Q_Einstein: Infernalist: LewDux: Infernalist: This would never happen because there's simply too much at stake for Russia to lose the Crimea.  Lose that, they lose their access to their warm water ports and navy.

You know that they had access to all of that through all those 20+ years of Ukrainian independence, right?

Of course, but most of that 20 years was spent with a pro-Russian government in Russia's back pocket and I don't know if you've noticed or not, but this new Ukrainian government is pretty much 'fark the Russians and the bears they rode in on.'

I'm not saying that the Ukrainian government will revoke Russia's lease on those port facilities, but if you're Putin do you 'really' want to take the chance of losing access to your only warm water ports?


You keep saying that but you need to look at a map.  Russia has plenty of ports on the Black Sea.  Sochi, for one


He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.  Russia's interest in Ukraine has absolutely zero to do with "warm water ports".  They already have warm water ports on the black sea. The little additional control of Crimea (if they were to absorb that region) adds almost no strategic value.

Here's why Russia is so interested in what is going on:
www.zerohedge.com

Factor in that Oil is Russia's #1 money maker (it accounts for >50% of their revenue).  50 farking percent. That's huuuuge.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/02/uk-russia-oil-idUKBREA010GA 20 140102

If they lose control of their access to the EU, they could be in serious trouble.
 
2014-02-28 03:47:21 PM

PsiChick: Tomahawk513: PsiChick: Hey, Putin. Maybe we need to stand down now?

/I have very little sympathy for the aggressor, and promising to defend them means we need to act on that promise.
//Hopefully there's a way to solve this behind the scenes before war starts, but now we actually  need to intervene, and this phrase will never again be uttered by myself in this context.

It'd be really cool if, in the event of civil war, the UN could come in and stabilize the situation.  Then, a Swiss elections team could come in, administer a democratic election for a temporary government, and then everyone packs up and goes home.  No disputing the results (democracy, and all that).  No accusations of bias (Switzerland is a paragon of neutrality).  And very little bloodshed.

That would be a  really awesome solution.


Someone ( Ben Bova maybe) wrote about the idea of the UN getting serious about " Warfare Suppression". I think it was about 30 years ago.

/Pretty clear no one important took it seriously
 
2014-02-28 03:50:19 PM

netcentric: France is tied up in Central Africa
UK is... well, the UK.   They aren't going to do anything if they can't ride the US's coattails.
US is war weary and broke.


Russia...   I believe you could take that as a green light.


Never before has a county been war weary from losing 5, 000 men like we did in Iraq.  In WWI France lost almost and entire generation of men (70-75% of their men mobilized were casualities). That's why they didn't have the will or manpower to fight WWII. That weary.  We lose 5k, over 10 years, and we're weary. We not gonna fight Russia. We're not going to standup to anyone.
i45.photobucket.com
Sorry, UA, you're on your own
 
2014-02-28 03:55:00 PM

fireclown: Marcellinus: fireclown: MylesHeartVodak: And somebody shut down all of our A-10s because we were never going to need tankbusters again.

Hagerstown Maryland checking in: You want more A-10s, we'll be happy to start building 'em again.   Just show up at Town Hall with a purchase order.

Sorry, but you've been diverted to building crappy outlet malls.

It's not like we're HAPPY about that.


Cumberland Maryland checking in: We have nothing to offer...
 
2014-02-28 04:00:34 PM

uber humper: netcentric: France is tied up in Central Africa
UK is... well, the UK.   They aren't going to do anything if they can't ride the US's coattails.
US is war weary and broke.


Russia...   I believe you could take that as a green light.

Never before has a county been war weary from losing 5, 000 men like we did in Iraq.  In WWI France lost almost and entire generation of men (70-75% of their men mobilized were casualities). That's why they didn't have the will or manpower to fight WWII. That weary.  We lose 5k, over 10 years, and we're weary. We not gonna fight Russia. We're not going to standup to anyone.
[i45.photobucket.com image 187x140]
Sorry, UA, you're on your own


The war weariness can come from the reasons for war. 5000 dying for B.S. reasons is vastly different from a nation sacrificing a generation to defend itself.
 
2014-02-28 04:00:35 PM

wm734: fireclown: Marcellinus: fireclown: MylesHeartVodak: And somebody shut down all of our A-10s because we were never going to need tankbusters again.

Hagerstown Maryland checking in: You want more A-10s, we'll be happy to start building 'em again.   Just show up at Town Hall with a purchase order.

Sorry, but you've been diverted to building crappy outlet malls.

It's not like we're HAPPY about that.

Cumberland Maryland checking in: We have nothing to offer...


Silver Spring here - You can have one unfinished transit center.  We give you good deal.
 
2014-02-28 04:01:26 PM

nickerj1: Rembrant_Q_Einstein: Infernalist: LewDux: Infernalist: This would never happen because there's simply too much at stake for Russia to lose the Crimea.  Lose that, they lose their access to their warm water ports and navy.

You know that they had access to all of that through all those 20+ years of Ukrainian independence, right?

Of course, but most of that 20 years was spent with a pro-Russian government in Russia's back pocket and I don't know if you've noticed or not, but this new Ukrainian government is pretty much 'fark the Russians and the bears they rode in on.'

I'm not saying that the Ukrainian government will revoke Russia's lease on those port facilities, but if you're Putin do you 'really' want to take the chance of losing access to your only warm water ports?


You keep saying that but you need to look at a map.  Russia has plenty of ports on the Black Sea.  Sochi, for one

He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.  Russia's interest in Ukraine has absolutely zero to do with "warm water ports".  They already have warm water ports on the black sea. The little additional control of Crimea (if they were to absorb that region) adds almost no strategic value.

Here's why Russia is so interested in what is going on:


Factor in that Oil is Russia's #1 money maker (it accounts for >50% of their revenue).  50 farking percent. That's huuuuge.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/02/uk-russia-oil-idUKBREA010GA 20 140102

If they lose control of their access to the EU, they could be in serious trouble.


If ukraine joins EU they still have pipeline to EU... direct access.
 
2014-02-28 04:03:22 PM

uber humper: Oldiron_79: Whynare the St Barry Fanbois wanting war with Russia? War with Russia will not end well. In fact if the US and Russia go at it I,'m gonna try and make it to the other hemisphere before the nuclear fallout is in the air.

This is what happens when you don't bomb a Syrian airfield to stop Assad from gassing his own people.  The rest of the world sees your weak knees. **Looking at you Barry


except it is more than likely according to Seymour Hersh that the gas attack was actually carried out by the rebels.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

So if you have a bone to pick with "Barry" it is for making up BS. Not going in to Syria was the correct course of action.
 
2014-02-28 04:07:13 PM

goatan: uber humper: netcentric: France is tied up in Central Africa
UK is... well, the UK.   They aren't going to do anything if they can't ride the US's coattails.
US is war weary and broke.


Russia...   I believe you could take that as a green light.

Never before has a county been war weary from losing 5, 000 men like we did in Iraq.  In WWI France lost almost and entire generation of men (70-75% of their men mobilized were casualities). That's why they didn't have the will or manpower to fight WWII. That weary.  We lose 5k, over 10 years, and we're weary. We not gonna fight Russia. We're not going to standup to anyone.
[i45.photobucket.com image 187x140]
Sorry, UA, you're on your own

The war weariness can come from the reasons for war. 5000 dying for B.S. reasons is vastly different from a nation sacrificing a generation to defend itself.


You are right.  I was giving an extreme example.  But it has more to do with a 24/7 news cycle. Very, very few people were affected by Iraq or Afghanistan. They only know of it from the media.

We still won't help Ukraine and Russia won't act as if we would. Other countries now know we won't get involved. I think we're neutered.
 
2014-02-28 04:09:56 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Well I'm sure the UK will be into going into Crimea again.


They won the last time they went.
 
2014-02-28 04:13:17 PM

CygnusDarius: Might as well play this in the streets.



/This game nearly killed my chances to go to college


I had a mod for that game where I could change the weapons units had. Arming the choppers with flame throwers was fun. Arming regular infantry with chain guns was great too, especially Ina tech level one battle.
 
2014-02-28 04:14:06 PM

Infernalist: Make no mistake about it, no one in the West wants to get involved in this mess.


Of course we do.  We don't want to get involved militarily, but we already are involved.

/oh, and F*ck the EU.
 
2014-02-28 04:14:55 PM

netcentric: France is tied up in Central Africa
UK is... well, the UK.   They aren't going to do anything if they can't ride the US's coattails.
US is war weary and broke.


Russia...   I believe you could take that as a green light.


Russia's army is down to about 700,000, most of whom are virtually useless conscripts, and most of the non-craptastic units are really aimed at Georgia and Chechnya. If Ukraine has any kind of fighting force, Russia could find itself really rolling the dice on this becoming an expensive embarrassment with the potential to be so economically damaging to them that it would make the Iraq War look like it was in the bargain bin.

I don't put anything past the Russians, but they're easily as capable to stumbling into another Vietnam Afghanistan 1980 Afghanistan 2002.
 
2014-02-28 04:14:58 PM

nickerj1: Rembrant_Q_Einstein: Infernalist: LewDux: Infernalist: This would never happen because there's simply too much at stake for Russia to lose the Crimea.  Lose that, they lose their access to their warm water ports and navy.

You know that they had access to all of that through all those 20+ years of Ukrainian independence, right?

Of course, but most of that 20 years was spent with a pro-Russian government in Russia's back pocket and I don't know if you've noticed or not, but this new Ukrainian government is pretty much 'fark the Russians and the bears they rode in on.'

I'm not saying that the Ukrainian government will revoke Russia's lease on those port facilities, but if you're Putin do you 'really' want to take the chance of losing access to your only warm water ports?


You keep saying that but you need to look at a map.  Russia has plenty of ports on the Black Sea.  Sochi, for one

He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.  Russia's interest in Ukraine has absolutely zero to do with "warm water ports".  They already have warm water ports on the black sea. The little additional control of Crimea (if they were to absorb that region) adds almost no strategic value.

Here's why Russia is so interested in what is going on:
[www.zerohedge.com image 600x545]

Factor in that Oil is Russia's #1 money maker (it accounts for >50% of their revenue).  50 farking percent. That's huuuuge.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/02/uk-russia-oil-idUKBREA010GA 20 140102

If they lose control of their access to the EU, they could be in serious trouble.


So if I am president of the Ukraine at this point I think I pull  a "Paul Atriedes" and inform Putin that thousands of blocks of C-4 have been randomly places on sections of his pipelines all over the Ukraine.  So long as no mysterious separatism movement/ militia suddenly shows up in Crimea, and he extradites Yanukovich, those blocks will set there harmless as silly putty,  but if one Russian soldier sets foot in Crimea,  I will start making "fireworks displays" to celebrate Ukraine's new government.
 
2014-02-28 04:15:20 PM

vygramul: tinfoil-hat maggie: Well I'm sure the UK will be into going into Crimea again.

They won the last time they went.


upload.wikimedia.org

Only becuase they had Eddie.

"The Trooper"

You'll take my life but I'll take yours too
You'll fire your musket but I'll run you through
So when you're waiting for the next attack
You'd better stand there's no turning back.

The Bugle sounds and the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins
The smell of acrid smoke and horses breath
As I plunge on into certain death.

The horse he sweats with fear we break to run
The mighty roar of the Russian guns
And as we race towards the human wall
The screams of pain as my comrades fall.

We hurdle bodies that lay on the ground
And the Russians fire another round
We get so near yet so far away
We won't live to fight another day.

We get so close near enough to fight
When a Russian gets me in his sights
He pulls the trigger and I feel the blow
A burst of rounds take my horse below.

And as I lay there gazing at the sky
My body's numb and my throat is dry
And as I lay forgotten and alone
Without a tear I draw my parting groan.
 
2014-02-28 04:16:05 PM
So I guess the lesson is, if you want to permanently take over a territory, starve the citizens to death, replace them with your own, and then 50 years later they'll vote to join you.  A trick learned from the early days of the United States.  Well done on playing the long game, Russia.
 
2014-02-28 04:16:22 PM

patrick767: I don't think it's fair to say that most Crimeans want to be Russians. Some do. Quite a lot of them don't, even if they want the Russian language to be officially recognized.


They need to do what Canada did with Quebec.  Make Russian an official language, every 10 years or so there will be a call to secede, someone remembers to give the Russian section their pills, and things settle back down.
 
2014-02-28 04:16:45 PM

vygramul: netcentric: France is tied up in Central Africa
UK is... well, the UK.   They aren't going to do anything if they can't ride the US's coattails.
US is war weary and broke.


Russia...   I believe you could take that as a green light.

Russia's army is down to about 700,000, most of whom are virtually useless conscripts, and most of the non-craptastic units are really aimed at Georgia and Chechnya. If Ukraine has any kind of fighting force, Russia could find itself really rolling the dice on this becoming an expensive embarrassment with the potential to be so economically damaging to them that it would make the Iraq War look like it was in the bargain bin.

I don't put anything past the Russians, but they're easily as capable to stumbling into another Vietnam Afghanistan 1980 Afghanistan 2002.


Not to Godwin, but the Wermacht was crap in 1936 to and the troops were given orders to retreat and NOT engage any French or British troops if challenged in the Sudetenlands
 
2014-02-28 04:20:28 PM

vygramul: netcentric: France is tied up in Central Africa
UK is... well, the UK.   They aren't going to do anything if they can't ride the US's coattails.
US is war weary and broke.


Russia...   I believe you could take that as a green light.

Russia's army is down to about 700,000, most of whom are virtually useless conscripts, and most of the non-craptastic units are really aimed at Georgia and Chechnya. If Ukraine has any kind of fighting force, Russia could find itself really rolling the dice on this becoming an expensive embarrassment with the potential to be so economically damaging to them that it would make the Iraq War look like it was in the bargain bin.

I don't put anything past the Russians, but they're easily as capable to stumbling into another Vietnam Afghanistan 1980 Afghanistan 2002.


Meh.... This is nothing.     Not anything remotely close to a V-nam or Afcrapitstan.

This is a little bit of political posturing and turmoil that will end wilth nary a drop of Vodka spilled.

The only thing it is..... is a chance for Russia to flex a bit.
 
2014-02-28 04:21:56 PM

vygramul: tinfoil-hat maggie: Well I'm sure the UK will be into going into Crimea again.

They won the last time they went.


True but back then they were willing to do a lot for access the the Russian fur trade.
 
2014-02-28 04:22:05 PM
Why do Americans think the Russians are scary?  You might lack the political will to use it effectively but given a good enough reason there is no current force on the planet that could withstand the amount of fark you that a single branch of the US military could dish out let alone all of them.  American air assets can dominate the airspace of any combat region almost indefinitely and you have the strike capability to reduce the effective numbers of any opposing force to almost nothing long before you even bother to put boots on the ground.  The asymmetric warfare and pants on head stupid ROE that you had to deal with in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be an issue in a conflict with Russia.
 
2014-02-28 04:22:18 PM

Magorn: vygramul: netcentric: France is tied up in Central Africa
UK is... well, the UK.   They aren't going to do anything if they can't ride the US's coattails.
US is war weary and broke.


Russia...   I believe you could take that as a green light.

Russia's army is down to about 700,000, most of whom are virtually useless conscripts, and most of the non-craptastic units are really aimed at Georgia and Chechnya. If Ukraine has any kind of fighting force, Russia could find itself really rolling the dice on this becoming an expensive embarrassment with the potential to be so economically damaging to them that it would make the Iraq War look like it was in the bargain bin.

I don't put anything past the Russians, but they're easily as capable to stumbling into another Vietnam Afghanistan 1980 Afghanistan 2002.

Not to Godwin, but the Wermacht was crap in 1936 to and the troops were given orders to retreat and NOT engage any French or British troops if challenged in the Sudetenlands


No, that's not a Godwin. That's a legitimate historical discussion.

And it's accurate. If Ukraine backs down, obviously they lose even to crap like what the Russians have. I recall that, according to Shirer, the Germans went to look at the Czech forts and just about crapped their pants and realized that had even the Czechs fought, they would have made Lon Nol look like General Guderian.
 
2014-02-28 04:22:27 PM
Congratulations, Ukraine, on becoming part of the Creek Confederacy.
 
2014-02-28 04:22:59 PM

uber humper: vygramul: tinfoil-hat maggie: Well I'm sure the UK will be into going into Crimea again.

They won the last time they went.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 344x344]

Only becuase they had Eddie.

"The Trooper"

You'll take my life but I'll take yours too
You'll fire your musket but I'll run you through
So when you're waiting for the next attack
You'd better stand there's no turning back.

The Bugle sounds and the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins
The smell of acrid smoke and horses breath
As I plunge on into certain death.

The horse he sweats with fear we break to run
The mighty roar of the Russian guns
And as we race towards the human wall
The screams of pain as my comrades fall.

We hurdle bodies that lay on the ground
And the Russians fire another round
We get so near yet so far away
We won't live to fight another day.

We get so close near enough to fight
When a Russian gets me in his sights
He pulls the trigger and I feel the blow
A burst of rounds take my horse below.

And as I lay there gazing at the sky
My body's numb and my throat is dry
And as I lay forgotten and alone
Without a tear I draw my parting groan.


I feel 13 again all of a sudden : )
 
2014-02-28 04:23:36 PM

netcentric: vygramul: netcentric: France is tied up in Central Africa
UK is... well, the UK.   They aren't going to do anything if they can't ride the US's coattails.
US is war weary and broke.


Russia...   I believe you could take that as a green light.

Russia's army is down to about 700,000, most of whom are virtually useless conscripts, and most of the non-craptastic units are really aimed at Georgia and Chechnya. If Ukraine has any kind of fighting force, Russia could find itself really rolling the dice on this becoming an expensive embarrassment with the potential to be so economically damaging to them that it would make the Iraq War look like it was in the bargain bin.

I don't put anything past the Russians, but they're easily as capable to stumbling into another Vietnam Afghanistan 1980 Afghanistan 2002.

Meh.... This is nothing.     Not anything remotely close to a V-nam or Afcrapitstan.

This is a little bit of political posturing and turmoil that will end wilth nary a drop of Vodka spilled.

The only thing it is..... is a chance for Russia to flex a bit.


I agree that this is the likely outcome. I was just saying what it could easily turn into should this evolve into a shooting war complete with Russian occupation of Ukraine.
 
2014-02-28 04:23:43 PM

uber humper: goatan: uber humper: netcentric: France is tied up in Central Africa
UK is... well, the UK.   They aren't going to do anything if they can't ride the US's coattails.
US is war weary and broke.


Russia...   I believe you could take that as a green light.

Never before has a county been war weary from losing 5, 000 men like we did in Iraq.  In WWI France lost almost and entire generation of men (70-75% of their men mobilized were casualities). That's why they didn't have the will or manpower to fight WWII. That weary.  We lose 5k, over 10 years, and we're weary. We not gonna fight Russia. We're not going to standup to anyone.
[i45.photobucket.com image 187x140]
Sorry, UA, you're on your own

The war weariness can come from the reasons for war. 5000 dying for B.S. reasons is vastly different from a nation sacrificing a generation to defend itself.

You are right.  I was giving an extreme example.  But it has more to do with a 24/7 news cycle. Very, very few people were affected by Iraq or Afghanistan. They only know of it from the media.

We still won't help Ukraine and Russia won't act as if we would. Other countries now know we won't get involved. I think we're neutered.


It probably would take a Russian invasion of the whole of the Ukraine rather than taking over a few airports in the Crimea before public opinion would get behind any sort of intervention. I doubt Russia would do that. Although the state of Russia armed forces are so bad it could be another Finland for them if they did. It's why they preferred Salami tactics after WWII.
 
2014-02-28 04:23:44 PM

rev. dave: So... how long till we restart the cold war?  Or maybe skip that and go straight to surface of the sun war.



The sun is burning in the sky
Strands of clouds go slowly drifting by
In the park the lazy bees
Are dronin' in the flowers, among the trees
And the sun burns in the sky

Now the sun is in the West
Little kids go home to take their rest
And the couples in the park
Are holdin' hands and waitin' for the dark
And the sun is in the West

Now the sun is sinking low
Children playin' know it's time to go
High above a spot appears
A little blossom blooms and then draws near
And the sun is sinking low

Now the sun has come to Earth
Shrouded in a mushroom cloud of death
Death comes in a blinding flash
Of hellish heat and leaves a smear of ash
And the sun has come to Earth

Now the sun has disappeared
All is darkness, anger, pain and fear
Twisted, sightless wrecks of men
Go groping on their knees and cry in pain
And the sun has disappeared


/The Sun Is Burning always left me with chills due to the creepy turn the song takes .
 
2014-02-28 04:27:50 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: uber humper: vygramul: tinfoil-hat maggie: Well I'm sure the UK will be into going into Crimea again.

They won the last time they went.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 344x344]

Only becuase they had Eddie.

"The Trooper"

You'll take my life but I'll take yours too
You'll fire your musket but I'll run you through
So when you're waiting for the next attack
You'd better stand there's no turning back.

The Bugle sounds and the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins
The smell of acrid smoke and horses breath
As I plunge on into certain death.

The horse he sweats with fear we break to run
The mighty roar of the Russian guns
And as we race towards the human wall
The screams of pain as my comrades fall.

We hurdle bodies that lay on the ground
And the Russians fire another round
We get so near yet so far away
We won't live to fight another day.

We get so close near enough to fight
When a Russian gets me in his sights
He pulls the trigger and I feel the blow
A burst of rounds take my horse below.

And as I lay there gazing at the sky
My body's numb and my throat is dry
And as I lay forgotten and alone
Without a tear I draw my parting groan.

I feel 13 again all of a sudden : )


You were 13 durring the Crimean war?  Getting kinda long in tooth, huh ;)
 
2014-02-28 04:28:15 PM

Egoy3k: Why do Americans think the Russians are scary?  You might lack the political will to use it effectively but given a good enough reason there is no current force on the planet that could withstand the amount of fark you that a single branch of the US military could dish out let alone all of them.  American air assets can dominate the airspace of any combat region almost indefinitely and you have the strike capability to reduce the effective numbers of any opposing force to almost nothing long before you even bother to put boots on the ground.  The asymmetric warfare and pants on head stupid ROE that you had to deal with in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be an issue in a conflict with Russia.


1) Fighting a "real" war would be expensive -- more so than past skirmishes by orders of magnitude.
2) The US has never fought a nuclear-armed opponent, and Russia has more nukes than any other country on the planet (and well-developed delivery systems).  They're also controlled by a Joe Stalin wannabe, which is not exactly reassuring.
 
2014-02-28 04:29:28 PM
nickerj1:

Here's why Russia is so interested in what is going on:
[www.zerohedge.com image 600x545]

Factor in that Oil is Russia's #1 money maker (it accounts for >50% of their revenue).  50 farking percent. That's huuuuge.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/02/uk-russia-oil-idUKBREA010GA 20 140102

If they lose control of their access to the EU, they could be in serious trouble.



Alex,
img.fark.net
i'll take "Hooked" for $1000.oo


Speaking of which;

http://wordpress.com/2013/02/14/russia-iran-sign-agreements-to-form-s t rategic-partnership-as-russia-sends-warships-to-iranian-port/

This current conflict is minor,
The 'other one' is Major
 
2014-02-28 04:31:06 PM

jshine: 2) The US has never fought a nuclear-armed opponent, and Russia has more nukes than any other country on the planet (and well-developed delivery systems). They're also controlled by a Joe Stalin wannabe, which is not exactly reassuring.


And they broke the 1987 medium range nuke treaty in 2008, soon after Obama took office.
 
2014-02-28 04:36:13 PM
media.tumblr.com

It's getting a little tense in here.
 
2014-02-28 04:41:33 PM

tom baker's scarf: beefoe: We'll at least Harold Ramis can save them!

[www.morethings.com image 308x465]

well not any more, which is what the ruskies were waiting for.


It is an interesting coincidence that he died just a few days ago.  Or is it?
 
2014-02-28 04:42:54 PM

Egoy3k: Why do Americans think the Russians are scary?  You might lack the political will to use it effectively but given a good enough reason there is no current force on the planet that could withstand the amount of fark you that a single branch of the US military could dish out let alone all of them.  American air assets can dominate the airspace of any combat region almost indefinitely and you have the strike capability to reduce the effective numbers of any opposing force to almost nothing long before you even bother to put boots on the ground.  The asymmetric warfare and pants on head stupid ROE that you had to deal with in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be an issue in a conflict with Russia.


Just because we can dominate a small country with 1970's era technology doesn't mean that a large country with a lot of 1980's era technology would be a walk in the park. And the Russians were watching when one of our stealths got shot down in Bosnia. They know how to do it.

We have some nice new drones and combat software, but most of our military hardware is just updated 1980's stuff itself. Our tanks, most of our planes, our rifles, all Cold War tech. We don't have enough F-22's or any F-35's in service yet to make a difference. Our supply lines would be stretched across the globe, Russia's would stretch across the street. Russia is not without advantages in this hypothetical conflict.

Plus we continue to have military commitments that keep us from deploying all of our forces to Eastern Europe. We have to maintain quite a presence in the Pacific to keep China and NK from getting funny ideas and a similar presence in the Middle East to have a similar effect on Iran. We have one of the biggest militaries, but it is spread thin.
 
2014-02-28 04:44:02 PM

CleanAndPure: Russia has sent troops. Military jets and helicopters(and by some reports tanks) into Crimea without Ukraine's approval. That is a mini invasion.


not.

Sevastopol is a MAJOR port for Russia. They've got 50k naval personnel there, and have for years. In addition to navy, supporting troops like their version of marines with all the attendant support material- tanks, jets helocopters. Yes Russia has sent troops but has been for years now with full support of the Ukraine government (Russia pays them for use of the land/ports)

Don't forget that Crimea is primarily ethnically Russian people (close to %60) They dont' speak Ukranian, they speak Russian.
 
2014-02-28 04:46:54 PM

cgraves67: Just because we can dominate a small country with 1970's era technology doesn't mean that a large country with a lot of 1980's era technology would be a walk in the park. And the Russians were watching when one of our stealths got shot down in Bosnia. They know how to do it.


They knew how to take advantage of stupid operational planning by our Air Force long before the Serbs shot down the F-117. The plane didn't fail. The soft bigotry of low expectations in assuming those backwards Serbs were too stupid to think of how to do it is what failed us.
 
2014-02-28 04:48:32 PM

JK47: youmightberight: Well, farkme... I thought the brits held off on mothballing the Invincible-class carriers till the Elizabeth class hits (2018 time frame?) as for 3rd ACR looks like it is still kicking as a heavy cav unit and with all the new goodies we have. From Global Security (most recent history)

"The Regiment arrived at Fort Hood with almost no equipment. The primary combat systems, the M1 Abrams and M3 Bradleys, had been left in Kuwait when the Regiment was redeploying. Thus began an intensive effort to outfit 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment with all of the newest gear the Army had to offer. Starting in September, 2nd Squadron fielded the first M1A2 SEP Version 2 tanks. In October 2006, Sabre Squadron also received the Regiment's first M3A3 Block 2 Cavalry Fighting Vehicles.
In March 2007, the Regiment was fully equipped with its 123 tanks and 125 Bradleys. In addition to these critical platforms, 4th Squadron had been completely outfitted with the latest AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters, with its 3 troops replacing the previous 3 Troops of OH-58D Kiowa Warriors. The Regiment subsequently completed the fielding and certification of its indirect fire assets, both M109A6 Paladin and M1064A3 120mm mortar systems. The Regiment was as lethal as ever before, ready to tackle the missions ahead."


They completed their conversion in 2012 (link)


Well fark. I'm saddened by this and also a bit baffled... why are we always gearing up to fight the last war?
 
2014-02-28 04:48:38 PM
 
2014-02-28 04:52:41 PM

vygramul: cgraves67: Just because we can dominate a small country with 1970's era technology doesn't mean that a large country with a lot of 1980's era technology would be a walk in the park. And the Russians were watching when one of our stealths got shot down in Bosnia. They know how to do it.

They knew how to take advantage of stupid operational planning by our Air Force long before the Serbs shot down the F-117. The plane didn't fail. The soft bigotry of low expectations in assuming those backwards Serbs were too stupid to think of how to do it is what failed us.


That's my point with that particular statement. There is a specific way that RADAR can be set up around a flight path that a stealth plane could be detected from a different angle. They figured it out and shot down a plane. Once the Serbs proved it was possible, there's no way the Russians wouldn't reverse engineer the scenario to figure out how to do it too.

Our mistake was continuously using the same flight path over and over, allowing them to anticipate us and rearrange their SAMs and RADAR stations accordingly.
 
2014-02-28 04:54:13 PM
Anyone want to take odds on Obama's position?
 
2014-02-28 04:54:51 PM

uber humper: Anyone want to take odds on Obama's position?


regarding his upcomming statement
 
2014-02-28 04:56:20 PM

uber humper: Anyone want to take odds on Obama's position?


Well, given his position on Georgia, Iran and Syria--I'm gonna say nothing more than a strongly-worded statement issued from the 7th hole.
 
2014-02-28 04:56:24 PM

cgraves67: vygramul: cgraves67: Just because we can dominate a small country with 1970's era technology doesn't mean that a large country with a lot of 1980's era technology would be a walk in the park. And the Russians were watching when one of our stealths got shot down in Bosnia. They know how to do it.

They knew how to take advantage of stupid operational planning by our Air Force long before the Serbs shot down the F-117. The plane didn't fail. The soft bigotry of low expectations in assuming those backwards Serbs were too stupid to think of how to do it is what failed us.

That's my point with that particular statement. There is a specific way that RADAR can be set up around a flight path that a stealth plane could be detected from a different angle. They figured it out and shot down a plane. Once the Serbs proved it was possible, there's no way the Russians wouldn't reverse engineer the scenario to figure out how to do it too.

Our mistake was continuously using the same flight path over and over, allowing them to anticipate us and rearrange their SAMs and RADAR stations accordingly.


It did require a little luck, too, but without using the same flight path (a mistake we're less likely to make with the Russians because we're less apt to underestimate them (rather, overestimate - just look at this thread)), they don't know where to put the radar.
 
2014-02-28 04:58:06 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: http://news.yahoo.com/2-000-russian-soldiers-land-armed-invasion-crim e a-202159123.html;_ylt=AwrBJR.i8BBTI2MA9wXQtDMD


..... no no no. Come the fark on world stop acting crazy I just got my new Audi S4 and I want to enjoy it.
 
2014-02-28 04:58:45 PM

BravadoGT: uber humper: Anyone want to take odds on Obama's position?

Well, given his position on Georgia, Iran and Syria--I'm gonna say nothing more than a strongly-worded statement issued from the 7th hole.


Gay marriage.  That's what he will say
 
2014-02-28 04:59:09 PM

uber humper: Anyone want to take odds on Obama's position?


He's giving a press conference today soon. We will find out shortly.
 
2014-02-28 04:59:33 PM
CNN just said USINT thinks Russia has invaded.
 
2014-02-28 05:06:29 PM
President McCain or President Romney would have already sent the troops in, amirite?
 
2014-02-28 05:14:29 PM
Gotta be honest, if we get involved it will probably be on Russia's side.  The treaty was a guarantee that we wouldn't blow them up, not that we would save them from themselves being stupid.  If Russia can't sell oil, they get desperate, and the price of oil goes up everywhere.

Ukraine may have a beef, but either you like Russia in this one or you like to pay $2 more a gallon in gas
 
2014-02-28 05:18:03 PM

youmightberight: JK47: youmightberight: Well, farkme... I thought the brits held off on mothballing the Invincible-class carriers till the Elizabeth class hits (2018 time frame?) as for 3rd ACR looks like it is still kicking as a heavy cav unit and with all the new goodies we have. From Global Security (most recent history)

"The Regiment arrived at Fort Hood with almost no equipment. The primary combat systems, the M1 Abrams and M3 Bradleys, had been left in Kuwait when the Regiment was redeploying. Thus began an intensive effort to outfit 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment with all of the newest gear the Army had to offer. Starting in September, 2nd Squadron fielded the first M1A2 SEP Version 2 tanks. In October 2006, Sabre Squadron also received the Regiment's first M3A3 Block 2 Cavalry Fighting Vehicles.
In March 2007, the Regiment was fully equipped with its 123 tanks and 125 Bradleys. In addition to these critical platforms, 4th Squadron had been completely outfitted with the latest AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters, with its 3 troops replacing the previous 3 Troops of OH-58D Kiowa Warriors. The Regiment subsequently completed the fielding and certification of its indirect fire assets, both M109A6 Paladin and M1064A3 120mm mortar systems. The Regiment was as lethal as ever before, ready to tackle the missions ahead."


They completed their conversion in 2012 (link)

Well fark. I'm saddened by this and also a bit baffled... why are we always gearing up to fight the last war?


Because nobody knows for sure what the NEXT war will be and sure as hell nobody wants to be ready to fight EVERY war that might come along. You plan for likely possibilities. We were well equipped to go up against Russia in another WWII style large unit war and ran up against something very different in Vietnam. We were equipped well for the Gulf War I, but we weren't well equipped for fighting in Afghanistan. We have since retooled for smaller unit anti-insurgent type fighting, but that leaves us poorly equipped if we might possibly need to go up against Russia. All those snarky pictures of stealth bombers and aircraft carriers with the label "Not particularly useful against an insurgency"? Yeah, now we have a force that IS, but that means the things that would be particularly useful in other forms of combat have taken the hit.

We spend massive amounts of money on our military and even we can't be prepared for anything and everything in any possible place on the globe. It can be done, but not even for what we're spending now... which is way beyond everybody else.
 
2014-02-28 05:23:45 PM

Magorn: This was expanded into the Triple Entente


If you know what I mean.
 
2014-02-28 05:26:30 PM

Alien Robot: when Yugoslavia was split up?


I'm not sure Yugoslavia is a good example of he upside of splitting up a country, unless you consider ethnic cleansing to be an upside.
 
2014-02-28 05:35:02 PM

Alien Robot: Czechoslovakia was split up?


Alien Robot: Yugoslavia was split up



Nice consistency. I'm upgrading you from 3/10 to 5/10
 
2014-02-28 05:36:31 PM

Lehk: Alien Robot: when Yugoslavia was split up?

I'm not sure Yugoslavia is a good example of he upside of splitting up a country, unless you consider ethnic cleansing to be an upside.


Not to nitpick, but you could make a small argument when Slovenia declared independence*.

*-I know people died, but nowhere near the scale of the rest of the Land of the South Slavs.

/I get what you're saying though
 
2014-02-28 05:37:23 PM

Magorn: In 1879 Bismarck concluded the Dual Alliance, a mutual defense pact with Austria-Hungary. He expanded this agreement in 1882 to include Italy, forming the Triple Alliance.
Bismarck realized that an alliance between France and Russia would be a fundamental threat to German security because in the event of war with either power Germany would be forced to fight on two fronts. Bismarck arranged the Emperors' Alliance (1881) and the Reinsurance Treaty (1887) with Russia, agreements that guaranteed Russian neutrality in the event of a Franco-German conflict.

To offset the threat of the Triple Alliance, France and Russia formed their own Dual Alliance in 1894. France also improved relations with Great Britain by entering into an informal understanding with the British known as the Entente Cordiale (1904). This was expanded into the Triple Entente in 1907 with the inclusion of Russia.

thanks mr. Peabody for the history lesson. now if you'll kindly set the way back machine to 2014. you can explain what this has to do with the price of vodka in Moscow.

 
2014-02-28 05:49:17 PM
You know what could help this situation...  if warmonger John McCain could get on CNN and such and start spewing some cold war rhetoric about how bad Russia is.

Surely that would help.
 
2014-02-28 05:51:13 PM
This... this isn't good. o_o'
 
2014-02-28 05:53:24 PM
No greenlit thread about this yet?


Seems news-flash worthy
 
2014-02-28 06:22:54 PM
forums.rennlist.com
 
2014-02-28 06:23:04 PM

uber humper: BravadoGT: uber humper: Anyone want to take odds on Obama's position?

Well, given his position on Georgia, Iran and Syria--I'm gonna say nothing more than a strongly-worded statement issued from the 7th hole.

Gay marriage.  That's what he will say


img.fark.net
"The Russians just need a little elbow room to expand...you know, lebensraum.  Now if you'll excuse me, I have an 8 A.M. tee time in Key West I need to get ready for."
 
2014-02-28 06:28:59 PM

tinyarena: mbillips:
Those are BTR-80s, which are the equivalent of American Strykers. Not obsolete at all. Better than the Bradley in some ways. Drones can take out most tanks; that's what the Hellfire missile was originally designed for.

Nope, sorry, scroll through the pictures moar, based on the egg shape of their forward hatches, those are BTR-70s
And they really were built in the 1960s

Slow, cramped, easy to kill
meh


Yep, the Afghanis had no problem taking them out with IEDs and RPG-7s
 
2014-02-28 06:32:04 PM
Not this zhit again.

Peeps, how many times are you going to be fooled by the fools fooling fools with foolish foolery.

And for this, business as usual, Forever War.
 
2014-02-28 06:33:32 PM

Eggs McMuffin: [forums.rennlist.com image 500x222]


http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140130/187029570/Russia-to-Float-Ou t- Stealth-Sub-for-Black-Sea-Fleet-in-May.html
Russia does have a stealth sub. And a second by May
 
2014-02-28 06:44:08 PM

uber humper: Eggs McMuffin: [forums.rennlist.com image 500x222]

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140130/187029570/Russia-to-Float-Ou t- Stealth-Sub-for-Black-Sea-Fleet-in-May.html
Russia does have a stealth sub. And a second by May


ctrl-f "first strike"

Not found.

Excellent! The article wasn't written by a complete imbecile! It might be interesting!
 
2014-02-28 06:47:05 PM

mbillips: tinyarena: [media.washtimes.com image 630x365]
Oh please, is this a joke picture? It's hard to get too worked up about this.
Those APCs were scary, in 1965.
These days we could take them out with drones. I guess we have to take them seriously, but it hard.

Those are BTR-80s, which are the equivalent of American Strykers. Not obsolete at all. Better than the Bradley in some ways. Drones can take out most tanks; that's what the Hellfire missile was originally designed for.


www.inetres.com
o hai guize!
 
2014-02-28 06:58:45 PM

fireclown: Odoriferous Queef: Voiceofreason01: There are reports that Russian tanks are rolling into Crimea, which makes this a very different situation.

[citation needed]

/I can't find anything about this on the net

I agree.  That kind of statement at least warrants a link.


How about seven links?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/28/russia-invades-crime a- sends-armored-personnel-carr/

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/140228/video- on -the-ground-crimea-ukraine-russia-tanks-armed-men

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-26/roads-crimea-quiet-russian- mo bilization-continues

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/ukraine-news-russia-invades- cr imea-3194129

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-28/creeping-russia-takeover-in -c rimea-seen-more-likely-than-assault.html

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russia-deploys-ships-troops-ukraines-crimea -r aising-tensions-1437762

http://belsec.skynetblogs.be/archive/2014/02/28/kiev-russian-helicop te rs-intimidating-in-crimea-8120186.html

and an eighth: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/world/europe/russia.html?hpw&rref=w o rld&_r=0

The NY Times specifically notes that the Russian "military exercises" in Crimea were previously unplanned (I believe the wording used by the Times is "snap" exercises intending to display Russia's power) and did not begin until after the coup d'etat which removed pro-Russian Yanukovych from power and has seen him charged with crimes by the interim government.

If you're not seeing links referring to Russian tanks and helicopters on the streets of and in the air over Crimea, it's because you haven't read a major news site today or you didn't bother using Google once the statement was made.
 
2014-02-28 07:05:28 PM

Voiceofreason01: fireclown: Odoriferous Queef: Voiceofreason01: There are reports that Russian tanks are rolling into Crimea, which makes this a very different situation.

[citation needed]

/I can't find anything about this on the net

I agree.  That kind of statement at least warrants a link.

eh, I may have jumped the gun. It looks like it's just the one Washington Post article and the Russians are saying they're just moving forces in to secure their naval base.


And you believe that? Seriously?

Putin is many things. Stupid is not one of them. He is highly intelligent and extraordinarily cunning. If he is truly 'just protecting Russia's military bases in Ukraine,' then the United States was truly 'just interested in bringing democracy and freeing oppressed peoples' in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't agree with every Farker, but I don't believe there is a Farker who posts here who is that farking stupid, by any stretch of the imagination.
 
2014-02-28 07:14:48 PM

LesserEvil: Grahor: LesserEvil: I say NATO should go in and wipe out those gunmen... Putin would lose face with his military, the Russians lose a ton of Spetznaz on a "disavowed" mission, and the Russian loyalists in the region suddenly get a lot meeker (and regional stability goes up).

Wait a second. You mean foreign troops, which were most explicitly NOT invited by local population, should invade the foreign country without a declaration of war and wipe out local civilian population (doesn't matter if they are or aren't; they would be local civilian population by the time you have finished executing them)?

And you feel it's a proper behavior?

And you think _Russians_ are evil?

I'm assuming the Ukraine asks for military intervention, at which point, we honor the treaty and give it to them.

Those aren't locals they'd be fighting, they're Russian military. Certainly not a cakewalk, but unless Russia is prepared to fully support them (logistics are still a thing, you know), they are toast if a multi-national force comes in.

I could care less what separatists think. That doesn't come into play with treaty obligations - the Ukraine is still the legal government, in the world's eyes.

Let Putin get away with this, and he'll take it to the next level. As others have mentioned, Crimea can't really stand alone and hostile to the Ukraine, anyway, but who knows what sort of play comes next?


and that's exactly the point: NATO cannot go in without an invitation--nor should they (or rather, let's face it: we). Given that the agreement was also signed by Russia, Russia has to be very careful not to be seen as the aggressor here--as do we.

This will be a saber-rattling exercise (which is exactly what Russia's "military exercise" is, by all accounts). Russia has to save face, we issue "don't do that" warnings, maybe fly over a couple places, everyone's pride is safe, and it will most likely come to a diplomatic solution in the end. I highly doubt either the US or Russia really wants to go to war with each other at the moment, but both need to posture a bit for the cameras.
 
2014-02-28 07:16:28 PM
If anyone in the Ukraine honestly believed that the Germans, the French, the Italians and the Spanish were going to saddle up and ride against the Russians for the freedom of the Ukraine.... well, I'm not going to say they are getting what they deserved, but damn, those are some SHORT memories.
 
2014-02-28 07:24:14 PM

uber humper: Anyone want to take odds on Obama's position?


He recently issued a statement to the effect of "Russia, don't be a dick." Threats of not going along with upcoming trade agreements, some kind of summit, etc. Also, that it would look really bad to start a war just days after the Olympics ended. Not that I think Russia cares much about public image, mind you.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-comments-on-ukraine-214813649.html
 
2014-02-28 07:34:20 PM

Harry Freakstorm: Hi Ukraine.  We've transferred the management of that treaty to Best Buy.  We'll transfer you to a rep.

BBRep: Hello?  How can I help you?
Ukraine:  We have a treaty that says you'll come to our defense.
BBRep: Hello?  How can I help you?
Ukraine:  I said we have a treaty that needs enforced.
BBRep:  You can use words like "Help" or "Agent"
Ukraine:  Help I need an agent.

.................

Having worked at a BBY call center, I can verify that every other g-damn agent than those at our site never had a lick of training, other than how to best avoid calls.  You got this exactly right Freakstorm!!

/actually did my job
//got many kudos from my cust. to supers :)
 
2014-02-28 07:39:17 PM

MechTard: uber humper: Anyone want to take odds on Obama's position?

He recently issued a statement to the effect of "Russia, don't be a dick." Threats of not going along with upcoming trade agreements, some kind of summit, etc. Also, that it would look really bad to start a war just days after the Olympics ended. Not that I think Russia cares much about public image, mind you.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-comments-on-ukraine-214813649.html


They invaded Georgia DURING the Beijing Olympics.

Obama didn't say anything with much weight.  I'm sure Putin was pointing at the screen, looking at a comrade, saying "Look I told you so! This one can't do anything!"
 
2014-02-28 07:46:47 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: No greenlit thread about this yet?


Seems news-flash worthy


Fark has to let the TFers dissect the situation and discuss important issues such as what they had for dinner, if they like SlightlyLessPortlyTfettes Halloween costume, and which one of each other they would definitely hook up with.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-tells-medvedev-solution -o n-missile-defense-is-unlikely-before-elections/2012/03/26/gIQASoblbS_s tory.html

Maybe this is just a staged for television event.
 
2014-02-28 07:47:28 PM

WelldeadLink: Magorn: This was expanded into the Triple Entente

If you know what I mean.


Laf
 
2014-02-28 08:55:09 PM

cgraves67: vygramul: cgraves67: Just because we can dominate a small country with 1970's era technology doesn't mean that a large country with a lot of 1980's era technology would be a walk in the park. And the Russians were watching when one of our stealths got shot down in Bosnia. They know how to do it.

They knew how to take advantage of stupid operational planning by our Air Force long before the Serbs shot down the F-117. The plane didn't fail. The soft bigotry of low expectations in assuming those backwards Serbs were too stupid to think of how to do it is what failed us.

That's my point with that particular statement. There is a specific way that RADAR can be set up around a flight path that a stealth plane could be detected from a different angle. They figured it out and shot down a plane. Once the Serbs proved it was possible, there's no way the Russians wouldn't reverse engineer the scenario to figure out how to do it too.

Our mistake was continuously using the same flight path over and over, allowing them to anticipate us and rearrange their SAMs and RADAR stations accordingly.


So. .. Do you think that the site force would make the same mistake?
 
2014-02-28 10:04:13 PM
I'll be one hundred percent honest - I have several very good friends in Moldova, and if this erupts, I'm really worried about them.

Sucks that most of them can't get in to the US now because of several extended work stays (work visas at Ellis Island over several summers).
 
2014-02-28 10:26:52 PM

uber humper: Eggs McMuffin: [forums.rennlist.com image 500x222]

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140130/187029570/Russia-to-Float-Ou t- Stealth-Sub-for-Black-Sea-Fleet-in-May.html
Russia does have a stealth sub. And a second by May


That "stealth sub" is an update to a 30 year old design.  Considering it modern is the same as calling a F-15E a fifth generation fighter.

There are many things that would make a Crimean campaign difficult for the wast, but the Black Sea fleet is not one of them.  In an all out shooting war with NATO, the odds of there being a single Russian combatant afloat at the end of the first week are all but nonexistent.
 
2014-02-28 10:58:30 PM

JustGetItRight: uber humper: Eggs McMuffin: [forums.rennlist.com image 500x222]

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140130/187029570/Russia-to-Float-Ou t- Stealth-Sub-for-Black-Sea-Fleet-in-May.html
Russia does have a stealth sub. And a second by May

That "stealth sub" is an update to a 30 year old design.  Considering it modern is the same as calling a F-15E a fifth generation fighter.

There are many things that would make a Crimean campaign difficult for the wast, but the Black Sea fleet is not one of them.  In an all out shooting war with NATO, the odds of there being a single Russian combatant afloat at the end of the first week are all but nonexistent.


The newer Russian anti-ship missiles are a serious threat.
 
2014-02-28 11:16:12 PM

JustGetItRight: That "stealth sub" is an update to a 30 year old design.  Considering it modern is the same as calling a F-15E a fifth generation fighter.

There are many things that would make a Crimean campaign difficult for the wast, but the Black Sea fleet is not one of them.  In an all out shooting war with NATO, the odds of there being a single Russian combatant afloat at the end of the first week are all but nonexistent.


It may be an older design (and that particular sub has been in the works for a very long time, it's not even that up to date), but in the waters of the Black Sea it will be something to worry about... especially when you consider everything entering the Black Sea comes through the Bosphorus and 24 hour notice has to be given to Turkey before a warship transits that strait. If this got serious the Russians could park some Northern Fleet nuclear subs around Gibraltar and outside the Bosphorus and then put a few diesels on the Black Sea end of the strait and now there's a real threat to any other naval vessels attempting to interfere. The Black Sea fleet may not be that big a deal, but ships can be moved in and the Russian air force can be a real hassle as well in that small a body of water.

I just don't see us trying to kick our way into the Black Sea. Maybe park a carrier battle group in the eastern Med, but any real work would be done by airplanes flying out of Turkey or southern European nations... assuming they'd let us. So we'd have a real challenge ahead of us IF the US wanted to get into a real fight over this. I don't see us wanting to. Just not enough of a national interest at stake- it isn't as though we get a serious amount of natural resources out of the Crimea. We'll likely seize on any technicality to avoid having to get involved.
 
2014-02-28 11:19:07 PM
Oh you poor dumbasses. You should have probably done some homework on who you're dealing with. Just ask the natives about how well 'murica keeps it's treaties (if you can find any).

In short, you're hosed.
 
2014-02-28 11:27:17 PM

Terrible Old Man: Oh you poor dumbasses. You should have probably done some homework on who you're dealing with. Just ask the natives about how well 'murica keeps it's treaties (if you can find any).

In short, you're hosed.


Oh, we keep the treaties we want to keep. But yeah, expecting the US to do one damn thing because we signed a piece of paper, that's a sucker's bet.
 
2014-02-28 11:27:49 PM

unlikely: Wow, that's kind of a pickle. On the one hand, no WAY we'll get involved in that. On the other hand, that's it for credibility in treaties...


Yeah cause all that butt-farkery with the Indians and the many MANY treaties we just ignored didn't do that a long time ago.
 
2014-02-28 11:36:28 PM
I told everyone, nobody would listen. Putin is bringing back the cold war, all we have is a pussy in charge.

What is Chumpy McHopeChange gonna do, tax Russia? Good thing we are scaling down our military.
 
2014-03-01 02:06:01 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Well I'm sure the UK will be into going into Crimea again.


I bet there's maybe ten people in here that know what you're talking about. Just hope they don't send the 11th Hussars in.
 
2014-03-01 02:20:49 AM
They send in Russian Blackwater without ammunition?

cdn2.spiegel.de

//know nothing about AK107s but reading the press coverage.
 
2014-03-01 03:03:53 AM

KillerAttackParrot: tinfoil-hat maggie: Well I'm sure the UK will be into going into Crimea again.

I bet there's maybe ten people in here that know what you're talking about.


And all of them are nurses.
 
2014-03-01 06:35:23 AM

akula: Oh, we keep the treaties we want to keep. But yeah, expecting the US to do one damn thing because we signed a piece of paper, that's a sucker's bet.


Again, we signed a treaty with the legitimate elected government of Ukraine, which is the current Yanukovych government, the ousted one, the ones the Russians are backing, not the rebels who have occupied the government buildings; and the treaty guarantees the United States, The United Kingdom, or Russia will assist. Russia is currently assisting and thereby fulfilling the treaty. End of story. We can't claim to be abiding by the treaty if we come in to assist a rebel force not a party to the treaty who have overthrown the signatories to the treaty.
 
2014-03-01 07:10:29 AM

Alien Robot: akula: Oh, we keep the treaties we want to keep. But yeah, expecting the US to do one damn thing because we signed a piece of paper, that's a sucker's bet.

Again, we signed a treaty with the legitimate elected government of Ukraine, which is the current Yanukovych government, the ousted one, the ones the Russians are backing, not the rebels who have occupied the government buildings; and the treaty guarantees the United States, The United Kingdom, or Russia will assist. Russia is currently assisting and thereby fulfilling the treaty. End of story. We can't claim to be abiding by the treaty if we come in to assist a rebel force not a party to the treaty who have overthrown the signatories to the treaty.


Treaties are binding on nations, regardless of government.
 
2014-03-01 08:14:47 AM

DamnYankees: netizencain: DamnYankees: Seems like it'd be pretty easy for us to sit this out on the basis that this is basically a civil war.

Civil war until the Russians cross the border

Meh, once you call it a civil war, you can sit it out. If Russians then cross the border, you can just say they are assisting one side of a civil war, not invading Ukraine.


Kind of like the Korean War, then? Or Vietnam?
 
2014-03-01 08:15:53 AM

MylesHeartVodak: Voiceofreason01: DamnYankees: Seems like it'd be pretty easy for us to sit this out on the basis that this is basically a civil war.

There are reports that Russian tanks are rolling into Crimea, which makes this a very different situation.

And somebody shut down all of our A-10s because we were never going to need tankbusters again.


Yep, a typical short-sighted Republican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel
 
2014-03-01 08:19:41 AM

tinyarena: [media.washtimes.com image 630x365]
Oh please, is this a joke picture? It's hard to get too worked up about this.
Those APCs were scary, in 1965.
These days we could take them out with drones. I guess we have to take them seriously, but it hard.


Assuming those are Russian, the APCs aren't scary, in and of themselves.

But taking out APCs that belong to a nuclear-armed superpower is NOT something to do lightly.
 
2014-03-01 08:23:47 AM

Egoy3k: Why do Americans think the Russians are scary?  You might lack the political will to use it effectively but given a good enough reason there is no current force on the planet that could withstand the amount of fark you that a single branch of the US military could dish out let alone all of them.  American air assets can dominate the airspace of any combat region almost indefinitely and you have the strike capability to reduce the effective numbers of any opposing force to almost nothing long before you even bother to put boots on the ground.  The asymmetric warfare and pants on head stupid ROE that you had to deal with in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be an issue in a conflict with Russia.


Air power is a lovely thing, but doesn't win wars.   Land war with Russia, them on a short supply line, and us on a LONG-ass supply line?

Not as clean-cut as you seem to think.

Full-bore war is ALL about logistics.

Plus, the bonus chance of someone popping a nuke if things don't go their way.
 
2014-03-01 08:25:27 AM

hinten: They send in Russian Blackwater without ammunition?

[cdn2.spiegel.de image 850x561]

//know nothing about AK107s but reading the press coverage.


Someone commented in one of these threads the other day, they probably keep their magazines in their pouches.  Lessens the chance of accidental discharge, but they can load pretty quick if they need to.
 
2014-03-01 08:37:16 AM

Alien Robot: brantgoose: I wonder how practical it would be to split the Ukraine into a Ukrainian and a Russian state?Probably not a good idea, I know. It smacks of appeasement

Did it "smack of appeasement" when Czechoslovakia was split up? Did it "smack of appeasement" when Yugoslavia was split up? Did it "smack of appeasement" when Sudan was split up? Did it "smack of appeasement" when Ethiopia was split up?

Is the right of self-determination only applicable to certain groups and not others?


Meh, they are mad because they live in the South, and see that others seceded where they failed.
 
2014-03-01 09:00:51 AM

PunGent: Egoy3k: Why do Americans think the Russians are scary?  You might lack the political will to use it effectively but given a good enough reason there is no current force on the planet that could withstand the amount of fark you that a single branch of the US military could dish out let alone all of them.  American air assets can dominate the airspace of any combat region almost indefinitely and you have the strike capability to reduce the effective numbers of any opposing force to almost nothing long before you even bother to put boots on the ground.  The asymmetric warfare and pants on head stupid ROE that you had to deal with in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be an issue in a conflict with Russia.

Air power is a lovely thing, but doesn't win wars.   Land war with Russia, them on a short supply line, and us on a LONG-ass supply line?

Not as clean-cut as you seem to think.

Full-bore war is ALL about logistics.

Plus, the bonus chance of someone popping a nuke if things don't go their way.


I'm not nearly so concerned about the logistics, as we're pretty good at that, but if it helps, the Russian gauge is still different than the rest of Europe's.
 
2014-03-01 09:44:00 AM

vygramul: PunGent: Egoy3k: Why do Americans think the Russians are scary?


Most don't.
Most realize that they are just drawn that way.
 
2014-03-01 09:45:33 AM

snocone: vygramul: PunGent: Egoy3k: Why do Americans think the Russians are scary?

Most don't.
Most realize that they are just drawn that way.


I dunno about that. Just read all the recent threads. Full of Americans who think Russia is a superpower.
 
2014-03-01 09:47:23 AM
Just checked.
They missed a payment back in '05.
Then failed to pay the penalty charge of 10rubles.

That treaty is old and busted.
 
2014-03-01 09:48:11 AM

vygramul: snocone: vygramul: PunGent: Egoy3k: Why do Americans think the Russians are scary?

Most don't.
Most realize that they are just drawn that way.

I dunno about that. Just read all the recent threads. Full of Americans who think Russia is a superpower.


That, my friend is just the usual medias doing their dance.
 
2014-03-01 09:50:24 AM
Just realized, should have unfunded the Drums of War and blu blood bleeders before cutting the military down to size.
 
2014-03-01 12:15:22 PM

vygramul: snocone: vygramul: PunGent: Egoy3k: Why do Americans think the Russians are scary?

Most don't.
Most realize that they are just drawn that way.

I dunno about that. Just read all the recent threads. Full of Americans who think Russia is a superpower.


Better than all the people who have read ZERO military history and blithely predict walkovers where they shouldn't.

"It'll take six weeks and cost six million dollars."

Remember that?
 
2014-03-01 12:41:44 PM

Keith Dudemeister: From the Guardian:

"Political leaders moved fast in Moscow with the parliament rapidly introducing a law that would make it easier for new territories to be added to Russia's existing borders, a move that seemed directly linked to events in Crimea. The bill would allow for regions to join Russia by referendum if its host country does not have a "legitimate government". "If as the result of a referendum, Crimea appeals to Russia with a desire to join us, we should have the legal mechanisms to answer," said MP Elena Mizulina."

Probably just a coincidence that they voted on this just now, right?


That's an interesting phrase, "legitimate government".  What constitutes a "legitimate government"?  For instance, how long after the French Revolution did the government there become legitimate in an internationally recognized sense?
 
2014-03-01 12:44:57 PM

MylesHeartVodak: And somebody shut down all of our A-10s because we were never going to need tankbusters again.


I've been saying for 20 years the best investment the USAF could make would be ordering up a couple new wings of modernized A-10s.    The pilots love them, the maintainers love them, the ground troops love them.   It's still the single most effective CAS platform on Earth, and nothing proposed as a replacement does that job even half as well.

The only ones who don't love them are the top brass who are looking to land 7 figure consulting jobs with Boeing and Lockheed-Martin when they retire.    Plus there's an institutional bias against aircraft that aren't supersonic and multi-role.
 
2014-03-01 12:55:46 PM

PunGent: vygramul: snocone: vygramul: PunGent: Egoy3k: Why do Americans think the Russians are scary?

Most don't.
Most realize that they are just drawn that way.

I dunno about that. Just read all the recent threads. Full of Americans who think Russia is a superpower.

Better than all the people who have read ZERO military history and blithely predict walkovers where they shouldn't.

"It'll take six weeks and cost six million dollars."

Remember that?


Yes, there're a bunch of simpleton armchair generals who don't know where to start with defense analysis. I don't know what the opponents of Obama think is the right answer, but it's probably preposterously stupid.
 
2014-03-01 12:58:40 PM

bintherdunthat: Keith Dudemeister: From the Guardian:

"Political leaders moved fast in Moscow with the parliament rapidly introducing a law that would make it easier for new territories to be added to Russia's existing borders, a move that seemed directly linked to events in Crimea. The bill would allow for regions to join Russia by referendum if its host country does not have a "legitimate government". "If as the result of a referendum, Crimea appeals to Russia with a desire to join us, we should have the legal mechanisms to answer," said MP Elena Mizulina."

Probably just a coincidence that they voted on this just now, right?

That's an interesting phrase, "legitimate government".  What constitutes a "legitimate government"?  For instance, how long after the French Revolution did the government there become legitimate in an internationally recognized sense?


Well, 20 years after beheading Louis XVI they ended up with Louis XVIII.

"The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. And you have burned so very, very brightly, First Republic."
 
2014-03-01 03:40:01 PM
1. Nuke them
2. Fix the errors made in WW2 when we allied with those POS
3. Start with muslim russians in the South to fix 2 problems at once
 
2014-03-01 04:20:27 PM

DamnYankees: netizencain: DamnYankees: Seems like it'd be pretty easy for us to sit this out on the basis that this is basically a civil war.

Civil war until the Russians cross the border

Meh, once you call it a civil war, you can sit it out. If Russians then cross the border, you can just say they are assisting one side of a civil war, not invading Ukraine.

 what is that you say? Austria and Czechoslovakia wanted to be annexed and so the mutual defense treaties were not triggered? Ok fair enough.


I get the desire of avoid getting involved, in fact I wouldn't get involved if I was in Obama probably. And If I was Obama I would try to come up with a way to argue the treaty was implicated. That that would be necessary is self evident.

But I can barely fathom just how craven you must be a non participant human being to sit on your couch 6000 miles away and still be unable to be honest about what is going on over there and the level of Russian aggression we are speculating on.
I mean your unwilling to change the meanings of words to avoid even admitting a promise was made and will be broke here.
just grow a set of nuts for once and admit we said we would get involved but we shouldn't.
 
2014-03-02 01:34:45 AM

vygramul: bintherdunthat: Keith Dudemeister: From the Guardian:

"Political leaders moved fast in Moscow with the parliament rapidly introducing a law that would make it easier for new territories to be added to Russia's existing borders, a move that seemed directly linked to events in Crimea. The bill would allow for regions to join Russia by referendum if its host country does not have a "legitimate government". "If as the result of a referendum, Crimea appeals to Russia with a desire to join us, we should have the legal mechanisms to answer," said MP Elena Mizulina."

Probably just a coincidence that they voted on this just now, right?

That's an interesting phrase, "legitimate government".  What constitutes a "legitimate government"?  For instance, how long after the French Revolution did the government there become legitimate in an internationally recognized sense?

Well, 20 years after beheading Louis XVI they ended up with Louis XVIII.

"The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. And you have burned so very, very brightly, First Republic."



Yanukovych's  Little Versailles of a mansion doesn't compare with the actual Versailles but there are a lot of similarities in the intent, even if it's not quite on such grand scale.

It's better to live in a neighborhood of democracies than in a neighborhood of dictators.
 
Displayed 291 of 291 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report