Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Scary, NATO, Ukraine, interim leader, Viktor Yanukovych, Russian forces  
•       •       •

15783 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 1:50 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2014-02-28 12:54:58 PM  
7 votes:
  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.
2014-02-28 01:07:46 PM  
6 votes:

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
2014-02-28 01:00:40 PM  
6 votes:
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 01:22:46 PM  
5 votes:

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
2014-02-28 02:19:00 PM  
4 votes:
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 02:42:19 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:35:24 PM  
3 votes:
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 02:22:54 PM  
3 votes:
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 01:54:50 PM  
3 votes:
Shoulda kept the nukes.
2014-02-28 04:42:54 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:22:05 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:14:58 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:46:49 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:05:59 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:56:45 PM  
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2014-02-28 02:41:42 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:19:30 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:19:18 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:18:25 PM  
2 votes:
If you have any friends or family in Ukraine, you should let them know now's a good time to leave.
2014-02-28 02:11:00 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:09:01 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:06:40 PM  
2 votes:
Everyone from Serbia to Ukraine should put "Inciting World Wars" as a skill on their LinkedIn.
2014-02-28 02:00:50 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:56:09 PM  
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2014-02-28 01:55:32 PM  
2 votes:
Wait... you guys actually fell for that one?
2014-02-28 01:09:58 PM  
2 votes:

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.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-02-28 12:55:14 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:54:16 PM  
2 votes:
Let's ask Georgia how that worked out.
2014-03-01 08:23:47 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2014-02-28 11:16:12 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:58:30 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:26:52 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:58:45 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:15:20 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:14:55 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:14:06 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:09:56 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:21:45 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:08:12 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:07:36 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:55:54 PM  
1 vote:
The nice thing about living in DC is that I will probably never know what hit me.
2014-02-28 02:53:45 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:51:22 PM  
1 vote:
Well I'm sure the UK will be into going into Crimea again.
2014-02-28 02:46:59 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:38:39 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:38:32 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:38:26 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:38:01 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:36:04 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:32:36 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:23:13 PM  
1 vote:
Tomahawk513:  (Switzerland is a paragon of neutrality).

They will take anyone's nazi gold and stolen renaissance art.
2014-02-28 02:21:03 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:20:13 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:15:39 PM  
1 vote:

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


houseofgeekery.files.wordpress.com
2014-02-28 02:14:28 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:14:00 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:13:37 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:10:35 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:10:00 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:08:41 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:08:28 PM  
1 vote:
I'm sure Russian has no further territorial demands in Europe.  What could possibly go wrong...
2014-02-28 02:07:27 PM  
1 vote:

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


I'd piss on a sparkplug if I thought it would do any good
2014-02-28 02:03:30 PM  
1 vote:
Pooty-poot will visit the front lines
russianreport.files.wordpress.com
2014-02-28 01:59:06 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:58:33 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:58:25 PM  
1 vote:

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


Georgia had nukes?
2014-02-28 01:55:56 PM  
1 vote:
img.fark.net
IP
2014-02-28 01:54:04 PM  
1 vote:
Well that's an interesting complication...
2014-02-28 01:34:35 PM  
1 vote:
Hey, we sent in Putin. You're welcome
2014-02-28 12:51:45 PM  
1 vote:
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.
 
Displayed 70 of 70 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report