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.

(War on the Rocks)   Putin is playing chess in Crimea... and losing   (warontherocks.com) divider line 240
    More: Interesting, Vladimir Putin, Crimean, Black Sea Fleet, al Assad, satellite state, Warsaw Pact, Cold War, Russian Bear  
•       •       •

13195 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2014 at 10:23 AM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



240 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-19 12:23:52 PM
plcow: 1) How are they going to farm with fuel for their equipment? How are they going to heat their houses?
2) Norway's oil is already in the equation, are you thinking they can magically create more out of their ass?
3) It take YEARS to build/convert over an export facility. We are moving as fast as we can, but the economics are shaky, regulatory issues abound, and what we have moving forward right now is a drop in the bucket in terms of international trade.
4) A natural gas pipeline across the pacific? lol. we can't even get Keystone built. That would take 10+ years. What I am talking about is what is going to happen this summer and next winter.


1) there is spare capacity in nearly all oil producing countries especially OPEC ones they rarley produce more than 70% of there capacity to keep the prices high.
2) Norway oil and gas is way below max capacity it's about 50% of what it peak capability is.
3) yep but most facilities are well below maximum also the supply is often unrefined .
4) it's a lot less political sensitive to go across the ocean than it is land especially considering the circumstances. Also it's been done successfully and quickly before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pluto
 
2014-03-19 12:24:01 PM

Mentat: TedDalton: If Ukraine still had nukes, would they still have Crimea? Would we let Russia take Crimea if they didn't have nuclear weapons? Having nuclear weapons matter. That is the realpolitik lesson in all this. Would be nuclear states like Iran and Best Korea are taking note I'm sure.

Do you guys really believe that the situation would be better if a small, corrupt nation who just overthrew their President and was on the verge of a civil war had access to 20 year old nukes?


It would be better for Ukraine.
 
2014-03-19 12:25:34 PM

TwistedFark: And we all know what happened to the dinosaurs.


Yep.  They got left off the Ark.  I can't wait to see those CGI dinosaurs in the new Noah movie.  I bet Jesus rides an Allosaurus.
 
2014-03-19 12:27:09 PM

naptapper: Losing? Really?


failing upwards...or something.  The article opinion piece was so disingenuous that I nearly blacked out trying to read it all.  I still ended up only skimming as my brain can only take so much BS at one time.

FTA   "Surely, the Obama administration is adrift in a sea tossed by crises. But the smugness of the "we told you so" crowd is equally uninformed. The Cold-War-is-back narrative is so politically tinged that it is hard to take much of it at face value. The general thrust of the argument is that certain administrations were soft  or too careless in expanding NATO (). This combination of expansion and insufficient spine in the face of aggression, emboldened the Russian bear that has come screaming back to terrorize all of Europe once again. In the of the Right Honorable Lindsey Graham, "It started with Benghazi. When you kill Americans and nobody pays a price, you invite this kind of aggression. #Ukraine.""

So here we have a false assumption set up through a straw man (the we told you so crowd).  Yes there are some people pointing out that Obama has hardly stood firm on his red lines.  Of course Lindsay (ambiguously gay) Graham shilling for the intelligence community and general chicken hawks makes it appear this way.  The author however ignores the fact that no one is really going around and explaining the nature of all of this.  By the way I think Victoria (fark the EU) Nuland was involved the policy involving the toppling of Syria (Benghazi blowback), Attempted Syrian destabilization and now the Ukraine.

But LETS IGNORE THAT.  Nevermind handing out cookies to protesters agents provocateur alongside John McCain who also met with opposition members and helped plan who the USA would find acceptable to lead the Ukraine...as opposed to who was elected to lead them.  Yes leave all of that out.  Leave out the false flag sniping of protesters and police and all of the damage and mayhem.  All the while we chide Russia to 'be nice' and tell the Ukrainians to not hurt the violent protesters or else.  So for a couple months we were delivering involuntary anal sex to the Ukraine and now we have a mess to clean up in what is left and we are out the oil and gas rights in Crimea/Black Sea area.  Which by the way was the entire reason for all of these antics.

Also please forget about the people who died and or are dying/will die as a result of this particular brand of greed.  Russia isn't innocent they want the gas and oil as much or more than we do and are willing to act decisively to get it and invoke cultural ties as a reason.  Which is far more valid than anything we have yet to come up with.

This isn't about the cold war.  That's a red herring and the author should know that.  This is about resources and wealth. Oh and about debt.
 
2014-03-19 12:28:13 PM

Yamaneko2: Mentat: TedDalton: If Ukraine still had nukes, would they still have Crimea? Would we let Russia take Crimea if they didn't have nuclear weapons? Having nuclear weapons matter. That is the realpolitik lesson in all this. Would be nuclear states like Iran and Best Korea are taking note I'm sure.

Do you guys really believe that the situation would be better if a small, corrupt nation who just overthrew their President and was on the verge of a civil war had access to 20 year old nukes?

It would be better for Ukraine.


How?

Ukraine:  We have dozens of obsolete nuclear weapons that we may or may not be able to use against you, assuming of course that they haven't all been sold on the black market!
Russia:  We have thousands of functional nukes and we only need to aim a few your way,

Getting rid of Ukraine's nukes was they right thing to do for everyone.
 
2014-03-19 12:29:23 PM

TDBoedy: naptapper: Losing? Really?

failing upwards...or something.  The article opinion piece was so disingenuous that I nearly blacked out trying to read it all.  I still ended up only skimming as my brain can only take so much BS at one time.

FTA   "Surely, the Obama administration is adrift in a sea tossed by crises. But the smugness of the "we told you so" crowd is equally uninformed. The Cold-War-is-back narrative is so politically tinged that it is hard to take much of it at face value. The general thrust of the argument is that certain administrations were soft  or too careless in expanding NATO (). This combination of expansion and insufficient spine in the face of aggression, emboldened the Russian bear that has come screaming back to terrorize all of Europe once again. In the of the Right Honorable Lindsey Graham, "It started with Benghazi. When you kill Americans and nobody pays a price, you invite this kind of aggression. #Ukraine.""

So here we have a false assumption set up through a straw man (the we told you so crowd).  Yes there are some people pointing out that Obama has hardly stood firm on his red lines.  Of course Lindsay (ambiguously gay) Graham shilling for the intelligence community and general chicken hawks makes it appear this way.  The author however ignores the fact that no one is really going around and explaining the nature of all of this.  By the way I think Victoria (fark the EU) Nuland was involved the policy involving the toppling of Syria (Benghazi blowback), Attempted Syrian destabilization and now the Ukraine.

But LETS IGNORE THAT.  Nevermind handing out cookies to protesters agents provocateur alongside John McCain who also met with opposition members and helped plan who the USA would find acceptable to lead the Ukraine...as opposed to who was elected to lead them.  Yes leave all of that out.  Leave out the false flag sniping of protesters and police and all of the damage and mayhem.  All the while we chide Russia to 'be nice' and te ...


Don't forget chemtrails.
 
2014-03-19 12:30:03 PM
It will take several years to get LNG from the US to Europe.  It will increase domestic costs substantially.  If we cut Russia's volume to Europe in half, they just increase the other halfs price and reroute the lost half to China.  Is it wise to trash the Russian economy and probably push the world economy back into a deep recession over all this?  I know, domino theory, but I think Russia has sent out the message they want, and as long as Nato and the EU quit trying to annex former republics, Putin may be kept busy with his own economy.  Ukraine has had a surge of money poured into it and may be better off economically and be rid of a pretty nationalistic part of their country.  They should just ask for a high and just compensation for their loss, treat eastern Ukraine with justice and respect, and just move on or they may end up with a much worse situation.
 
2014-03-19 12:30:26 PM

Mentat: kbronsito: durbnpoisn: Okay, so I did some reading just to be clear on this.  This is what I see...

Crimea is in dispute because the Ukraine says it's theirs, and so does Russia.
The people in Crimea, and their gov't say they want to be Russian.  So does Russia.

The only people that seem upset about this are the Ukranians, who will lose the territory, and the entire western world, for no real good reason that I can understand.

I can, at least, see why Ukraine is upset about losing Crimea.  Where would they put their navy if they lost all that coastline?
But that's about the only thing that seems to make any sense.

you may want to look up a map of Ukraine.

Yes, look at the map.  They not only lost the entire Crimean coastline, but the Sea of Azov is effectively closed to them now.  For all intents and purposes, Ukraine just lost 75% of its Black Sea coastline and most of its major ports.


they can't have more than a dozen ships... half of which are probably not shipshape because the money to maintain them was stolen by the government and the spare parts were sold in the black market. I think Odessa's port can house that navy (and I'm using the word "navy" very generously here). The loss of strategic naval ports is only critical importance to countries with actual navies. No country likes losing territory. But naval issues are not Ukraine's biggest problem here.
 
2014-03-19 12:30:32 PM

SpaceButler: durbnpoisn: Okay, so I did some reading just to be clear on this.  This is what I see...

Crimea is in dispute because the Ukraine says it's theirs, and so does Russia.
The people in Crimea, and their gov't say they want to be Russian.  So does Russia.

The only people that seem upset about this are the Ukranians, who will lose the territory, and the entire western world, for no real good reason that I can understand.

I can, at least, see why Ukraine is upset about losing Crimea.  Where would they put their navy if they lost all that coastline?
But that's about the only thing that seems to make any sense.

By my understanding:
Crimea was formally made part of Ukraine during the Soviet era, but it was kept by Ukraine when the USSR fell, though Russia retained its Black Sea fleet and that fleet's deepwater port at Sevastopol.  Ever since that deal was worked out, I'm not aware of any serious debate about the fact that Crimea was Ukrainian territory.
The western world is upset about Russia annexing Crimea mainly because of how it's happened.  It wasn't initiated by the people of Crimea; it was initiated by Russia using insignia-free military troops and crony politicians, in response to the people of the Ukraine in general making it clear through mass protests that they wanted to join the EU and not be a de facto Russian vassal.  If this had all started with a domestic referendum in Crimea, I doubt the west would be doing much more than shrugging, or maybe grumbling a little.


We'd all be doing jack shiat about it. god only knows what Putin was thinking?
and righting histories wrongs, this was a wrong Russia actually inflicted on itself and his bare chest wresting dead tigers mentality has probably made way worse.
All I can think is he's played his 'I'm gonna make Russia great' again card way too early. i.e this is how he's gonna make Russia great again.
we've been warned.
 
2014-03-19 12:36:00 PM

kbronsito: QUESTION:

1. Brazil's economy is bigger than Russia's. And China isn't in the G8 either. Why not give Russia's spot to either of those guys?

2. Russia has a World Cup coming up. I'm sure the U.S, UK, or Spain/Portugal would be happy to host it instead. (If the Russian team boycott's... who the fark cares. They can't even qualify unless they host anyways. One more spot for a team someone may actually want to watch).


^^^^ this I like. Putin is about leveraging his image, so this is a viable thing to do. I agree with the concept that basically we have no dog in this fight (militarily) but there are tons of diplomatic and economic things we can do that will embarrass Vlad. In the meantime we can rollback on Start II and build some really cool antimissile systems in Europe. Now that's a good use of a trillion dollars...
 
2014-03-19 12:37:36 PM
I hate chess. Can we play checkers instead?
 
2014-03-19 12:38:42 PM

Mentat: TDBoedy: naptapper: Losing? Really?

failing upwards...or something.  The article opinion piece was so disingenuous that I nearly blacked out trying to read it all.  I still ended up only skimming as my brain can only take so much BS at one time.


'you're forgetting chemtrails'


Yeah...look buddy.  I don't know who you shill for or why or even if you do.  But regardless of that I pointed out facts of what is going on.  And your attack has no factual refutation only an immature ad hominem attack which is about as convincing as telling me I'm a poopy head.
 
2014-03-19 12:38:59 PM

Infernalist: Ghastly: Russia is a kleptocracy with a capitalist economy. Hit the money men where it hurts with sanctions and they'll remove Putin and go back to playing nice because to them being billionaires is way more important that their puppet having a place to play with his boats.

Start yanking the money and Putin will retire due to health reasons.

It's a game to see who runs out of money first.  The West or Russia's oligarchs.


So we are back to the cold war.
 
2014-03-19 12:40:10 PM

TDBoedy: The author however ignores the fact that no one is really going around and explaining the nature of all of this.


So he shouldn't KISS and instead bore us to death?
 
2014-03-19 12:42:23 PM

TDBoedy: Mentat: TDBoedy: naptapper: Losing? Really?

failing upwards...or something.  The article opinion piece was so disingenuous that I nearly blacked out trying to read it all.  I still ended up only skimming as my brain can only take so much BS at one time.

'you're forgetting chemtrails'


Yeah...look buddy.  I don't know who you shill for or why or even if you do.  But regardless of that I pointed out facts of what is going on.  And your attack has no factual refutation only an immature ad hominem attack which is about as convincing as telling me I'm a poopy head.


Are you trying to go for Pocket Ninja's gimmick here or just trolling in general?
 
2014-03-19 12:44:07 PM

Captain Steroid: I hate chess. Can we play checkers instead?


Reminds me of the saying, "Never play leapfrog with a unicorn."
 
2014-03-19 12:45:10 PM

Nancy Grace's Billowing Face Vents: Just like the economy (regional, global) - things just happen, and no one party can do much about it. Proof? This recession began in 2008 and the BEST efforts of dozens of nations has not made a dent. It will just run its course.


That's hardly true.  Canada fared pretty well through the recession - better than any other G8 nation - because the Canadian government didn't de-regulate as much as the others, thereby preventing Canadian banks from over-leveraging themselves and engaging in many of the other risky activities that took down banks en masse in much of the rest of the West.  Germany has weathered much better than the rest of Europe, in part because of a much more progressive response to the crisis that included government programs to keep more workers employed by allowing their employers to reduce their hours but keep their pay the same using government subsidies to make up the shortfall.  Australia recovered faster than anyone else, thanks largely to a stimulus that actually worked.  Meanwhile, nations like Spain and the UK who responded with austerity measures have had a much more difficult time trying to recover, including major unemployment problems and even riots.  America's originally-Keynesian stimulus plan was watered down to include a bunch of tax cuts in an ill-fated attempt to gain some Republican support, and since then, America has had middling results in recovering from the financial crisis: better than some, worse than others.  I'm not a trained economist, so I could be wrong, but to me it seems like the financial crash and its aftermath actually have a number of clear lessons to teach about how the things governments do can encourage or discourage a crash like the one in 2008, and to aid or hinder recovery.
 
2014-03-19 12:51:15 PM

Gonz: I don't particularly want Russia to take over Crimea. If the Crimeans want to be Russian, then I guess that's fine. Whatever.

But either way, it's not worth a single American life to me. Period.


If Crimeans want to be Russian is not a clear thing. But yes. If they want to be they should be part if Russia... but not like this. Should be legitimate debate and discussion without armed Russian soldiers manning the booths.


Do Crimea want to be Russian. 58% ethnically Russian. 42% ethnic groups that hate Russia.

Of the 58% Russian, many in the younger generations tend to lean to want to stay Ukrainian; the older generatio almost entirely lean to Russian..

It really isn't clear which way the population really would lean. It would probably be a pretty close vote.

But I agree. In a clean, well organized referendum with international oversight for fairness; Crimea should be allows self determination.
 
2014-03-19 12:51:47 PM
Meanwhile, Obama counts to potato
 
2014-03-19 12:53:41 PM

Rwa2play: Ignored "Rwa2play". If you want to completely hide ignored user comments, change the "Show header of ignored comments" option in your user profile.


ad hominems get the ignore button
 
2014-03-19 12:54:22 PM

naptapper: Losing? Really?


That fantasy narrative goes right along with the other fantasy narrative that republicans live Putin. The latter is especially funny given damn near very one of the farkers spouting it in this thread were mumbling around Putin's penis a few weeks ago.
 
2014-03-19 12:56:17 PM

Captain Steroid: I hate chess.


obvious
www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-03-19 01:02:10 PM
It sounds like he's just saying "ignore what they've done in the past 10 years, because they're nothing compared to 30 years ago."  His analysis is incorrect, though.  After popular sentiment during Afghanistan and Iraq indicated that the West's push for influence has sputtered and died, Russia (and China) prepared to expand their sphere of influence.  Georgia in 2008 was Putin testing the waters, and the US failed that test (when Bush and Congress were just about as deadlocked as they are now). Having so many western countries dependent on Russian resources didn't help matters either. Emboldened by our reaction, China started in on the South China Sea.

The only reason the current Ukraine situation is bad for Putin is that due to a bunch of upstarts, he now has to take by force what would have been handed to him easily within 5 years.  The question now is what will our response be?  Sanctioning a couple handfuls of politicians is a joke.  What we're facing now is the same question faced during the world wars:  Are we going to isolate ourselves and let the world burn, or do we rightfully resume the mantle of "world's police" since doing without one has worked so poorly?
 
2014-03-19 01:06:07 PM

derpy: Anayalator: KAVORKA: How is he losing?

He's plaing Czechers

[cdn.pastemagazine.com image 521x294]


3.bp.blogspot.com

Guy in the cube next to me is looking at me like: What the hell is so funny??  Great work!!!
 
2014-03-19 01:15:57 PM

TDBoedy: Rwa2play: Ignored "Rwa2play". If you want to completely hide ignored user comments, change the "Show header of ignored comments" option in your user profile.

ad hominems get the ignore button


LET ME SHOW YOU ALL THAT I'M IGNORING THIS GUY~!

The last refuge of a douchebag.
 
2014-03-19 01:16:14 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Peter von Nostrand: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: Bush was not a big government pussy, Obama is.

This is what the GOP actually believes! The guy that turned a surplus into a deficit, started two wars that took 12 years to resolve, created the Patriot act and NSA spying programs IS NOT a big government "pussy"?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

He also created the largest bureaucracy in history. Then again you aren't responding to someone who is in touch with reality

Fair point.


Both of you are nuts, and you know it. Bush did not make the federal government be in complete charge of our lives, take away all our rights, and put everyone on welfare. Obama did.

Obama approval rating, how is that treating you, peons? Your boy will go down as the worst President in the history of the country.
 
2014-03-19 01:17:23 PM
The Cold War may be over, but Putin is reaching further back than that, trying to re-create the Soviet Union.  Damn, but this might be an issue worth going to war over...
 
2014-03-19 01:27:40 PM

flondrix: The Cold War may be over, but Putin is reaching further back than that, trying to re-create the Soviet Union.  Damn, but this might be an issue worth going to war over...



Perhaps, but only if he gets incredibly aggressive with no thought of the consequences.  This isn't like the Cold War, from an economic perspective.  They know they can't survive if they're choked off from the world economy.  Sanctions can actually cripple the country.  They don't have the resources and economic power to build a world power on their own.

So yes, they can cause enough trouble to warrant war in the short term.  But on any timescale of consequence, they're screwed if they do.
 
2014-03-19 01:29:06 PM

grumpyguru: It sounds like he's just saying "ignore what they've done in the past 10 years, because they're nothing compared to 30 years ago."  His analysis is incorrect, though.  After popular sentiment during Afghanistan and Iraq indicated that the West's push for influence has sputtered and died, Russia (and China) prepared to expand their sphere of influence.  Georgia in 2008 was Putin testing the waters, and the US failed that test (when Bush and Congress were just about as deadlocked as they are now). Having so many western countries dependent on Russian resources didn't help matters either. Emboldened by our reaction, China started in on the South China Sea.

The only reason the current Ukraine situation is bad for Putin is that due to a bunch of upstarts, he now has to take by force what would have been handed to him easily within 5 years.  The question now is what will our response be?  Sanctioning a couple handfuls of politicians is a joke.   What we're facing now is the same question faced during the world wars:  Are we going to isolate ourselves and let the world burn, or do we rightfully resume the mantle of "world's police" since doing without one has worked so poorly?


The deadlock over the South China Sea has been ongoing for decades.  It has nothing to do with recent events and entirely to do with everyone wanting a piece of the valuables under the sea.  Just because its gotten more attention recently doesn't mean the status-quo changed.

What Western push for influence are you referring to?  Iraq and Afghanistan were bloody invasions (and fairly stupid ones at that).  The EU hasn't really been pushing for more influence in Eastern Europe as they are all furiously bailing out their own boats to let new ones in their sailing club.

The situation is bad for Putin because hes trading short term gain(???) for long term loss.  I say short term gain with lots of questions because Crimea has a naval base that is under permanent lease, a majority Russian population with bought politicians giving him undue influence in the national politics of Ukraine, a net drag on the Ukrainian economy, and zero natural resources to speak of.  So he gets to hold the official deed.  Big deal.  Why would you want to?  It was a better deal to pay rent for a single base and have defacto political control over the entire peninsula without having to support it.

In return for that crappy deal every other ex-Soviet Republic is going to think twice about any Russian involvements and influences.  Because they JUST might be trading more than resources or money at some point.  They showed the world that being within the Russian sphere of influence means obey completely or ELSE.  Not a very attractive thing at the negotiating table.

These first sanctions weren't hard.  That's not the point.  Sanctions aren't an on off switch you just throw on and the financial markets are complex.  You start small while you give your own economies time to divest or divert their positions away from your next move.  Trade is a two-way street and you are trying to minimize how much blow back into your own economy you cause.

The second bolded statement vastly overstates the effects of all this.  With the Russian economy plugged into the rest of the world at a much greater extent than they used to it won't come to a military confrontation.
 
2014-03-19 01:33:29 PM

Thunderpipes: Both of you are nuts, and you know it. Bush did not make the federal government be in complete charge of our lives, take away all our rights, and put everyone on welfare. Obama did.

Obama approval rating, how is that treating you, peons? Your boy will go down as the worst President in the history of the country.



You should probably know that you're not as good an ambassador for conservatism as you seem to think you are.
 
2014-03-19 01:33:45 PM
Nancy Grace's Billowing Face Vents: "This recession began in 2008 and the BEST efforts of dozens of nations has not made a dent."

Have you considered that the best efforts of a dozen nations may not have been geared toward promoting general recovery? And that so long as the bleeding is staunched, and the problems of the struggling nations aren't spilling over any borders, the people at the wheel see no particular need to even *try* to promote recovery in those areas?

"while China and India step forward, due to simple inevitability of countries with a behemothic middle class are wont to do."

Have you considered that a large population may not lead inevitably to a large middle class?
If the west is any guide, one ought to wonder whether even *having* a large middle class is at all a natural or sustainable result of our flavor of market economy (to say nothing of China and India's even-less-redistributive flavor). There's a case to be made from the data that the US' large, strong middle class was more a temporary aberration caused by one-time events (war, postwar recovery, being initially advantaged at the onset of an opening of world trade, one-time demographic shifts such as women entering the workforce, etc) and since the erosion of organized labor has only been propped up from total collapse by a series of convenient bubbles.

If, in fact, middle classes are not inevitable, natural features, then developing economies have a much longer, slower grind ahead of them. And the turn toward inequality in the last couple decades is going to work strongly against any broad-based progress in that area.
 
2014-03-19 01:34:09 PM

TDBoedy: Mentat: TDBoedy: naptapper: Losing? Really?

failing upwards...or something.  The article opinion piece was so disingenuous that I nearly blacked out trying to read it all.  I still ended up only skimming as my brain can only take so much BS at one time.

'you're forgetting chemtrails'


Yeah...look buddy.  I don't know who you shill for or why or even if you do.  But regardless of that I pointed out facts of what is going on.  And your attack has no factual refutation only an immature ad hominem attack which is about as convincing as telling me I'm a poopy head.

You're

the one who said that the US staged a coup in Ukraine over the Black Sea oil rights and that somehow Russia is the victim in all this.
 
2014-03-19 01:42:45 PM

Thunderpipes: cameroncrazy1984: Peter von Nostrand: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: Bush was not a big government pussy, Obama is.

This is what the GOP actually believes! The guy that turned a surplus into a deficit, started two wars that took 12 years to resolve, created the Patriot act and NSA spying programs IS NOT a big government "pussy"?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

He also created the largest bureaucracy in history. Then again you aren't responding to someone who is in touch with reality

Fair point.

Both of you are nuts, and you know it. Bush did not make the federal government be in complete charge of our lives, take away all our rights, and put everyone on welfare. Obama did.

Obama approval rating, how is that treating you, peons? Your boy will go down as the worst President in the history of the country.


Okay, there's no way you are a legit account. Now to figure out who's troll alt you are
 
2014-03-19 01:50:48 PM
I know little about the petro-politics of the region, but there's a pipeline from Azerbaijan over to the Mediterranean sea already. Iran also has access to the Caspian Sea, and loosening sanctions on Iran for playing nice might mean they get more oil to European markets. Russia's loss could be Iran's gain here.
 
2014-03-19 03:16:14 PM

Peter von Nostrand: He has legions of Republicans as fans, so he always has that going for him. Hell, I'm surprised he didn't win the last cpac straw poll


Too liberal.
 
2014-03-19 04:41:20 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-19 06:56:19 PM

TDBoedy: Mentat: TDBoedy: naptapper: Losing? Really?

failing upwards...or something.  The article opinion piece was so disingenuous that I nearly blacked out trying to read it all.  I still ended up only skimming as my brain can only take so much BS at one time.

'you're forgetting chemtrails'


Yeah...look buddy.  I don't know who you shill for or why or even if you do.  But regardless of that I pointed out facts of what is going on.  And your attack has no factual refutation only an immature ad hominem attack which is about as convincing as telling me I'm a poopy head.


If your post was an Arctic expedition and the North Pole was a fact, you would be stranded somewhere in Bermuda eating your sled dogs.
 
2014-03-19 10:58:01 PM

Felgraf: Yakk: Getting everything you want = a loss now?

He got a territory that is going to be a massive money sink, their stock prices have already taken a hit, and he's gonna push other nearby territories towards the EU that much faster.

He's also given the EU a huge imepetus to get off their ass and get their gas from somewhere else.


THIS. Also, prior to his puppet fleeing Kiev, Vlad the Paler had ALL of the Ukraine. Now he only has Crimea.

Plus that gas pipeline looks mighty rickety. If war breaks out in Eastern Ukraine I sure hope it doesn't get hit by stray ordnance.
 
2014-03-20 05:44:04 AM
Looking back they could have played it differently
Learned about the man before they fell
But it took time to understand the man
Now at least they know they know him well
 
2014-03-20 08:20:49 AM

NEDM: TDBoedy: Mentat: TDBoedy: naptapper: Losing? Really?

failing upwards...or something.  The article opinion piece was so disingenuous that I nearly blacked out trying to read it all.  I still ended up only skimming as my brain can only take so much BS at one time.

'you're forgetting chemtrails'


Yeah...look buddy.  I don't know who you shill for or why or even if you do.  But regardless of that I pointed out facts of what is going on.  And your attack has no factual refutation only an immature ad hominem attack which is about as convincing as telling me I'm a poopy head.

You're the one who said that the US staged a coup in Ukraine over the Black Sea oil rights and that somehow Russia is the victim in all this.


Lets see how misleading your statement is in construction:  First part is accurate...the US staged a coup.  The second part about Russia being a victim?  Yeah I never said that.  The Ukraine is a victim of the US/EU/NATO bloc and to a similar degree Russia.  I don't know how you guys interpret things so poorly.
 
Displayed 40 of 240 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report