Skip to comments.Russian soldiers take over Crimean airports: minister
Posted on 02/28/2014 4:19:10 AM PST by Zhang Fei
Russian soldiers have occupied two key airports in Ukraines restive pro-Russia region of Crimea, Ukraines acting interior minister said Friday.
Soldiers wearing camouflage and bearing automatic weapons have taken up positions at Belbek Airport in Sevastopol, home of Russias Black Sea Fleet, and at the airport in Simferopol, the regions capital, Arsen Avakov said.
He said the soldiers uniforms bore no identifying marks but they do not hide their affiliation with the Russian armed forces.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
The Ukrainian Constitution requirements are similar.
There are 449 members in parliament.
You described Yanukovich's opposition as "one faction". That's NOT a correct description. Faction means a small group within a larger group. As I pointed out to you 328 of the deputies voted to remove Yunukovich which is just under 75% of the deputies in the Rada. Your description is not correct.
No need for US troops. Ukrainians have plenty of manpower. What they need is money and equipment. The Afghans got a few billion dollars' worth spread out over a decade. After 13K KiA, they persuaded the Russians that staying was more trouble than it was worth.
Because Russians have already killed 100K Americans via Korea and Vietnam, not to mention poisoned much of the world's minds against the US via extremely effective propaganda? Given the number of restive (and violent) minorities in Russia proper, there are a lot of things the US could do to make trouble. Ultimately, unlike Russia's efforts in Afghanistan and Ukraine, the US was never going to annex either Iraq or Afghanistan, so there was never a prospect of a long term war in either of those two locations. And the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents got all the supplies they needed via their porous borders. Not to mention that their insurgents included a lot of Russian Muslim minorities who would have made life interesting for Russia if they had returned alive. Ultimately, we helped cleanse Russia of its troublesome zealots. It would be stupid for Russia to get in our way, and even Putin understood that.
Buying oil via supertankers is what developing countries do. The UK has 10x the per capita income of the average developing country. Besides, the Russians have to sell their oil somewhere at the spot price, so UK purchases won't affect that price, except for added transportation costs.
No US troops necessary. The Afghans outlasted the Russians without a single GI going into combat. We sent food and equipment and the Afghans did the rest.
Afghanistan does not equal Ukraine.
We had heavy CIA involvement in Afghanistan in the 80s. And other “interested” Americans.
Putin may not have that much interest in Ukraine proper, but he will never relinquish Crimea.
And if we’ve learned anything, in many instances, US involvement at any level leads to US boots on the ground...
Actually, the majority of US involvement during the Cold War involved material aid. Most of Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines) and Latin America received substantial sums of American aid to fight off their Communist insurgencies. Among the failed efforts that nonetheless stretched our adversaries' resources, we financed Angolan rebels against the ruling Soviet-aligned Angolan government, Tibetan insurgents against the Chinese, the contras against the Soviet-aligned Nicaraguan government.
One of the reasons the US Government has failed to endorse The Cold War Victory Medal is the fact they would need to acknowledge the 500 or so military men who died on various “missions” during the Cold War.
This would be one of those times when it is not good to have Obama in the White House.
No..the “blackest mark” on American jurisprudence was the FDR’s establishment of the “Trading with the Enemy Act” (which is still in effect today), against US citizens to confiscate our gold in 1933, though most are unaware of it.
I wouldn't be so quick to condemn the Ukrainian people. Fit me a for tinfoil hat if you must, but I suspect this is all being ginned up by Western intelligence services and others with an ax to grind with Putin.
Oh I agree with you. Obama wants so bad to stick it to Putin.
Don’t worry! Barack Al-Obama will draw a red line in the sand to stop the Russkies!
Actually, Obama doesn't much care what anyone does outside of the US - his view is that the US is a negative influence on world affairs and needs to be cut down to size. In that respect, many Russophiles and Putin fans on Free Republic agree with him.
There's no need for US troops to get involved, and it would be dangerous to jump in directly. It's not clear yet whether Ukrainians will fight for their territorial integrity. If they do, we should send them money and weapons. The Afghans outlasted the Russians on a measly few billion dollars of foreign aid.
“Buying oil via supertankers is what developing countries do.”
The UK ran out of fuel last winter and had no choice but to buy in the spot market. So buying energy on the international market is not something that only developing countries do. The energy companies didn’t buy enough for the storage tanks to meet the demand for a record-cold winter. And it’s not the government that pays for the fuel, it’s the energy companies, so it doesn’t mater that the UK has 10x more per capita income as compared to Bumf*ck, Egypt. That increased cost must ultimately be paid by the consumer. That’s the reason that the fuel poverty index exists.
My point is that as a citizen of a wealthy industrialized country, the British consumer and/or taxpayer isn't going to sweat the 10%-20% price difference.
>>Because Russians have already killed 100K Americans via Korea and Vietnam, not to mention poisoned much of the world’s minds against the US via extremely effective propaganda?<<
Wasn’t it too long time ago?
>>Ultimately, unlike Russia’s efforts in Afghanistan and Ukraine, the US was never going to annex either Iraq or Afghanistan, so there was never a prospect of a long term war in either of those two locations.<<
Yep, sure. Russia was never going to annex either Cuba and Venezuela and there was never a prospect of a long term war in either of two locations. For the very same reason.
>>And the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents got all the supplies they needed via their porous borders.<<
Not from Russia for sure. In fact, at least in case of Afghanistan, US forces are largely dependant on Russian intelligence? Not to mention supplies via Russia territory, because it is more reliable than via ‘allied’ Pakistan.
>>Given the number of restive (and violent) minorities in Russia proper, there are a lot of things the US could do to make trouble.<<
Yep, sure. McCain and a number of people in State Dept and other bodies does. I don’t think that an American-Chechen peace group was ever disbanded after Beslan massacre. And McCain voiced support for a communist crowd, trying to overthrow Putin’s government in 2012 in Moscow. A US ambassador to Moscow spends more time chatting with communists, anarchists and other -ists than he does with Russian authorities. Yet, you are awaiting any pro-American stance from Russia.