Skip to comments.Russian soldiers take over Crimean airports: minister
Posted on 02/28/2014 4:19:10 AM PST by Zhang Fei
click here to read article
NEVER! stay out of there.
and while we are at it time to leave Hamid Karzai to his mess.
Good lord now we will hear from the conservative faction from the Harvard Endowment (looters of post-Soviet Russia). My personal wants are for mainly peaceful splitting of the country. (because I want to split from Blue Dystopia)
I suspect George Soros will be doing most of the deciding for him.
The looters are mainly Soviet ex-apparatchiks. They've been looting foreign investors every chance they've gotten. You have to hand it to the Russians, though - they've managed to blame their initial economic malaise on foreigners. But what would you expect from the Russians? They did manage to convince a good chunk of the world that the CIA invented AIDS to kill black people.
Strategically, Russia has to do whatever is necessary to maintain its Black Sea assets. The Ukraine will have to surrender the Crimea in exchange for a Russian OK for it to join NATO and the EU.
Nothing is gonna happen, Obama will do nothing, EU will do nothing because the simple answer is because Putin and the rest of the world is not going to risk war with Russia over this.
Why would supplying Ukraine risk war with Russia?
They finally elected a president...and ONE FACTION says "we don't like him" because he went to Russia for help that the EU will never provide.
And Crimea should be returned to Russia.
There are agreements with Russia regarding their ports. The Ukrainians are revolting AGAIN because there are instigators all around....and that includes the USA.
There is no Freedom issue.
I suspect their pain threshold is not what it used to be. The Soviets cried uncle after losing 13K dead in Afghanistan. If the Ukrainians are prepared to take the pain of inflicting tens of thousands of dead on the Russians, odds are that the Russians will pull back. It depends on what the Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice.
They revolted because he was setting himself up to be president for life. This was Chile's Salvador Allende all over again, including the fact that both Allende and Yanukovich were acting at the behest of the Russians.
- Tell Putin I can be more flexible after my reelection .. B. Hussein Obama Junior
EU will do nothing. They are too dependent upon Russian petroleum.
The Crimea and Donets Basin are ethnically Russian, culturally Russian, and speak Russian. The Current Ukraine borders are an artificial creation of Stalin and Roosevelt. Splitting the country makes sense and would contribute to world peace. The Russians in the Southwest present a more difficult problem - that area either needs to be given to Russia, as well, or ethnically cleansed by the west.
Allende was a good guy who cleaned out the Communists. Next you're going to be saying that Franco was a Red.
I think this is what might be called a “soft invasion”.
Oil is fungible. The EU can buy it from anyone, and the Russians need to sell it on the world markets to fund their war on Ukraine. Given that oil contracts are set up to optimize transportation and processing costs, the EU will pay a little more to buy from other suppliers and the Russians will get a little less selling to customers further away.
You must be thinking of Pinochet, who cleaned out Allende and his Cuban advisors.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but here's a question for you. Suppose the Indian nations in, say, Maine claim that they have been treated unfairly by the federal government. And they have ample evidence to prove it.
So by a large margin, the nations decide to break away. It's all about freedom, the freedom of the nations to decide their own future.
Would Russia be doing the right thing by supplying arms to the nations? And how would that affect the stability of the world?
The "reset button" got stuck on Hillary and Obama.
Obama and the MSM employees will hype this dispute with Russia to the level of a "Cuban missile" crisis -- or maybe a Berlin blockade.
Then remarks questioning Obama, et al. abilities and motives could result in a 2014 version to the Great Sedition Trial of 1944.. the purpose of the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 was to destroy Roosevelt's pre-war critics as attention turned to post-war matters particularly about relations with communists. IMO.
FDR started with small fry and planned to move up the chain of opposition.
FDR failed. Obama might succeed, the Establishment today is arguably aging 1960s New Left Marxist-Alinsky radical, campus psycho spoiled brats and their ideological issue. The Establishment in FDR's days were Americans who eventually stopped:
". . . one of the blackest marks on the record of American jurisprudence. In the legal world, none can recall a case where so many Americans were brought to trial for political persecution and were so arrogantly denied the rights [guaranteed] an American citizen under the Constitution.
No - you're saying I'm wrong. And your argument is a reasonable one. Here's the difficulty - your analogy could be applied to the former Warsaw Pact nations or, indeed, to any nation in the world that has been been overrun. Should we de-recognize governments of the nations of the former Warsaw Pact and demand that they surrender their sovereignty to the Russian empire? After all, Russia did conquer them fair and square during WWII, at the cost of millions of Russian servicemen. Wouldn't Eastern Europe be much more stable under Russian tutelage? Doesn't the Right of Conquest mean anything, any more?
Notwithstanding the reductio ad absurdum I posited earlier, note that Ukraine is a sovereign nation. It is not a part of Russia. A more appropriate analogy would be whether anyone should object if we invaded and annexed Cuba.
I think you misread the situation. Ukraine is in NO shape to fight Belarus, let alone Russia. The country is completely bankrupt. Putin could shut down all the gas lines leading into the country in a heartbeat. Ukraine’s military is in disarray after the coup, with many groups being charged in court over the protest killings.
If these people are indeed Russian commandos rather than just separatist rebels (and I’m not convinced they are), then there is nothing Ukraine can do. Her hands are tied.
Besides which, do they really want these thugs on their border and taking over Russia's nukes in the Ukraine? What's to stop their violent style of protesting from spreading to the poor countries of the EU?
The Ukraine is not Afghanistan nor are the Ukrainians, Afghanis. The language and cultural issue is deep-rooted and will be a running sore and distraction.
What? Allende was a communist
Russia owns the pipelines. They cannot get it from anywhere. The infrastructure is not there.
Afghanistan was close to dead last in terms of GDP per capita when the Soviets invaded. (Some things never change). It hadn't fought a real war in over 50 years. Its finances were a shambles. Thanks to a coalition of anti-Communist states, they got a few billion dollars worth of imported arms and money to feed their guerrilla force, and proceeded to bog the Russians down in an increasingly demoralizing war.
In contrast, Ukraine is roughly in the middle of the pack, income-wise. If we hand a few billion dollars a year in food and weaponry to the Ukrainians to ward off the Russian invasion, I expect they will give at least as good an account of themselves as the Afghans did. After WWII, Stepan Bandera and his people fought the Red Army for over a decade with zero foreign aid, and were destroyed only after the Red Army slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians with them - which is presumably why Khrushchev gave the Crimea to Ukraine - as a consolation prize for mass killings of Ukrainians. If today's Ukrainians have anything like Bandera's fighting spirit, a few billion dollars in equipment and food should see them pushing the Russians out of the country altogether.
The EU can get its oil from supertankers like everybody else.
The Ukraine turned over their nuclear weapons to Russia a long time ago. They have all kinds of agreements with Russia.
Big difference. In Afghanistan, the natives wanted the invaders gone. The Crimean citizens will fight just as hard as the Afghans did. If Ukrainian tanks roll in, it will only grow the widespread belief that the Ukrainian government is controlled by Svoboda who want to ethnically cleanse the Crimea. Vietnam shows what happens when the local population is not on your side.
Probably 10-20% of Afghans wanted the Soviets there. And they would have held out if Yeltsin hadn't cut off their oil. Even if you add all of Crimea's population together, you don't get to 10% of Ukraine's population.
On condition that the US and the UK guarantee their borders. They were a little too trusting.
Our military is beat up, used up, torn up, worn out. They simply do not need another war right now. These folks need a break.
Agree 100% with your statement. We need to rebuild and refit our military, not deploy them on further wars. And besides, when Obi gets done with his proposed cuts? We’ll be lucky to have enough troops left to fill sand bags along the Mississippi River...
“The EU can get its oil from supertankers like everybody else. “
If you’e buying on the spot market and taking delivery via tankers, you’re likely paying a premium price. The UK is discovering how expensive that strategy is, as energy prices skyrocket and people are forced to choose between heat and food. There’s a new term in England called “fuel poverty” to designate areas that lack adequate energy for heat and lights. It includes about 3 million individuals. Governments that interfere with heat for its citizens will inevitably fall.
What is fuel poverty?
UK weather: 31,000 people DIED of the cold last winter
>>If today’s Ukrainians have anything like Bandera’s fighting spirit, a few billion dollars in equipment and food should see them pushing the Russians out of the country altogether.<<
It is so good that Russians aren’t that America-hating. A few billions in Russian aid to Iraq and Afghanistan could do wonders to US casualty figures in these respective nations.
It could have been surpassed Vietnam losses easily.
I’m still wondering why Russians are so restraint, considering a mood of many Americans who wants to see them bleeding.
The Parliament voted 328-0 to impeach Yanukovich.
You're not right.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.