Ukraine and Crimea development thread

[Love Mountain]

Listen, a pro-russian poster, that appears on the forums to specifically post regarding the Ukrainian Crisis and specifically, repeatedly refers to Ukraine as THE Ukraine is a clear choice of words to remind us all of Russia's history in the area. Just like Russian members need to refer to cities by their RUSSIAN names rather than the Ukrainian names. Its a clear conscious choice of words to impose a message. If it was truly an innocent mistake one would accept it and move on and not defend it despite it being mentioned several times that referring the country as The Ukraine is considered derogatory. Simple as that.

It's pretty clear to me that he doesn't have any in-depth knowledge about Ukranian or Russian history. He's simply overly defensive about being attack on such a, let's call it, "trivial" matter. I don't want to create a huge argument about this so let's just leave the issue alone. I think he gets it now and that's all people really wanted to point out anyway.

I was implying that people on this thread have a weird way of rationalizing everything Putin does.

Okay, that's fair enough. I will admit I jumped the gun, but you didn't make it any easier with your wording and the bit you quoted. I'm not gonna admit I have an issue because this isn't a formal debate. Let's be honest, at this point it's just two sides jumping at each other's throats over each individual word.

Of course I was implying he's gearing up for a possible attack on Ukraine, but attack=/= annexation. As I said, there is no doubt some people here will justify it by making up excuses like Putin is just on a humanitarian mission to protect Russians in Eastern Ukraine.

I highly doubt anyone would go that far. The "russophobe" crowd has been rational so far. Yes, we agree with Putin, but nobody saw this invasion coming and all the same, Putin wouldn't attack Eastern Ukraine. Russia hasn't acted like a moron in the last few years. Just a calculating . Be that as it may, while the reaction from TWC and the rest of the world is justified, you're all taking it way too far.

[DisgruntledGoat]

So obviously this is going to play out as follows:

- Sunday the referendum will show that Crimea wants to join Russia
- Ukraine denounces the results and claims they are invalid
- The US, EU and other NATO nations will also call the results invalid and claim that Crimea is still part of Ukraine

So whats the end game for Russia then? Sanctions will be imposed on Monday following the referendum and the ultimatum will be leave Crimea and the sanctions are lifted. Russia will be forced to occupy Crimea to protect its new territory and just wait as sanctions are ramped up? This referendum won't get anywhere other than sanctions and more sanctions. The Ukrainian military has shown discipline in not acting meaning that they are smart enough to let Russia sit there and take the sanctions. So what is the end game for Russia at this point. If anyone says sanctions aren't coming, it seems pretty clear with Obama saying that the US will stand with Ukraine that this issue won't go away until Russia returns Crimea to Ukrainian control. So I don't see the easy out for Russia. IT definitely won't get to keep Crimea.

[pajomife]

I was implying that people on this thread have a weird way of rationalizing everything Putin does. Of course I was implying he's gearing up for a possible attack on Ukraine, but attack=/= annexation. As I said, there is no doubt some people here will justify it by making up excuses like Putin is just on a humanitarian mission to protect Russians in Eastern Ukraine.


Because a EU army is totally going to have a unit of Swedes mixed with Germans and Italians (for example). Rather, there would be a unit made up of Swedes, other units made up of Italians, and others Germans....

There is a line of command from the top to bottom,all the command's needs to be clear,and when a Swedish general give any order to a Italian colonel who will send it to a German and French majors who will have to repeat it to a Portuguese and French captains and so on...it will cause some command breaks.

[Lord of Nihilism]

Listen, a pro-russian poster, that appears on the forums to specifically post regarding the Ukrainian Crisis and specifically, repeatedly refers to Ukraine as THE Ukraine is a clear choice of words to remind us all of Russia's history in the area. Just like Russian members need to refer to cities by their RUSSIAN names rather than the Ukrainian names. Its a clear conscious choice of words to impose a message. If it was truly an innocent mistake one would accept it and move on and not defend it despite it being mentioned several times that referring the country as The Ukraine is considered derogatory. Simple as that.

If you actually believe i'm pro-Russian or pro-West then you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I'v constantly said in this thread that I don't care which side wins this conflict; if Russia gets destroyed in the aftermath, it makes no difference to me; if the Ukraine ceases to exist as a country, it makes no difference to me. Unlike you, I refuse to take a side in this conflict because I care nothing for Western and Eastern nations. I stated before that I say "the Ukraine" when talking about the country because of a few things:

1) In English, it's far easier for me to say "the Ukraine" and it sounds more natural.
2) It's not correct or incorrect to say "Ukraine or "the Ukraine" seeing as i'm not alone is the usage of the word. Didn't the Australian Prime Minister refer to Ukraine as "the Ukraine"? Both phrases are interchangeable.

If you're expecting an apology from me then you're going to be disappointed. Both phrases are correct and the only thing I care about is that people know i'm talking about the country when I say "the Ukraine".

[Love Mountain]

There is a line of command from the top to bottom,all the command's needs to be clear,and when a Swedish general give any order to a Italian colonel who will send it to a German and French majors who will have to repeat it to a Portuguese and French captains and so on...it will cause some command breaks.

You don't think the EU High Command will have translators for when they send out orders?

2) It's not correct or incorrect to say "Ukraine or "the Ukraine" seeing as i'm not alone is the usage of the word. Didn't the Australian Prime Minister refer to Ukraine as "the Ukraine"? Both phrases are interchangeable.

If you're expecting an apology from me then you're going to be disappointed. Both phrases are correct and the only thing I care about is that people know i'm talking about the country when I say "the Ukraine".

You're ignoring the cultural context. Now, while redundant, it's just basic courtesy. The N-word was a good example. It's not about whether black people will get offended. It's about political correctness especially when it comes to regard with semi-formal discussion like this. Now I've defended your use of it once as ignorance, and the followup as just an overly zealous defensiveness, but you're simply wrong if you're gonna ignore the cultural context that comes with "The Ukraine." Nobody will care if you slip up now and then, but deliberately ignoring it is simply disrespectful, not to us or Goat, but to the Ukranian culture and her people.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Listen, a pro-russian poster, that appears on the forums to specifically post regarding the Ukrainian Crisis and specifically, repeatedly refers to Ukraine as THE Ukraine is a clear choice of words to remind us all of Russia's history in the area. Just like Russian members need to refer to cities by their RUSSIAN names rather than the Ukrainian names. Its a clear conscious choice of words to impose a message. If it was truly an innocent mistake one would accept it and move on and not defend it despite it being mentioned several times that referring the country as The Ukraine is considered derogatory. Simple as that.

I think that's a little bit hypersensitive. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

And guess what, "Moscow" and "Kremlin" are not the native names for those places, and neither is "Saint Petersburg", in the way it's pronounced in English. You don't say or write "Warszawa" or "Roma", because you have common, long-established names for these cities in English. And in the same way the Russian language has its long-established, common usage, including "Kiev", "Lvov", and "Kharkov". You are of course free to write them in the official Ukrainian transliteration, but going on about how it's a consciously derogatory reminder of the country's "colonial past" is a bit much, I think.

[DisgruntledGoat]

There is a line of command from the top to bottom,all the command's needs to be clear,and when a Swedish general give any order to a Italian colonel who will send it to a German and French majors who will have to repeat it to a Portuguese and French captains and so on...it will cause some command breaks.

Its a good thing that's not how any multi-national forces are set up...

[humvee2800]

There is a line of command from the top to bottom,all the command's needs to be clear,and when a Swedish general give any order to a Italian colonel who will send it to a German and French majors who will have to repeat it to a Portuguese and French captains and so on...it will cause some command breaks.

While I agree it is risk ( although not in way you mentioned) knowing how poorly run the EU is at times, I disagree that it is innately an issue. 2 or 3 languages basically dominate Europe. There are many options available on top of that for setting up an organisational structure for EU group military actions. Added upon that a handful of countries would most likely be the core of the military forces involved.

[Lord of Nihilism]

You don't think the EU High Command will have translators for when they send out orders?



You're ignoring the cultural context. Now, while redundant, it's just basic courtesy. The N-word was a good example. It's not about whether black people will get offended. It's about political correctness especially when it comes to regard with semi-formal discussion like this. Now I've defended your use of it once as ignorance, and the followup as just an overly zealous defensiveness, but you're simply wrong if you're gonna ignore the cultural context that comes with "The Ukraine." Nobody will care if you slip up now and then, but deliberately ignoring it is simply disrespectful, not to us or Goat, but to the Ukranian culture and her people.

Political correctness is death in my view so my apologies if I don't exactly seem to care. While you are correct in stating that I don't know much about Slavic culture, i'm not going to appease people who are offended about the word "the Ukraine". It's quite a simple scenario here; I previously said that it's more natural and easier for me to say in English "the Ukraine" than "Ukraine". I use both interchangeably but more often than not you'll see me use the former because it's EASIER for me to say and sounds more natural. And while I don't want to drag this topic on for 10 pages, calling Ukraine the Ukraine is the same as calling China "The People's Republic of China" or the US as "The United states". In fact, couldn't the US example be seen as the same as the Ukrainian one? The US is a country, yes? but no one gets offended if you use "the" at the beginning. The Ukraine is a country that consists of Provinces(Don't know the Ukrainian equivalent), so why is it offensive to Ukrainians to address their country as the Ukraine?

As I said before i'm not apologising, since I made it clear that it's more comfortable for me to say the Ukraine in the English language. I use both Ukraine and "the Ukraine phrases when it sounds natural. If you think I use the term 'The Ukraine" to insult the Ukrainians then all I have to say is that it's unfortunate you view the situation that way, since it's clearly not the case.

On a side note, there's a reason I chose this name and it's not because KOTOR2 is one of my favourite games, but rather I have many Nihilistic views. So please keep that in mind when you talk to me in regards to morals, laws, and ethics.

[snuggans]

vice is providing some pretty damn good coverage. the "former soviet officer" at the end is priceless.









Crimea's Tatars brace for Russian annexation

[Simon Cashmere]

People do say 'The United States' maybe it's just the letter 'U' we don't like saying without a 'The'. Still, if Ukrainians don't like it I am happy to go their way on it. I suppose it's like someone you meet who prefers their name to be pronounced a strange way, it just annoys them if you don't do it.

Why is Russia mobilising on the border with the rest of Ukraine? Posturing? Preparing to invade? Deterring Ukraine from invading?

[KieKeBooN]

Ah yes. Putin going to war. Seriously fox, what century do we live in? You're calling us Russophobes for dismissing the idea that Putin wants to annex Ukraine. I ask you, what makes you so goddamn impartial that something as ridiculous as a full scale war and annexation is on Putin's mind?

Maybe because he's lining up his toy soldiers on the ukrainian border, 80k strong. I guess he's just doing that to keep a dickwaving contest, or he's planning a real invasion because the response to the Crimean one wasn't strong enough. I can't really think of any other option.

How can one mobilise troops that don't exist? Partly a jab at European armies by me but what are you expecting? France, Germany and the UK have incredibly weak armies compared to countries such as The People's Republic of China, the US, Russia, India, Iran and Vietnam I think, but i'm not sure of the last one.

If those 3 countries mobilised troops, they wouldn't even outnumber the Russian Army and what do you expect them to do? Sit on the Polish border and try to convince Russian commanders to withdraw?

I wouldn't overrate the value of numbers, modernity has usually been the decisive factor in wars these days. And I suspect the Russian army (or at least large parts of it) to be inferior versus the European one. Not to mention that a fully mobilized EU, especially if you count in Turkey as well will give the russian army a run for their money numbers wise.

I don't understand to much about modern wars,but if I was a soldier it will be hard to me understand any command in german or Swedish I will need a translator ,maybe a google one,that's why Europe won't have a common army.

Guess what, European armies are organised per country, plus most of Europeans speak english well enough to understand commands given to them.

[General Mosh]

You sure make it sound like it is. "As flawed as it is."

As flawed as it is was referring to the American way of life.

Not reading the thread as usual I see. The original point wasn't "invasion" it was state sovereignty. But continue making these mistakes. It just makes your arguments look more illegitimate for me. I.e. thanks for doing my work for me.

You had originally mentioned Bosnia and Kosovo, in your discussion with me, right after you had mentioned Iraq, and with no qualifiers to suggest you were no longer talking about invasion. Clearly I misinterpreted what you said.

Nobody gave you an impossible claim to work against. I've already proven mine. You have yet to prove yours.

Please point me to where you definitively proved that NATO decides who needs help? NATO decides who is in its best interests to "help", it doesn't particularly care who really needs it and by all indications it doesn't particularly care who wants it.

Stop ting the debate. This isn't your high school club. Morality is very relevant as it adds legitimacy to your action. We have this whole section called "human rights" dedicated entirely to the subject. But I suppose I can't expect much more from you and your posh content.

Posh content? Goodness me, I apologize for using words bigger than three syllables. No, morality does not and should not add legitimacy to your actions. Morality is a subjective construct, what one person thinks is moral (invading the Crimean peninsula, for example) may be what another thinks is immoral. So how does something that is almost entirely subjective add legitimacy to your actions?

The point is that Russia is protecting the rights of Crimean citizens. Whether the International community is okay with it is the crux of the argument.

They're protecting the rights of Russian Crimeans. 40% of non-Russian Crimeans seem to be completely ignored.

Blah blah blah blah blah. It was already explained in the thread as for why, how and when. I'm not going to restate every argument presented by 4 or 5 posters in this thread.

None of that was adequately explained, otherwise the debate wouldn't still be ongoing, would it? I'm the hardly the only one who's pointed out concerns with the referendum in the last couple pages.

Then stop defending and attacking Russians while using words like

[/I]

Hey look. I didn't put the words in your mouth. You did. If you're gonna answer to my claim of "russia is in the right" on this with "The West never broke the international law like Russia. They did it to spread their way of life. [It's way more legitimate]"


The brackets are there to let you know implication your words have. Own up to your words. You're quick to criticize, but when somebody attacks your post you're all "don't be putting words in my mouth. I never said anything of substance so there's nothing to attack."

That was not my implication in the least, and it's unfortunate you're having such trouble comprehending what I'm saying. What makes what Russia did far less legitimate is the fact that it is outright annexing a nation with, as seems to be agreed by the majority of posters on this thread, a referendum that is dubious at best. Point to one annexation by the United States since 1898? Annexation, not occupation.

Rofl, no you didn't. You completely avoided it and I'm calling it for the that it is. Guess what. Bombing Iraq and causing thousands upon thousands of casualties is illegal. Why was it "okay" and the rest of the world swallowed it? Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity and imaginary WMDs. So yes, morality matters.

I certainly did address the question of morality, which you dismissed as being too posh for you. By the way, I agree that the invasion of Iraq was very likely illegal, though I don't much care. What I'd like you to show is that the Russian invasion of Crimea was any more legal, under international law. Your claim was that Crimea was more legally justified than Iraq, so prove it.

Once again you didn't read a single thing I posted. The Russians can't leave because the Ukranians will cause another humanitarian nightmare in Crimea if they do. The soldiers who defected to the Russian army, the Crimean president and his cabinet, the russian majority and the way they accepted Russian soldiers. There will be a "settling of scores" as Pielstick eloquently put it.

I read what you said. Clearly you're not understanding what I'm saying. The fact that there would be a humanitarian nightmare in the Crimea if the Russians left doesn't prevent them from leaving, they certainly can leave, it just means there's a reason they should stay, and a fairly legitimate one at that. I was raising issue with your suggestion that the Russians simply couldn't leave, not with your suggestion that they shouldn't leave. In fact, I don't think the Russians should leave either, or at least not leave and allow the Ukrainians to come in, because you're right, they'll likely do exactly what you're describing. Instead, I'd much rather prefer a UN force is sent to oversee a referendum, one that is actually free and fair, without the presence of either Russian or Ukrainian forces.

Guess what. If you are going to participate in the debate, you better read the last 5 pages of it or you're going to look silly. Like right now for example. People aren't going to regurgitate points that were raised 20 pages ago just for you. Well, I did, but that's because I'm nice.

So far the only person I've seen referring to things talked about 20 or 30 pages ago is you. Everything else discussed has been entirely related to the discussions of the last day or two in the last 10 pages or so.

Um the 40% of Non Russians probably want to be part of Russia too. No offense mate but you clearly don't know anything about Ukraine, Crimea or Russia. Many Ukranians, especially those living in Eastern Ukraine, favor the Russian government over the Ukranian one. Especially when you consider how many remittances come from Russia to Ukraine to support their families. Ukranians know that Russia is more powerful and has more opportunity than Ukraine. That's why your statistic is irrelevant and why Ukraine is afraid of Crimea seceding. Because chances are, the 'no' votes probably won't even go up to 30%.

You gonna source that or leave me here to assume your a qualified expert on the thoughts of the Ukrainian people?

So, I'm assuming, your post was empty and devoid of rhetoric? Because in that case your original post MADE no points and CRITICIZED nothing.

In other words, if you're not gonna take a stance on the things you've said, why post it at all? Just to say your piece?

No, the purpose of my post was to explain the reasons for NATO interventions in countries and show that they're very different from the given reasons for the Russian invasion of Crimea.

I answered it... Holy . Read!

Really? Where did you prove that the Ukrainian government was unelected? Because I distinctly remember the Ukrainian Parliament being elected.

And I gave you my opinion on it. So what's the confusion? "reading comprehension?"

Your "answer" had nothing to do with what I said, especially since it wasn't even addressed to something you had said or claimed.

So what's the point of this sentence?

Calling you out for suggesting that because one of "my people" (which means nothing) said it, I agree with it.

[Love Mountain]

Maybe because he's lining up his toy soldiers on the ukrainian border, 80k strong. I guess he's just doing that to keep a dickwaving contest, or he's planning a real invasion because the response to the Crimean one wasn't strong enough. I can't really think of any other option.

It's in response to NATO and Ukranian moves. For all of Ukranian and NATO begging about de-escalation, they haven't been helping matters either.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/201...Ukraine-border
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/02/world/...aine-politics/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-i...ck-sea/5372277

As flawed as it is was referring to the American way of life.

Fair enough.

You had originally mentioned Bosnia and Kosovo, in your discussion with me, right after you had mentioned Iraq, and with no qualifiers to suggest you were no longer talking about invasion. Clearly I misinterpreted what you said.

Fair enough.

Please point me to where you definitively proved that NATO decides who needs help? NATO decides who is in its best interests to "help", it doesn't particularly care who really needs it and by all indications it doesn't particularly care who wants it.

How is that not NATO deciding who it helps and who it doesn't? You can rephrase it how you want and that was exactly my point. The West isn't the paragon of justice.

Posh content? Goodness me, I apologize for using words bigger than three syllables.

It's actually pointing out that you have made no argument. Missing the point. Again.

No, morality does not and should not add legitimacy to your actions. Morality is a subjective construct, what one person thinks is moral (invading the Crimean peninsula, for example) may be what another thinks is immoral. So how does something that is almost entirely subjective add legitimacy to your actions?

That's the whole point... The West claims that International Law represents justice and fairness, concepts of morality mind you. When Russia decides to act on it's own initiative, all hell breaks loose. Fact is, "International Law" is not really international. It's a completely arbitrary set of rules that benefit only one part. The West. This is why Russia is calling the West hypocrites and why the so called "russophobes" are claiming that western criticism is a farce. It's illegitimate, and from a moral standpoint, Russia is in the right. Do you understand now or not?

Now don't get me wrong, I very much embrace the lessons of Realpolitik. But I understand the arguments that both sides make. By ignoring morality you ignore a huge dimension of this debate which directly relates to the legitimacy of Russian actions. This is why morality is integral to political discourse. While you may not think so, people in power do because it buys them clout with the public.

They're protecting the rights of Russian Crimeans. 40% of non-Russian Crimeans seem to be completely ignored.

I've pointed out that Non-Russian Crimeans are likely to be Pro Russian. And no, Russia is trying to protect the rights of all those who want to be Russian citizens and consider themselves to be so. Crimean Tatars are a very small minority and guess what, Ukrainians outright ignore their interests as well.

None of that was adequately explained, otherwise the debate wouldn't still be ongoing, would it? I'm the hardly the only one who's pointed out concerns with the referendum in the last couple pages.

No, it was adequately explained. People are simply arguing the point and disagreeing with the points made. Just because something is explained doesn't mean you have to agree with it. It simply means the idea is more thoroughly explained.

That was not my implication in the least, and it's unfortunate you're having such trouble comprehending what I'm saying.

Why don't you ing say it then instead of beating around the bush?

What makes what Russia did far less legitimate is the fact that it is outright annexing a nation

It's actually letting people vote. I didn't see any vote when it came to Kosovo. Or Iraq. Or Libya. Or any other conflict you'd care to name. There is no vote and the West isn't spreading "democracy". Unless destroying established governments is what passes off as "democracy" these days.

with, as seems to be agreed by the majority of posters on this thread, a referendum that is dubious at best. Point to one annexation by the United States since 1898? Annexation, not occupation.

A half isn't the majority. Hell, even those who are against Russia's actions don't seem to think that the referendum is necessarily dubious. You know who does? People who are strictly anti-Russian and want to find fault in everything Russia does.

I certainly did address the question of morality, which you dismissed as being too posh for you. By the way, I agree that the invasion of Iraq was very likely illegal, though I don't much care. What I'd like you to show is that the Russian invasion of Crimea was any more legal, under international law. Your claim was that Crimea was more legally justified than Iraq, so prove it.

I already did. Protecting (or pretending to, at the very least) the rights of Crimean Russians is way more legitimate than spontaneously deciding to invade Iraq on an imaginary premise of WMDs. That was the main reason and everything else was an icing. The point isn't that Russian invasion is legal, I've stated multiple times in this thread that I disagree with it, but it has far more legitimacy than anything the West ever did.

I'm sorry, I didn't see your answer on morality. If your answer was, it doesn't matter, then no. You didn't address it, you dismissed it. Which I have repeatedly shown, is wrong. If there was something else I'm forgetting please quote it again just for me.

I read what you said. Clearly you're not understanding what I'm saying. The fact that there would be a humanitarian nightmare in the Crimea if the Russians left doesn't prevent them from leaving, they certainly can leave,]it just means there's a reason they should stay, and a fairly legitimate one at that. I was raising issue with your suggestion that the Russians simply couldn't leave, not with your suggestion that they shouldn't leave. In fact, I don't think the Russians should leave either, or at least not leave and allow the Ukrainians to come in, because you're right, they'll likely do exactly what you're describing.

Then clearly you don't understand when people say, "Russians can't just simply leave anymore." If you understood the context, by reading the thread, we wouldn't even have to address this point. And let's look at the context shall we?

That's a load of ing . Russian invasion of Crimea has more legal grounds than any of those conflicts. The West didn't just violate their sovereignty, they did so with total impunity and ZERO consequences for their actions. Now, I'll be the first person to say that I frankly don't give a whether they did or not and the world is, in fact, a better place for it. I would also have to say the exact same thing about Russian invasion of Crimea as well since well... they have more moral and legal ground than the Americans ever did when they invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

Oh hey look, me CLEARLY saying that Russia's invasion is more legal than Western Action and breaking the subject of state sovereignty. In subsequent posts, it's clear that I'm talking about the rights of Crimeans and the morality of Russian actions vs Western actions. I think it's pretty clear as to what I was arguing for.

Instead, I'd much rather prefer a UN force is sent to oversee a referendum, one that is actually free and fair, without the presence of either Russian or Ukrainian forces.

And my argument to that is, there is nothing that makes the UN more legitimate than Russia if we consider UN's track record. Like for example, their total nonchalance during the Rwandan massacre, oh wait I mean genocide.

So far the only person I've seen referring to things talked about 20 or 30 pages ago is you. Everything else discussed has been entirely related to the discussions of the last day or two in the last 10 pages or so.

Fair enough. Still, the context extended much further than 10 pages. You don't have to read all 160 pages that preceded your posts, but reading at least the last 10 isn't particularly difficult and even I manage to do that on my lunch break.

You gonna source that or leave me here to assume your a qualified expert on the thoughts of the Ukrainian people?

I've established my "credibility" a while ago. I've actually lived in Russia and I have relatives in Ukraine. Not just lived, but I was born there. I am thoroughly informed on the mentality of both Russian and Ukranian people since it's my mentality and my culture. This is ignoring the fact that I frequently visit both countries and fluent in Russian.

No, the purpose of my post was to explain the reasons for NATO interventions in countries and show that they're very different from the given reasons for the Russian invasion of Crimea.

Yes, you argued that Russia's "annexation" is wrong but Western "imperialism" isn't. Yeah, I've addressed that and I've disagreed. As far as the International community is concerned you're right, but we all know just how hypocritical that community is and I've already illustrated my point more than once in more than one post.

Really? Where did you prove that the Ukrainian government was unelected? Because I distinctly remember the Ukrainian Parliament being elected.

There were Euromaidan protestors in the parliament room when the votes were "cast." To call their votes any more legitimate than the Crimean Parliament's is an utter joke.

Your "answer" had nothing to do with what I said, especially since it wasn't even addressed to something you had said or claimed.

It was relevant to one of my points which is why I answered. To explain it, no Obama will not start shooting Tea Party protestors. Your conjecture was a strawman and a bad one at that. HH called Ukranian government illegitimate which it is, since it's under the control of the Euromaidan, clearly. Likening that to having Obama shoot protestors is not similar at all to what the situation in Kiev was.

calling you out for suggesting that because one of "my people" (which means nothing) said it, I agree with it.

Because he is one of "your" people. I'm simply attributing him to the side that you're on. Which almost acts like a hive mind at times.

[KieKeBooN]

It's in response to NATO and Ukranian moves. For all of Ukranian and NATO begging about de-escalation, they haven't been helping matters either.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/201...Ukraine-border
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/02/world/...aine-politics/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-i...ck-sea/5372277

Oh please, 3 reconnaissance planes? The US is stationing only a handful of fighterplanes in the Baltic and Poland and those two warships were already planned to be stationed in the black sea, for navy forces don't move in a day. Hardly worth moving 80.000 infanterists over. And Ukraine mobilising, I'd hardly be surprised if they did if I had my soldiers running around in their country, yet the Ukrainians have done absolutely nothing so far and are very unlikely to start doing so any time soon without help, which also seems unlikely. All in all I would hardly say that is 'escalating' the situation. Putting 80.000 troops+materiel on the border however is.

[Lord of Nihilism]

I wouldn't overrate the value of numbers, modernity has usually been the decisive factor in wars these days. And I suspect the Russian army (or at least large parts of it) to be inferior versus the European one. Not to mention that a fully mobilized EU, especially if you count in Turkey as well will give the russian army a run for their money numbers wise.

While you're correct in stating that troop numbers don't always mean you're assured victory, we can't just as easily say that troop numbers don't matter. Bodies are important if you wish to hold an area for a long amount of time, cover more territory and capture more assets etc etc. A lot of factors come into play when fighting a war, which is why I made a jab at the EU Army because from the statistics I looked up, even with 20+ countries in the EU, Russia has a lot more artillery 10000 excluding ICBM's compared to the EU's 6800. Russia even has more tanks and armoured vehicles than the EU, which kind of amazes me somewhat. Russia has more artillery, ICBM's nuclear weapons, tanks and armoured vehicles than all of the European Union, which consists of 20+ countries. I'm not going to comment on the quality of troops but I can assure you that the Russian Army is well trained, well equipped and isn't your average rag tag militia with an ak47 in the Middle East. They've had experience fighting terrorism and conventional enemies so it's impossible to say who would win.

The EU does have a lot more troops than Russia though if we don't count reserves. All the speculation seems futile though since we can be certain the EU won't actually fight Russia in a conventional War; the casualties and destruction would leave Europe in ruins which isn't what European's want, I would reckon.

[KieKeBooN]

While you're correct in stating that troop numbers don't always mean you're assured victory, we can't just as easily say that troop numbers don't matter. Bodies are important if you wish to hold an area for a long amount of time, cover more territory and capture more assets etc etc. A lot of factors come into play when fighting a war, which is why I made a jab at the EU Army because from the statistics I looked up, even with 20+ countries in the EU, Russia has a lot more artillery 10000 excluding ICBM's compared to the EU's 6800. Russia even has more tanks and armoured vehicles than the EU, which kind of amazes me somewhat. Russia has more artillery, ICBM's nuclear weapons, tanks and armoured vehicles than all of the European Union, which consists of 20+ countries. I'm not going to comment on the quality of troops but I can assure you that the Russian Army is well trained, well equipped and isn't your average rag tag militia with an ak47 in the Middle East. They've had experience fighting terrorism and conventional enemies so it's impossible to say who would win.

The EU does have a lot more troops than Russia though if we don't count reserves. All the speculation seems futile though since we can be certain the EU won't actually fight Russia in a conventional War; the casualties and destruction would leave Europe in ruins which isn't what European's want, I would reckon.

Actually I believe the amount of equipment in active service is far lower, only 2,562 battle tanks instead of the 15.500 total and similar figures with APC's and other vehicles. I'm not sure wether the reserve consists of outdated equipment that sits there being statistics and collecting dusts or not, I'm hardly a military expert.

[Love Mountain]

Oh please, 3 reconnaissance planes? The US is stationing only a handful of fighterplanes in the Baltic and Poland and those two warships were already planned to be stationed in the black sea, for navy forces don't move in a day. Hardly worth moving 80.000 infanterists over. And Ukraine mobilising, I'd hardly be surprised if they did if I had my soldiers running around in their country, yet the Ukrainians have done absolutely nothing so far and are very unlikely to start doing so any time soon without help, which also seems unlikely. All in all I would hardly say that is 'escalating' the situation. Putting 80.000 troops+materiel on the border however is.

Well I don't know mate. Two warships in Black Sea. Mobilizations all over the place. What, are the spy planes there just to snap photos? It's reconnaissance work. The fact that there are so many troops in Crimea is because Russia happens to be right next to Ukraine. Whereas everyone else is rather far away.

[Lord of Nihilism]

Actually I believe the amount of equipment in active service is far lower, only 2,562 battle tanks instead of the 15.500 total and similar figures with APC's and other vehicles. I'm not sure wether the reserve consists of outdated equipment that sits there being statistics and collecting dusts or not, I'm hardly a military expert.

The total number I gave for both includes reserves, so no doubt the actual number of artillery for both sides would be lower if war were to break out, but once the war machine gets rolling all the equipment will be pulled out of storage and used. But let's not pretend that these artillery in reserve are obsolete. The reason for equipment to be in storage is not due to the fact that it's obsolete, but rather it costs money to maintain, especially if you're constantly using it. Russia is known for having the best artillery arm in Europe when the Russian Empire existed and during the Soviet Union times, so I have no doubt the EU would be nervous to get into an artillery war with Russia.

Basically, Russia has far more equipment than the EU which is a bit surprising considering the EU is what, 20+ nations? Russia is one nation. Of course, that doesn't mean that they'll be able to mobilise all of that artillery instantly, same with the EU. As of right now, if we were to combine all active and not reserve artillery units, the EU would have slightly more but not by much that would actually make a difference. It's when Russia mobilises it's reserve artillery, where it becomes a huge problem and why the EU won't fight Russia, nor will the Ukraine or NATO unless Russia plans to invade Poland , France, Germany and etc.

[KieKeBooN]

Well I don't know mate. Two warships in Black Sea. Mobilizations all over the place. What, are the spy planes there just to snap photos? It's reconnaissance work. The fact that there are so many troops in Crimea is because Russia happens to be right next to Ukraine. Whereas everyone else is rather far away.

Those two American warships were (alledgedly) long planned in advance, and since naval manouvers take time I'm inclined to believe it. At least one of the warships arrived before the Russians invaded Crimea. Spy planes taking photo's? If I were a general that's not something I would flex my military might over, in fact I'd keep them hidden from view. Mobilisations all over the place? I don't think any European nation besides Ukraine has mobilised their army yet, and in the Ukrainian case it makes perfect sense since they're being invaded. Not to mention that the Ukrainian army doesn't stand a chance and isn't likely to give it a try either. And the fact that Crimea has so many (Russian) troops in it is not because it border with Russia but because Russia invaded it. And that doesn't explain the troops on Ukraine's Northern and Eastern borders either.

The total number I gave for both includes reserves, so no doubt the actual number of artillery for both sides would be lower if war were to break out, but once the war machine gets rolling all the equipment will be pulled out of storage and used. But let's not pretend that these artillery in reserve are obsolete. The reason for equipment to be in storage is not due to the fact that it's obsolete, but rather it costs money to maintain, especially if you're constantly using it. Russia is known for having the best artillery arm in Europe when the Russian Empire existed and during the Soviet Union times, so I have no doubt the EU would be nervous to get into an artillery war with Russia.

Basically, Russia has far more equipment than the EU which is a bit surprising considering the EU is what, 20+ nations? Russia is one nation. Of course, that doesn't mean that they'll be able to mobilise all of that artillery instantly, same with the EU. As of right now, if we were to combine all active and not reserve artillery units, the EU would have slightly more but not by much that would actually make a difference. It's when Russia mobilises it's reserve artillery, where it becomes a huge problem and why the EU won't fight Russia, nor will the Ukraine or NATO unless Russia plans to invade Poland , France, Germany and etc.

We agree with one thing, whatever the outcome will be, the process will be messy. I don't think either side would like to try the opponent's mettle. However, onesidedly admitting that fact by not mobilising (at least a portion) of your troops to show you're being serious about it doesn't help. Russia is just going to continue it's bluff.

Note: I'd prefer the EU to try the economic war with Russia, we have far better cards in that one and the results could prove disrupting enough to dislodge Putin.