Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

There is no if they win. They would lose. And they would lose a lot more than just crimea.

But who said that Putin doesn't want more than Crimea? More and more troops are concentrated on Ukrainian border

Considering that viewpoints like yours are, at least to some extent, popular (if you are taken as a reasonably typical current-day Ukrainian), I think "to guard against potential action by Ukraine" is a reasonably possible - and prudent - reason for that.

On the border to the east? Ukraine has nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking Russia across that border. Defending itself however, is another situation entirely.

[Zangi]

There is no if they win. They would lose. And they would lose a lot more than just crimea.

But who said that Putin doesn't want more than Crimea? More and more troops are concentrated on Ukrainian border

Considering that viewpoints like yours are, at least to some extent, popular (if you are taken as a reasonably typical current-day Ukrainian), I think "to guard against potential action by Ukraine" is a reasonably possible - and prudent - reason for that.

On the border to the east? Ukraine has nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking Russia across that border. Defending itself however, is another situation entirely.

I'll agree with Sean Mirrsen here.  Russia will only do something, if they are given the excuse to.  Attack Crimea or the Russians at the border, they will roll in like they done Georgia. 

I think Putin is quite satisfied with Crimea, if things as is are left well alone.  There is also the fact that rhetoric from the US seems to be: "If you do anything more, we will give harsher sanctions, cause we mean business this time."

All this fear of Russia expanding even more, unprovoked is just irrational fear in my opinion.  As it is, Russia took Crimea without fighting.  It won't be the same if they go for the rest.

[Lagslayer]

All this fear of Russia expanding even more, unprovoked is just irrational fear in my opinion.  As it is, Russia took Crimea without fighting.  It won't be the same if they go for the rest.

That's what they said before he took Crimea.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I'll agree with Sean Mirrsen here.  Russia will only do something, if they are given the excuse to.

What stops Russia from just saying they were attacked by Ukrainians or inventing any other lame excuse? Why they need and kind of excuse if their television will happily say any nonsesnse? That will be repeated by Churkin and Putin later

After all why not get all Ukrainian military equipment in Crimea without firing a single shot and than attack? They already move our former tanks to Crimean-Ukrainian "border"

Capturing Ukrainian Navy is rather senseless, most of that old ships have little to no practical value for Russians BUT should that vessels pull out they could be used in delaying amphibious landings along Ukrainian coast

I think Putin is quite satisfied with Crimea, if things as is are left well alone.  There is also the fact that rhetoric from the US seems to be: "If you do anything more, we will give harsher sanctions, cause we mean business this time."

Crimea itself doesn't worth all the effort and resources spent.
As for Sanctions. I believe they are ready to bite the bullet. And that "harsher sanctions" I read as - "whatever you will do in Ukraine it will get no military help" message to Putin

As it is, Russia took Crimea without fighting.  It won't be the same if they go for the rest.

I am not sure that our current government will not give the same - "Don't shoot" order. Even if they'll not it will be a short war. Guerrilla war after that is guaranteed but for Putin's imperial ambitions killing "Bandera's" is essential.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I'll agree with Sean Mirrsen here.  Russia will only do something, if they are given the excuse to.

What stops Russia from just saying they were attacked by Ukrainians or inventing any other lame excuse? Why they need and kind of excuse if their television will happily say any nonsesnse? That will be repeated by Churkin and Putin later

To put it simply, the Chelyabinsk Meteorite effect. Exactly when Russia took Crimea, exactly how it went down, nobody was ready to look out for it when it was happening, and all there is to see - for non-Russian non-government or non-military people - is only the aftereffect - like a crater from a typical meteorite. Ukraine right now is a Chelyabinsk equivalent. It's open to European and US journalists, and it's very much expected - due to the exact logic leaps you propose - to be in some shape or form attacked by Russia. Any sort of direct, unprovoked action by Russia is inevitably going to be reported, giving Russia/Putin much less capacity for counter-propaganda - so it's plain not smart.

After all why not get all Ukrainian military equipment in Crimea without firing a single shot and than attack? They already move our former tanks to Crimean-Ukrainian "border"

As above. Not smart. Bloodless commandeering of a fractured territory with overwhelming people's support both here and there is one thing. An act of war is something entirely different - if there's anything besides gay parades that the general Russian public is overwhelmingly negative towards, it's outright war.

Capturing Ukrainian Navy is rather senseless, most of that old ships have little to no practical value for Russians BUT should that vessels pull out they could be used in delaying amphibious landings along Ukrainian coast

Heh, now that I agree with, the "senseless" part particularly. I believe that those ships were seized as the exact same sort of preventative measure that had Ukrainian military units in Crimea forced into surrender. Ukrainian government is believed - both by the general public due to the "leaked calls" and other such things, and quite probably our government as well - to be capable of rash, un-thought-through actions, including surprise attacks and guerilla warfare using troops and hardware based in Crimean territory. Just as the massing of troops along the borders, it's meant to first and foremost guard the Ukraine against the Ukraine - an attempt to radically prevent attempts at armed opposition, so that it doesn't in turn lead to uncontrolled escalation of conflict.

Now, whether or not it'll backfire in the long run - we'll see, I guess. :\

[Knit tie]

I'm still wondering if this "invasion" was properly thought out. Assuming that it was done to increase Russia's influence on the political arena, it has failed because the NATO is putting our country in isolation. If Putin wanted to garner domestic support instead, well, the people who reacted positively had already been supporting him and the people who were against him took it as a further evidence of his totalitarianism, so his popularity didn't really increase and instead another wedge has been driven between Russia's various political factions.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Sean Mirrsen, Interesting what would you say if month ago I wrote here that Russia will move in and annex Crimea

[Knit tie]

Sean Mirrsen, Interesting what would you say if month ago I wrote here that Russia will move in and annex Crimea

In my opinion, it was quite obvious that that would happen the day the Crimeans asked for Russian help.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Sean Mirrsen, Interesting what would you say if month ago I wrote here that Russia will move in and annex Crimea

I'd say... hmm. I can't remember what exactly was happening a month ago. And honestly, I wasn't paying all that much attention to it. Not to mention that I probably wasn't present in this thread at the time, but anyway. If that were before we started getting the newsbits about a full-blown Molotov-flinging police-burning riot going on, I'd say it was unlikely... but probably not impossible. Russia would have had a lot to gain by moving in on Crimea, strategically, and with a large proportion of people there strongly associating with Russia (even if not, by polls - which I had no idea of at the time - quite eager to outright merge into it) I'd say full-on military incursion would have been remotely possible, but not probable. I would likely have said that if anything of the kind were attempted, it would have been done through the people.

Which, in retrospect, is probably what was going to happen. But then the whole civil war thing broke out (again, as reported - no idea what actually happened), and with the "people's choice" high up enough in the air for a passing ICBM to snag on it, Russia made the move. If you asked me at that time, when our TVs were showing armed people in the streets and fire raining on police officers, with reports of widespread unrest, I would likely have said that an intervention was inevitable; that it was going to be either a Europe/US-empowered Ukraine, or the nearby and present military forces of Russia (though I really was only aware of Sevastopol at the time... and I kinda was under the impression that it was a port and a fort - not a naval base), and I think that given both the vested interest, and their immediate availability, and the matter of the whole thing being about the region being fed up with Ukrainian government, I think the result would have, in retrospect, been obvious.

...

I like reverse-introspective like that. Really makes the brain move.

[Sheb]

No offence meant, but what I understand from your post is "I've not bothered to check up what was going on, and I don't care".

[miljan]

There is no if they win. They would lose. And they would lose a lot more than just crimea.

But who said that Putin doesn't want more than Crimea? More and more troops are concentrated on Ukrainian border

The thing is simple. If putin wanted and planed to do a full time invasion, it would already happen at same time as crimea invasion, when ukraine was in disarray, as that was the best time to do it. You do not wait few weeks for ukraine military to organize itself and than attack, and no weapons from crimea basses or ships will be of any big help for waiting so long

The reason for why is there military on border, few posters before me did a good explanation.

[Sean Mirrsen]

No offence meant, but what I understand from your post is "I've not bothered to check up what was going on, and I don't care".

About the situation in Crimea? "I don't care" sounds somewhat harsh, but it mostly sums it up. As long as US or Ukrainian supersoldiers don't start marching through our streets and disrupting what passes for regular day-to-day life around here, I mostly don't care whether Russia keeps Crimea or not, or whether it does anything else I can't influence. Will me fretting over events over there change anything? No. Then why even bother? My self-identification as a "disinterested observer" is not just for the purposes of speaking in this thread.

And yeah, I've not bothered to check up what was going on, because I didn't really know what was going on then, and finding out now what was going on then will not help me answer the question I was asked now of what I would have answered then, have I been questioned about the events occurring then. It's counterproductive if you want to answer the question as truthfully as you can manage, which I did. ^_^

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Forgive me, but iirc the USA has a track record with quenching government-on-rioter killing, not rioter-on-gov.
--You guys lose me whenever you mention 'beating them to the punch' as far as military interventions go.

If Ukraine actually /did/ start cleansing it's crim-russians? Yeah, they'd be interested in stopping that- shit, it would be a big gay co-op adventure with Russia. Happy days!
But otherwise I don't see it.

[GlyphGryph]

Sean Mirrsen, Interesting what would you say if month ago I wrote here that Russia will move in and annex Crimea

In my opinion, it was quite obvious that that would happen the day the Crimeans asked for Russian help.

Didn't Crimea ask Russia for help after Russia invaded and took over most of the parliament and kicked out everyone who wasn't interested in asking Russia for help? Because every timeline I can recall put the "ask for help" thing afterwards.

Sean Mirrsen, there was never a civil war, especially in the crimian area. Russia moved in after all of what violence there was ended. There were a great many people arguing exactly what you are arguing now as the reason Russia would never invade the Ukraine at all, and then they did.

I think it's okay to argue that Russia probably won't move into the rest of the Ukraine, but I think it's pretty obvious he is ready to should the opportunity present itself. He's enjoying record highs of domestic support and the international community has given him tacit permission to do what he wishes by promising the only thing he can expect should he do so is a few more meaningless sanctions that actually strengthen his position domestically.

Will he? I honestly don't know. There's not enough information to be sure. But I think he's made it clear through what he's said and done, as far as I can tell, that he at least wants people to believe he is "keeping the option on the table", as it were.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I am wondering what world would we have if Czechoslovakia just went "fuck you all, we will fight in this hopeless war alone even if no one will help" in 1938? Most likely Czech nation would pay a huge price, they would lose the war but the Third Reich wouldn't get intact Czech industry and military stockpiles that played not a small role in future Hitler's conquests