Print

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

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Worse yet, (as mentioned earlier in this thread), Russia signed an agreement with Ukraine a couple decades ago that they wouldn't do exactly this, (invade), in exchange for Ukraine unilaterally disarming their huge nuclear stockpile.
If Ukraine still had it's nukes, Russia wouldn't be in Crimea right now.
So basically everyone's going to want their nukes back, especially the now-hostile Ukraine.

Pretty much this. Putin has single handedly ruined non-proliferation forever.

Hey, Kim Jung, give up your nukes so the world is safer and your people are no longer at risk from the nuclear powers.

What if you just attack us 10-20 years after we sign an agreement to give them up in exchange for non-aggression? [Cites the Ukraine]

Well, guess you'll just have to trust us.

[PanH]

PanH, he did say he didn't support invasion. Stop strawmanning him!

Crimea is not going full Ukraine. Never. Putin will not allow that and I will fully sign for that. Gosh, who cares, ok, Crimea is Ukrainian ok enjoy that land guys, really, but we not going to give up ports and navy bases there. Do I need to explain why?
I am on with Putin on Crimea. Strategical value is immense.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Btw, Gogi, my apologies for us ganging up on you, but we disagree.

As I mentioned before, part of our source-citing is to fact-check ourselves & pre-emptively save face.



GOGI
Here, read this:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5051646;topicseen#msg5051646

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Remember that official Russian position is still "there are no Russian troops in Crimea only local self-defense units" so gogis may be against invasion and support Putin's actions


And I am really amazed by this kind of thinking that many Russians have - "Russia is where Russians live" or even worse "Russia is the land that was once conquered by Russian Empire" type of psychology. With staff like borders and international laws having no importance at all

BTW, Crimea wasn't gifted to Ukraine it was exchanged for Belgorod region... Russians totally forgot about that

[Sheb]

But you are okay with Russian's engaging in Foreign Peacekeeping there?

No, I am not okay with that, but how it makes my previous points invalid?

Gogi agree with Putin than Sevastopol is a major strategic importance, but he disagree on the troops there.

[mainiac]

IF that generation is the one that learns history from the Call of Duty games, then I don't wanna even think about what that "new attitude" would mean.

We're not talking about your average Joe, we're talking about senior state department officials, generals and intelligence analysts.  And besides, we're talking about people who turned 20 in the 90s and early naughties, before CoD4 even came out.  Anyone who's going to soak up COD bias at the age of 35 probably wont be anywhere near the halls of power, ever.

Now Dota on the other hand...

[gogis]

PanH, he did say he didn't support invasion. Stop strawmanning him!

gogis, why no NATO? Shouldn't countries be free to choose their alliances?

I dont mind NATO. I actually think we need worldwide NATO (I mean, fully worldwide, and please dont go for meaning, I know what this letters mean), but I am also total globalist and I am okay with gays. And trust me, 90% russians is not ok with gays, so I am not voicing majority
- Putin is imperialist I think, and he is honestly have majority in Russia. No, it's rigged elections, dont be fooled.
- Again, majority is VERY MUCH against west. And you guys, not helping here. It's becomes worse and worse. And thats very bad for all.
- So this goes to NATO which goes to possibility of major conflict which will never going to happen if there is no NATO closeby. Simple as that.
Putin is not planning to go full west. Our army is like 70% conscripts ratio, nobody in their mind going to sign for that. It's a DEFENSIVE MOVE. But if we attacked... You know the history.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Offensively defensive, gotcha. 

NATO not being present doesn't seem to prevent conflict, as evidenced by Russia currently occupying part of the non-NATO Ukrainian state.


Read mah last/previous post please!

[gogis]

But you are okay with Russian's engaging in Foreign Peacekeeping there?

(Note: They are by no means limiting themselves to Crimea, and have moved into the rest of the Ukraine)

Crimea is NOT a part of Russia, it is part of Ukraine. Russian presence there is the definition of Foreign Intervention.

No, I am not okay with that, but how it makes my previous points invalid? I already stated or, erhm.. hinted I am against Putin politics overall, but lets going to be clear.
Crimea is not going full Ukraine. Never. Putin will not allow that and I will fully sign for that. Gosh, who cares, ok, Crimea is Ukrainian ok enjoy that land guys, really, but we not going to give up ports and navy bases there. Do I need to explain why?
I am on with Putin on Crimea. Strategical value is immense.
And he is not going for the rest of Ukraine. He is smart enough. If he going otherwise he is politicaly dead.

Why is it that Ukraine has to be either EU-friendly or Russia-friendly?  That construct is purely russian. The impression we get in the rest of Europe is that Putin, and to a certain extent the rest of russia, feels that all of Ukraine "belongs" under russian influence. To suddenly remember that Crimea was signed away by Krushchev after some dinner party seems more like a handy excuse.

>>Why is it that Ukraine has to be either EU-friendly or Russia-friendly?  That construct is purely russian.

Thats construct is purely ACTUALLY west/russian goverment. In fact nobody of russian common folk even care about Ukraine. Have you checked damn map? Man, I am being harsh here but you damn ignorant as heck. You really have no clue and I damn sure you never been closeby but you state is as a fact?

>>Ukraine "belongs" under russian influence.

I concede here.
But it's kind of historically true. I recommend exellent Europa Universalis series game here. Not even country for some game periods, but regions...

>>To suddenly remember that Crimea was signed away by Krushchev after some dinner party seems more like a handy excuse.

That region have a history dated way before Krushchev

edit: edited for racism and general shitness by me

[Ukrainian Ranger]

But if we attacked... You know the history.

Do You mean Napolenoc wars when large chunk  of work was done by other countries?
Or maybe you mean WW1 where Russia actually lost?
Or maybe you mean WW2 when USSR was saved by armadas of American bombers that criplled German war economics and kept most of it's airforce busy (without that USSR had zero chances against Germany)


Russia can fight either enemy that is much weaker than it is (most conquests of Russia is against small and\or technology backwards countries) or as a member of a large alliance (After such wars Russia claims that it has done all job)

When it face equal enemy and alone Russia has huge problems (Crimean War, War with Japan)  And who are your allies, now?
In conventional war Russia has zero chances, in economical war it has zero chances, in nuclear war it has zero chances (damage done to Russia and by Russia will be not comparable), in proxy war it has zero chances (Imagine that USA will move North Caucasians from terrorists to freedom fighters and actively supply them with modern weapons....) 

Russia isn't attacked not because it's strong and can't be defeated, but because no sane persons want large-scale war

[scrdest]

But it's kind of historically true. I recommend exellent Europa Universalis series game here. Not even country for some game periods, but regions...

Would you support Polish army marching into Lviv, then? Same logic.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Oi, UR, you're firing the opening salvos of a flame-war there. Why you do that?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Oi, UR, you're firing the opening salvos of a flame-war there. Why you do that?

Don't worry, I am not gonna answer to any counterarguments from him
He looks like good but misguided guy
I hope that he may try to think that his president may lead his country to ruin and that "Russia can't be defeated" is a myth. Myth that may cost his nation too much

[gogis]

But if we attacked... You know the history.

Do You mean Napolenoc wars when large chunk  of work was done by other countries?
Or maybe you mean WW1 where Russia actually lost?
Or maybe you mean WW2 when USSR was saved by armadas of American bombers that criplled German war economics and kept most of it's airforce busy (without that USSR had zero chances against Germany)


Russia can fight either enemy that is much weaker than it is (most conquests of Russia is against small and\or technology backwards countries) or as a member of a large alliance (After such wars Russia claims that it has done all job)

When it face equal enemy and alone Russia has huge problems (Crimean War, War with Japan)  And who are your allies, now?
In conventional war Russia has zero chances, in economical war it has zero chances, in nuclear war it has zero chances (damage done to Russia and by Russia will be not comparable), in proxy war it has zero chances (Imagine that USA will move North Caucasians from terrorists to freedom fighters and actively supply them with modern weapons....) 

Russia isn't attacked not because it's strong and can't be defeated, but because no sane persons want large-scale war

>>Do You mean Napolenoc wars when large chunk  of work was done by other countries?

As you probably russian speaking I will recommend you this here, filmed by french, which is very convinient for my point
http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4256324
They go by very strictly with timeline so you can catch up with numbers Napoleon army had at that point. You actually made mistake here, because I am very big admirer of Napoleon and I know that period well.

>>Or maybe you mean WW1 where Russia actually lost?

Yes it is. What your point? I dont get why you against me in first place. You remember my first post?

>>Or maybe you mean WW2 when USSR was saved by armadas of American bombers that criplled German war economics and kept >>most of it's airforce busy (without that USSR had zero chances against Germany)

Thats is interesting piece of information. Very much new to me. Thank you.

>>When it face equal enemy and alone Russia has huge problems (Crimean War, War with Japan)  And who are your allies, now?
>>In conventional war Russia has zero chances, in economical war it has zero chances, in nuclear war it has zero chances (damage >>done to Russia and by Russia will be not comparable), in proxy war it has zero chances (Imagine that USA will move North >>Caucasians from terrorists to freedom fighters and actively supply them with modern weapons....) 

>>Russia isn't attacked not because it's strong and can't be defeated, but because no sane persons want large-scale war

I am not going to comment any of that. I  promised to not comment at all, but I am probably somewhat retarded and I did. But you need, you really need to find new sources of information. I feel cheated because I suspect you serious all the way here and you actually raging ukrainian nationalist. Because most of what you just provided is bullshit, sorry to say that.

[mainiac]

Oi, UR, you're firing the opening salvos of a flame-war there. Why you do that?

When you flame, Putin wins.