Ukraine Presidential Crackdown Violence. Russia Invades Ukraine

[CaptainCrunch]

And the quiet conquest is about to end, Russia feels good enough about their forces there to move to the next level.

I bet they've dug a ton of trenches and laid a bunch of mine fields as well.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And the quiet conquest is about to end, Russia feels good enough about their forces there to move to the next level.

I bet they've dug a ton of trenches and laid a bunch of mine fields as well.

Are landmines still allowed? I thought all developed nations nixed those back in the Princess Diana days

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Are landmines still allowed? I thought all developed nations nixed those back in the Princess Diana days

haha, "allowed". You're not allowed to invade another country, so what makes you think Russia cares.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

US coup?

Actually this is more on the mark than you might think...

The US was supporting the revolution in the Ukraine (yes...the ousted President WAS a thug more on that in a moment).

How would the US feel if Russia was supporting revolution in Mexico or Canada? That is how the Russians feel.

Anyways, my point is that the US foreign policy that is a big part of this situation is not well understood in the west.

Google 'Dan Carlin Common Sense' poking the bear episode

[worth]

So what does Ukraine do today?

1. Pull out as many troops from Crimea as possible to shore up defenses on main land Ukraine
2. Stand and fight a battle they will surely lose against Russian forces in Crimea
3. Hand over all weapons and surrender all military personnel on Crimea

It is probably very difficult to get out of Crimea at the moment and unlikely the Ukrainian forces will be able to do a hasty retreat.

[Savvy27]

This is insane. I understand that Russia got away with their invasion of Georgia, but they must be aware of the consequences for everyone if a war breaks out.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Are landmines still allowed? I thought all developed nations nixed those back in the Princess Diana days

Russia never signed the anti-landmine agreement (nor did the US or China).

When the world's biggest super powers aren't on board, then it isn't worth the paper it is written on.


Here is a list of countries that have not signed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...gnatory_states

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Are landmines still allowed? I thought all developed nations nixed those back in the Princess Diana days

The 1997 Ottawa Treaty banned anti-personnel landmines. Currently 161 nations have ratified the treaty, but notable countries that have not signed it include Russia, China, and the United States. AFAIK, no treaty has ever been enacted to ban anti-vehicle mines.

[Edit] Beaten by FlamesAddiction above.

[Pointman]

Russian media report the ultimatum only by quoting Ukraine sources, like Ukraine claimed they were told to surrender. Russians themselves haven't confirmed it yet. Deadline is 5 AM local time and it is about 19-00 now. They have a night

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Russian media report the ultimatum only by quoting Ukraine sources, like Ukraine claimed they were told to surrender. Russians themselves haven't confirmed it yet. Deadline is 5 AM local time and it is about 19-00 now. They have a night

Pointman, What is the take on this by your social circle?

You I assume are a fairly good example of the average Russian.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by worth

So what does Ukraine do today?

1. Pull out as many troops from Crimea as possible to shore up defenses on main land Ukraine
2. Stand and fight a battle they will surely lose against Russian forces in Crimea
3. Hand over all weapons and surrender all military personnel on Crimea

It is probably very difficult to get out of Crimea at the moment and unlikely the Ukrainian forces will be able to do a hasty retreat.

Combine 1 and 2, Troops will be pulled back, they can try to engage the Russians, but make no mistake the 6000 troops in the Ukraine are a trip wire and nothing else. If one Russian boy gets splattered, you'll see at least one army group on the move by the end of the day from the Russian Western Military district, and they'll shoot for the whole country.

There will be Ukraine soldiers who are onside with the Russians (it would be like testing the loyalty of French Canadian Soldiers if Quebec Separated), they'll go over to the Russian side of things.

The landmine issue isn't an issue, simply because Russian's are pragmatists in this case, they're kill multipliers and they slow down enemy militarizes, and they're great in terms of preventing shore landings if it comes down to it.

Beyond the G-8 suff and some sanctions, there's nothing that's going to happen, Obama isn't going to go to the Ukraine's defense, and I guess I can't blame him, this isn't the 80's cold war U.S. Military, while its still formidable its not the Fight two wars, a holding action and a major Peace keeping mission at the same time U.S. Military. Its more along the lines of fighting one war and one holding action U.S. Military and its going to get drawn down even further then that.

Even George Bush wouldn't be crazy enough to do anything on the Military side.

The only thing that would make sense would be to send in arms to the Ukraine through their Nato Allies, and some "training personal' I think the Russian's used to call them volunteers. Maybe slip some special forces groups in to help with intelligence gathering.

But at the end of the game, expect a major part of the Ukraine to simply be folded into the loving embrace of Mother Russia.

[Pointman]

Russia declines any such ultimatum was issued.

[CaptainCrunch]

Of course they do, but it will come out at a unit level, that way the government can deny it.

[Zarley]

When is the last time the United States has had a president who is this weak on foreign policy? How can Obama and his advisors be this naive? Putin already made a fool of him with the Syria situation and he's doing it again here. It's downright embarrassing.

[Nehkara]

NATO has signed agreements with the Ukraine, in exchange for them giving up their nuclear weapons, that indicate that NATO will assure Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

This could get messy if Russia goes off the deep end.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Zarley

When is the last time the United States has had a president who is this weak on foreign policy? How can Obama and his advisors be this naive? Putin already made a fool of him with the Syria situation and he's doing it again here. It's downright embarrassing.

I find it hard to call a President weak on foreign policy when he's authorized non-stop flying assassination machines on foreign soil. Misguided and poorly prioritized would be more accurate. You'd also have to compare it to the last president who came into office with the country fighting two wars.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

NATO has signed agreements with the Ukraine, in exchange for them giving up their nuclear weapons, that indicate that NATO will assure Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

This could get messy if Russia goes off the deep end.

I highly doubt the Americans would sail a carrier battle group into the Black sea (as a show of force). Thus limiting them to aerial power projection.

Capn', your take?

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Zarley

When is the last time the United States has had a president who is this weak on foreign policy? How can Obama and his advisors be this naive? Putin already made a fool of him with the Syria situation and he's doing it again here. It's downright embarrassing.

Love all the keyboard hot shots calling Obama weak.

Let me guess, you'd be first in line to volunteer to fly the drones into Crimea?

It's 2014. There is a thing called diplomacy.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Zarley

When is the last time the United States has had a president who is this weak on foreign policy? How can Obama and his advisors be this naive? Putin already made a fool of him with the Syria situation and he's doing it again here. It's downright embarrassing.

WTF do you want Obama to do, start a war with Russia? How is that in anyone's interests?

As CaptainCrunch posted above, not even GWB would be that stupid.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by nik-

I find it hard to call a President weak on foreign policy when he's authorized non-stop flying assassination machines on foreign soil. Misguided and poorly prioritized would be more accurate. You'd also have to compare it to the last president who came into office with the country fighting two wars.

That was Obama that came into office with the USA already fighting two wars. Bush was the one that started those wars.