Official Ukraine/Georgian Thread

[Poetic_Mind]

So, based on your logic, the Russians would be legitimately entitled, allowed, whatever, to take back Alaska? International treaties, law, and territorial sovereignty be damned when there's complicated history involved!!!

Haha no, the Russians wouldn't be entitled to take back Alaska. We don't share that territory with them. We own it. Crimea's very much a marginal space mutually shared between the two nations.

I'm as confused as pardus about why it was handed over to Ukraine in '54 in the first place. It has to be the single-most valuable territory Russia could own. Those Russians don't think very clearly when they take a swig of that Vodka.

 

[Chopstick]

Those Russians don't think very clearly when they take a swig of that Vodka.

Or Absinthe and Ouzo?

http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/03/will-never-mix-absinthe-ouzo-says-ousted-ukraine-president/#!x3Uaz

“What do you mean, I had a hundred people killed in Independence Square? You know what happens when I drink absinthe!” exclaimed Yanukovych. “No, I don’t know where I am. I think somewhere in Russia.”

 

[Poetic_Mind]

I think it's just an improved version of the old Soviet 5 and 10 year plans...the 60-year plan to have reason to cause problems in 2014.

 

[Worldweaver]

Crimea's very much a marginal space mutually shared between the two nations.

I thought that Crimea was sovereign territory of the Ukraine as dictated by the terms of 1994(?), demographics be damned.

You know this isn't Vietnam? There are rules.

 

[Poetic_Mind]

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a341002.pdf

Pg. 51: resulting Friendship and BSF treaties.
Pg. 20-23: territorial disputes of the BSF and Sevastopol in the 1990s.

Here is an interesting thesis from the Naval Postgraduate School from 1997 that relates to today's conflict. It's a bit long of a read, but very enlightening to understanding how this conflict came to fruition in 2014. When I read the terms of the Friendship and Black Sea Fleet Agreement from the 199(2)-(7), I find it easy to see why this region is so tenuous in terms of sovereignty. Whether the treaty explicitly states Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory or not, that gets thrown right out the window when they walked away from the bargaining table saying that Russia can maintain military bases and a naval fleet ON the peninsula. "Soft politics" from the 1990s are coming back to bite us. Russia knew what the possible implications would be in the future after these treaties were signed.

 

[Worldweaver]

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a341002.pdf
Whether the treaty explicitly states Crimea as sovereign Ukrainian territory or not, that gets thrown right out the window when they walked away from the bargaining table saying that Russia can maintain military bases and a naval fleet ON the peninsula. "Soft politics" from the 1990s are coming back to bite us.

WOOOHOO, I called dibs on Germany. The rest of you can split the numerous other countries we now own due to this brilliantly written thesis.

Mark it zero dude.

 

[pardus]

WOOOHOO, I called dibs on Germany. The rest of you can split the numerous other countries we now own due to this brilliantly written thesis.

Mark it zero dude.

Ironically that means Great Britain now belongs to the USA. We would save a shitload of money on foreign aid now though.

 

[RackMaster]

Wooo! This means Canada finally gets a seat at the big boy table. We'll take the Netherlands and Italy.

 

[Poetic_Mind]

WOOOHOO, I called dibs on Germany. The rest of you can split the numerous other countries we now own due to this brilliantly written thesis.

Mark it zero dude.

That's a pretty good point. So we are pretty much violating territorial integrity in Germany, or numerous other countries we have military bases in? Makes Russian incursion in the Crimean peninsula seem a lot less like an "invasion" violating Ukraine's sovereignty.

 

[Worldweaver]

That's a pretty good point. So we are pretty much violating territorial integrity in Germany, or numerous other countries we have military bases in? Makes Russian incursion in the Crimean peninsula seem a lot less like an "invasion" violating Ukraine's sovereignty.

Sounds like the jump you're trying to make. I'll go ahead and disagree.

 

[Poetic_Mind]

Sounds like the jump you're trying to make. I'll go ahead and disagree.

It really wasn't the jump I intended to make. Putin flat out stating he is preparing for invasion sort of crushes that idea. My argument over history, geopolitical lines, or treaties/agreements doesn't take away the fact Russia indeed has the intention of violating Ukraine's sovereignty to some degree, whether that's holding territory in Crimea or expanding outside of that region. I just like seeing the whole picture to issues like this.

 

[pardus]

That's a pretty good point. So we are pretty much violating territorial integrity in Germany, or numerous other countries we have military bases in?

Of course not. Countries make agreements.

Makes Russian incursion in the Crimean peninsula seem a lot less like an "invasion" violating Ukraine's sovereignty.

You seem to be confusing/mixing up Russia having a Military base by agreement with the Ukraine with Russia "supposedly" occupying Ukrainian territory i.e. the airports etc... in Crimea.

 

[Poetic_Mind]

Yeah, I think I did pardus. I never read anything about Russia occupying anything outside of Sevastopol, or any key locations where they already had shit to protect. If there is something I missed that explicitly states that though, I do apologize. So far it all seems "supposed".

 

[pardus]

Yeah, I think I did pardus. I never read anything about Russia occupying anything outside of Sevastopol, or any key locations where they already had shit to protect. If there is something I missed that explicitly states that though, I do apologize. So far it all seems "supposed".

A lot of life is "supposed", one needs to learn to read between the lines. Look at Russia's history, Czech in '68, Afghan in '79 etc...
Is it possible Russia has nothing official to do with the airport seizures? Yes of course.
However, Occam's Razor...

 

[goon175]

BREAKING: France surrenders to Russia!

http://hitthewoodline.com/satura/2014/3/3/france-surrenders-to-russia

 

[Chopstick]

The Washinton Post's Editorial Board from yesterday. OUCH.
President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...854436-a238-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past. Secretary of State John F. Kerry displayed this mindset on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday when he said, of Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine, “It’s a 19th century act in the 21st century.”

Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not received the memo on 21st-century behavior. Neither has China’s president, Xi Jinping, who is engaging in gunboat diplomacy against Japan and the weaker nations of Southeast Asia. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is waging a very 20th-century war against his own people, sending helicopters to drop exploding barrels full of screws, nails and other shrapnel onto apartment buildings where families cower in basements. These men will not be deterred by the disapproval of their peers, the weight of world opinion or even disinvestment by Silicon Valley companies. They are concerned primarily with maintaining their holds on power.

 

[Brill]

This is getting interesting now that The WAPO is turning on Obama's foreign policies apparently based on his experiences of playing Risk as a kid.

 

[TLDR20]

This is getting interesting now that The WAPO is turning on Obama's foreign policies apparently based on his experiences of playing Risk as a kid.

I don't know why you think that the WaPost is such a liberal paper. Compared to trash like Fox News and Washington Times I guess, but compared to most large news outlets they have a very unbiased newsroom.

 

[Dame]

BREAKING: France surrenders to Russia!

http://hitthewoodline.com/satura/2014/3/3/france-surrenders-to-russia

Coffee spew. Thanks so much.

 

[Brill]

I don't know why you think that the WaPost is such a liberal paper. Compared to trash like Fox News and Washington Times I guess, but compared to most large news outlets they have a very unbiased newsroom.

Perception is reality I suppose and I would agree that they are trying to move to the center with columnists like Will, Krauthammer, etc unlike MSNBC and Wash Times (extreme on each side) but I would not call the Post unbiased. Quite revealing that you stated the anonym of "liberal" is "trash".

I would disagree with the findings of radio and TV but overall, I think they captured the essence here.

http://library.lakelandcc.edu/PDFs/research/bias.pdf