Ukraine Riots

[Gulo Blue]

This just comes from some Turkish newspaper, not the Turkish government.

http://maidantranslations.com/2014/...a-declares-independence-it-returns-to-turkey/

The Ottoman Empire had an agreement signed by Catherine the Great that transferred Crimea to Russia with the condition that it could not be transferred to a third party and in the even they declare independence, Turkey would then have the right to reclaim it.

 

[Michchamp]

This just comes from some Turkish newspaper, not the Turkish government.

http://maidantranslations.com/2014/...a-declares-independence-it-returns-to-turkey/

The Ottoman Empire had an agreement signed by Catherine the Great that transferred Crimea to Russia with the condition that it could not be transferred to a third party and in the even they declare independence, Turkey would then have the right to reclaim it.

they are not helping things.

I did read that Turkey threatened Russia with a closure of the Bosporus to Russian shipping... but I don't know how serious that is, or if it's predicated on some other event. That pretty much makes possessing the Crimea pointless.

Russia's actions are leaving the U.S. & EU no choice but to move forward with more and more severe sanctions. I read somewhere that trade with Russia is something like 1% of the EU's GDP, but Russian trade with the EU accounts for almost a fifth of Russia's GDP.

 

[Gulo Blue]

they are not helping things.

I did read that Turkey threatened Russia with a closure of the Bosporus to Russian shipping... but I don't know how serious that is, or if it's predicated on some other event. That pretty much makes possessing the Crimea pointless.

Russia's actions are leaving the U.S. & EU no choice but to move forward with more and more severe sanctions. I read somewhere that trade with Russia is something like 1% of the EU's GDP, but Russian trade with the EU accounts for almost a fifth of Russia's GDP.

Some things I've read give me the impression that the fight over Crimea isn't about shipping or any other practical use of the land as much as it's about emotional ties and its historic role in the birth of Russian culture.

edit: via wikipedia I'm learning that might be a manufactured history.

 

[Thumb]

I don't know about this situation anymore. Some of Putins cabinet are making some pretty inflammatory remarks; one said he could give a fuck about sanctions because the only thing the US has he likes is Tupac. another mentioned that Obama needs to remember Russia is the only country capable of turning all of America into a pile of nuclear ash (China disagrees), even mentioning how systems are fully automated with all targets preselected so even if we hit them first, retaliation is assured. And I thought we has a treaty for a while were we were not actively targeting each other?

So one is saying fuck your sanctions, the other is saying come fuck with us we'll blow up the world.

And then there are these guys:

 

[Michchamp]

Some things I've read give me the impression that the fight over Crimea isn't about shipping or any other practical use of the land as much as it's about emotional ties and its historic role in the birth of Russian culture.

edit: via wikipedia I'm learning that might be a manufactured history.

Yes, it mostly is. From wikipedia:

Since c. 700 BC, the peninsula has changed hands several times, with all or part having been controlled by Cimmerians, Bulgars, Greeks, Scythians, Romans, Goths, Huns, Khazars, Kievan Rus' (the historical precursor to the modern states of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia), the Byzantine Empire, Venice, Genoa, Kipchaks, the Golden Horde, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, Germany, Ukraine, and now, perhaps, the Russian Federation.
​

It was officially annexed to Russia in the 1700's, when the Ottoman Empire couldn't defend it any longer. there were no ethnic Russians there in any significant number for a long time. It would be like George W. Bush claiming Guam played a part in the birth of American culture.

I don't know about this situation anymore. Some of Putins cabinet are making some pretty inflammatory remarks; one said he could give a fuck about sanctions because the only thing the US has he likes is Tupac. another mentioned that Obama needs to remember Russia is the only country capable of turning all of America into a pile of nuclear ash (China disagrees), even mentioning how systems are fully automated with all targets preselected so even if we hit them first, retaliation is assured. And I thought we has a treaty for a while were we were not actively targeting each other?

So one is saying fuck your sanctions, the other is saying come fuck with us we'll blow up the world.

And then there are these guys:

those guys are crazy!

I'm thinking Russia is in some dire straits itself, much like Ukraine was at the beginning of this crisis. if you look at all the billions transferred out of Russia to Switzerland, Austria, London, and NYC, you have to wonder how their own government is staying solvent. if you remember that Magnitsky (sp?) scandal (look it up) they basically murdered that lawyer who discovered a scheme by which Putin's own allies were bilking hundreds of millions of dollars from the Russian treasury through tax fraud.

Maybe this instability has caused them to act irrationally... I don't know. But I'm not sure what exactly they hoped to accomplish by militarily occupying Crimea.

they seemed to have underestimated the strength and determination of the protests in Kyiv... so a miscalculation on their part of whether Ukraine, the EU, US, and UN would allow an invasion & annexation to be legally recognized would not be unexpected. Now they either need the west to agree to recognize Crimean independence from Kyiv and annexation by Moscow, or find some way out while saving face.

 

[zyxt9]

Well Obama did not help matters much:

President Obama, who has threatened Moscow with additional sanctions, said Wednesday that nobody wants to "trigger an actual war with Russia" because that would serve no one's interests.

Basically he is saying, since Russia has military forces in Crimea, it is theirs. Oh, and any nation next to Russia, good luck if Russia sends in its military to take you over because there is zero chance we are going to defend you, regardless of any treaties previously agreed to. We will only perform diplomatic attacks. So if Russia begins to run low on any resources that a neighbor has and decides to take over that independent nation in order to have access to that resource, we'll just cry out to the media and the useless UN that they should stop.

The following things need to happen:

1. The US needs to expedite its return to space since they currently are sending astronauts and supplies to the ISS via Russian rockets. This must stop asap. Imposing sanctions yet giving them millions is lunacy and futile. If the EU and US are going to impose sanctions, they need to be as close to 100% as possible in the immediate timeframe, and 100% asap. The USSR imploded primarily due to the financial isolationism, the same can happen to Russia. Cut off all oil and gas first and foremost, there is zero need for their supply to reach the EU, US, or any other parts of the world.
It has historically been proven that Russia cannot survive long term without international finances. Building up the EU and US military will force Putin to overspend on the military as well. Turkey cutting off the straits would be a big plus in this, and sounds like they are very willing to do that.

2. The US has been developing weapons that will blow up rockets when launched. This tech needs to be perfected and massively deployed, coupled with the Navy's non-nuclear Rail Gun tech. Once that is done, send a memo to Putin saying if he sends a single military unit, personnel or equipment into a neighbor that they will be attacked and annihilated to the point of extinction. Putin has to have heard what Obama has said as well as the militaristic members of his government and nation who mistakenly think they have enough weapons to ensure Mutually Assured Destruction; however, the US can actually create and deploy the resources to make their side of the equation moot without sending a single person onto a battlefield. I'm not suggesting the EU or US attack Russia without provocation, I am entirely suggesting that Crimea will NOT be Putin's last land grab and we need to do everything possible to prevent these actions from continuing. History has shown economic sanctions have minimal effect. They should be attempted first, absolutely; however, the world better prepare to wipe out Russia.

Truman and Ike should have let Patton have his war and wipe out Russia back then. I get why they didn't, people had enough of war by then and Japan still needed to be dealt with, but Patton was right nonetheless and dealing with Russia then would have meant not worrying about Russia having nukes whereas after we bombed Japan we could have easily told Stalin, "You're next unless you surrender immediately!"...and I would have dropped the bomb that hit Nagasaki on Moscow instead to prove it.

My apologies to any who are upset by my comments. I fully admit Putin already had the hair on my neck standing tall, Obama's comments have made me extremely concerned that Putin will view them as a Green Light to invade more nations in the name of annexing land where Russians live. I know everyone hates to equate current events to Nazi Germany, but Putin's tactics cannot be viewed as anything less than equivalent to Hitler's initial land grabs, the only variable still in play is whether or not Putin continues to use such policy.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Zyxt9, in my opinion, futurist hawk is an uncommon combination. What do you think?

 

[zyxt9]

Zyxt9, in my opinion, futurist hawk is an uncommon combination. What do you think?

lol...I agree, most futurists are not hawks, but they (sci-fi writers particularly) do warn about hawks and I would say there is a high probability more than one futurist hawk exists.

*side note, sorry for thread hijack* not sure if you watch the show "Almost Human", but I find they do a decent job of looking at how current tech and near future tech could be used by criminals and police alike.

 

[Gulo Blue]

lol...I agree, most futurists are not hawks, but they (sci-fi writers particularly) do warn about hawks and I would say there is a high probability more than one futurist hawk exists.

*side note, sorry for thread hijack* not sure if you watch the show "Almost Human", but I find they do a decent job of looking at how current tech and near future tech could be used by criminals and police alike.

Looks interesting. I was thinking about watching it...there's just so much to watch right now. I'm making my way through Star Trek Enterprise right now. Might be my favorite Star Trek.

 

[Thumb]

The thing about the Crimea and our lack of action is more complex than that zyxt. I was one of the people saying we had a treaty and needed to live by it, but the issue has been raised of whether that treaty is valid any longer or not.

Who is the legal government of Ukraine?

And as far as the Patton/Truman comment, that's so wrong it's hilarious. We would have been seen as another Germany, and all the other countries who we called allies might have sided with the Soviets, bomb or no bomb. It wouldn't have been a winnable war.

 

[zyxt9]

The thing about the Crimea and our lack of action is more complex than that zyxt. I was one of the people saying we had a treaty and needed to live by it, but the issue has been raised of whether that treaty is valid any longer or not.

Who is the legal government of Ukraine?

And as far as the Patton/Truman comment, that's so wrong it's hilarious. We would have been seen as another Germany, and all the other countries who we called allies might have sided with the Soviets, bomb or no bomb. It wouldn't have been a winnable war.

I think you underestimate our other allies distrust of Stalin, especially Churchill, and China was an ally then... they had not the best relations with Russia back then. Most of the nations that Russia overtook were also not fond of their occupancy and would have welcomed the opportunity to rid themselves of the Soviet Shadow. I also believe you overestimate the strength of the Russian military at that time, while assuming the world view of the US and allies would be looked at in negative way when the world always mistrusted Stalin. Patton would have easily made it look like Russia started the war and the world would have backed him, even if history proved him at fault later. No, the problem was far more that the world was tired of war and decided to try peace instead.

As for the grey areas of the treaty, they have served more as a way for EU and US to bow out of the situation. Ukraine had their leader dethroned, nothing more. Their government did not rewrite their constitutions, laws, or otherwise change. Any agreements with the nation of Ukraine should therefore be honored, but what do politicians know about honor.

 

[Thumb]

I think you underestimate our other allies distrust of Stalin, especially Churchill, and China was an ally then... they had not the best relations with Russia back then. Most of the nations that Russia overtook were also not fond of their occupancy and would have welcomed the opportunity to rid themselves of the Soviet Shadow. I also believe you overestimate the strength of the Russian military at that time, while assuming the world view of the US and allies would be looked at in negative way when the world always mistrusted Stalin. Patton would have easily made it look like Russia started the war and the world would have backed him, even if history proved him at fault later. No, the problem was far more that the world was tired of war and decided to try peace instead.

As for the grey areas of the treaty, they have served more as a way for EU and US to bow out of the situation. Ukraine had their leader dethroned, nothing more. Their government did not rewrite their constitutions, laws, or otherwise change. Any agreements with the nation of Ukraine should therefore be honored, but what do politicians know about honor.

I'm guessing you never studied WWII much from a historical standpoint other than to watch the move Patton where George C. Scott uses the same line you just did about "starting a war with the Russians and making it look like their fault".

Many countries were liberated by the Red Army, and it was the Red Army that forced Germany to surrender. Tired of war or not, you think many of those countries were going to let us become what would have looked very much like a larger more powerful, albeit distant, version of an Axis power?

Yes, Churchill distrusted Stalin, but that's a far cry from him lending support, or at least looking the other way if we had decided to invade a former ally. You're out of your element here.

 

[zyxt9]

Thumb, in your studies of WWII, which nations didn't have a dislike for Stalin? The Eastern Bloc was only connected to Moscow because their nations were "liberated" by the Tussian Army, but one of the reasons Patton was charging so hard and fast to the east prior to the Battle of the Bulge was in the attempt to liberate nations before Russia could. If Hitler had reallocated the Bulge resources to attack the Eastern Front, the post war maps would have been incredibly different. None of the Eastern Bloc nations wanted to be Eastern Bloc members, that was forced upon them. The US would never have been considered anything less than Liberators by those nations for removing the Russians and their political puppets placed in charge of those nations. When they did try to revolt against the Russians, the Russian military crushed the resistance or intimidated them into realligning with Moscow instead of becoming more independent....just like what has happened in Crimea.

I fully agree the world would have not been pleased with an extension of WWII, but that does not mean taking those actions would not have been more fruitful than what actually happened.

I actually have researched WWII in far more depth than you care to recognize. You have a different opinion than I, no surprise since we have opposing views on just about everything. Unlike you, I will not be disqualifying your opinion in any way other than to say we have different opinions based on our collective experiences. That is what makes this world what it is, right? Regardless, it is nothing but an academic exercise since there is obviously no actual proof other than what reality transpired.

As for Putin, I honestly hope he won't pursue more land grabs, but I do not trust him because of his history and history of others similar to him. Can he be different from so many people in the past? Obviously he is his own unique person, so it is possible, but I believe the odds are against him being finished with his militaristic land grabs.

 

[Michchamp]

I think you're both wrong:

1.) Eastern Europe was not happy to be liberated by the Soviets. I'm sure they would've preferred the U.S. army had managed to get there first. The Red Army didn't exactly behave themselves in captured or re-captured territory either.

2.) Continuing WWII for another several years wouldn't have been good for anyone. The Red Army was truly massive at the end there. While it would've been difficult for them to get those troops all the way to France & supply them, the same would've been true about getting the US and British armies all the way to Moscow. it would've been nearly impossible.

also, I don't think the US Army enjoyed the same technical advantages back then that they do today. Witness the way the Chinese gave them a fight in Korea 10 years later. The Red Army was battle hardened and even tougher than that.

 

[Thumb]

I think you're both wrong:

1.) Eastern Europe was not happy to be liberated by the Soviets. I'm sure they would've preferred the U.S. army had managed to get there first. The Red Army didn't exactly behave themselves in captured or re-captured territory either.

2.) Continuing WWII for another several years wouldn't have been good for anyone. The Red Army was truly massive at the end there. While it would've been difficult for them to get those troops all the way to France & supply them, the same would've been true about getting the US and British armies all the way to Moscow. it would've been nearly impossible.

also, I don't think the US Army enjoyed the same technical advantages back then that they do today. Witness the way the Chinese gave them a fight in Korea 10 years later. The Red Army was battle hardened and even tougher than that.

How am I wrong? I never said those countries like Poland, Finland, Romainia, Yugoslavia would not have been happier if someone else liberated them, I simply posted the truth, which was that the Red Army was who liberated them.

 

[Michchamp]

How am I wrong? I never said those countries like Poland, Finland, Romainia, Yugoslavia would not have been happier if someone else liberated them, I simply posted the truth, which was that the Red Army was who liberated them.

I twisted my reasoning a bit... I should've said I don't think they would view the U.S. as Nazi Germany version 2, regardless of who liberated them first

You said:

Many countries were liberated by the Red Army, and it was the Red Army that forced Germany to surrender. Tired of war or not, you think many of those countries were going to let us become what would have looked very much like a larger more powerful, albeit distant, version of an Axis power?

Yes, Churchill distrusted Stalin, but that's a far cry from him lending support, or at least looking the other way if we had decided to invade a former ally. You're out of your element here.
​

Before we start arguing over conjecture...

there's probably a good chance most of the military men in the UK, France, and the U.S. armies and navies were right-wing & anti-communist, and the Wehrmacht & German leadership would've leapt at the opportunity to avoid total surrender & occupation, and to join the allies and fight the USSR. and there was already a Polish army on our side, equipped by the US & UK, much like the Free French forces.

I think the average Eastern European would've been okay switching sides (AGAIN) as the western Allies pushed the Soviets back East (assuming it was that easy), there would be a minority in those countries -probably among left-wing parties - that would be unhappy to see us. Romania & Hungary had already been fighting the Soviets once, and most Eastern Europeans hated the Russians then as much as they do now, except for the Serbs who seem to love Russia (and vice versa) for some reason.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Merkel says the G8 no longer exists.

http://www.euronews.com/2014/03/20/...ists-as-eu-plans-further-sanctions-on-russia/

 

[Michchamp]

Merkel says the G8 no longer exists.

http://www.euronews.com/2014/03/20/...ists-as-eu-plans-further-sanctions-on-russia/

I remember when it was the G7... the US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Canada, and Italy. Then I guess they felt like being nicer to Russia, and made them the G8, even though... China, Mexico, and Spain all had larger economies.

according to this, Russia didn't enter the Top 10 until 2008.

For 2013, it's US, China, Japan, Germany, France, Brazil, UK... Russia, then Italy and India just behind them.

This explains the history fo the "Group of..." better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8

Apparently, even though they are well within the "group," China and Brazil don't get to hang out in the clubhouse.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Russia is raising the price of gas sold to Ukraine by 80%
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/28/ukraine-crisis-economy-idUSL5N0MP1VL20140328

But, it's unclear to me if this just undoes discounts Ukraine was getting previously or if it's actually much higher than regular prices.

 

[Michchamp]

Russia is raising the price of gas sold to Ukraine by 80%
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/28/ukraine-crisis-economy-idUSL5N0MP1VL20140328

But, it's unclear to me if this just undoes discounts Ukraine was getting previously or if it's actually much higher than regular prices.

they were already charging them FIVE TIMES what they were charging Germany! that's how corrupt the deal was. And BTW, it was apparently signed by Yulia Tymoshenko (the previous PM who Yanukovich locked up). Which is why despite the fact that she tried to play the victim and get some public support, a lot of Ukrainians were like... "Eh... sorry about what happened to you, but no thanks."

At the last go-round, Putin agreed with Yanukovich to lower it a bit, but of course, that concession was only made if Ukraine joined his Bush League customs union, which they are now obviously not doing...