LA Times: Russia sends tanks and troops into Ukraine, seizes a strategic town

[JMS]

So, lets say Putin, at great cost to his economy and international standing, re-absorbs the Ukraine.  How is this really a big problem for us or the EU?

Ukraine is like the 8th largest country in the world population wise with about 45 million people..

It's the bread basket of the former Soviet Union. Allowing Russia to retake such countries goes a long way to allowing Russia to re-assemble the old soviet union as well as repeats mistakes which the west made at the end of WWII where we allowed Russia to dominate eastern Europe resulting in five decades of cold war and near global catastrophe.

Allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine simple makes Russia stronger, and will embolden Russia for yet more moves. It's only a matter of time before a stronger emboldened Russia makes a move we can't ignore.

Isis and Putin's Russia (the one with 2 million troops under arms and 4800 nuclear weapons) are not the same.   Saying " Hitting them now and letting them know we are serious" is an empty slogan when you are talking about Russia.  It's annoying and meaningless.  

 

They are the same... in that they are both testing us. And left to their own limits they both will commit acts which will require us to action. At least that's the argument for engagement now....

The case for engagement against ISIS has been made, heard, and is being executed.. That is also the case we have been trying to make against Putin.. So far Germany is not hearing it.

[Predicto]

That was US policy for the better part of the Last 5 decades in dealing with Russia.

 

We have the best and most capable military in the world..    Why the hell would we telegraph to Putin how we plan on using it?

Putin's not telegraphing his moves to us...  Hell he's not even admitting to the moves we can prove he's making...

 

If such brinkmanship is ridiculous, and I'm not saying you are wrong..   The entire cold war and Detante was ridiculous;  however; that didn't make it any less necessary.

 

Yes we have the best and most capable military in the world.   That doesn't mean we can project infinite force anywhere we want, anytime we want, and Putin knows it.   He has 2 million soldiers right next to Ukraine.   Having our 1st Armor Corps still sitting in Germany couldn't do squat about it if Russia wanted to invade Ukraine, and the pivot to Asia didn't change that a bit.   

 

The "not letting your opponent know what you are doing so that they always assume the worst" is a great idea if you want to get the entire world incinerated.   We came very close, several times, to doing just that during the Cold War.  Why would anyone with one ounce of grey matter want us to return to that level of brinksmanship?   Especially when it is EMPTY brinksmanship?

 

I hate Putin and I want to see him fail completely, but we have to do it through his pocketbook and his world standing.  I see zero value in making the most paranoid man in the world even more paranoid as he points thousands of nuclear weapons at me.   

Maybe not, and maybe I'm being an idealist, but I'd feel pretty icky if the world's powers just allowed one state to take over another by force. I recall something like that happening nearly 75 years ago and the European continent didn't take too kindly to it. 

 

I understand these are different times, but can the world really allow Russia to go in and take Ukraine, a sovereign, independent state? 

 

 

No, we can't.   But stopping them requires time and sanctions and international cooperation.   It isn't going to happen with Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer Top Gunning them back to Moscow.   That's a fantasy that no one believes in, nor should they.   

 

There is a reason that US troops have never directly fought Russian troops in the past 70 years.   It's called the unacceptable risk of total nuclear holocaust.  

Allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine 

 

 

There is no one here who is talking about "allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine."   No one.  Stay on subject please.

[JMS]

So is saying "roll up a newspaper."   We are not sending our troops there and risking a flare up that could lead to WWIII.  No way.   We know it, the Russians know it, the Ukranians know it, the Poles know it, the Germans know it.  Everyone knows it except US armchair generals on the internet.  

So your argument is we should abandon tens of millions of people who want to align with us, make our security stronger, hell make Russia's security stonger... and if we don't abandon them OUR actions could lead to WWIII... WWIII only happens if we have a backbone and stand up to un provoked aggression... especially since we have all the advantages militarily to do so..

That is not the lesson we learned in WWII, and that is not the intellectual argument which kept us safe from Soviet Aggression for 50 years after WWII. In fact it's the exact opposite lesson we learned in both instances.

 

Pretending that we "ooh hoo we might send our troops to Ukraine, you never know, be scared Putin" would just make us look stupid. Saying "using our military in such away to make Putin's bad behavior have consequences that will give him pause in the future" is meaningless. It's word salad.

Predicto it's called a creditable military threat.. and it doesn't make you look stupid if you possess one. We currently don't possess one in Europe, but we could and should replace the one we used to have there, and when we have it in place we absolutely should use that threat as we have historically to keep European boarders stable.

 

NATO deters Putin from action against NATO countries, but Ukraine is not a member of NATO. NATO is not in the "protect the entire world from all aggression" business, it is in the "protect NATO members from aggression" business.

We are NATO. We are the bones, sinew and mussel of NATO. Ten fifteen years from now when Putin tries this same thing against Latvia or Poland or Bulgaria and the NATO treaty is invoked... Are we going to be better off having turned out backs on Ukraine today?

Bottom line Ukraine has 50 million people looking to join. Does it make NATO more secure to tell them no and abandon them to Russia? Did it make the US more secure abandoning eastern Europe to Stalin in 1945? No it didn't...

It's not Putin's right to invade and destroy democratic countries on NATO's boarders... There can and should be consequences.

[JMS]

There is no one here who is talking about "allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine." No one. Stay on subject please.

What?

So it's your position a creditable threat of military action is "RIDICULOUS". Allowing Ukraine into NATO is equivalent to NATO declaring war on Russia, and anytime we don't telegraph our military position to Putin for his concurrence we are being "STUPID"..

But you aren't advocating abandoning Ukraine.    Gotcha...

 

So I discern your position is we show Putin how nice and cooperative we can be and hope he looses his taste for conquest before we run out of non aligned countries in western Europe for him to swallow...   Or is it your position that we could loose a few of those NATO countries too...

 

I mean if we are turning about backs on 40 million Ukrainians and that IS what you are advocating... why woudln't we turn our backs on 2 million Latvians.. or 3 million Lithuanians or Albanians....   Because they are NATO?

[Predicto]

So your argument is we should abandon tens of millions of people who want to align with us,

 

No, that's not my argument.   It's not even close.

 

​

 

 

I mean if we are turning about backs on 40 million Ukrainians and that IS what you are advocating... 

 

 

I should have known better than to enter into a discussion with you.  You just talk about whatever you want.   Enjoy.

[JMS]

There is a reason that US troops have never directly fought Russian troops in the past 70 years.   It's called the unacceptable risk of total nuclear holocaust.[/font][/color][/background]

 

You've got that backwards.  It was our nuclear deterrent which kept the soviet union from invading pro western countries.

And we threatened to use that nuclear deterrent more than once in defense of soviet aggression. 

 

It was soviet policy to publicly declare they wouldn't use nuclear weapons first.   It was our policy throughout the cold war not to make the same declaration in the face of soviet aggression.

[JMS]

I should have known better than to enter into a discussion with you.  You just talk about whatever you want. Enjoy.

In post #15 you called having a creditable military threat against Russian aggression Ridiculous,

In post #25 you said not telegraphing or military actions to Putin was Stupid,

In post #27 you said "not letting your opponent know what you are doing"....."is a great idea if you want to get the entire world incinerated".

 

So I don't think I mischaracterized your position; but rather directly quoted you in responding to you....    Putin is a bad guy,  he's proven he's a bad guy.   It all comes down to whether you think he's going to stop once he knows there is no will in Europe or NATO to stop him.    The answer to that is no, he's not going to stop.

 

There is going to have to be a military component to this solution, and establishing and maintaining a creditable threat is the most benign action we could take in the face of Putin's aggression other than appeasement.

 

Hell it's not like the US taxpayer hasn't already paid the tab for that "creditable military threat"....

 

And yes you are absolutely wrong in suggesting Putin would be committing these bad behaviors in the face of the kind of military build up we maintained in Europe prior to the Asian pivot.

 

I hate Putin and I want to see him fail completely, but we have to do it through his pocketbook and his world standing.  I see zero value in making the most paranoid man in the world even more paranoid as he points thousands of nuclear weapons at me.   

You have to do both. Sanctions aren't going to curb nationalism if he's still consuming tens of millions of people and subjugating them under his will in the name of mother Russian. You need a creditable military threat to give him pause and stop his advances to give sanctions a time to work.

We can't be more afraid of nuclear war, or conventional war than the aggressor is if we hope to stop him. Putin isn't the kind of aggressor who has his own hard stops built into his actions... He'll take Ukraine and leave us a humanitarian refugee mess... then he will move into Belarus.. Hell he's already got folks in Belerus priming them for next..

We can't get dragged into his reality here... we have to drag him into ours...

Here is his mindset.

 

Vladimir Putin: Don't mess with nuclear-armed Russia

Russia's president, speaking at a pro-Kremlin youth camp at a lake near Moscow, said "it's best not to mess with us," adding "I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers"

...

Mr Putin's comments, made during a visit to a pro-Kremlin youth camp on the banks of a lake outside Moscow, will horrify Western governments as they try to bring Russia into check. Even during the height of Cold War hostilities, few Kremlin leaders ever resorted to the direct mentions of Russia's nuclear arsenal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11064209/Vladimir-Putin-Dont-mess-with-nuclear-armed-Russia.html

(1) He's the aggressor, and it would be we who are messing with him if we opposed his aggression? I don't think so..

(2) We are the pre-eminent nuclear power in the world. We are supposed to cowar infront of him? How about he not mess with us because we could kick his ass up and down the street all day.

(3) He has been lying to his people about his moves in Ukraine and now that Russian troops are out in the open fighting in Ukraine the Russian people don't support it. He's trying to appeal to nationalism to get them back on his side. Making him pause his aggression or even rolling them back would go a long way to destroying his internal support before he rebuilds it fueled by military success.

 

Why would anyone with one ounce of grey matter want us to return to that level of brinksmanship?

Because the cold war worked. It didn't go hot. We kept soviet aggression in check. If we hadn't opposed the soviet union do you think that would have been a better answer to Stalin's campaign to destabilize and invade pro western countries? I don't think so.

[Predicto]

In 40 years of cold war, we didn't send our troops into East Germany, or Hungary, or Poland, or Czechoslovakia, or Romania in order to "oppose the Soviet Union."   Because it would have been stupid to do so.   We didn't pretend we were about to send them in either.   Because it would have been stupid to do so, because it was not a credible threat.   We didn't send American troops into Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded in 1979, nor did we threaten to.  And holy smoke, whaddya know, the Soviet Union got its butt kicked in Afghanistan anyway, and it eventually collapsed anyway.  Can't imagine how that happened, since we weren't doing anything to opposed them.  

 

And I am not saying do nothing, or abandon the Ukranians, or "cower before Putin" or any of the other crap that you are putting in my mouth.   So stop saying it.  It's annoying.  

 

My comments have always been criticizing at the idea that we are making some huge mistake by not pretending that we might just send our military into Ukraine, wink wink (even though we won't actually send them, and no one believes we will) because that creates some intangible but somehow credible military threat even though everyone understands that it's just empty talk.  That a silly, John Bolton-level analysis.  That's all I'm saying.  

 

I'm all for arming the Ukranians, punishing Russia with sanctions and embargos, kicking them out of trade organizations, selling oil and gas to Europe to cut their leverage, heck, maybe bring Ukraine into NATO.   That's all worth discussing.  

 

I'm just not convinced that empty dick wagging about how Rambo is going to arrive in Kviv any minute does any good.   

[visionary]

Lavrov said today that the images of Russian troops and vehicles are make believe and from a video game.

 

Russia is reluctant to acknowledge they are using their forces inside Ukraine.

They aren't likely go to war over something happening to their non-existent forces inside Ukraine, if Ukraine asks for assistance.

But if something is going to be done to aid Ukraine militarily (by us, or the EU, or NATO) it would be better to do it before Russia gets too committed to this path.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11064794/Ukraine-crisis-Britain-wants-Russia-stripped-of-right-to-host-World-Cup-2018.html

Ukraine crisis: Britain wants Russia stripped of right to host World Cup 2018

 

Britain is pushing for Russia to be stripped of the right to host the 2018 World Cup under tough new political sanctions to be suggested by David Cameron at a summit of European Union leaders in Brussels.

 

The Prime Minister, with growing support across the EU, wants Russia to be ostracised from high-status international events, such as the football tournament, to teach Vladimir Putin that he will become a pariah unless he pulls troops out of Ukraine.

 

"The idea of taking the World Cup away from Russia has come up in talks between European leaders. Britain especially has pushed it as a way of taking broader and more imaginative measures against Russia," said a senior European diplomat.

 

European diplomats who are currently working on the EU's response to Russia are drawing up a list of "symbolic" political sanctions aimed at President Putin's highly developed sense of prestige, robbing him of the high-profile sporting events and barring him from participating in international summits.

 

"The existing sanctions have not yet changed Russian behaviour and we need to be more imaginative," said another senior EU official involved with coordinating the European response to Russia.

 

"We need to have tougher sanctions with new economic measures as well as looking at new options, for example, not holding the World Cup in Russia, dismissing Putin from the G20 or ASEM meetings between Europe, Asia, Australia and New Zealand."

 

Mr Cameron and other EU leaders are aware that the Russian leader fears losing popular support if he cannot hold the 2018 World Cup which is already complicated by Russia's intention to play matches in Crimea, illegally invaded and annexed by Mr Putin in March.

 

Speaking yesterday (FRI), Mr Putin expressed his "hope" that Russia would not lose the right to hold the football tournament as pressure grows on Fifa, the sport's governing body, to punish Russia for invading Ukraine.

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/29/us-eu-summit-idUSKBN0GT2I420140829?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter

After hard bargaining, EU set for deal on new leadership

 

A summit in Brussels that was called after a pre-vacation meeting two months ago ended in deadlock is likely, diplomats and officials said, to hand Poland's conservative prime minister the influential role of European Council president and Italy's little tested young foreign minister given the running of the EU's common diplomatic efforts. But nothing is yet certain.

 

Russia's assumed military intervention in Ukraine will also be discussed when the prime ministers and presidents meet from late afternoon, but officials doubt they will do more than agree to study stepping up their economic sanctions on Moscow.

 

EU foreign ministers meeting in Milan on Friday spoke of toughening an arms embargo, extending the list of individuals or sectors targeted by economic sanctions and also of sending military equipment to Ukraine.

 

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko will be in Brussels on Saturday, aiming to persuade the EU to do more to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from supporting separatist rebels.

 

But while former Soviet satellite states in the east are keen for tougher measures, the western powers, notably Germany, France, Italy and Britain, fear damaging their own fragile economies by losing Russian business - and are even warier of risking an interruption in Russian gas supplies this winter.

 

In a deal that would balance the interests of left- and right-wing factions across the bloc, eastern and western states, northern Europe and the south, as well as satisfy pressure for more women in senior EU roles, Polish premier Donald Tusk could be named Council president in succession to the Belgian Herman Van Rompuy and Italian Foreign Minister Federica Mogherini the bloc's foreign policy chief, replacing Briton Catherine Ashton.

 

Eastern leaders, alarmed by a resurgent Moscow, resisted the appointment of Mogherini. At 41 and with just six months of experience in Matteo Renzi's center government, they saw her lacking the political weight to stand up to the Kremlin and also handicapped by Italy's dependence on Russian energy.

 

However, the emergence this week of support for Tusk as Council president - a conservative figure from by far the biggest of the ex-communist states - appears to have forged the makings of a consensus, diplomats and officials said.

[JMS]

In 40 years of cold war, we didn't send our troops into East Germany, or Hungary, or Poland, or Czechoslovakia, or Romania in order to "oppose the Soviet Union."   Because it would have been stupid to do so.   We didn't pretend we were about to send them in either.   Because it would have been stupid to do so, because it was not a credible threat.

Because East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania were communist pro Soviet client states.

Ukraine is not a Soviet Client state, it's an independent Democracy. So the comparison is mute..

Rather than comparing Ukraine to Hungary or Czechoslavakia which experienced popular revolts during Soviet Rule... we should compare it to Poland in 1945. An independent sovereign country which wanted to align with the west, but which the west turned it's back on for expedience sake... resulting in five decades of soviet rule and dominance over Poland a traditional advisory of Russia.

 

We didn't send American troops into Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded in 1979, nor did we threaten to.

Russia today isn't the Soviet union of 79.. Nor are the Ukrainians on the front door of western Europe, Afghanistan. The problem is Predicto Russia wants to be, and if we bury our heads in the sand we will allow her to rebuild her block states... Ukraine being the greatest of these.

 

And I am not saying do nothing, or abandon the Ukranians, or "cower before Putin" or any of the other crap that you are putting in my mouth. So stop saying it. It's annoying.

I apologize if that's not what you are saying. But that's what I'm hearing when you propose we dare not offend Putin or risk catastrophe.. We dare not maintain a creditable threat.. we dare not risk leaving Putin any doubt we won't act militarily.. We dare not risk any confrontation with him where we are in a position to resist him other than with harsh language because we would risk "provoking his paranoia".

Sanctions without a creditable military threat aren't going to get it. We thought they might, and now Putin just raised the anti and overtly invaded his neighbor. This is going to require... REQUIRE... more than just sanctions. And frankly if Germany is too wussified to see that, maybe we should think about dropping Germany from NATO and adding Ukraine.. Ukraine frankly has a larger military anyway. US Taxpayer don't pay 640 billion annually to have the likes of Andrea Merkel dictate appropriate defensive actions.

 

My comments have always been criticizing at the idea that we are making some huge mistake by not pretending that we might just send our military into Ukraine, wink wink (even though we won't actually send them, and no one believes we will) because that creates some intangible but somehow credible military threat even though everyone understands that it's just empty talk. That a silly, John Bolton-level analysis. That's all I'm saying.

WHY WOULDN'T WE SEND THEM? The reason nobody thinks we will today is because our troops aren't there!! They are half way to Asia in this Asian pivot... So we have no creditable threat to use against Putin and he knows it..

But why the hell wouldn't we stand with Ukraine against Russia!! A Ukraine which is signaling it want's to join the EU, and even join NATO.. A Ukraine with 40 million people all wanting to share in Western Prosperity... WHY do you think it's in our interest to fight for Latvia, Albania, or Lithuanian with their sub 3 million populations but you would not entertain doing the same for Ukraine in the face of Soviet Style Russian aggression.

Yeah those other countries are NATO and we are honor bound to defend them... but why is a Lithuanians freedom more important to US and European security than a Ukrainians? The fact is Ukraine is about 1000 times more important strategically than a lot of other newly minted NATO countries. And yeah if we had a creditable threat, and if we were signalling to Russia we meant to use that creditable threat in the event of Russian invasion or aggression, we damned well better be prepared TO DO SO. That's why we maintain a military to act in our own best interest when aggressive punks try to act against our best interests... and Ukraine going into NATO or going intact into the EU is in our and Europe best interest.

As for the FEAR of Russia.. God damnit.. let Russia fear us.. because they should.. anybody who invades and commits war against our interests should fear us. That's why we spend so freaking much on our military.

 

I'm all for arming the Ukranians, punishing Russia with sanctions and embargos, kicking them out of trade organizations, selling oil and gas to Europe to cut their leverage, heck, maybe bring Ukraine into NATO. That's all worth discussing.

 

Arming the Ukrainians would be an act of war.   Bringing Ukraine into NATO would also be an act of war.  It would in effect be telling Russia NATO would take military action to safeguard Ukraine's territory.  The territory which Russia is actively invading and annexing.  It would commit us.   which is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

I'm just not convinced that empty dick wagging about how Rambo is going to arrive in Kviv any minute does any good.

There is a progression. First you don't take military option off the table, because it's not. Then you arm Ukraine because they are a friendly democracy being invaded by a dictator intent on invading more countries. And if Russia objects you say "screw you". If they want to attack us you say bring it. Then if you do put Ukraine in NATO, and you are actively committing US troops you've been consistent.. Putin new what he was getting into and he's in it.

Telling Putin or any aggressor, military option is off the table is always a bad idea... but following that up by giving weapons, signing an alliance, or committing troops such as putting Ukraine in NATO is inconsistent. It wouldn't be progressive and wouldn't give Putin every opportunity to back down.. And let's face it.. Putin is a punk who takes his pictures with tigers he didn't shoot, riffles he doesn't own, feeding horses he's afraid of. That guy needs every opportunity to back down, and if he doesn't we'll back him down.

[JMS]

Lavrov said today that the images of Russian troops and vehicles are make believe and from a video game.

 

Russia is reluctant to acknowledge they are using their forces inside Ukraine.

They aren't likely go to war over something happening to their non-existent forces inside Ukraine, if Ukraine asks for assistance.

But if something is going to be done to aid Ukraine militarily (by us, or the EU, or NATO) it would be better to do it before Russia gets too committed to this path.

 

 

Exactly right. Putin is on thin ice here. He's been telling his people that Russia isn't in Ukraine and the West is lying to them. Now all the sudden the Russians are figuring out Putin does have troops in Ukraine and the Russian people are against military involvement in Ukraine 3 or 4 to 1. So a military success against the Russians now would really take Putin's feet out from under him with his people...

Taking the World Cup away from him sounds really dumb. I mean of coarse we should, but that's not going to impact Putin's thinking and we should be discussing actions both military and economic which will.

[nonniey]

They are, and it is.

And we've pretty much flat-out announced that he can just conquer the whole country, and all we'll do is put a few of his cabinet members on a "no fly" list. With US airlines.

Who are you and why are you using Larry's account? This sounds like a really damning criticism of the President so I know this isn't Larry. Again who are you?

[zoony]

.

Sheesh, if you think they are just sitting around doing nothing, you haven't been paying attention at all. They are trying to keep their country together while at the same time trying not to give Russia justification for just steamrolling over them the way the Russians did in Georgia.

This is the part I don't get. The Eastern half of Ukraine WANTS Russia to invade. They love Putin. They identify themselves more as Russians than Ukrainians

The borders at this point are arbitrary. Ukraine will need to split in two if it wants to survive. If they want to fight they won't win. Let Russia have the East, they want each other

To look at this situation as Russia invading a sovereign state is misleading. This is a situation of Russia coming across an invisible line to protect their own people from a perceived fascism at those people's vehement request. As stupid as that sounds, and as stupid as Eastern Ukranians must be (very, very), thems the facts

It would be STUPIDITY of the highest magnitude to get involved. Vietnam 2.0

[nonniey]

So, lets say Putin, at great cost to his economy and international standing, re-absorbs the Ukraine.  How is this really a big problem for us or the EU?

Well in which case the UN may as well just close up shop as we would be back to pre WWII rules of International relations.

So what can be done? Are these sanctions going to be enough to deter any more military action? The last thing we need is a third World War, but what's going to stop Russia from doing whatever they want in Ukraine, especially if the Ukrainian army is fighting the Russians, as well as armed separatists? Does Putin have plans to march straight through to Kiev and if so, what's to stop him from doing it? Will the EU powers make some kind of military coalition if things get bad enough?

We can establish bases in Poland and the Baltic States and reinitiate the missile defense program that was supposed to have gone into Poland and the Czech Republic. We can provide intel and weapons to the Ukraine.

[zoony]

I am amazed that Putin has shown the kind of restraint that he has.

He has Western Europe by the short and curlys... What are they gonna do, stop buying oil and natural gas? Hahahaha ha. I mean, the guy could shoot down one of their civilian aircraft and they wouldn't do anything. Wait he already did

So Western Europe will behave like the good little Russian **** that they are.

That leaves Obama. <----(that was a punch line, btw)

Exactly right. Putin is on thin ice here. He's been telling his people that Russia isn't in Ukraine and the West is lying to them. Now all the sudden the Russians are figuring out Putin does have troops in Ukraine and the Russian people are against military involvement in Ukraine 3 or 4 to 1. So a military success against the Russians now would really take Putin's feet out from under him with his people...Taking the World Cup away from him sounds really dumb. I mean of coarse we should, but that's not going to impact Putin's thinking and we should be discussing actions both military and economic which will.

The Russoan people will do exactly the same thing they've done over the past 12 years while tyranny has run rampant. Nothing. It's comical to think that they would even think about doing something.

[JMS]

This is the part I don't get. The Eastern half of Ukraine WANTS Russia to invade. They love Putin. They identify themselves more as Russians than Ukrainians

The borders at this point are arbitrary. Ukraine will need to split in two if it wants to survive. If they want to fight they won't win. Let Russia have the East, they want each other

To look at this situation as Russia invading a sovereign state is misleading. This is a situation of Russia coming across an invisible line to protect their own people from a perceived fascism at those people's vehement request. As stupid as that sounds, and as stupid as Eastern Ukranians must be (very, very), thems the facts

It would be STUPIDITY of the highest magnitude to get involved. Vietnam 2.0

Only Ukraine is a sovereign country which we and Russia have both recognized and are treaty bound to respect it's boarders.

Also it's not like the Ukrainians in the east are rising up and fighting the Ukrainian army in favor of Russia, nor did the Crimians rise up and fight for an independent Crimea. These are Russian Troops, and Russian thugs ( irregulars) infiltrating into Ukraine.

[zoony]

Check out this video from the 13:20. Look at them. They can't wait to please Putin. Let them have each other. Stay out of it. Our arrogance is matched only by our stupidity

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vrv6yUKuh0

Only Ukraine is a sovereign country which we and Russia have both recognized and are treaty bound to respect it's boarders.Also it's not like the Ukrainians in the east are rising up and fighting the Ukrainian army in favor of Russia, nor did the Crimians rise up and fight for an independent Crimea. These are Russian Troops, and Russian thugs ( irregulars) infiltrating into Ukraine.

There are plenty of Ukranians fighting for the east. Those that aren't are busy housing the Russians and cooking them meals

[JMS]

We can establish bases in Poland and the Baltic States and reinitiate the missile defense program that was supposed to have gone into Poland and the Czech Republic. We can provide intel and weapons to the Ukraine.

We can replace some of the troops we removed from Europe which helped maintain European security for five decades and maintain a creditable ground force Europe too. It looks like we are going to need one.

Check out this video from the 13:20. Look at them. They can't wait to please Putin. Let them have each other. Stay out of it. Our arrogance is matched only by our stupidity

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vrv6yUKuh0

There are plenty of Ukranians fighting for the east. Those that aren't are busy housing the Russians and cooking them meals

Man Good Tape... thanks for posting it... watching it now.

So the first 13 minutes were the Ukrainian nationalists (Right Sector) who the Russians are calling Neo Nazi's largely fighting against the pro Russian government before that gov was kicked out for slaughtering more than 100 civilians with snippers demonstrating against it..

then after that we see... the pro Russian guys (Stronghold) in the east who "ransacked" the Ukrainian gov building.. Igor... but Igor admits not only did Russia bring people over the boarder to help, but they recruited him, and paid him %40 an hour for instigating the riots against the new Ukrainian gov. And they met with and were organized by Russian intelligence agencies.  

 

"The Soviet Union was the most righteous country in the world, then the Americans told us we didn't have enough sex and drugs and Rock and Roll....   pro Russian Stronghold commander, who's also a Russian citizen."  - awesome.

 

I think the gist of this front line piece is pretty clear... Russia is totally behind Stronghold and a significant part of their guys are Russians,  their weapons are from Russia, and Russia is paying the guys who are supposedly spontaneously demonstrating for an independent east.

[zoony]

We can replace some of the troops we removed from Europe which helped maintain European security for five decades and maintain a creditable ground force Europe too. It looks like we are going to need one.Man Good Tape... thanks for posting it... watching it now.

That entire video is very interesting and definitely worth watching. Best I've seen on Ukraine.

And really, it just goes to show that Europe has a lot of the same problems as us. Conservative pissed off white males who want to make things the way they were 50 years ago.

Actually, the entire globe has that problem. Conservativism is a scourge

[visionary]

Some of the East wants to be part of Russia, a lot of the separatist movement (which didn't really exist until Russia made their play on the Crimea) was run by Russian intelligence though and the leadership was Russian from Russia not Eastern Ukraine (though some have been replaced of late).

 

Even if all of Eastern Ukraine wanted to be part of Russia, how would that make it ok for Russia to take over the rest of the country including lots of areas where they're clearly hated?

 

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/29/putin-ukraine-forces-nazis-arctic

Putin likens Ukraine's forces to Nazis and threatens standoff in the Arctic

 

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has hit back at accusations that he has effectively invaded Ukraine, accusing Kiev's forces of behaving like Nazis in the conflict in the east and ominously threatening to take his standoff with the west into the disputed Arctic.

 

Hours after Barack Obama accused Russia of sending troops into Ukraine and fuelling an escalation in the battle, and as the government in Kiev indicated that it wanted to join Nato, Putin retorted that the Ukrainian army was the real villain, targeting residential areas of towns and cities as German troops had done in the former Soviet Union.

 

He added that Russians and Ukrainians "are practically one people", reprising a theme of an earlier statement in which he referred to the disputed areas of south-eastern Ukraine as Novorossiya, harking back to tsarist times, when the area was ruled from Moscow.

 

He answered questions from young supporters, some waving banners bearing his face, at a pro-Kremlin youth camp on the shores of a lake. He looked relaxed but his tone grew intense as he spoke of Russia's military might, reminding the crowd that Russia was a strong nuclear power. "Russia's partners … should understand it's best not to mess with us," he said.

 

And he made a pointed reference to the Arctic, which, with its bounteous energy reserves and thawing waterways, is emerging as a potential new point of conflict between Russia and its western rivals. "Our interests are concentrated in the Arctic. And of course we should pay more attention to issues of development of the Arctic and the strengthening of our position," he said.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/29/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html

Putin: You better not come after a nuclear-armed Russia

 

That was President Vladimir Putin's message on Friday, the same day a British government source claimed that Russian troops had significantly ratcheted up their military incursion into Ukraine.

 

Moscow doesn't want or intend to wade into any "large-scale conflicts," Putin insisted at a youth forum, state-run Itar-Tass reported. A few breaths later, he made the point that Russia is "strengthening our nuclear deterrence forces and our armed forces," making them more efficient and modernized.

"I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations," the President said. "This is a reality, not just words."

 

He later warned, "We must always be ready to repel any aggression against Russia and (potential enemies) should be aware ... it is better not to come against Russia as regards a possible armed conflict."

 

The comments came the same day that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused NATO of using "images from computer games" to -- in his view -- falsely make the case that Russian troops are in Ukraine. Lavrov said "hiding the evidence is an outstanding characteristic of the U.S. and many EU countries" with regard to Ukraine.

And Russia's military may be getting digging in deeper in Ukraine. The British government source told CNN on Friday that Russia has moved 4,000 to 5,000 military personnel -- a figure far higher than one U.S. official's earlier claim of 1,000 troops.

 

The soldiers are aligned in "formed units" and fighting around Luhansk and Donetsk, said the UK source. And they may soon have company: Some 20,000 troops are on border and "more may be on the way," the source adds.

[DaGoonie55]

I cannot fathom living in a country that cannot defend itself. Maybe thats why im having such a hard time understanding what is going on.

I jsut hope whatever happens, does so quickly and as nonlethal as possible.

[JMS]

Some of the East wants to be part of Russia, a lot of the separatist movement (which didn't really exist until Russia made their play on the Crimea) was run by Russian intelligence though and the leadership was Russian from Russia not Eastern Ukraine (though some have been replaced of late).

 

Even if all of Eastern Ukraine wanted to be part of Russia, how would that make it ok for Russia to take over the rest of the country including lots of areas where they're clearly hated?

 

 

The tape.. which was excellent.. thanks Zoney really points to Russia being behind the Stronghold movement...  Russia is paying eastern Ukranians to demonstrate.. and they are bussing Russians in to augment the thugs they recruited..  Tape says the one stronghold guy they interviewed was a criminal..... and their commanders are Russians,  and Russian intelligence and military officers meet, train and organize the demonstrations..    Russia's behind all of it..

 

On the other hand the Right Sector guys who are pro unified Ukraine kind of make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up too..

 

And they move through the streets of the Eastern cities beating the snot out of anybody who want's a unified Ukraine.   So much for the popular support of the Pro Russian's in eastern Ukraine...  Russia manufactured the entire thing...    

 

The "President" of the city which declared itself independent from Ukraine worked for Russian company and was once arrested for running a pyramid scam.. and while he's talking about inviting in Russian Peace keepers,  The Russian commander of his fighters, talks over him and starts going off on America.. wow..

[Predicto]

Some of the East wants to be part of Russia, a lot of the separatist movement (which didn't really exist until Russia made their play on the Crimea) was run by Russian intelligence though and the leadership was Russian from Russia not Eastern Ukraine (though some have been replaced of late).

 

Even if all of Eastern Ukraine wanted to be part of Russia, how would that make it ok for Russia to take over the rest of the country including lots of areas where they're clearly hated?

 

 

No, it wouldn't make it ok.   Absolutely not.

 

But that doesn't mean that there is any value pretending that we are about to send American troops in there, maybe, any minute now, just you wait, better be skeered, what if I'm not bluffing...  what, you don't believe me?        

[JMS]

I cannot fathom living in a country that cannot defend itself. Maybe thats why im having such a hard time understanding what is going on.

I jsut hope whatever happens, does so quickly and as nonlethal as possible.

 

Seriously what country in the world could defend itself from a Russian Invasion..   You could count them on one hand.   None that are proximal to Russia other than maybe China.

[visionary]

No, it wouldn't make it ok.   Absolutely not.

 

But that doesn't mean that there is any value pretending that we are about to send American troops in there, maybe, any minute now, just you wait, better be skeered, what if I'm not bluffing...  what, you don't believe me?        

I don't think it would be particularly helpful to send Us troops into Eastern Ukraine anyway.  I'm sure there are some things we or other allies could do to assist short of that though.

But of course it's hard for any of us to be sure what we are or aren't doing already.  Obviously we haven't done anything visible, but we're probably sharing intel.

 

 

 

 

Hmmm.

 

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2024418463_apxrussiamissingsoldiers.html?syndication=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Families of Russian troops in Ukraine want answers

 

The last time Valeria Sokolova saw her husband, the 25-year-old paratrooper told her that he and his fellow soldiers were heading for military exercises in southern Russia, near the Ukrainian border.

 

"He was vague in a way that was very unusual, and it was hard for all of them to say goodbye," Sokolova told The Associated Press, recounting their conversation from earlier this month.

 

On Monday, 10 men from his division were captured in eastern Ukraine amid fighting between pro-Moscow separatists and Ukrainian troops. At least two others from the division were killed and an unspecified number were wounded.

 

Sokolova, the mother of a 6-year-old boy, does not know the fate of her husband, and she said Russian military officials have released no information about the servicemen. She fears for his safety.

 

Similar questions are being raised by families of other Russian servicemen about unexplained deaths and missing or captured soldiers who are said to be on military exercises. The answers could undermine public support for President Vladimir Putin and his policies in Ukraine.

 

The government has released little information about those killed while fighting with the rebels -- a policy that some have compared to one used during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in the 1980s. This secrecy may become more difficult to maintain if the death toll grows.

 

Sokolova, who declined to identify her husband further because she worries it could have consequences for him, said she and other army wives converged on the local garrison to demand answers.