With Russia holding Europe's energy supply firmly in its grasp, and with the U.S. public too tired of war and interventions, nothing will probably happen.
But the worry is what if something does happen.
Then it'll be the defining moment of the century. Virtually everything that happens afterwards on a grand scheme will be influenced from this war. A culmination of all the fears everyone had about the Soviets actually playing to life.
I just find it rather funny that it really is a play-out of what analysts said post-WWII. Soviets are being incredibly aggressive about expanding their reach into East Europe and other territories bordering Russia largely in an attempt to create depth and distance.
To this day Russia acts as a frightened child, scared of its neighbors and doing everything it can to defend itself from them.
There really isn't much to be done. Putin will deny being the aggressor because the troops he sent are in Ukraine officially as peacekeepers. If anything goes wrong (like a spark that sets off a civil war) Putin can simply claim that the protesters were being violent and had to resort to physical force to "protect" the Ukrainians.
This is why Ukraine should have kept its nukes instead of trading them for guarantees of safety from Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Russia wouldn't have invaded another nuclear power, but history has shown time and time again that guarantees of safety are meaningless.
Putin will deny being the aggressor because the troops he sent are in Ukraine officially as peacekeepers.
How is this the case? The Crimean Premier who requested protection was only elected leader in a closed door session after the legislature was taken over by gunmen this week.
There really isn't much to be done. Putin will deny being the aggressor because the troops he sent are in Ukraine officially as peacekeepers. If anything goes wrong (like a spark that sets off a civil war) Putin can simply claim that the protesters were being violent and had to resort to physical force to "protect" the Ukrainians.
Except for the fact that outside of Crimea, he was asked to NOT get involved. I mean there is a reason they are mobilizing the army in Ukraine to possibly fight Russia. Really though, this has serious shades of 1938/1939 all over again.
Putin will deny being the aggressor because the troops he sent are in Ukraine officially as peacekeepers.
How is this the case? The Crimean Premier who requested protection was only elected leader in a closed door session after the legislature was taken over by gunmen this week.
Can you tie that to Putin? He will deny it of course and people will have their suspicions (warranted) but you cannot connect the two unless we have concrete evidence
There really isn't much to be done. Putin will deny being the aggressor because the troops he sent are in Ukraine officially as peacekeepers. If anything goes wrong (like a spark that sets off a civil war) Putin can simply claim that the protesters were being violent and had to resort to physical force to "protect" the Ukrainians.
Except for the fact that outside of Crimea, he was asked to NOT get involved. I mean there is a reason they are mobilizing the army in Ukraine to possibly fight Russia. Really though, this has serious shades of 1938/1939 all over again.
And Crimea asked for him to get involved (and he obliged). Either way, one side was going to be disappointed.
Yeah! Another war America can stick its nose into.
Seriously, how many skirmishes can America involve its self in?
My question is, will this 'just' be a civil war? or will it become a bit more escalated? Maybe WWIII?
Well, this actually has security implications for Europe, especially considering the expanded European Union which include a number of former Soviet States. I do hope Europe takes a more active geopolitical role. It's starting to look like Russia is warming up to a imperialist land grab. (More than one pundit did not predict Russian invasion, grossly underestimating the state.)
The United States is fortunate to occupy its own continent.
Hey, guys, Russia hasn't actually invaded yet. Just FYI, the thread Title is a little misleading. Even the linked article says action hasn't yet been determined.
Doing an actual search you are right. I haven't been paying attention to the news and I only skimmed the above article. My bad.
Crimea is a complicated issue. Have any of you read up on its history?
As an FYI, we just learned this week that the family members we thought were Polish are actually from what is now Ukraine (thanks for invading, Russia).
Greetings! I live in Russia, but has been repeatedly and in Kiev and the Crimea, I have many friends there. And I was genuinely concerned about what is happening ...
The most horrible and disgusting, that's what the press now takes information from the Ukraine as нit is convenient, but not as much as it is convenient. Very many provocateurs as the one and the other.Very much that the situation is resolved peacefully, because as a consequence there is a redistribution of power dirty civilians suffer, which normally refers to Russia and wants a quiet life.
So ... Stop the war, make love, be cool to play magic. And sorry for my english.
The way I see it, nothing can be done. Putin can do whatever he wants, and the west can do nothing to stop him.
The most the west can do is sanction Russia, put up various trade restrictions, etc.
But in a game of poker, Putin has just raised. We can call with minor diplomatic sanctions, but if Putin pushes all in, we have to fold.
There's no way we're going to goto war with a nuclear Russia over the Ukraine regional conflict.
The way I see it, nothing can be done. Putin can do whatever he wants, and the west can do nothing to stop him.
The most the west can do is sanction Russia, put up various trade restrictions, etc.
I love the hypocrisy. Whenever US randomly meddles in other countries, it's completely fine and justified. When Russia does the same, we need to instantly intervene with any methods possible. Russia doesn't have any solid reasons to be in Ukraine, but that hasn't stopped the US in the past.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I love the hypocrisy. Whenever US randomly meddles in other countries, it's completely fine and justified. When Russia does the same, we need to instantly intervene with any methods possible. Russia doesn't have any solid reasons to be in Ukraine, but that hasn't stopped the US in the past.
Funny thing about accusations of hypocrisy. So you say the U.S. has done something bad in the past. And you say Russia is doing a similar bad thing now. And you say that the U.S. is being hypocritical by condemning Russia's action (and contemplating stronger intervention). Now, being hypocritical is normally interpreted as another bad thing. So it's a bad thing for the U.S. to condemn Russia's action while having previously performed similar actions. The U.S. ought to act consistently instead. But surely that's not right. The U.S. can't alter its checkered history, so the only way for it to act consistently now would be to do nothing while Russia does this bad thing - or even to cheer Russia on. Surely this ideal of self-consistency ought not to be prioritized above the reality that there may be an incipient but preventable* war. But if you sneer at someone for being hypocritical, that's effectively what you're telling them: "I would rather that you keep behaving badly consistent with your past bad behavior than try to change and do the right thing now." And that's just messed up, right?
*If you want to say that U.S. intervention would only make the situation worse, that's another discussion worth having, but doesn't bear on the hypocrisy issue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Am I the only one who couldn't help but remember this when the news started coming in? (Yeah, I know the source is clearly biased, but there's more than a kernel of truth to it)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
One would think that just about every Russian analyst who has been in the game for a while would recognize why Russia is acting like so, and predicted it exactly as soon as unrest in Ukraine began.
Crimea is one of the few viable ways Russia has to get into the Med., and by extension sea-based trade. While Ukraine/Crimea may not be Russian territory, Ukraine has traditionally been friendly to Russian interests and firmly in the Russian sphere of influence.
All of that may be changing dramatically in the coming years, and can leave Russia in a really bad state.
Russia's actions in this are entirely predictable, and trying to stop them will probably get them REALLY angry.
Heck, just letting the USSR come back minus the communism and the whole "Us vs the world thing" may be better for security in the long run.
The way I see it, nothing can be done. Putin can do whatever he wants, and the west can do nothing to stop him.
The most the west can do is sanction Russia, put up various trade restrictions, etc.
I love the hypocrisy. Whenever US randomly meddles in other countries, it's completely fine and justified. When Russia does the same, we need to instantly intervene with any methods possible. Russia doesn't have any solid reasons to be in Ukraine, but that hasn't stopped the US in the past.
I thought about this for a while and the key difference between US and Russian behavior is the colonialist undertones of the Russians. While the US does invade countries like Iraq without great reason, the US makes no attempt to annex the territory and remove troops after a decade or two. Russia appears to be looking to annex Crimea/Ukraine or turn Ukraine into a Soviet style satellite state in perpetuity. This is a very dangerous precedent to set.
The other issue at hand is Russia's willingness to deploy troops in such proximity to the EU. While attacking a poor country and a wealthy country doesn't have much ethical difference, it does highlight the level of Russian aggression and shows it is acting regardless of economic interest . The US and the west are predictable and act in economic interest and no not want to intervene in Ukraine. Putin clearly is not concerned with the economy with this move and, acting on colonialist motivation, there is no guessing what Russia may do. First Ukraine. Who's next? Finland? Latvia? Estonia?
Then consider Russia's warning to the NATO with regards to the missile defense system in Poland. Coupled with the Ukraine land grab and it looks very much so that Russia is unafraid/ready to deploy nuclear weapons. The US has not asserted for decades such inclination for the usefulness of its "nuclear deterrent".
Overall, underestimating Putin and comparing the US to Russia is a dangerous oversight. The US is predictable and maintains the status quo. Russia is rogue and there is no telling if Ukraine is not the beginning of a continent wide campaign much worse than Iraq.
I thought about this for a while and the key difference between US and Russian behavior is the colonialist undertones of the Russians. While the US does invade countries like Iraq without great reason, the US makes no attempt to annex the territory and remove troops after a decade or two. Russia appears to be looking to annex Crimea/Ukraine or turn Ukraine into a Soviet style satellite state in perpetuity. This is a very dangerous precedent to set.
The U.S. invading Afghanistan and Iraq to in an attempt to install Western friendly governments is not creating a satellite state?
The other issue at hand is Russia's willingness to deploy troops in such proximity to the EU. While attacking a poor country and a wealthy country doesn't have much ethical difference, it does highlight the level of Russian aggression and opens it up the possibility of any and all future invasions. First Ukraine. Who next? Estonia? Latvia? Finland? The US and the west act in economic interest and no not want to intervene in Ukraine. Put in clearly is not concerned with the economy and, outside of economic restraints, there is no guessing what Russia may do.
Russia's actions in Ukraine is motivated almost entirely by economical reasons. If the E.U. and Russia were incredibly friendly and Russia had nothing to fear from losing their access to ports, then Russia wouldn't really care about a possiblity of regime change in Ukraine. The very fact that they do have to worry about a regime change in Ukraine points to the fact that there is a great deal of tension between the E.U. and Russia, and this is mostly from economical reasons.
Heck, placing economical constraints on Russia could very well be the worst thing to do right now.
The way I see it, nothing can be done. Putin can do whatever he wants, and the west can do nothing to stop him.
The most the west can do is sanction Russia, put up various trade restrictions, etc.
But in a game of poker, Putin has just raised. We can call with minor diplomatic sanctions, but if Putin pushes all in, we have to fold.
There's no way we're going to goto war with a nuclear Russia over the Ukraine regional conflict.
Russia's actions in Ukraine is motivated almost entirely by economical reasons. If the E.U. and Russia were incredibly friendly and Russia had nothing to fear from losing their access to ports, then Russia wouldn't really care about a possiblity of regime change in Ukraine. The very fact that they do have to worry about a regime change in Ukraine points to the fact that there is a great deal of tension between the E.U. and Russia, and this is mostly from economical reasons.
Heck, placing economical constraints on Russia could very well be the worst thing to do right now.
Do you have an article highlighting Russia's economic interest in Ukraine? I would be greatly interested.
I happen to read a lot of business news and it has consistently cited political influence as the motive for Russia's actions. The entire chain of events precipitated from Russia's heavy handed Ukrainian meddling (vote stuffing, imprisoning politicians, the them or us ordeal with the European trade agreement) and the relation of the states would had been much more positive had Russia stuck to providing Ukrainians with aid.
Also, a costly invasion that would also provoke and drag in the West is the worst thing Russia could do in terms of economic interest. Consider that Europe has not even brought up gas sanctions despite risk to fellow EU states and that conveys the tight-knittedness of European-Russia economic relations. The ports may be of interest to Russia but citing "economic interest" would be a rather hard sell.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-01/ukraine-tells-russia-troop-entry-means-war-after-putin-approval.html
But the worry is what if something does happen.
Then it'll be the defining moment of the century. Virtually everything that happens afterwards on a grand scheme will be influenced from this war. A culmination of all the fears everyone had about the Soviets actually playing to life.
I just find it rather funny that it really is a play-out of what analysts said post-WWII. Soviets are being incredibly aggressive about expanding their reach into East Europe and other territories bordering Russia largely in an attempt to create depth and distance.
To this day Russia acts as a frightened child, scared of its neighbors and doing everything it can to defend itself from them.
#DoingMyPart
#WouldYouLikeToKnowMore?
Warning for Spam - Jay13x
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Except for the fact that outside of Crimea, he was asked to NOT get involved. I mean there is a reason they are mobilizing the army in Ukraine to possibly fight Russia. Really though, this has serious shades of 1938/1939 all over again.
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
Seriously, how many skirmishes can America involve its self in?
My question is, will this 'just' be a civil war? or will it become a bit more escalated? Maybe WWIII?
Can you tie that to Putin? He will deny it of course and people will have their suspicions (warranted) but you cannot connect the two unless we have concrete evidence
And Crimea asked for him to get involved (and he obliged). Either way, one side was going to be disappointed.
Well, this actually has security implications for Europe, especially considering the expanded European Union which include a number of former Soviet States. I do hope Europe takes a more active geopolitical role. It's starting to look like Russia is warming up to a imperialist land grab. (More than one pundit did not predict Russian invasion, grossly underestimating the state.)
The United States is fortunate to occupy its own continent.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
Crimea is a complicated issue. Have any of you read up on its history?
As an FYI, we just learned this week that the family members we thought were Polish are actually from what is now Ukraine (thanks for invading, Russia).
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The most horrible and disgusting, that's what the press now takes information from the Ukraine as нit is convenient, but not as much as it is convenient. Very many provocateurs as the one and the other.Very much that the situation is resolved peacefully, because as a consequence there is a redistribution of power dirty civilians suffer, which normally refers to Russia and wants a quiet life.
So ... Stop the war, make love, be cool to play magic. And sorry for my english.
The most the west can do is sanction Russia, put up various trade restrictions, etc.
But in a game of poker, Putin has just raised. We can call with minor diplomatic sanctions, but if Putin pushes all in, we have to fold.
There's no way we're going to goto war with a nuclear Russia over the Ukraine regional conflict.
I love the hypocrisy. Whenever US randomly meddles in other countries, it's completely fine and justified. When Russia does the same, we need to instantly intervene with any methods possible. Russia doesn't have any solid reasons to be in Ukraine, but that hasn't stopped the US in the past.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
*If you want to say that U.S. intervention would only make the situation worse, that's another discussion worth having, but doesn't bear on the hypocrisy issue.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Crimea is one of the few viable ways Russia has to get into the Med., and by extension sea-based trade. While Ukraine/Crimea may not be Russian territory, Ukraine has traditionally been friendly to Russian interests and firmly in the Russian sphere of influence.
All of that may be changing dramatically in the coming years, and can leave Russia in a really bad state.
Russia's actions in this are entirely predictable, and trying to stop them will probably get them REALLY angry.
Heck, just letting the USSR come back minus the communism and the whole "Us vs the world thing" may be better for security in the long run.
The other issue at hand is Russia's willingness to deploy troops in such proximity to the EU. While attacking a poor country and a wealthy country doesn't have much ethical difference, it does highlight the level of Russian aggression and shows it is acting regardless of economic interest . The US and the west are predictable and act in economic interest and no not want to intervene in Ukraine. Putin clearly is not concerned with the economy with this move and, acting on colonialist motivation, there is no guessing what Russia may do. First Ukraine. Who's next? Finland? Latvia? Estonia?
Then consider Russia's warning to the NATO with regards to the missile defense system in Poland. Coupled with the Ukraine land grab and it looks very much so that Russia is unafraid/ready to deploy nuclear weapons. The US has not asserted for decades such inclination for the usefulness of its "nuclear deterrent".
Overall, underestimating Putin and comparing the US to Russia is a dangerous oversight. The US is predictable and maintains the status quo. Russia is rogue and there is no telling if Ukraine is not the beginning of a continent wide campaign much worse than Iraq.
The U.S. invading Afghanistan and Iraq to in an attempt to install Western friendly governments is not creating a satellite state?
What?
Russia's actions in Ukraine is motivated almost entirely by economical reasons. If the E.U. and Russia were incredibly friendly and Russia had nothing to fear from losing their access to ports, then Russia wouldn't really care about a possiblity of regime change in Ukraine. The very fact that they do have to worry about a regime change in Ukraine points to the fact that there is a great deal of tension between the E.U. and Russia, and this is mostly from economical reasons.
Heck, placing economical constraints on Russia could very well be the worst thing to do right now.
You do realize America has gone to war over less.
I doubt it would only be America either.
I happen to read a lot of business news and it has consistently cited political influence as the motive for Russia's actions. The entire chain of events precipitated from Russia's heavy handed Ukrainian meddling (vote stuffing, imprisoning politicians, the them or us ordeal with the European trade agreement) and the relation of the states would had been much more positive had Russia stuck to providing Ukrainians with aid.
Also, a costly invasion that would also provoke and drag in the West is the worst thing Russia could do in terms of economic interest. Consider that Europe has not even brought up gas sanctions despite risk to fellow EU states and that conveys the tight-knittedness of European-Russia economic relations. The ports may be of interest to Russia but citing "economic interest" would be a rather hard sell.