That,or a few crates of top-of-the-line equipment provided as humanitarian aid.
My money is on russian paratroopers.Navy AFAIK doesn't deploy this type of equipment.
Soldier of Finland magazine's analysts identified those photos as the 45th Detached Reconnaissance Regiment which is a paratrooper regiment typically under the command of the GRU and Russia's go to unit for foreign interventions in former Soviet states.
Problem is,45th is dedicated military unit.If you need,say,sink Georgia's navy-they are the best for the job.
But mission in Crimea requires to be VERY discreet.AFAIK there was not a single casualty as a result of these operation and exaclty one shootout(this earned them nickname"Polite people"since no one knows for sure who exactly are they).What am trying to say is i think that GRU SF have other things to do.
But then,equipment!Mad dollarz!No way some generic unit can have these toys.
It's easy to convince people using lies Anklebiter!
The northern part of Mali was under the control of foreign terrorists. Yes Anklebiter, people speaking arabian for most of them, destroying centuries old cultural monuments and sentencing people sometimes without judging them. But maybe you'll say they were ethnical minorities...
I've got a research assignment for you. The subject is "Tuaregs". I'll check back in in a couple of days after I've read the new issues of Granma Internacional and Izvestiya.
Ok, the epistemic nihlism about the Russian invasion completely negates any argument as to its legitimacy. Its moon landing hoax levels of whackadoo.
If you're not smart enough to figure out the objective fact that Russia invaded there is not way I'm going to trust you with the subjective determination of the morality of the situation.
Who are you talking to?
So in non constitutional news:
[...]
-Russian Duma raising the prospect of annexing Crimea.
In other news, Putin a) says no plan to annex the Crimea, and b) asserts Russian right to arbitrate validity of future Ukrainian elections and send military into the rest of the country in future.
So right now it's being reported that a) Putin discussed prospects for annexing the Crimea with his security council today, b) a referendum for Crimea to join Russia is scheduled for ten days from now (March 16), and c) the Duma is working to fast track an annexation law (see first quote)
I have yet to find an English translation of the draft Duma law, but in reporting, it is presented as a general purpose law aimed at covering various potential annexations. It's unclear to me whether it predates the Crimea issue, though I think it at least predates the current crisis and has been fast tracked due to it. According to the Russian Times, the main effect is to kill a current stipulation in Russian law that territories may only join the Russian Federation through an agreement with the country the territory was part of before.
Apparently the polish Ukraine dominated west is considering joining poland.
More or less a fact.Easy way to both NATO and EU.
No silly "EU association agreements".But does Poland needs this?That's a question.
Isn't there are a few nuclear power plants in the west?
Those are always awesome.
More or less a fact.Easy way to both NATO and EU.Apparently the polish Ukraine dominated west is considering joining poland.
It seems far-fetched to me.
Apparently the polish Ukraine dominated west is considering joining poland.
More or less a fact.Easy way to both NATO and EU.
No silly "EU association agreements".
But does Poland needs this?That's a question.
Isn't there are a few nuclear power plants in the west?
Those are always awesome.Any actual evidence they're considering this?
I don't see anything about it.
I did some searching and did find one interview from eight days ago in which one ordinary Ukrainian says he wants a partition.
Any actual evidence they're considering this?I don't see anything about it.
ATM west is more or less fully controlled by what stands for central government.So we may have demonstrations,or episodic declaration of independence,but any practical action on par with Crimea is impossible.
It seems far-fetched to me.
But that IS the easy way in!
Theoretically even fast.
|
nationalist middle sends billionaires into east Ukraine to stamp out pro Russian sepratists
And the ethnic cleansing begins with billionaires supporting Adolf Hitler in financing thugs and mercenaries to dissuade the pro russian faction.
Um, Ukraine does not belong to Russia. If they like Russia so much, they should go live there.
Well,there are some refugees.
Also,by all counts,Ukraine IS Russia.That's in the name of the country.What's more,Belarus is also Russia.
Russian Federation,on the other hand,is a completely different animal.
Took me about 40s to find this. ;)RT Host Abby Martin Condemns Russian Incursion Into Crimea – On RT
My journalistic flame since Alyona left makes me proud.
Comrade Anklebiter sent me in here with this note that reads:
UPDATE II: In response to my question about whether any U.S. television hosts issued denunciations of the attack on Iraq similar to what Martin just did on RT, Washington lawyer Bradley Moss replied: “Phil Donahue (MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC).”
The note then goes on to be somewhat indecipherable, something like Razzlefrazzlearglebargle?
He also sends this interesting article from Haaretz:
From Washington to Moscow, everyone is lying about what’s happening in Ukraine
[I'm not sure what you mean by that. The name of the country is "Ukraine".
Which is russian for outskirts.Of central Russia,obviously.I can also remember something called Kievan Rus,which,believe it or not,was a real thing.
Belarus is,of course,Belaya Rossia or White Russia,when translated.
Yes,of course,1991,independence and all,but twenty years hardly can change thousand years of history.
Russia is Ukraine
Which is actually pretty correct as far is average russian knows from history lessons.But Kiev Rus was long ago,Russian Empire-not so long ago and Soviet Union was practically yesterday.During which Ukraine was a subject.
Which explains morale grounds....sort of....for "intervention".Same country and all.
But annexation is a completely different animal,RF didn't even annex South Ossetia after .08.
Mostly,IMHO because there's literally nothing of interest there.
Crimea,on the other hand,contains SO.MUCH.LOOT!
Navy alone costs upwards of 5B$.Sevastopol as a base is practically priceless.
Two million population,also.
It's all about a warm water port. It has been for centuries.
I disagree. I think that in 21st century it is more of unsinkable aircraft carrier and SAM/ASM base. When you have modern coastal batteries,you don't actually need a fleet.Well,not in Black Sea anyway,it is sooo small it's laughable.
Southeast of Ukraine is more interesting because of manufacturing capability.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's all about a warm water port. It has been for centuries.
I disagree. I think that in 21st century it is more of unsinkable aircraft carrier and SAM/ASM base. When you have modern coastal batteries,you don't actually need a fleet.Well,not in Black Sea anyway,it is sooo small it's laughable.
Southeast of Ukraine is more interesting because of manufacturing capability.
The port is also useful for trading, and they need a navy to threaten some of their other neighbors.
Which is actually pretty correct as far is average russian knows from history lessons.But Kiev Rus was long ago,Russian Empire-not so long ago and Soviet Union was practically yesterday.During which Ukraine was a subject.
During which time they committed genocide on the ukranians through planned starvation. Thats a pretty good reason NOT to go back to being under Russian rule.
The port is also useful for trading, and they need a navy to threaten some of their other neighbors.
Bombers and tactical missiles(or better,bombers with tactical missiles) are by FAR more threatening than Black Sea Fleet with it's flagship being dedicated shipkiller(Georgia in 08 again comes to mind).
Also,shelf itself is quite valuable.South Stream,anyone?
The port is also useful for trading, and they need a navy to threaten some of their other neighbors.
Bombers and tactical missiles(or better,bombers with tactical missiles) are by FAR more threatening than Black Sea Fleet with it's flagship being dedicated shipkiller(Georgia in 08 again comes to mind).
Also,shelf itself is quite valuable.South Stream,anyone?
Yes, but you can't threaten with a bomber for very long. Its either sitting in an air port, flying overhead, or its actually violated airspace in which case you're declaring war. With ships you can have them casually bobbing off the coast pointing guns in.
The port is also useful for trading, and they need a navy to threaten some of their other neighbors.
Bombers and tactical missiles(or better,bombers with tactical missiles) are by FAR more threatening than Black Sea Fleet with it's flagship being dedicated shipkiller(Georgia in 08 again comes to mind).
Also,shelf itself is quite valuable.South Stream,anyone?Yes, but you can't threaten with a bomber for very long. Its either sitting in an air port, flying overhead, or its actually violated airspace in which case you're declaring war. With ships you can have them casually bobbing off the coast pointing guns in.
Errr....threaten who?Civilians?Where's the fun in that?
Also,everybody and their cat knows that guns are all there is on this ships.And not very high caliber either.God I miss Iowa-class.Iskander-class missiles are far more useful to threaten people that actually make decisions.Which is exactly what are being used for.
|
In any case, I have to applaud Putin for the stones he had to do what he did. It looks like he'll get away with it too. Obama won't stand up to him without European support, and the Europeans won't do anything.
He took what he did in Georgia, and on a much grander scale. My question is: does he do the same in eastern Ukraine? Does he move on Belarus when Lukashenko dies? Will anyone care?
My question is: does he do the same in eastern Ukraine?
Not all pieces of the puzzle are in place.You need either a)local revolution and request from somebody important to intervene or b)
violently-suppressed riots.With LOTS of dead russian-speakers.Without that,intervention becomes war.And war(as opposed to intervention)with Ukraine is VERY tough sell.
Does he move on Belarus when Lukashenko dies?
If new regime will be openly hostile,yes.
Will anyone care?
Define "anyone".I will care.Something like 50% of food that my family consumes comes from Belarus.
Russia's already taken a serious economic hit
As a matter of fact,no.
You see,news say"Russian stock market lost 60bn"and you think"russia lost 60bn".That's not the case.You see,SOMEONE,yes,lost 60bn.
But from what i've heard,substantial number of government-controlled monopolies performed stealth buybacks.When you have the chance to buy,say,Gazprom stocks at 20% discount-you normally take it(i know i did).So it was not the Russia who lost them.
As for weakening ruble,it actually increases budget profits.
Which is a good thing.
I think.
We just love the strong men don't we? All sorts of talk about how Putin has "stones" and Obama is wimp.
I think this says it better than anything. Start at 4:36
From my perspective Obama looks weaker for making the threat, and then not being able to do anything than if he did nothing at all from the start.
Which threat?
Who stages shirtless horseback and tiger hunts photo-ops. <swoon>God i hate this guy.
His cat is so much better than mine:(
Well, it sounds as if things are getting worse there. Pressure is being put on businesses and anyone speaking out against the Russian occupation. Free Media is also taking a beating. It sounds like Russia is only going to allow their propaganda machine to work there.
Best option for people there right now if they aren't excessively Pro-Russian...stay home and hope it doesn't get into a shooting match, in which case, it could become a massacre.
|
|
In any case, I have to applaud Putin for the stones he had to do what he did. It looks like he'll get away with it too. Obama won't stand up to him without European support, and the Europeans won't do anything.
He took what he did in Georgia, and on a much grander scale. My question is: does he do the same in eastern Ukraine? Does he move on Belarus when Lukashenko dies? Will anyone care?
We just love the strong men don't we? All sorts of talk about how Putin has "stones" and Obama is wimp.
As if this is just a big dick waving contest with no subtlety. Or consequences.Obama "won't stand up to him" because he hasn't sent troops in or threatened to nuke Moscow. (Of course, when he does send troops or threatens to, he's a warmonger.)
This hasn't played out yet. Diplomacy and economic pressure isn't as emotionally satisfying to the chicken hawks as war is, but it can work and Obama's actually pretty good at, even if it doesn't play well to the bleachers. Russia's already taken a serious economic hit from this and the fallout hasn't ended yet. Its economy is far more linked to the rest of the world than it was back in the Soviet days. That means there's a whole lot more leverage.
There's more leverage on both ends. The Europeans are more concerned about access to Russian gas than they are about Ukraine's sovereignty. It's easy to sanction Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe... it's harder to sanction a country that has billions in foreign investment waiting to be seized, and which supplies your heating oil.
I don't think Obama's a wimp: he's a politician. there's nothing that compels him to act aggressively in Ukraine's defense and as such, he looks at where he needs Russian support (Iran, Syria, North Korea) and makes decisions about his options. He can cancel the G8, and force Russia out, he can levy economic sanctions against individuals complicit in the invasion, but beyond that?
Obama's decision not to act as the Imperial President regarding Syria's chemical weapons was not only the smart decision, but something that is probably going to underline his philosophy and approach here - Congress has to support action (whether, military, economic, or political). As it stands, the US Congress is in horrible disarray, with little taste for passing legislation, much less legislation that might have consequences.
He can cancel the G8, and force Russia out, he can levy economic sanctions against individuals complicit in the invasion
That accomplishes absolutely nothing.
But then,what,short of nuclear threat does?
Because you believe that only military force can accomplish anything?
Also threats to use it,and threats to use some actual sanctions.
Not....little things.Joining the G8 was a big deal for Russia.
WAS.At the moment.1998 was a....very bad year in russia.
Now,there is India and China.Also EU as a whole.And,to quote wiki,"revelance of G8 is unclear"this works FAR better
Football is probably most popular sport in Russia.Literally everyone played at some time or another.
Diplomacy matters.
Absolutely.
Best skill in the game.
I'm not sure the World Cup is more of a threat than some other things already on the table
FAR more from the point of view of average russian.
You see,economic threats and/or sanctions are silly for the people who survived nineties in russia.IT WILL NOT BE WORSE.
But cancellation of World Cup in population's favorite sport is huge morale penalty.In the election year,no less!
But then,annexation of Crimea is morale boost(Crimea and especially Sevastopol have huge symbolic value),and this is,sadly,not a Civilization game with fixed numbers for these,so we have to wait and see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just love in these threads that anyone the West supports is a neo-nazi or a lackey to imperialist powers while anyone they oppose is systematically a freedom fighter or a brave proponent of true democracy opposing those same imperialist powers.
It is nice to see that soviet's dialectic and (pseudo) arguments have survived the collapse of the soviet regime itself. Recycling at its finest !!! :-))
I always like to quote Ben Stiller from The Zero Effect at times like this:
"Do you hear what you're saying? We aren't the good guys. There are no good guys in this. There are no bad guys. It's just a bunch of... [waves hands around] ...guys."
I'm not sure the World Cup is more of a threat than some other things already on the table
FAR more from the point of view of average russian.
You see,economic threats and/or sanctions are silly for the people who survived nineties in russia.
IT WILL NOT BE WORSE.
But cancellation of World Cup in population's favorite sport is huge morale penalty.In the election year,no less!
But then,annexation of Crimea is morale boost(Crimea and especially Sevastopol have huge symbolic value),and this is,sadly,not a Civilization game with fixed numbers for these,so we have to wait and see.
I only faintly comprehend this issue, but weren't there protests against this action in Russia, too? I read that there were, and the Russian po-po beat and jailed hundreds of them.
Of course, most regular people everywhere don't want war and imperialism.