The RUSSIA thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Because they haven't yet convinced enough people of their ridiculous fighter jet theory they're trying to resuscitate.
https://www.rt.com/news/273943-mh17-crash-missile-ukraine/
 
The Su-25 **** again? Really? Can't they at least be creative about it? :facepalm:
It can't get that high and/or be fast enough to get there. There, done. Editing Wikipedia from a Kremel IP doesn't mean the plane can do so.
 
It doesn't matter anyway. The Russians will never give up the people who fired the BUK, let alone who supplied it. They'll complain about how everybody is EVILZ for always attacking poor innocent Russia and that they regret how politics entered the debate. Yes, they'll cry big tears, and I can already see the Right-populist and Extreme-left parties of Europe crying with them.

Meanwhile they'll convince their own people that A. the Ukrainians did it and B. how evil the West is for framing such an attack on Russian people ("Don't they know Russians never attack innocent people?") and thus change it into a propaganda tool.

At the same time, several European Governments will be unable to pursue the real criminals and be forced, by popular opinion and previous mentioned populist/left-parties to shift blame on third parties, like the Ukrainians or Malaysia Airlines for flying over the zone. Populist/Left-parties will cry how the fascist coup in Kiev and our 'aggressive behavior' towards Russia let to the war in Ukraine and thus the downing of the plane, and so pro-Ruskiness will have a boost.

Really, either we stop the facade of Russia not being the lying dip****s that they are, or this is how it will go.
 
By the by:
He stressed that the experts’ conclusions indicate support to the testimony Evgeny Agapov, an aviation armaments mechanic in the Ukrainian Air Force, who is under Russian state protection as “key witness” to the MH17 crash.
That's such a hilariously sinister, Cold-War-esque, threat-laden wonderful euphemism.

jBS8W.gif
 
http://www.dn.se/debatt/vi-kraver-slut-pa-rysslands-illegala-annektering-av-krim/

Margot Wallström demands in her article that Russia withdraws from Crimea and abandons the illegal annexation, as it violates the Helsinki treaty and international justice. No big surprise.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/venajan_ulkoministerio_krimin_liittaminen_venajaan_oli_helsingin_sopimuksen_mukainen/8196996

Completely unsurprisingly, Ivan Soltanovsky from Russian Foreign Ministry states that it was an entirely legal proceedings, as Moscow merely accepted the request of the independent nation of Crimea to join Russian Federation for its own protection after it had come under threat from "radical nationalists and revolutionaries".

I wonder how many decades it will take until Yeltsin Mk.2 admits the truth.
 
Didn't Putin admit a long time ago that Russian troops played an active role in the occupation of Crimea? Just like Girgin aka Strelkov told Russian media he and his buddies had to force Crimea MP's into parliament by gun-point in order to get them to vote about Crimea succession.  :roll:
 
Ah yes, it must have been lawyers who surrounded and besieged the Ukrainian military bases in Crimea. Of course. Entirely legal proceedings indeed.
 
Unfortunately forcing the Kremlin to give back Crimea would probably require a (Really) massive military operation.

That. Or one of the greatest, globally spanning sanctions history has ever seen.

So I guess Hell will freeze over and pigs sprout wings and fly before the Kremlin gives up the Crimea.
 
Or really laxed decentralization and pacifist policies which would never happen without a new president, and even then....

Warning - while you were typing Russia has annexed Eastern Ukraine, Lithuania and parts of Estonia. You may wish to review your post.
 
Under Putin, indeed, Crimea won't return. But it remains to be seen how long Putin and his semi-fascist regime can hold on. If, one day, Russia democratizes (presumably due to economical problems), any new government will be sure to want to improve relationships with the West in order to get the economy back on track. Giving up Crimea will be a massive card to play, and I don't see why they wouldn't try and use it. Especially since Crimea is a drain on Russian money.

And even if Russian nationalists start protesting the return, Russia can easily just demand that some laws are passed that protect any Russian minorities, so that they can keep on playing the Grand Protector of Russian Minorities.
 
Vicccard said:
Under Putin, indeed, Crimea won't return. But it remains to be seen how long Putin and his semi-fascist regime can hold on. If, one day, Russia democratizes (presumably due to economical problems), any new government will be sure to want to improve relationships with the West in order to get the economy back on track. Giving up Crimea will be a massive card to play, and I don't see why they wouldn't try and use it. Especially since Crimea is a drain on Russian money.

And even if Russian nationalists start protesting the return, Russia can easily just demand that some laws are passed that protect any Russian minorities, so that they can keep on playing the Grand Protector of Russian Minorities.

Well its not quite that easy. Giving up Crimea means that Russia will get a huge prestige loss. That doesnt only mean that Russia gives up but also that it will be vulnerable to the west. If you want something you can relate it to, think of Victoria 2 and think of Crimea as a crisis. Also if Ukraine which is pro west now suddenly feels that it wants to join NATO then that means the US can put bases in Ukraine. If you want to compare it then compare it to Cuba in the cold war. USA was afraid of Russia creating bases in Cuba (which they did) and we almost got a new world war because of that prbolem. Now its the other way around.
 
Oh FFS. Yup, you got it. US wont rest until it has bases in every country in the world, regardless of strategic usefulness or economic merit. Everything that happens is all a plot to get more bases. We're playing Monopoly with military bases.
 
Mage246 said:
Oh FFS. Yup, you got it. US wont rest until it has bases in every country in the world, regardless of strategic usefulness or economic merit. Everything that happens is all a plot to get more bases. We're playing Monopoly with military bases.

So then tell me how isnt Ukraine a strategical useful?
 
masterborn12 said:
Well its not quite that easy. Giving up Crimea means that Russia will get a huge prestige loss. That doesnt only mean that Russia gives up but also that it will be vulnerable to the west. If you want something you can relate it to, think of Victoria 2 and think of Crimea as a crisis.

Yeah, but Russia is gaming the bug that countries with the dismantling treaty modifier can still initiate and participate in crises. No fair. And should they even be in the top 8? They are tenth in economy, fourth in military, but basically zero prestige....
 
masterborn12 said:
Mage246 said:
Oh FFS. Yup, you got it. US wont rest until it has bases in every country in the world, regardless of strategic usefulness or economic merit. Everything that happens is all a plot to get more bases. We're playing Monopoly with military bases.

So then tell me how isnt Ukraine a strategical useful?

It doesn't provide anything that the US needs. It's a liability more than anything else.
 
While i agree with you,  i am not sure the decision makers do. I would think ukraine holds the same value to them that the eastern expansion of nato does.
 
Back
Top Bottom