Ukraine Today

Users who are viewing this thread

Poor camo. I can see them all standing there clear as day!



Gestricius said:
Russia's "aid"  :wink:
9YPEexp.jpg
 
trueten said:
Ukranian National Guard 
ob9df.jpg
With new TAR-21 (Tavor Assault Rifle)    About that flag in Moscow. Although russians blamed ukranians for that, actually it was installed by four russian citizens. One of 'em
UAo9V.jpg
    Sep attempt on burning the flag

I thought: we armed still muskets, pistols, sabers , cannons.  :grin:
 
It was interested at school today, I was asked to bring up a current event so I brought up Ukraine. I basically just summarized it all using all the stuff I read here and gave an accurate representation. Keep on Taleworlders, you actually manage to have civil discussions unlike the aids that is the FSE community. Thank you
 
Oh, shut ye gabber Will. If the NW community is AIDS, you've been infected at least 3 times.

Radalan said:
Now now, Franciscan Sisters of the Eucharist might be many things, but aids?
Lol, I had to study this for a minute before I got it. :wink:

But I have to say, in terms of their military, I'm glad to see that Ukraine's starting to get back on their feet (with some select foreign aid, of course). I hope the rest of the country will follow.
 
Kharkov's regional court ruled to ban the "South-East" political movement. In March, members of South-East tried to storm government buildings and establish a People's Republic like Donetsk and Lugansk, but failed to hold them against federal law enforcement. The would-be governor of that republic was Yuri Apukhtin, who later attempted (but failed) to stage a referendum to prove Kharkov's desire to secede, was a member of South-East.

I can't imagine this ban will hinder their members' activities, at best maybe they'll fracture when they can't agree on which other pro-Russian groups to join for coinciding with their policies.
 
Radalan said:
Now now, Franciscan Sisters of the Eucharist might be many things, but aids?
I'm trying to get myself to stop using autism as a comparison to things. I realize what a terrible thing it is to say.

In terms of the Ukraine, I'm really quite curious as to how Ukraine will rebuild itself and what the people will think.

 
Bluehawk said:
Kharkov's regional court ruled to ban the "South-East" political movement. In March, members of South-East tried to storm government buildings and establish a People's Republic like Donetsk and Lugansk, but failed to hold them against federal law enforcement. The would-be governor of that republic was Yuri Apukhtin, who later attempted (but failed) to stage a referendum to prove Kharkov's desire to secede, was a member of South-East.

I can't imagine this ban will hinder their members' activities, at best maybe they'll fracture when they can't agree on which other pro-Russian groups to join for coinciding with their policies.
What exactly does a 'ban' entail?
 
rejenorst said:
Kolyan147 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances We had a 3rd place nuclear arsenal in the world. Provide independence - should protect.

I don't think either side really cared much about that agreement in the first place.
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/28/who-violated-ukraines-sovereignty/

Also I don't think the assurance require any party to intervene militarily.

Ah what the heck! One crappy two-bit piece of speculative apologist journalism deserves another  :grin:

Putin's Russia: Still an Empire, Still Evil

ADDIT: worth pointing out, published 16 months ago (March 2013), fully a year before Maiden and well before the autum 2013 Ukrainian elections which set the current cycle of revolution and imperialism in motion.

Against this backdrop of ~13 years of corruption, crime and renascent authoritarianism in Russia, pointing at Western efforts to lend $5 billion to Ukraine as a "cause" of Russian imperialism is positively silly. Western diplomats have been wooing and courting Ukraine for eventual admission into EU since at least 2000, and the idea of it eventually happening probably goes back to 1994 or before. It has always been known that Russia was unlikely to ever look favorably on a Western aligned Ukraine and that something like a geopolitical crisis might well emerge around the matter.

Even if we set aside the fact that Russia effectively annexed Crimea, the war in southeastern Ukraine is entirely of Russian provocation and suggesting that the West is somehow "responsible" for that is positively despicable.
 
Anthropoid said:
Even if we set aside the fact that Russia effectively annexed Crimea, the war in southeastern Ukraine is entirely of Russian provocation and suggesting that the West is somehow "responsible" for that is positively despicable.
In terms of spheres of influence, the West did provoke it. How would the US react if Mexico was about to become a Russian client?
 
Russian client? What the hell would that even entail? If Russia wants to trade with Mexico they are free to do so. If they want to sign a mutual defense pact, they can do that too. It would certainly result in the end of NAFTA and probably most other cross-border cooperation and trade, assuming it was in any way aggressive towards the U.S. The U.S. certainly wouldn't invade Mexico.  :lol:
 
MadVader said:
Anthropoid said:
Even if we set aside the fact that Russia effectively annexed Crimea, the war in southeastern Ukraine is entirely of Russian provocation and suggesting that the West is somehow "responsible" for that is positively despicable.
In terms of spheres of influence, the West did provoke it. How would the US react if Mexico was about to become a Russian client?
By judging the reaction to Russia's aggressiveness, they are way over their BB limit.
 
Mage246 said:
Russian client? What the hell would that even entail? If Russia wants to trade with Mexico they are free to do so. If they want to sign a mutual defense pact, they can do that too.
That's very principled, but not how things actually work. A defensive alliance would be too big a provocation for the US to tolerate so close. Remember you nearly lost your marbles over Cuba. Well, that's how Russia feels, and whether Putin is an evil dictator or not is just irrelevant.
 
What, did Russia reform the USSR and nobody noticed? Did NATO try to put nukes in Ukraine? Are they even pointing any at Russia anymore? Don't even try to pretend that this is analogous to Cuba. Defensive alliance with Mexico would do nothing but look ridiculous and probably cause more anti-Mexican sentiment.

Don't tell me how things work when you seem to have forgotten how things are.
 
MadVader said:
Mage246 said:
Russian client? What the hell would that even entail? If Russia wants to trade with Mexico they are free to do so. If they want to sign a mutual defense pact, they can do that too.
That's very principled, but not how things actually work. A defensive alliance would be too big a provocation for the US to tolerate so close. Remember you nearly lost your marbles over Cuba. Well, that's how Russia feels, and whether Putin is an evil dictator or not is just irrelevant.

We nearly lost our Marbles because Russia was deploying medium ranged nuclear ballistic missiles in Cuba, this at a time when long-range and would-be inter-continental attacks had to be conducted with bombers. Cuba was a Soviet client state from about 1958 right through to the fall of the USSR in 1991. I do believe Cuba continues to be on better terms with Russia than with the U.S.

Mage246 said:
What, did Russia reform the USSR and nobody noticed? Did NATO try to put nukes in Ukraine? Are they even pointing any at Russia anymore? Don't even try to pretend that this is analogous to Cuba. Defensive alliance with Mexico would do nothing but look ridiculous and probably cause more anti-Mexican sentiment.

Don't tell me how things work when you seem to have forgotten how things are.

A point that you raise really deserves to be clarified to the extent that I can do so from memory. "The Cold War" may be over, but Mutually Assured Destruction, and the inherent risk that a WWIII involving the U.S. and Russia could lead to something like Armageddon is, as far as I can tell, no less real than it was in 1985. The rhetoric changed, and the sheer number of weapons changed, but the fact is, the efficacy of those newer and less numerous weapons systems have improved. I would imagine that strategic military sites and even population centers remain in the list of prospective targets for both Russian and  U.S. nuclear weapons, as well as French and British. It may not be a point that is brought up in discourse, but there really is little point in having such expensive and dangerous weapons lying around if you are not going to be well-prepared in advance of needing to use them to send them to destroy the most important targets of your most likely adversaries.

Given that the French developed their first devices against the best wishes of the Anglo-powers, and did so with the express intent to use them to protect French interests, I wouldn't even be half surprised if the coordinates for American targets are in the French data for their weapons even now.

So yes, my guess would be, they "are pointing at the Russians" just as they always have and likewise, the Russian weapons are pointing right back at us, as well as many targets in Europe, Turkey, China, Japan and even India and Pakistan.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMQxhfXoPIc  :grin:
Worth will integrate Rzeczpospolita Three Nations to protect against Russian. (Joke)
 
Back
Top Bottom