Okay, I see what you mean, Britain and France declared but did not help, even though Germany crushed France a little later and ran the British back to the channel. I could see how this relates to Crimea, not being prepared for a war with Russia which i highly doubt will happen... Russia will do what it wants because everybody doesn't want it to escalate which reminds me of appeasement in WWII as well.

Ukraine’s statement at the UN that 16,000 Russian soldiers have been deployed to Crimea has caused a frenzy among Western media which chooses to ignore that those troops have been there since the late 1990s in accordance with a Kiev-Moscow agreement,Russia is allowed to have 25,000 troops in Crimea...
Western media describes the situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as if a full-scale Russian invasion were under way, with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea” and “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia's invasion of Crimea?”

It seems they have chosen to simply ignore the fact that those Russian troops have been stationed in Crimea for over a decade

Also the president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych was legally elected by the citizens. The USA should stop defending those terrorist that has taken over Ukraine.

Edited 3/5/2014 00:21:07

It seems they have chosen to simply ignore the fact that those Russian troops have been stationed in Crimea for over a decade

I didn't realize they had been surrounding Ukrainian military bases, border posts and airports in Crimea since the 1990's. That explains why the airport there smelled like vodka...

In warworld 2 germany did the same actions before invading poland

The terrorist are the citizens your talking about the people in a country who want to over throwe there leader

Just like in syria the terrorist they talked about are the citizens ( not al-khaida


If the people the like the there new legaly a pointed leader they have the rite to throwe him out of offices for they voted for him they could vote him out

But the problem is that the leaders never want to give up their power

Edited 3/5/2014 03:45:45

No, the problem is when a small group of people are angry and don't get their way they take to the streets and riot until they get their way. The EU is so unstable and the Ukraine is so financially destitute that Ukraine will probably need about 10-20 years before it's eligible to join. In the meantime it can sell itself to China like the Philippines did or build closer ties to Russia, but the average citizen in Ukraine doesn't understand that.

Funny thing about democracy, the revolution to kick out the leader in Ukraine was not democratic at all and the West supported it. We all know how the US likes forming puppet governments, Iraq is the most recent example. Let's see what the IMF does to the Ukraine in the next 10 years.

Good old Padme summed it up a decade or so ago "So, this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."

Yes but it wasnt a small amount of people it was every one bcuz there where 2 sides pro government and the people who wanted the leader out...and if 911was true and they realy thought they had weapons then fuck iraq if it wasnt then wow the americans or fucked up not the people but the bankers

Edited 3/5/2014 04:02:28

1) Not everyone was protesting in Ukraine and almost half the country is pro-Russian so how can 2/3 be against?

2) Iraq never came close to completing their nuclear weapons program and the US knew that from the beginning, it was a war to gain strategic presence in the Middle East and it worked wonderfully for the US in the end

The pro russians are probaganda and half the country ant even russian thats the fake news russia gives you

in real life the people in ukrain just wanted a new government who wouldnt fuck them over but they got overrunned be their own citizens and the fake leader if there where western popets they wouldnt of could for russian help so i see that government where realy russian poppets not western

And i agrie with the iragy opinion

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yCzIIFAsGk4

*yawn* anything good on tv lawlz?

Im not lawlz injust found out about the fourms and im going wild on giving the top news on the nwo or upcomming ww3

I know lawlz?

The West lied about Iraq and it will lie about Ukraine. In fact it most likely is lying about Ukraine, just to ensure that Russia doesn't gain the advantage. Frankly, the US doesn't care about Ukraine and Russia does and that should already tell Ukrainians something.

Then the US talks about the Cold War reigniting, that was embarrassing. That's how low they have to sink to try and rebuff Russian moves?

If California, Texas or New York broke away from the US, it would result in military action without hesitation. Just take that into consideration. Ukraine broke away illegally from the Soviet Union (though everyone claimed it was liberation, woohoo!) and now Russia is trying to reassert some of its lost strength.

Having 2-3 superpowers is a good thing folks. I figured the last 20 years would have taught us that already.

The West will lie.. Russia can lie.. Everybody could lie for his own profit. Where are the prooves? Actually more countries are the "West" in the crime affair then during the invasion of Iraq. The actual thing is completely different. Which advantage of Russia can legitimate such an act against the souverenity of a neighbour as long he's friendly? European non-russian states can't see any good legitimation, except probably Belarus.

Right, if California, Texas or New York were occupied, US would not hesitate to use nukes. Ukraine still does not use his military power against Putin's troops and gave up his nuclear arsenal, but Putin did the other way around. 1:0 for Ukraine versus Putin.

The foundation of Ukraine after the end of Soviet Union was illegal (seen by Soviets), but Russia as formal (illegal, non-communistic) follower of the old Soviet Union signed the Budapest treaty 1994. In reality many countries in Europe are "illegal" too since there was a big roman empire, which controlled extremly big parts, until barbarians came... I think there should have been before an empire of neandertal humans..

The globe doesn't need any superpower for to control little states or to balance out others. The earth needs less centralism, more cooperation between less powerful and more little states. Many states with weak power are a better guarantee for peace because of their lack of military abilities. "Cold war" shows perfectly how some powers can divide the world into their spheres of influence or bring the nuclear apocalypse a step closer..

You're right, small states and medium sized businesses would be ideal, but in a world that's moving towards globalization this kind of thinking is unrealistic and dangerous. Third world nations have less revenue than mega-corporations, which means they can easily be bought out or overrun if they don't dance to the developed world's tune, take a look at Sub-Sahara Africa from the 1970s-1990s. There was actually a lot of growth and development from the late 1970s until the mid-1980s and then they started opening up their economies, BOOM! recession and revolutions started happening left and right. What happened?? Western corporations started moving in and maximizing profit at the expense of the people and African economies. No one talks about that in the news, though. Happened 30-40 years ago, who cares right? Plus the Oscars are coming up!

What kind of people do you see in power? Well meaning, peace loving intellects or ambitious men and women pushing their own agenda? It's a power-play and peace loving hippies aren't gonna save the world with their songs and flowers, because while they have the right idea, most of them are under-educated idiots who wouldn't know what to do if they were given responsibility over anyone other than themselves.

Russia isn't gonna ditch its nuclear arsenal because Ukraine did. Why do you think there were nuclear disarmament talks? To increase the chances of peace? Or probably because nuclear missiles are so effective these days that one can do a Hiroshima/Nagasaki 10 fold? Instead of stockpiling all those expensive and difficult to maintain missiles the world powers come together to agree "We don't want to spend so much money maintaining 10,000 nukes, so let's cut it down to 8,000 nukes and save some money." Of course the sheeple of the world celebrated Obama's triumphant "move towards peace" success. Hurray!

Ukraine won't attack Russia because their military is underfunded, under-supplied and would be annihilated by the Russians. Also, if they did attack, Russia would have the perfect excuse to invade and annex the whole of the Ukraine, or at least a big portion of it.

I didn't say if those states were occupied, I said if they succeeded. With the number of constitutional breeches of the last two decades, states could actually make a legitimate claim towards succession.

Let me make my point crystal clear. In the big realm of things, countries don't give a sh1t about each other. The EU doesn't care if Greece or any other second-rate European economy defaults unless it causes regional and economic instability. The US only cares about Crimea because 1. it's a major positional gain for the Russians and 2. world PR. Case and point: Puerto Rico, Guam and hundreds of US military installations all over the world. Anyone who thinks the Cold War actually ended because it was declared over, has their head up their ass. There are more spies and covert operations taking place today than during the peak of the Cold War. I mean come on, this isn't even conspiracy stuff, this is stuff that shows up on the news regularly.

So the question is, do you want 1 superpower deciding the fate of the world, or 2-3? Which is better? The "small states" dream won't happen, not anytime soon at least.

The thing about occupying and succeeding is connected with each other in the crimean affair. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to bring up an american example of succeeding parts without any occupation by Canada or so. Or we're talking about some neandertal empire thousands year ago..
Crimea seems to "vote" soon for to get under the wings of Russia. An ukrainian attack as answer on the russian occupation would be suicide, but not an excuse for more russian troops.

Countries do give a shit about each other. This will be for long time the best strategy for to make the world peaceful and wealthy. Naturally it's impossible to take care of every-, but of most important things.

Russia already had their base in crimea (no positional gain). This is guaranteed by a treaty for long time. You're right, US could need few positive PR, but this doesn't let forget the american faults in foreign politics. Won't be a good reason for himself. Actually we're not talking about US - it's not US vs. Russia, it's Russia vs. Ukraine and european countries in the background - including US because of strong interests into his european partners. I don't understand why many people (including Putin) do focus on US. Probably it's easier to get a good-guy/bad-guy view, if you ignore all other countries. The diplomatical influence by US is overestimated. Europe as main trading partner of Russia and directly affected area is much more important for to solve this conflict peaceful.

There are more spies and covert operations taking place today than during the peak of the Cold War.

-> please proove it, if it's possible. Probably the increasing technical possibilities do cause it more than any conflicts.

Anyone who thinks the Cold War actually ended because it was declared over, has their head up their ass.

Anatomy is always surprising.
The last 22 years were part of a confrontation between capitalism and communism......?!
Of two opposing parties remained just one. This is HISTORY. If you mean nuclear and military deterrence, it's something different: defensive and still active.

The disarmament of nuclear weapons isn't as fast as on chemical weapons. You're right, it won't guarantee a peaceful world. But whoever disarm, whatever the reasons are, it's a step more toward less chance of self-destruction (if you don't upgrade the existing arsenal). This is honorable and Obama deserves to get praised for minus 2'000 (!) bombs. On the other side, Putin doesn't even think about reduce the biggest arsenal on our planet..

but in a world that's moving towards globalization this kind of thinking is unrealistic and dangerous. Third world nations have less revenue than mega-corporations, which means they can easily be bought out or overrun if they don't dance to the developed world's tune, take a look at Sub-Sahara Africa from the 1970s-1990s.

Ok. I didn't talked about third world nations, which were colonised by superpowers. These states didn't failed because of their seize..

Titron, I like you as a player, but you're surprisingly ignorant.

Crimea seems to "vote" soon for to get under the wings of Russia. An ukrainian attack as answer on the russian occupation would be suicide, but not an excuse for more russian troops.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. If the Ukrainian military attacks Russia in response to the occupation, the Russians will use that as grounds to invade Ukraine, ergo it would be an excuse.

This will be for long time the best strategy for to make the world peaceful and wealthy.

I was young and ideal like that once...then I realized people like that always get the Sucker's Payoff".

Russia already had their base in crimea (no positional gain).

There's a difference between a base which costs millions of dollars a year and owning it as part of your country, no? Ergo, a positional (strategic) gain. Oh and they can expand the base and the naval presence in the Black Sea.

it's not US vs. Russia, it's Russia vs. Ukraine and european countries in the background

It's Obama leading the charge. The EU leaders don't want to start a pissing match with Russia because they need Russia more than the US does. Ukraine is just happy that the US is on their side.

please proove it, if it's possible. Probably the increasing technical possibilities do cause it more than any conflicts.

I watched it in a documentary on the German History Channel, Google it or rent a book on modern espionage from your local library :P

The last 22 years were part of a confrontation between capitalism and communism......?!

Is that all the Cold War was about? You know what icebergs are? You know the analogy I'm implying? There's what the media tells you and then there's the rest of history, who do you think has got it right??

You're right, it won't guarantee a peaceful world. But whoever disarm, whatever the reasons are, it's a step more toward less chance of self-destruction (if you don't upgrade the existing arsenal). This is honorable and Obama deserves to get praised for minus 2'000 (!) bombs.

Doesn't matter if those 2,000 (or whatever) are destroyed because the remaining bombs are 10 times more effective and destructive.

These states didn't failed because of their seize..

They failed because of the evil West...or because their economies sucked and couldn't compete. Doesn't matter, I was using the example to prove my point: Countries don't give a shit about one another, unless if effects them directly.

Edit: Forgot to put one of the paragraphs in quote :P

Edited 3/7/2014 23:30:39

The Crimean situation is not just about 'strategic bases' it's about pride. I don't read the forums much, so I do not know much about what you people are sayong, but all of Russia seems to be obsessed with the 'glory days.' You know, when Russia lacked basic freedoms openly( which Russians don't seem to mind at all) and was still a police state, but they could still kick some redneck American *** and show the world who was boss, the Russians. The lack of freedoms seems to be okay with the majority as long a the military is big and undefeated, who cares about the lack of quality? You can notice a link with Soviet discontent and their defeat in the Afghan Invasion in the 80s, but now that their mind is on this new Putin golden age crap, they've forgotten the taste of defeat and just want that huge military to kill some Americans.

We, as Americans, know war doesn't always unite, but few other countries have experienced division over wars, or more or less seen it in their history books. If maybe the Russian Federation can annex Crimea, you'll see the same sensation that you saw in Argentina, when they were beating the UK in the Falklands War. All of the sudden, everybody forgets the social and economic troubles and thinks about glory of their military. Big brother can harness this and gain more control over Russia, as governments always try to do when the people are happy. That's the aim. Either bring home another republic(s) into the Russian Federation, or gain a tighter grip on the people's lives without their notice. If they can maintain the support of a blindly patriotic minded nation, nothing can stop them from annexing whatever they wish.

Edited 3/7/2014 23:54:00