Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Part Deux

[United Marxist Nations]

Because two helicopter carrrying cruisers will suddenly shift the balance of power in favor of the Russians. Yes, this makes perfect sense: everyone knows Russia is only two ships away from global domination.Its not like we could just chuck a missile at them and be done with it.

Why would you want to make them harder to control?

I would think letting them have a couple of warships would make them feel more secure and thus less-likely to lash out. Especially now that they already have Crimea; there really isn't much left that they would be willing to do anything out of the ordinary about.

[United Marxist Nations]

Like I said, this is just a refund for what Russia has already spent; it would still go to military spending. Plus, they now have all the equipment that was in the ships, and now nothing to do with them. As far as education goes, IIRC, Russia already spends more on education than on the military.

The government also said that the "Russian equipment installed on the vessels" would be "returned" to Russia.

Yes, and, since it was a Russian vessel, I assume it would be all of the equipment, or at least all of the weaponry.

[New Werpland]

The government also said that the "Russian equipment installed on the vessels" would be "returned" to Russia.

Yes, and, since it was a Russian vessel, I assume it would be all of the equipment, or at least all of the weaponry.

It was a French vessel sold to the Russians, from the language you could assume that they mean the equipment that the Russians put onto it after it was bought.

[New Werpland]

Why would you want to make them harder to control?

I would think letting them have a couple of warships would make them feel more secure and thus less-likely to lash out. Especially now that they already have Crimea; there really isn't much left that they would be willing to do anything out of the ordinary about.

They could easily use some extra military to push around small nations or spawn new conflicts for them to get involved in for humanitarian purposes, and that is of course if they can't find more ethnic Russians to rescue.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yes, and, since it was a Russian vessel, I assume it would be all of the equipment, or at least all of the weaponry.

It was a French vessel sold to the Russians, from the language you could assume that they mean the equipment that the Russians put onto it after it was bought.

IIRC, they were specifically built for the Russians?

Also, I am reading that this may actually be better for the Russians than pursuing the old deal, because the ships apparently are unfit for the Russian climate and do not use the same fuel grade that Russia uses?

[United Marxist Nations]

I would think letting them have a couple of warships would make them feel more secure and thus less-likely to lash out. Especially now that they already have Crimea; there really isn't much left that they would be willing to do anything out of the ordinary about.

They could easily use some extra military to push around small nations or spawn new conflicts for them to get involved in for humanitarian purposes, and that is of course if they can't find more ethnic Russians to rescue.

Small nations like???

[New Werpland]

It was a French vessel sold to the Russians, from the language you could assume that they mean the equipment that the Russians put onto it after it was bought.

IIRC, they were specifically built for the Russians?

Also, I am reading that this may actually be better for the Russians than pursuing the old deal, because the ships apparently are unfit for the Russian climate and do not use the same fuel grade that Russia uses?

If the Russians installed the equipment rather than the French, they get it back.

[Prassia]

They could easily use some extra military to push around small nations or spawn new conflicts for them to get involved in for humanitarian purposes, and that is of course if they can't find more ethnic Russians to rescue.

Small nations like???

Nations formerly in the Soviet Union would be a good example.

[New Werpland]

They could easily use some extra military to push around small nations or spawn new conflicts for them to get involved in for humanitarian purposes, and that is of course if they can't find more ethnic Russians to rescue.

Small nations like???

I'm sure you could name one.

[The balkens]

Small nations like???

I'm sure you could name one.

Dunno.

Lets play 20 questions.

Are they in NATO?

[United Marxist Nations]

Small nations like???

Nations formerly in the Soviet Union would be a good example.

Well, most of the other ones either have no border with Russia or already have pretty good relations with Russia, so I think that is unlikely.

[New Werpland]

Nations formerly in the Soviet Union would be a good example.

Well, most of the other ones either have no border with Russia or already have pretty good relations with Russia, so I think that is unlikely.

Georgia, Ukraine?

And a few of the processes in which some of those good relations were achieved, are questionable.

[Costa Fierro]

Like I said, this is just a refund for what Russia has already spent; it would still go to military spending. Plus, they now have all the equipment that was in the ships, and now nothing to do with them. As far as education goes, IIRC, Russia already spends more on education than on the military.

0.2% more on education. I'd hardly call it significant.

[United Marxist Nations]

Well, most of the other ones either have no border with Russia or already have pretty good relations with Russia, so I think that is unlikely.

Georgia, Ukraine, the Baltics?

And a few of the processes in which some of those good relations were achieved, are questionable.

They have already messed with Georgia (well, Georgia messed with them) and the Ukraine, so new military equipment wouldn't embolden them much more, especially since those countries have practically no navy and the new equipment would be warships.

Can everyone cut the "Russia's gonna attack the Baltics?" BS? Russia isn't gonna start fucking WWIII for no good reason; it's as ridiculous as saying NATO will invade Belarus.

EDIT: Like which processes?

[Shofercia]

but let's be clear. corruption isn't ok just because you do a good job.

If your choice is between a leader who quadruples your standard of living and skims 5% from that, or a leader who's 100% honest, but under whom the economy stagnates, who would you choose? I'd go for the first guy. Hands down. Every time.

He's correct in that Russia didn't veto the investigative body, they vetoed an organization that would have the power to persecute, not merely investigate.

And what part of my post said that the Russians were vetoing the investigation itself? The post in question said that there was no evidence of who shot down MH17 despite clear evidence to the contrary.

In the context that I've read his post in, he was talking about specific individuals, rather than a faction located on Rebel held territory.

And considering how far reaching the US interprets these things, (remember the "no fly zone" over Libya, which I, btw, correctly opposed,) the veto might've prevented a witch hunt.

I find that hard to believe. For the following reasons you've already outlined.

I didn't realize that Obama was going to help brutally topple Khadaffi, and then led the thugs parade his body on display, like some barbarous, infantile morons. And yet, it happened. Gotta wonder what the West's reaction would be if Russia and Serbia would do the same to Thaci's body.

The Rebels aren't some monogamous group praying to Putin the Deity, or whatever bullshit the press is trying to peddle around; they're a collection of numerous groups, some of whom aren't very pro-Russian.

So why the worry about a witch hunt? The groups operating as part of the rebel forces are not monogamous. So who's going to stop their leaders from obstructing any actual prosecution if it does go ahead?

Because then, every time a group obstructing said prosecution would act, (irrespective of their ties to Putin, or lack thereof,) the Western Press would scream and shout and let it all out about how, "on Putin's direct orders, group so and so will not have justice for the planes' victims!" Despite their best efforts, they couldn't tie Putin to the shooting down of the plane, so now they were going to try and do it through obstruction. Russia vetoed that.

What's to prevent the US from targeting the most effective, pro-Russian Rebels, irrespective of that group's involvement with MH-17?

Why would they? We won't find out for sure, because Russia has already seen to this.

Mostly because MH-17 is the only card that Obama wants to desperately play against Putin, since it has some resonance. When your sanctions backfired and you just lost Schumer's endorsement for the Iran Deal, when your foreign policy is a disaster and you legacy is a foreign policy of failure, as well as a failing immigration policy, which are tied together by Obama's actions in Latin America, you ignore the facts and become desperate. That's Obama's position. Putin bloodlessly annexed Crimea, and raised support levels there from 75 to 80%. Even the opposition, like Udaltsov and Khakamada, think that's a great idea. What the fuck has Obama done, foreign policy wise? Iran's deal won't be complete until Congress votes on it, and even if that passes, Gates just came out saying that Obama got pwnd by the Iranians.

We can presume that the most likely scenario is that some Rebel faction mistakenly shot down the plane that was redirected to fly over a no-fly zone with captured Ukrainian BUKs.

There's a few issues with this. Firstly, it's not "presumed", it's pretty much confirmed. Secondly, there was no official no-fly zone over eastern Ukraine as a whole. Aircraft were prevented from flying below a certain altitude because of the risk posed by anti-aircraft fire at those lower altitudes. Thirdly, it was not redirected. It was the standard course Malaysia Airlines (and others) used to fly between Europe and southeast Asia.

"And others", yeah, well, I don't really care about the others. I do care about MH-17. Speaking of MH-17 not being redirected, erm:

[Shofercia]

Good news. The Turkish stream bas been cancelled.

Alright! Even more economic desperation for Eastern Europe, woohoo! Big Success! Mission Accomplished!

If the US/EU administrations think that Russia will transit through the idiotic regime in Ukraine after 2020, they're either stupid, or high, or both.

Those ships should be sitting in Sevastapol right now, but oh well.

Serves the Russians right for stomping on another sovereign nation just because they didn't agree with the change in government.

So the Will of the Crimean People should be ignored?

France just bought two Mistral heli-carriers.

Good.

French taxpayers paying for Nuland's idiocy.

So Russia has a few million dollars kicking around to feed its rampant kleptocracy. So what?

More like 1.2 billion. Which Russia can then use to further expand its military, huehuehue.

Not to mention that now China or India can get them for half price and use them in the SCO War Games. The anti-Russian folks cheering for the Mistrals didn't think their position through very well. Or at all. But they cheer. Let them cheer. huehuehue

huehuehue, you realize they bought them from Russia, yes? I.e., Russia gets the full value of them.

And?

Why do i care that Russia gets some cash from Carriers that it had the french built?

After all, its not like they get to use them.

Of course not. It's not like the Chinese or Indians could buy them and rent them out to Russia during war games... oh wait, that could actually happen. Continue cheering, you amuse me.

More like 1.2 billion. Which Russia can then use to further expand its military, huehuehue.

Exchange rate to rubble plz.

That figure's in dollars.

Speaking of the Baltics:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/lithuania/gdp-per-capita
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/latvia/gdp-per-capita-ppp
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/estonia/gdp-per-capita

It looks like they've been doing fine for the past 23 years. But I guess Russia knows better? Should I show you what happened to Russia in the '90s? Oh, you know?

Go for it. I know the Yeltsin Administration was a piece of shit that couldn't handle the economy. I know about the 1998 crash. I also know that your point doesn't address anything I've actually said. Let's read that again: And Russians tend to vote for leaders that improve our standard of living

Yeltsin didn't do that. Speaking of the Baltics, I believe that I mentioned demographics: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomani ... opulation/

http://www.france24.com/en/20120522-lat ... in-economy

Would you like to know more?

which would make Russia a larger threat to Europe, the Baltics and any one else who is not on their "Nations that worship the ground we march on" list.

Because two helicopter carrrying cruisers will suddenly shift the balance of power in favor of the Russians. Yes, this makes perfect sense: everyone knows Russia is only two ships away from global domination.Its not like we could just chuck a missile at them and be done with it.

Because two helicopter carrrying cruisers will suddenly shift the balance of power in favor of the Russians. Yes, this makes perfect sense: everyone knows Russia is only two ships away from global domination.Its not like we could just chuck a missile at them and be done with it.

Why would you want to make them harder to control?

Helicarriers are notoriously hard to control for anyone with a pigeon-based armed forces. On the other hand, if you have satellites... it's actually not that hard.

Perhaps Russia could look to spend a few billion on much better things? Such as infrastructure? Education? Healthcare?

Remember Costa, the Russian government cares more about you if you're a Russian living outside of Russia.

Or one of their fanboys rather.

The lives of Russian in Russia improved quite a bit under the Putin Administration, because, unlike the Yeltsin Administration, the Putin Administration did spend a lot on infrastructure, education and healthcare.

[New Werpland]

Georgia, Ukraine, the Baltics?

And a few of the processes in which some of those good relations were achieved, are questionable.

EDIT: Like which processes?

Abkhazia for example.

but let's be clear. corruption isn't ok just because you do a good job.

If your choice is between a leader who quadruples your standard of living and skims 5% from that, or a leader who's 100% honest, but under whom the economy stagnates, who would you choose? I'd go for the first guy. Hands down. Every time.

Well it's a little more complicated than that. When Saakashvili get's accused of corruption by a government composed of ex crooks and an oligarch, he's guilty. But when Putin murders people within and outside his borders, it's ok because he almost got the per capita gdp to Poland levels.

[Dortmundia]

Alright! Even more economic desperation for Eastern Europe, woohoo! Big Success! Mission Accomplished!

If the US/EU administrations think that Russia will transit through the idiotic regime in Ukraine after 2020, they're either stupid, or high, or both.

You seem not to be informed about the LNG terminas that are built to secure cheap gas to Eastern Europe. Also, Eastern Europe is doing better than Russia in economic terms. Everywhere where Russia used to rule is an economic hellhole and it takes time to get on the feet again.

[Bratislavskaya]

Everywhere where Russia used to rule is an economic hellhole and it takes time to get on the feet again.

First off "Russia used to rule" and "Part of the USSR" are not synonyms, being part of the USSR was not Russian rule. Second off, you're acting like it's the USSR or Russia's fault that all their economies (bar a few) went into a nose dive post USSR, forgetting that Russia itself suffered from the same thing, and that it was in fact the ridiculous "shock therapy" applied to the post Soviet economies by the various leaders under the influence of the West.

[Dortmundia]

Everywhere where Russia used to rule is an economic hellhole and it takes time to get on the feet again.

First off "Russia used to rule" and "Part of the USSR" are not synonyms, being part of the USSR was not Russian rule. Second off, you're acting like it's the USSR or Russia's fault that all their economies (bar a few) went into a nose dive post USSR, forgetting that Russia itself suffered from the same thing, and that it was in fact the ridiculous "shock therapy" applied to the post Soviet economies by the various leaders under the influence of the West.

Well of course I am using it synonymous as if you will note the other russophiles do not make the difference between Russian and Soviet army in World War II, which is understandable. It is videly accepted that the USSR was de facto a version of Russia. The Russian minorities in all Soviet republic were upper class citizens.
Yes, it is the faulth since Russia exported its mentality and state form into other countries and its colonies SSRs. As a results they are undeveloped and conservative. It is thanks to long year Russian influence, so that I always say wherever the bear walked with its feet there is poverty (German kitchen and Russian standard are in fact one and the same). Shock terapy would actually work well (which in fact did in Poland) if Russia did not exported its backward ideology.

[Costa Fierro]

In the context that I've read his post in, he was talking about specific individuals, rather than a faction located on Rebel held territory.

And the context I read it in, he was implying that no one knew who shot it down, i.e whether it was the rebels or not.

I didn't realize that Obama was going to help brutally topple Khadaffi, and then led the thugs parade his body on display, like some barbarous, infantile morons. And yet, it happened. Gotta wonder what the West's reaction would be if Russia and Serbia would do the same to Thaci's body.

I don't see how that's relevant.

Because then, every time a group obstructing said prosecution would act, (irrespective of their ties to Putin, or lack thereof,) the Western Press would scream and shout and let it all out about how, "on Putin's direct orders, group so and so will not have justice for the planes' victims!" Despite their best efforts, they couldn't tie Putin to the shooting down of the plane, so now they were going to try and do it through obstruction. Russia vetoed that.

Two things wrong with this statement. Firstly, the only media outlets that directly blamed Putin were mostly British tabloids and thus not representative of all media and secondly, Russia's obstruction of the investigation process and the fact that the launcher itself just happened to be taken to Russia after the shotdown occurred at least has some implications that the state, whether or not on Putin's orders, was helping the rebels in covering up evidence that they were behind it.

You also have Russian media blaming Ukraine for it by trying to claim that a Ukrainian fighter jet shot it down with air to air missile and cannon fire. So if I were you, I wouldn't stand on the whole "Western media is biased against Russia" thing when Russian media basically did exactly the same thing.

Secondly, if Russia didn't have anything to do with it, why does it feel the need to act the way it does? Why does it feel the need to be obstructive in this investigation?

Mostly because MH-17 is the only card that Obama wants to desperately play against Putin, since it has some resonance. When your sanctions backfired and you just lost Schumer's endorsement for the Iran Deal, when your foreign policy is a disaster and you legacy is a foreign policy of failure, as well as a failing immigration policy, which are tied together by Obama's actions in Latin America, you ignore the facts and become desperate.

Schumer is a Republican. Their opposition to Iran was going to occur regardless, as they've been gunning for war with Iran for decades. Secondly, in what way is Obama's foreign policy, or immigration policy, a disaster? The wave of migrants earlier this year was unprecedented and I seriously doubt that anyone could have handled it any better. I think that this is as desperate attempt to portray Obama as a bumbling failure of a President as you claim Obama is.

Let's not forget that Russia isn't in any better straits at the moment. Three million people have fallen into poverty in Russia.

"And others", yeah, well, I don't really care about the others. I do care about MH-17. Speaking of MH-17 not being redirected, erm:

(Image)

(Image)

Looks fine to me. Although I am surprised that you're grasping at straws this early in debate.

[Geilinor]

but let's be clear. corruption isn't ok just because you do a good job.

If your choice is between a leader who quadruples your standard of living and skims 5% from that, or a leader who's 100% honest, but under whom the economy stagnates, who would you choose? I'd go for the first guy. Hands down. Every time.

Being better than the other guy doesn't excuse corruption.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Alright! Even more economic desperation for Eastern Europe, woohoo! Big Success! Mission Accomplished!

If the US/EU administrations think that Russia will transit through the idiotic regime in Ukraine after 2020, they're either stupid, or high, or both.

You seem not to be informed about the LNG terminas that are built to secure cheap gas to Eastern Europe. Also, Eastern Europe is doing better than Russia in economic terms. Everywhere where Russia used to rule is an economic hellhole and it takes time to get on the feet again.

Russia and Poland (oddly, two countries who had polar opposite approaches in terms of post USSR economic policy) were doing the best untill sanctions/collapse of the gas market last year.

[LA Cheese]

If your choice is between a leader who quadruples your standard of living and skims 5% from that, or a leader who's 100% honest, but under whom the economy stagnates, who would you choose? I'd go for the first guy. Hands down. Every time.

ok. that still doesn't make corruption ethical of course. you said a corrupt, successful leader actually deserves the fruits of his corruption. a bit different than just making it out to be a pragmatic decision imo.

[United Marxist Nations]

First off "Russia used to rule" and "Part of the USSR" are not synonyms, being part of the USSR was not Russian rule. Second off, you're acting like it's the USSR or Russia's fault that all their economies (bar a few) went into a nose dive post USSR, forgetting that Russia itself suffered from the same thing, and that it was in fact the ridiculous "shock therapy" applied to the post Soviet economies by the various leaders under the influence of the West.

Well of course I am using it synonymous as if you will note the other russophiles do not make the difference between Russian and Soviet army in World War II, which is understandable. It is videly accepted that the USSR was de facto a version of Russia. The Russian minorities in all Soviet republic were upper class citizens.
Yes, it is the faulth since Russia exported its mentality and state form into other countries and its colonies SSRs. As a results they are undeveloped and conservative. It is thanks to long year Russian influence, so that I always say wherever the bear walked with its feet there is poverty (German kitchen and Russian standard are in fact one and the same). Shock terapy would actually work well (which in fact did in Poland) if Russia did not exported its backward ideology.

In the USSR, many of the "undeveloped colonies" were actually developed more than Russia-proper; for example, Belarus and the Baltic states both had higher GDP Per Capitas, life expectancy, etc. And today, Belarus and Kazakhstan are both faring pretty well compared to Russia-proper.