Come and see... the live show of a war going on

Wumbology: My question is how far can these nations remain on the blame America route? Castro allowed his nation to be roped into a game of nuclear apocalypse by the soviets? Should he just be blameless for that fiasco? Had fighting started, it would have certainly happened on Cuban soil causing massive destruction. If tactical nukes were involved, even more. If anything, he should have learned from the PRCs example and instituted reforms much earlier, while also repairing ties with the U.S.

Instead, he continued to remain antagonistic with the U.S. all the way until the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Only then, with the Cuban economy in dire straits, he initiated rapprochement with the U.S.

Is China white? Is Saudi Arabia considered white as well? What about Indonesia? Why should it even be about race? Geopolitics have always revolved around power, soft power more and more often.

In regards to our police forces, its the same with any other countries. You will have professionals and you will have assholes. You will have lots of situations that are grey. We have to believe the legal experts and the jury can make sure justice is upheld. Race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have only caused more trouble.

Better question: Why should the U.S. weaken its international position simply to play fair? Would other nations play, fair, if the situation were reversed? Is it the responsibility of the U.S. to fix the problems of every nation? The west ddin't do enough during the Rwandan genocide and we took endless 'america hates the darkies', flak. America didn't intervene with Tibet and we got even more shit for it.

So the U.S. should piss off its allies or possibly get involved with much more wars as a 'global policeman', for absolutely no gain? Thats just foolish thinking.

Look, don't get me wrong, I AM acknowledging that the US has been dirty. I also acknowledge we get a lot of flak for it because our political rhetoric is extremely hypocritical. I acknowledge that the U.S. had its troubles with racism in the past. However, that was a different time. The cold war is OVER. The U.S. of Batistas time is no longer the same. Continued chanting of america is satan helps nothing.

I agree that Russia is only protecting its interests. However, if the mission of protecting those interests fails or leads to even more problems, it is the responsibility of Putin to come up with a non-military solution. We had our Vietnam. Although our politicians foolishly dragged the war on to make our retreat prettier, it was still a retreat. We realised that we were not going to achieve our objectives and left. The soviets did the same with afghanistan.

Europe: I thought the EU was formed specifically to counter growing american economic might? I actually like the idea of Europe establishing a 'euro army', for the sake of providing a counter balance to growing influence of Russia and China and the U.S. However, that would cause a lot of problems as these nations have relied more on military alliances to cut defence spending and direct the surplus towards more social programs.
 
Last edited:
This isn't going to work. They started blaming each other for breaking cease fire and started shooting each other again not an hour after the ceasefire started. I believe this is now out of the hands of both Poroshenko or Putin, and the civil war will continue in spite of NATO or Russia. The hate between both sides is now too much to be otherwise.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Once blood has gone bad, it may stay bad for decades.
What was not a conflict hotspot just some years ago, will now be another little mark on the map, and I'm sure all the fatcat industries in the world are lamenting it so hard "Oh no, this is going to be SO COSTLY! For them! :'c"
 
DarkCorp said:
Better question: Why should the U.S. weaken its international position simply to play fair? Would other nations play, fair, if the situation were reversed? Is it the responsibility of the U.S. to fix the problems of every nation? The west ddin't do enough during the Rwandan genocide and we took endless 'america hates the darkies', flak. America didn't intervene with Tibet and we got even more shit for it.
Click to expand...

About Rwanda, France and Belgium took at least as much flak for being as passive as the US were, on top of not using their troops on the ground to help. The entire West (fuck, every single person on the UN security council apart from New Zealeand) looks fucking bad in this affair, especially since Roméo Dallaire presents pretty damning evidence that they all knew a genocide was on the horizon yet didn't lift a finger to stop it. Then every year we go to Holocaut memorials and say ''never again'' even if we have sat on our collective asses while very similar things have happened. But they're black and have no oil, so nobody cares.

I don't think the US is really worse than anyone, but the fact is that they have invaded two sovereign countries in the last 15 years with the excuse of deposing a repressive regime, and it's just hypocritical as fuck to cry about Russia annexing Crimea and supporting the rebels. Not that I equate the Talibans with the government in Ukraine (which, while it features some far-right loonies, is not a religious dictatorship at least) but in term of foreign policy, the US cannot really give moral lessons to anyone.

About Ukraine itself, it was sadly obvious the ceasefire wouldn't hold up. I doubt there is a real will to stop the fighting from the Russian side, but I'm not even sure Putin is running the show on the separatist side anyway. Probably he will just leave them to do their thing, destabilizing a potential enemy and ensuring he doesn't have NATO bases right on Russia's doorstep.
 
Putin might be now in a similar position like Milosevic with the Serbian paramilitary during the civil war. He supported them with all they got, fancy weapons, tanks even "volunteers" because they loved the fact that they killed Croatians and others without a need to send in the regular Serbian military. But as it is with the dogs of war. Once you called them. It is very difficult to get them back in the cage.

But like I said, no one's giving a fuck about Ukraine. That is the real tragedy. Neither Putin nor Obama or Merkel or any of the leaders. They just don't give a fuck about the people down there. Because if they did, if Putin really cared about the Russians in Ukraine and Obama about the civilians in the Ukraine and their well being we would see real changes and some real effort put in. That is what you do when you care about someone, you do everything to protect them, you find solutions where they are not harmed. But this whole situation feels and looks like a proxy war on the shoulders of Ukraine, not just one Ukraine, not just east and west Ukraine, all of Ukraine. And people are to much in hate to even realize that.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Putin might be now in a similar position like Milosevic with the Serbian paramilitary during the civil war. He supported them with all they got, fancy weapons, tanks even "volunteers" because they loved the fact that they killed Croatians and others without a need to send in the regular Serbian military. But as it is with the dogs of war. Once you called them. It is very difficult to get them back in the cage.
Click to expand...

It'd be very simple for Putin to wind down the insurgency. Shut off all support. Seal up the border. Let the Ukrainian military wear them down and destroy the insurgents.

But like I said, no one's giving a fuck about Ukraine. That is the real tragedy. Neither Putin nor Obama or Merkel or any of the leaders. They just don't give a fuck about the people down there. Because if they did, if Putin really cared about the Russians in Ukraine and Obama about the civilians in the Ukraine and their well being we would see real changes and some real effort put in. That is what you do when you care about someone, you do everything to protect them, you find solutions where they are not harmed. But this whole situation feels and looks like a proxy war on the shoulders of Ukraine, not just one Ukraine, not just east and west Ukraine, all of Ukraine. And people are to much in hate to even realize that.
Click to expand...

People give a fuck, that's the whole reason the EU and the US are getting involved. Don't give me the bullshit that you do "everything to protect them". If the US and the EU would do everything to protect Ukraine, including rolling in tanks and running air sorties to bomb the insurgents to hell, you'd be moaning to high heavens that they're turning Ukraine into a military junta, just how you're complaining they're not doing anything right now because they're desperately looking for a solution that doesn't include more violence.

There's no pleasing you, is there?
 
Just operating on basic knowledge.

The majority of the Ukrainian population favored strongers ties with NATO. Putin didn't like that so they decided to roll in and start de-stabilizing shit. My question is: Are the black sea bases worth causing all of this ruckus? Putin seems to think so. Will he continue with this reasoning if the U.S. and the west decide to not back down but instead, up the ante?

The situation with Iraq, is atleast we had support from our allies, the most important one being Saudi Arabia. I think one thing we all can agree on is that, as an ally of Saudi Arabia, we would eventually have to do something about the Hussein regime.

From what I gather, a lot of post soviet states, if not all, do not have love for Russia. The PRC, given its recent history, I doubt will officially back Russia if the proverbial shit were going to hit the fan. It gains more from continually playing powers off one another as the regional middle man. Again, is all this defiance and roaring worth it for Russia?

Had the Russians not rolled in, causing a big ruckus, those right wing loonies wouldn't have had nearly the support they have now. Its the same with the Nazis. Had the victorious powers in WW1 not been such monumental arrogant dick bags to Germany, Hitler and his extremists would never have progressed further than being those whacky nationalist/conspiracy theorists.
 
Last edited:
Tagaziel said:
It'd be very simple for Putin to wind down the insurgency. Shut off all support. Seal up the border. Let the Ukrainian military wear them down and destroy the insurgents.
Click to expand...

While the US starts giving the govenrment weapons now in an official capacity? That would be Putin outright supporting Poroshenko, and I don't see any reasons why he would want to do that. Obviously there is something to gain for Russia that sanctions won't compare to. Actually I'm surprised even that Putin haven't decided to close the gas tap to Ukraine and bring their govenrment to it's knees during this winter, making business as ussual and even sending them coal.
 
Gonzalez said:
Actually I'm surprised even that Putin haven't decided to close the gas tap to Ukraine and bring their govenrment to it's knees during this winter, making business as ussual and even sending them coal.
Click to expand...
He did it. Putin asked the Ukrainian government to pay their multibillion debt for gas and he turned the valve off shortly after that. We're supplying Ukraine with gas through the Slovak/Ukrainian border:
http://spectator.sme.sk/c/20051908/reverse-gas-flow-launched.html
 
He obviously has no intentions of backing down. Now I see why Merkel and Hollande are so worried. If NATO Keeps putting pressure into Putin and he and he holds fast this could escalate quickly.
 
Last edited:
Yup. Russian Gazprom opened the valve afterwards, but there are some new conditions now: Ukrainian governemnt must pay prior to the gas transfer and the price of Russian gas is doubled. In a words of science - Putin grabbed the Ukrainian frozen balls with iron fist and he holds them really hard. :smile:
 
Yet Poroshenko has vowed to proceed with EU membership, which, regardless of rhetoric, will most likely result in closer ties/joining of NATO.

We will see if Poroshenk has the ability to make Ukraine whole again.
 
I have a really crazy idea, what if both Russia and NATO both backed down, stop sending money and weapons to either side of the conflict and let Ukrainians deal with the civil war themselves, only using whatever bullet and tank they could find within their own borders. I know, right? Crazy.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a good idea in theory, but the problem is that one group will always try to benefit off of the situation. Could be ISIS, could be China, could be Neo-facists, could be the IRA.



We are so imperfect in so many ways as human beings, and the problem is that we do not take that into account when looking at these complex situations as such. However, the power structures involved should be laying the framework from the position they are in now towards individual and local sovereignty.



Which in itself, is a very difficult thing to do, because no one wants to live next to a crazed militant state that rapes and pillages and pirates whatever it wants.


That's how the Mongols wiped out the entire Asian continent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well that would make both sides look bad, and I don't know if either side wants bad publicity. I mean, 'Sure we mucked things right up in Ukraine, now I am going to wash my hands of the whole thing and just leave.' doesn't sound very moral.

As Tagz pointed out, if other countries do not intervene, they are heartless assbags. If they do, its imperialism at its finest. Now THATS crazy.
 
Well most of the people involved in this conflict are very uneducated people to begin with, or are using their own education and resources to benefit off of the situation.


There is no "Quick easy fix". Anyone telling you that is full of shit.



So of course NATO and Russia are going to react like they are, when both of them DO NOT want war.


They are going down the contingency list, and have to play the game in such a way to not loose face and as well produce the best situation possible.
 
Tagaziel said:
Which former Eastern Bloc countries? Most of them are doing pretty well, with the Baltic States, Poland, and the Czech Republic being examples of a model transition from failed communism to a modern liberal democracy. I'm not sure what you're reading up there in Finland, but most of Eastern Europe doesn't have rampant corruption, poor economic growth, or bad management. We have our troubles, but for fuck's sake, we aren't failed states like you imply.
Click to expand...

The most successful of the former eastern block nations is probably Czech republic and they have succeeded mostly because of tourism. Then there are nations like Estonia and Poland, Estonia benefits from Finns coming to shop there and Poles benefit from Germans coming to shop there. They are closer to these strong economic nations so they benefit that way.

Then there is a long list of countries that really are in pretty bad shape. Latvia and Lithuania have this strange type of endemic corruption, they even target tourists there in broad daylight. They still have a long way to go. Ukraine is one of these nations. I'm afraid that what's going on in Ukraine could basically in some form happen almost anywhere in eastern Europe. With the Greece-hysteria just going on and on year after year, I am pretty surprised that people still aren't aware of how significant these economic things are.

Having said that about Greece, I am aware of the fact that it's mostly about rich bankers trying to pocket the money of EU tax payers. That does not make me happy.

Eh, more like the Dragon exploiting an aging, weak, and syphilitic bear. Russia doesn't have anything valuable to offer to China, besides its natural resources.
Click to expand...

If you think Russia is weak then go test them. When I was in the military we had this officer who trained us and he'd been an exchange officer in Russia. He'd been there around the time of the fall of the Soviet Union and he saw absolutely no weaknesses whatsoever in their military and he got to walk around a lot. So I wouldn't go thinking Russia is weak, they have strenghts that may surprise a lot of people and when they join forces with the Chinese they are capable of a lot.
 
Last edited:
Russia doesn't define itself the same way most Western cultures define themselves. The are culturally Asian and Eastern European peoples, and view themselves as a people that are capable of doing anything that anyone else can do, but want to do it on their own terms and time-frame.

Militarily, Russia has enough power to dominate the region if the United States was not in the area, and has some of the greatest aerospace and military aircraft pilots in the word. Keep that in mind.



Also, this conflict has a tendency of turning into a what-if-war masturbation scenario.

Warfare is a completely different animal in the 21st century. You need a majority consensus within large groups of people on a global scale to be at all successful even in a moderate degree to wage full-scale war on other nations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top