Ukraine's European Revolution?

[Jacob]

I agree with you Spellus, but you sound like you're getting a little too worked up about it.

[Queequeg]

I'm on a lot of sleeping pills and it's getting physically difficult to type. 

[Queequeg]

*Legal* sleeping pills.  For legally.  Sleeping.

[CountDeMoney]

Of course he's getting worked up about it.  Most Cossack types always do when it comes to goofy ethnic shit over in Swarthistan.

[Queequeg]

Poland is Swarthistan? 

[CountDeMoney]

That whole side of the fucking planet.  From Berlin straight straight until people start squinting.

[Jacob]

*Legal* sleeping pills.  For legally.  Sleeping.

I recommend you go sleep then.

[Queequeg]

*Legal* sleeping pills.  For legally.  Sleeping.

I recommend you go sleep then.

Someone is wrong on the Internet.

[Iormlund]

HOWEVER, Ukraine is the first step in this theoretical progression of conquest: UKRAINE, Poland, Germany, France, SPAIN.

Iormlund, you might want to start studying Russian just in case.

The French still have nukes. Spain is pretty safe.

[jimmy olsen]

You shouldn't take a lot even if they are legal.

[OttoVonBismarck]

OvB, this is crazy. We didn't give South Korea nuclear weapons when they were invaded, and we didn't give South Vietnam nuclear weapons either. It is literally a nuclear option that dramatically raises the risks of nuclear war and would cause relations with Russia to radically deteriorate (as well as the rest of the world that would see us as madmen).

What we could do is give lots of aid to the Ukraine to ensure that any destabilizing actions by Russia don't succeed in a kind of Berlin airlift scenario.

We put lots of nukes around Russia during the Cold War, nothing new under the sun here. No, we didn't give nuclear weapons to South Korea--but at that point the rules of the game were not fleshed out. It was at least contemplated we might start nuking the Chinese during the Korean War because at that point we could have credibly done that without really fearing any Soviet response--they had no realistic delivery mechanism to the continental U.S. during that war. So we really had no reason to give the South Koreans nuclear weapons since we could have just started nuking on our own--we were in a hot war there with the North and the Chinese. Certainly during the Korean War, it was not established in either Soviet or American doctrine that "any use of a nuclear weapon against a satellite power requires our own nuclear response" but that's eventually what it lead to, so bringing up SK is talking about a very different time even during the Cold War.

South Vietnam was never stable, it was a puppet state, so likewise giving them nukes makes no sense. Ukraine on the other hand once had the third largest nuclear stockpile in the world, they only gave it up because of a trilateral agreement in which the United States and Russia both agreed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity (despite what some say, neither party promised to defend those things for the Ukraine--only that they the signatories would not violate them, although Russia's violating the treaty would probably be a casus belli in old school international relations we didn't sign a protection agreement with Ukraine and neither did Russia at that point.) So I'd have no problem giving them some nuclear warheads and some long range missiles, we still have over 5,000 nuclear warheads and I'm sure we could spare some delivery systems. If we put nuclear weapons in Turkey, I've not a problem at all with doing the same in Ukraine. Hell we still have nukes in Turkey, something many never think of but probably should considering how stupid Muslim that country is becoming.

[Razgovory]

HOWEVER, Ukraine is the first step in this theoretical progression of conquest: UKRAINE, Poland, Germany, France, SPAIN.

Iormlund, you might want to start studying Russian just in case.

The French still have nukes. Spain is pretty safe.

Still, my question stands, at what point do you fight?

[Duque de Bragança]

I favor staying out of it. And disbanding NATO. And going isolationist.

Enjoy your Russian neighbors, Euros.

Wait until they get to Normandy! 

[OttoVonBismarck]

Still, my question stands, at what point do you fight?

Cold War 101: you never fight. It's not a video game. But you position yourself so that the only way your opponent can get what they want is to attack you outright. Yes, if they actually do it you fight then, but the nature of human decision making strongly suggests that won't happen. Kennedy, for all that I do consider him an overrated and weak President, he showed what happens when you draw a line in the sand. You create a scenario for your enemy where they can either cross that line and preserve their standing, their manhood, whatever--or they find a way not to, and preserve everything else.

[Admiral Yi]

Heard on BBC that the Russkies have now seized three airports in Crimea.

There was also something about a Ukrainian official in Crimea (governor???) publicly asking Russia's help to maintain order in Crimea.

I think Obama's public statement has been perfect: it presents the outlines of the best possible deal.  Russia stands down from its military hijinks, and in return we offer some sort of partition/autonomy referendum.  If they don't stand down, we do not start WWIII but Russia becomes a permanent international pariah.