Poll
Question:
How would you have responded as POTUS or similarly powerful European leader to the Russian invasion of Crimea?
Option 1: Вставайте, люди русские! Peremysl and Belostok are Russian cities!
votes: 0
Option 2: Let the Russians take Ukraine. Not our problem.
votes: 1
Option 3: International process designed to divvy-up Ukraine between a pro-EU West and a Russian east.
votes: 9
Option 4: Attempt to diffuse expanded conflict, limit involvement in Ukraine in future
votes: 2
Option 5: Serious sanctions on Russian business interests and oligarchs, stepped-up aid and military relations with Ukraine without full NATO or EU membership.
votes: 15
Option 6: After Russian annexation of Crimea begin speedy process integration of Ukraine in to NATO and possibly EU
votes: 7
Option 7: Give all possible immediate aid to Ukraine in an attempt defend the country, make immediately clear that any push past Crimea or in to Donbass will mean war.
votes: 13
Option 8: Full Dr. Strangelove; immediate mobilization of NATO forces in attempt to retake Crimea militarily
votes: 8
Option 9: Other (please specify)
votes: 3
Option 10: Jaron's Neo Byzantine Empire will soon retake Crimea!
votes: 1
Inspired by OvB being puzzled by my response. Going for #5.
Not our problem.
Internationally administered referendum *after* Russian troops have left.
If they hold a referendum on their own, refuse to recognize, expel Russia from the G8 (or disband the G8 and return to the G7), initiate talks about expelling Russia from the Security Council, any other measures short of war that are reasonable.
Other, I didnt see an option for full support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2014, 01:19:32 PM
Internationally administered referendum *after* Russian troops have left.
If they hold a referendum on their own, refuse to recognize, expel Russia from the G8 (or disband the G8 and return to the G7), initiate talks about expelling Russia from the Security Council, any other measures short of war that are reasonable.
Is there any legitimate way to expel Russia from the Security Council, other than creating "No Russia Club" and transferring all the UN functions to it?
It all belongs to Mother Russia!
Quote from: DGuller on March 11, 2014, 01:22:42 PM
Is there any legitimate way to expel Russia from the Security Council, other than creating "No Russia Club" and transferring all the UN functions to it?
Dunno. But it is a fun idea.
Peace in our time
Ukraine to have free, fair and democratic elections so establish a fully legitimate government. If he wants, Yuschenko can run again. Any decision to proceed with charges left to new government. Russian troops to stand down and return to base in Crimea, and Ukrainian troops to be unmolested. Ukrainian membership in NATO to be off the table for 25 years, together with the new government re-confirming the Sevastopol lease. New government to decide the countries economic fate vis-a-vis EU and Russia as it sees fit.
Referendum on status of Crimea to be scheduled for 2015 to be supervised by international community. Joining Russia, status quo, and renegotiating status within Ukraine to all be options.
That, of course, assumes Russian willingness to negotiate.
Otherwise...
Russia invading and incorporating the sovereign territory of another nation (especially in light of explicit guarantees to the contrary) can not be business as usual. Quietly threaten to reform G7 if Russian troops haven't stood down. Outline a series of consequences which will follow, aimed at economic consequences that will be felt by the oligarchs (will require Europe to grow a backbone). Decrease military co-operation with Russia. Support democratic process in Ukraine together with short term aid, to be followed by longer-term economic integration into Europe and NATO membership.
Honestly, I just want Russia to suffer. In some way or the other.
US and EU supports Russia's annexation of Crimea in exchange for Russian and EU support of the United States annexation of Cuba and the United States and Russia supporting the restoration of the Hapsburg monarchy in Mexico. Then partition the Ukraine into two protectorates, the east in the Russian sphere of influence and the west in the European. Everybody wins. :bowler:
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2014, 01:33:24 PM
Ukraine to have free, fair and democratic elections so establish a fully legitimate government. If he wants, Yuschenko can run again. Any decision to proceed with charges left to new government. Russian troops to stand down and return to base in Crimea, and Ukrainian troops to be unmolested. Ukrainian membership in NATO to be off the table for 25 years, together with the new government re-confirming the Sevastopol lease. New government to decide the countries economic fate vis-a-vis EU and Russia as it sees fit.
Referendum on status of Crimea to be scheduled for 2015 to be supervised by international community. Joining Russia, status quo, and renegotiating status within Ukraine to all be options.
Why on earth would Ukraine agree to a continuation of the Sevastopol base now that it has been used to launch an invasion?
Quote from: Maximus on March 11, 2014, 01:44:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2014, 01:33:24 PM
Ukraine to have free, fair and democratic elections so establish a fully legitimate government. If he wants, Yuschenko can run again. Any decision to proceed with charges left to new government. Russian troops to stand down and return to base in Crimea, and Ukrainian troops to be unmolested. Ukrainian membership in NATO to be off the table for 25 years, together with the new government re-confirming the Sevastopol lease. New government to decide the countries economic fate vis-a-vis EU and Russia as it sees fit.
Referendum on status of Crimea to be scheduled for 2015 to be supervised by international community. Joining Russia, status quo, and renegotiating status within Ukraine to all be options.
Why on earth would Ukraine agree to a continuation of the Sevastopol base now that it has been used to launch an invasion?
Thats a good point. But it seems to me that if Ukraine wishes to live by the Rule of Law they need to abide by the terms of the Lease agreement - unless there is some basis in law upon which the agreement may be overturned. I dont know enough about the circumstances in which the lease was renewed to comment on whether that might be possible.
Surely an invasion could be considered a breach of contract.
Quote from: Maximus on March 11, 2014, 01:50:00 PM
Surely an invasion could be considered a breach of contract.
Probably, but Ukraine's strongest argument is to return things to the Status Quo before the invasion rather than seeking concessions.
Quote from: Maximus on March 11, 2014, 01:50:00 PM
Surely an invasion could be considered a breach of contract.
While I certainly agree, I think the Ukrainians will have to bend over and accept some sort of deal no matter what. The basing rights being a best possible result.
I am afraid they'll have to offer more, like increased autonomy or simply just have to hand over the whole thing. While a shirtless Putin masturbates furiously in the Kremlin.
Quote from: DGuller on March 11, 2014, 01:22:42 PM
Is there any legitimate way to expel Russia from the Security Council
I suppose the Council could retroactively decide not to recognize the transfer of the USSR seat to the Russia.
For extra credit, it could then decide to recognize Ukraine as the valid successor.
Putin will ride shirtless on a shark right into Sebastopol harbor, guns blazing, and take back the Crimea himself.
Quote from: Caliga on March 11, 2014, 01:58:09 PM
Putin will ride shirtless on a shark right into Sebastopol harbor, guns blazing, and take back the Crimea himself.
Then kill a white tiger that's tranquilised. Yes, I can see that playing out.
I believe he can do it. I know I could single-handedly conquer France and while I am kind of a badass, I'm no Putin... and Ukraine is no France.
Quote from: Caliga on March 11, 2014, 02:02:25 PM
and Ukraine is no France.
Agreed, it is days now since the invasion began and they still havent surrendered.
Quote from: Maximus on March 11, 2014, 01:44:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2014, 01:33:24 PM
Ukraine to have free, fair and democratic elections so establish a fully legitimate government. If he wants, Yuschenko can run again. Any decision to proceed with charges left to new government. Russian troops to stand down and return to base in Crimea, and Ukrainian troops to be unmolested. Ukrainian membership in NATO to be off the table for 25 years, together with the new government re-confirming the Sevastopol lease. New government to decide the countries economic fate vis-a-vis EU and Russia as it sees fit.
Referendum on status of Crimea to be scheduled for 2015 to be supervised by international community. Joining Russia, status quo, and renegotiating status within Ukraine to all be options.
Why on earth would Ukraine agree to a continuation of the Sevastopol base now that it has been used to launch an invasion?
Because I'm trying to make it a quid pro quo - give Russia some incentive to withdraw. And Yuschenko did sign a lease extension and we should stand for the principle that countries should live up to their agreements (like the Budapest Treaty).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2014, 01:24:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 11, 2014, 01:22:42 PM
Is there any legitimate way to expel Russia from the Security Council, other than creating "No Russia Club" and transferring all the UN functions to it?
Dunno. But it is a fun idea.
It's a terrible idea.
None of the four other permanent members would want to set a precedent or establish a method for such a removal. It's against all their interests, not just Britain's and France's (the two countries that would immediately find their position in jeopardy.)
It's a good thing the west of the Ukraine isn't flat tank country. That would really suck for them.
Quote from: Savonarola on March 11, 2014, 01:39:34 PM
US and EU supports Russia's annexation of Crimea in exchange for Russian and EU support of the United States annexation of Cuba and the United States and Russia supporting the restoration of the Hapsburg monarchy in Mexico. Then partition the Ukraine into two protectorates, the east in the Russian sphere of influence and the west in the European. Everybody wins. :bowler:
Oh good, another slave state. :ph34r:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2014, 02:04:37 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 11, 2014, 02:02:25 PM
and Ukraine is no France.
Agreed, it is days now since the invasion began and they still havent surrendered.
Nah they already surrendered their nukes decades ago. France would never do that.
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2014, 02:06:13 PM
Because I'm trying to make it a quid pro quo - give Russia some incentive to withdraw. And Yuschenko did sign a lease extension and we should stand for the principle that countries should live up to their agreements (like the Budapest Treaty).
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you have some Ukranian roots?
I feel for you.
I must admit when all this started, I started reading up on the whole Ukraine-Russia thing.
Yuschenko and whoever else that seems to have held political power are basically backed by some oligarchs, and the common man as per usual is shafted with little or no lube. It certainly makes the EU look like a paragon of democratic virtue.
Cut bait on Crimea, try to secure minority rights there for ethnic Ukrainians & Tatars. Make it abundantly clear that Russia is not to move any further. Push for some sort of compensation to Ukraine for loss of territory (if not, keep sanctions in place and/or ratchet them up a bit). Then Ukraine in NATO (EU decision is between Ukraine and EU but sounds good to me). Possibly quietly talk to Ukraine about jettisoning a troublesome Russian-majority oblast or two to make the country more stable long-term.
Quote from: derspiess on March 11, 2014, 02:28:15 PM
Cut bait on Crimea, try to secure minority rights there for ethnic Ukrainians & Tatars. Make it abundantly clear that Russia is not to move any further. Push for some sort of compensation to Ukraine for loss of territory (if not, keep sanctions in place and/or ratchet them up a bit). Then Ukraine in NATO (EU decision is between Ukraine and EU but sounds good to me). Possibly quietly talk to Ukraine about jettisoning a troublesome Russian-majority oblast or two to make the country more stable long-term.
The problem would the that they would jettison their industrial base (which is the area outside of Crimea with a significant Russian minority). Without that old-fashioned industry, I am sure the Ukraine will produce nothing but cereals and mail-order brides.
Quote from: Beenherebefore on March 11, 2014, 02:42:25 PM
The problem would the that they would jettison their industrial base (which is the area outside of Crimea with a significant Russian minority). Without that old-fashioned industry, I am sure the Ukraine will produce nothing but cereals and mail-order brides.
Then we'll see what shakes out with foreign investment. Lots of cheap labor there, right?
Quote from: Beenherebefore on March 11, 2014, 02:15:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2014, 02:06:13 PM
Because I'm trying to make it a quid pro quo - give Russia some incentive to withdraw. And Yuschenko did sign a lease extension and we should stand for the principle that countries should live up to their agreements (like the Budapest Treaty).
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you have some Ukranian roots?
I feel for you.
I must admit when all this started, I started reading up on the whole Ukraine-Russia thing.
Yuschenko and whoever else that seems to have held political power are basically backed by some oligarchs, and the common man as per usual is shafted with little or no lube. It certainly makes the EU look like a paragon of democratic virtue.
Don't put much sympathy for me. I have always identified and celebrated my Ukrainian heritage, but I'm 5th generation Canadian. I wasn't one of the ones fighting and dying at Independence Square.
I used to have a big Ukrainian flag up on my wall in my room in the late 80s/early 90s. When they declared independence in 1991 I rigged up a flagpole to hang outside in celebration. Unfortunately, little has gone right with the country since then. Even the Orange Revolution, which had so much hope, fizzled out.
I hope this does launch a rebirth for the country, since after all Ukraine is Not Yet Dead (the name of the national anthem). But obviously Putin very much hopes it isn't, and is doing what he can to prevent it.
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2014, 03:04:37 PM
Don't put much sympathy for me. I have always identified and celebrated my Ukrainian heritage, but I'm 5th generation Canadian. I wasn't one of the ones fighting and dying at Independence Square.
I used to have a big Ukrainian flag up on my wall in my room in the late 80s/early 90s. When they declared independence in 1991 I rigged up a flagpole to hang outside in celebration. Unfortunately, little has gone right with the country since then. Even the Orange Revolution, which had so much hope, fizzled out.
I hope this does launch a rebirth for the country, since after all Ukraine is Not Yet Dead (the name of the national anthem). But obviously Putin very much hopes it isn't, and is doing what he can to prevent it.
:hug:
A lot of the former Soviet republics have basically experienced more assraping after 1991. This time it's "Anal Creampies 56 - Family Matters".
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2014, 03:04:37 PM
but I'm 5th generation Canadian.
Damn. When did you ancestors immigrate? 1870?
Did they all marry at age 12?
Perhaps I'm mistaken on either count. I don't have a detailed genealogy or history on my dad's side.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2014, 03:35:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2014, 03:26:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2014, 03:25:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2014, 03:04:37 PM
but I'm 5th generation Canadian.
Damn. When did you ancestors immigrate? 1870?
1900 or so.
That is more like 3rd generation - 4th at the outside.
It could easily be the fifth:
Great Great Grandfather Barrister Boy emigrates to Canada in 1900 at age 25 the first generation
Great Grandfather Barrister Boy is born the year of his parents arrival the second
Grandfather Barrister Boy is born in 1925, the third generation
Father Barrister Boy is born in 1950, the fourth generation
Barrister Boy is born in 1975 the fifth.
Trashy.
I'm definitely 4th generation - my grandparents were born in Canada.
Plus, immigration from Ukraine to the prairies started as early as 1891.
Quote from: Savonarola on March 11, 2014, 03:47:35 PM
It could easily be the fifth:
Great Great Grandfather Barrister Boy emigrates to Canada in 1900 at age 25 the first generation
Great Grandfather Barrister Boy is born the year of his parents arrival the second
Grandfather Barrister Boy is born in 1925, the third generation
Father Barrister Boy is born in 1950, the fourth generation
Barrister Boy is born in 1975 the fifth.
Not easily. It would require that every generation of Beeb's ancestors produced the next generation by age 25.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2014, 03:52:03 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on March 11, 2014, 03:47:35 PM
It could easily be the fifth:
Great Great Grandfather Barrister Boy emigrates to Canada in 1900 at age 25 the first generation
Great Grandfather Barrister Boy is born the year of his parents arrival the second
Grandfather Barrister Boy is born in 1925, the third generation
Father Barrister Boy is born in 1950, the fourth generation
Barrister Boy is born in 1975 the fifth.
Not easily. It would require that every generation of Beeb's ancestors produced the next generation by age 25.
We're talking about poor ukrainian immigrants in the early 20th century. My dad did have me when he was 26, and he took the crazy step of going out and getting a college diploma first. Plus, I think my dad's family was ukrainian catholic, so maybe no rubbers. My dad had 4 siblings before my grandmother died (and as I mentioned, another half sibling as a wartime love child).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2014, 03:52:03 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on March 11, 2014, 03:47:35 PM
It could easily be the fifth:
Great Great Grandfather Barrister Boy emigrates to Canada in 1900 at age 25 the first generation
Great Grandfather Barrister Boy is born the year of his parents arrival the second
Grandfather Barrister Boy is born in 1925, the third generation
Father Barrister Boy is born in 1950, the fourth generation
Barrister Boy is born in 1975 the fifth.
Not easily. It would require that every generation of Beeb's ancestors produced the next generation by age 25.
No, it necessitates that the mean age of reproduction was 25. If Grandfather Barrister Boy was born when his father was 18, he could have been 32 when Father Barrister Boy was born.
This has been helpful to the Ukrainians yearning for liberty.
Mind you, they're 67th generation Ukrainians.
Quote from: Savonarola on March 11, 2014, 04:00:11 PM
No, it necessitates that the mean age of reproduction was 25. If Grandfather Barrister Boy was born when his father was 18, he could have been 32 when Father Barrister Boy was born.
Kay.
Quote from: Beenherebefore on March 11, 2014, 04:05:13 PM
This has been helpful to the Ukrainians yearning for liberty.
Mind you, they're 67th generation Ukrainians.
Damn. When did their ancestors immigrate? 200 BC?
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2014, 04:09:19 PM
Quote from: Beenherebefore on March 11, 2014, 04:05:13 PM
This has been helpful to the Ukrainians yearning for liberty.
Mind you, they're 67th generation Ukrainians.
Damn. When did their ancestors immigrate? 200 BC?
Ask Spellus, he knew their parents.
:hmm:
I don't get it.
I think the Ukraine should be paved. That would solve the crisis and end the 1st world parking problems for good. Of course, the shuttle system from the new world parking lot will take some time to work out, but it is a start.
Quote from: Savonarola on March 11, 2014, 04:00:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2014, 03:52:03 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on March 11, 2014, 03:47:35 PM
It could easily be the fifth:
Great Great Grandfather Barrister Boy emigrates to Canada in 1900 at age 25 the first generation
Great Grandfather Barrister Boy is born the year of his parents arrival the second
Grandfather Barrister Boy is born in 1925, the third generation
Father Barrister Boy is born in 1950, the fourth generation
Barrister Boy is born in 1975 the fifth.
Not easily. It would require that every generation of Beeb's ancestors produced the next generation by age 25.
No, it necessitates that the mean age of reproduction was 25. If Grandfather Barrister Boy was born when his father was 18, he could have been 32 when Father Barrister Boy was born.
The reason I was so sure BB must have been wrong is because both the maternal and paternal sides of my family immigrated at about the same time and I am third generation on both sides. Also, the Welsh side of my wife's family also immigrated at about the same time and she is also third generation on that side.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2014, 04:24:05 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on March 11, 2014, 04:00:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2014, 03:52:03 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on March 11, 2014, 03:47:35 PM
It could easily be the fifth:
Great Great Grandfather Barrister Boy emigrates to Canada in 1900 at age 25 the first generation
Great Grandfather Barrister Boy is born the year of his parents arrival the second
Grandfather Barrister Boy is born in 1925, the third generation
Father Barrister Boy is born in 1950, the fourth generation
Barrister Boy is born in 1975 the fifth.
Not easily. It would require that every generation of Beeb's ancestors produced the next generation by age 25.
No, it necessitates that the mean age of reproduction was 25. If Grandfather Barrister Boy was born when his father was 18, he could have been 32 when Father Barrister Boy was born.
The reason I was so sure BB must have been wrong is because both the maternal and paternal sides of my family immigrated at about the same time and I am third generation on both sides. Also, the Welsh side of my wife's family also immigrated at about the same time and she is also third generation on that side.
1st generation is the generation that came from the old country, right?
Because otherwise even given your age I'm having difficulty seeing it. Unless all of your grandparents came over as young children...
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2014, 04:26:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2014, 04:24:05 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on March 11, 2014, 04:00:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2014, 03:52:03 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on March 11, 2014, 03:47:35 PM
It could easily be the fifth:
Great Great Grandfather Barrister Boy emigrates to Canada in 1900 at age 25 the first generation
Great Grandfather Barrister Boy is born the year of his parents arrival the second
Grandfather Barrister Boy is born in 1925, the third generation
Father Barrister Boy is born in 1950, the fourth generation
Barrister Boy is born in 1975 the fifth.
Not easily. It would require that every generation of Beeb's ancestors produced the next generation by age 25.
No, it necessitates that the mean age of reproduction was 25. If Grandfather Barrister Boy was born when his father was 18, he could have been 32 when Father Barrister Boy was born.
The reason I was so sure BB must have been wrong is because both the maternal and paternal sides of my family immigrated at about the same time and I am third generation on both sides. Also, the Welsh side of my wife's family also immigrated at about the same time and she is also third generation on that side.
1st generation is the generation that came from the old country, right?
Because otherwise even given your age I'm having difficulty seeing it. Unless all of your grandparents came over as young children...
I was counting the first generation as the one born here. The ones that come here are the immigrants.
Can we carry the Crimea into Mordor and destroy it forever?
Do we really want our country to interfere in a purely internal Soviet matter?
Quote from: Ideologue on March 11, 2014, 04:39:19 PM
Do we really want our country to interfere in a purely internal Soviet matter?
Glad to see you have matured from Soviet fanboi to Soviet Ultra fanboi.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 11, 2014, 04:39:19 PM
Do we really want our country to interfere in a purely internal Soviet matter?
:lol:
You are like the Languish Pete Seeger, taking whatever position will best benefit the USSR.
Quote from: The Brain on March 11, 2014, 04:31:47 PM
Can we carry the Crimea into Mordor and destroy it forever?
Obama is adamant that we can.
I look forward to the movie with Ideologue in tow saying "My precious" and "My crisis" alternately.
I foresee some issue in picking which one to bear the Crimea, though.
Use my time machine to tell Hitler about what happens. Save the Reich from defeat and get blonde German girls as a reward.
No more Russia!
I am sure Hitler already had tons of neo-nazi time travelers put into concentration camps for trying to tell him he was doing things wrong.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 11, 2014, 06:09:40 PM
I am sure Hitler already had tons of neo-nazi time travelers put into concentration camps for trying to tell him he was doing things wrong.
I need to lose some weight.
Option 5, plus EU membership (when they meet the criteria) for Ukraine. Not NATO.
Which of the poll options has the Russian countryside glowing a nice radioactive green?
I don't buy the story of the entire eastern part of the country crying out to be liberated by Putin. I want NATO troops there. I want us to get tough on the Muscovites. If we don't do it now, we'll inevitably have to do it later somewhere else.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 11, 2014, 06:09:40 PM
I am sure Hitler already had tons of neo-nazi time travelers put into concentration camps for trying to tell him he was doing things wrong.
Ah, educated Jews. Like Karl Marx himself.
We should take the strategic reserve of mail-order brides in exchange for another guarantee of territorial integrity (minus Crimea).
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2014, 04:27:52 PM
I was counting the first generation as the one born here. The ones that come here are the immigrants.
I think that varies. I also think in US we typically say 1st gen is the foreign born immigrants and their children are 2nd gen.
i read up on kennan awhile back ago. i'm not sure if he was entirely correct, but it makes sense that the US took too hard a stance with the USSR and prolonged the cold war. so, i went with "other." i don't think we should seriously militarize russia's neighbors and impose overly harsh sanctions on russia as that might just result in aggravating the situation. but i also don't think we should let it go entirely, either. or be satisfied with a divvied up ukraine
Quote from: LaCroix on March 11, 2014, 10:24:25 PM
i read up on kennan awhile back ago. i'm not sure if he was entirely correct, but it makes sense that the US took too hard a stance with the USSR and prolonged the cold war. so, i went with "other." i don't think we should seriously militarize russia's neighbors and impose overly harsh sanctions on russia as that might just result in aggravating the situation. but i also don't think we should let it go entirely, either. or be satisfied with a divvied up ukraine
Why does that make sense?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 11, 2014, 10:54:49 PMWhy does that make sense?
created "us v. them" mentality that possibly wasn't necessary, thus entrenching politics from both sides toward the notion that a cold war exists. this made it much harder to shake it off
Quote from: LaCroix on March 11, 2014, 10:57:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 11, 2014, 10:54:49 PMWhy does that make sense?
created "us v. them" mentality that possibly wasn't necessary, thus entrenching politics from both sides toward the notion that a cold war exists. this made it much harder to shake it off
But the Cold War didn't end because both sides fell in love with one another. It ended when one side just fell apart.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 11, 2014, 10:24:25 PM
i read up on kennan awhile back ago. i'm not sure if he was entirely correct, but it makes sense that the US took too hard a stance with the USSR and prolonged the cold war. so, i went with "other." i don't think we should seriously militarize russia's neighbors and impose overly harsh sanctions on russia as that might just result in aggravating the situation. but i also don't think we should let it go entirely, either. or be satisfied with a divvied up ukraine
That makes no sense whatsoever.
I think the only reason why there are no Russian tanks yet at the Dniepr is that the Russians got surprised by the political and market reactions over the Crimea shit. With bullies like Putin's Russia (or the Soviet Union) you stand up to them, or submit to them. There is no convincing of them with kindness.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2014, 05:08:56 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 11, 2014, 10:57:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 11, 2014, 10:54:49 PMWhy does that make sense?
created "us v. them" mentality that possibly wasn't necessary, thus entrenching politics from both sides toward the notion that a cold war exists. this made it much harder to shake it off
But the Cold War didn't end because both sides fell in love with one another. It ended when one side just fell apart.
I suppose one might make the case that the "us vs them" mentality protected the URSS from domestic criticism. But the gulags did the same job.
Personally I think the relatively peaceful unravelling of the URSS is one of the best possible outcomes the Cold War could have ever had. There's little case for "we could have done better".
It also created "the end of history".
While that piece by Francis Fukuyama wasn't particularly accurate, it said something about the state of mind we've been living in.
The Cold War was defining for many of us, and after the wall came down and the USSR ceased to exist, we just thought things would be all right.
Evidence points to the contrary. The geopolitical situation is more volatile and more dangerous. The Iron Curtain coming down led to a bloody war right on our doorstep in Yugoslavia that Americans had to end, because Europe couldn't. Sure, there have been movement in a positive direction, the inclusion of countries like the Baltic states, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary into the fold of democratic capitalist countries, and I think this is great. But the relative decline of the West in general, and Europe in particular after 1991 is worrisome. Now I'll shut up before I go all Oswald Spengler.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2014, 05:08:56 AM
But the Cold War didn't end because both sides fell in love with one another.
It just never would have worked:
Red phone rings
Eisenhower: Hello
Krushchev: Ike, speak to me
Eisenhower: I told you never to call me here
Krushchev: I needed to hear your voice, it seems like we've grown apart since we defeated the Axis powers.
Eisenhower: It's over Nikita (hangs up)
Krushchev: Ooh, I will bury him! :(
Quote from: Savonarola on March 12, 2014, 08:01:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2014, 05:08:56 AM
But the Cold War didn't end because both sides fell in love with one another.
It just never would have worked:
Red phone rings
Eisenhower: Hello
Krushchev: Ike, speak to me
Eisenhower: I told you never to call me here
Krushchev: I needed to hear your voice, it seems like we've grown apart since we defeated the Axis powers.
Eisenhower: It's over Nikita (hangs up)
Krushchev: Ooh, I will bury him!
:(
Please, God, let that be the entirety of Sav's story.
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2014, 08:18:59 AM
Please, God, let that be the entirety of Sav's story.
Tune in next week for
Nixon and Breshnev: Forbidden Détente.
Needs more shoe-banging.
Quote from: Tamas on March 12, 2014, 05:30:42 AM
I think the only reason why there are no Russian tanks yet at the Dniepr is that the Russians got surprised by the political and market reactions over the Crimea shit. With bullies like Putin's Russia (or the Soviet Union) you stand up to them, or submit to them. There is no convincing of them with kindness.
Remember that, unlike the Crimea, the weather in the Ukraine at the moment is really bad for military operations: in February-March, the ground tends to thaw during the day (becoming muddy) and freezes at night, trapping vehicles. While in April - early May it's just very muddy and hard to do anything practical in a military sense.
And the idea of the TVs showing pictures of the Russian military struggling to unstuck their armoured vehicles as their advance is turned to a crawl by the weather is hardly appealing for the Kremlin.
That said, this is basically a dispute over a very key nation in Europe. Russia needs the Ukraine to remain strategically viable (and also because it feels its not complete without it), while Europe absolutely needs the Ukraine to be relevant if it ever wants to become a competing world superpower (with solid food production and dominant access to the Black Sea, the Caucasus and a good position vs Russia).
That is why the EU is trying all possible ways to give financial aid to the Ukraine (heck, for years Germany has been reselling Kiev the gas it gets from Russia, at far lower prices than those Gazprom charges).
And also why EC presidente Barroso said that the political agreements that will be signed will "seal" the ties between the Ukraine and the EU, while the European Parilament passed an (admiteddly non-binding) resolution saying that all the agreements "will not the the end goal" of the EU-Ukraine partnership - effectively telling Moscow that we want to put the Ukraine in the EU and sending alarm bells ringing all over the Kremlin.
So neither side can really back down. All else apart, it's a matter of very crucial strategic interests. And it's not about the Crimea alone, either. The end goal of all this is the whole of Ukraine. Nothing more, nothing less.
(the Americans are basically in for the ride, and seem to think of the situation like a sort of Cold War 2.0 issue. It is not.)
Throw out all the Russians and Ukranians. Hand it over to the Tartars. Bring in a bunch of unemployed Greeks too.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 12, 2014, 09:20:06 AM
while Europe absolutely needs the Ukraine to be relevant if it ever wants to become a competing world superpower
If I were to come up a list of things "Europe" absolutely needs to be a world superpower, Ukraine would be very far down the list.
Probably #1 on the list would be the need to be some kind of coherent political entity, rather than an abstraction that requires scare quotes if referred to as a political actor.
"Solid food production"? Seriously? Like 19th century Britain? We just had a country mature into a competing world superpower and it happened at the same time that country became a significant good importer.
I'd be very surprised to learn that we cannot feed ourselves if needed be. Countries like France, Spain or Italy produce obscene amounts of food.
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2014, 08:18:59 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on March 12, 2014, 08:01:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2014, 05:08:56 AM
But the Cold War didn't end because both sides fell in love with one another.
It just never would have worked:
Red phone rings
Eisenhower: Hello
Krushchev: Ike, speak to me
Eisenhower: I told you never to call me here
Krushchev: I needed to hear your voice, it seems like we've grown apart since we defeated the Axis powers.
Eisenhower: It's over Nikita (hangs up)
Krushchev: Ooh, I will bury him!
:(
Please, God, let that be the entirety of Sav's story.
I'm still waiting for the end of the gay Canadian pornstars. :(
Same as anywhere else, if not worth nuking or conquering, we should not get involved in military action.
Quote from: Iormlund on March 12, 2014, 09:58:24 AM
I'd be very surprised to learn that we cannot feed ourselves if needed be. Countries like France, Spain or Italy produce obscene amounts of food.
Delicious, delicious food. :mmm:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 12, 2014, 09:36:24 AM
Probably #1 on the list would be the need to be some kind of coherent political entity, rather than an abstraction that requires scare quotes if referred to as a political actor.
We do need more integration, and are working on it, but we're taking all opportunities as they come. Ukraine is now within realistic reach, so we're going for it.
And the signing of the agreement with the Ukraine has been rushed for next week, btw.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment
"Solid food production"? Seriously? Like 19th century Britain? We just had a country mature into a competing world superpower and it happened at the same time that country became a significant good importer.
The British were indeed major food importers... from their Empire. In particular Canada and Australia, which procuded tons of food. They were not dependent on other nations for their food, which is what allowed them to the the most powerful Empire on Earth.
Quote from: Iormlund
I'd be very surprised to learn that we cannot feed ourselves if needed be. Countries like France, Spain or Italy produce obscene amounts of food.
Then be surprised. Western Europe does not produce nearly the adequate crops we need, in particular to feed our livestocks. Also, we need to take into account the needs of all the other nations we're adding.
We've been trying to increase our agricultural production with our own means for quite awhile, but it's been quite expensive and not always successful.
Also, we dedicate 40% of the EU budget to subsidize our inefficient farmers just to guarantee we'd have a half-decent food production base in case we'd need it. The Ukraine would solve most of this wastage AND give us access to proper crops.
For some of our food data, see here:
http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/should_world_keep_feeding_europe-113562
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 12, 2014, 11:52:40 AM
Also, we dedicate 40% of the EU budget to subsidize our inefficient farmers just to guarantee we'd have a half-decent food production base in case we'd need it. The Ukraine would solve most of this wastage AND give us access to proper crops.
So that's the reason. This whole time I had figured it was France finding a way to milk the system.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2014, 11:54:45 AM
So that's the reason. This whole time I had figured it was France finding a way to milk the system.
No, France is just one country out of 28.
We cannot be dependent on East or West for our survival. We saw in WWI and WWII that if Europe gets cut from both sides, it starves.
A unified Europe would suffer from the same issues than Germany did, but on a much larger scale. And we can't allow us to be held hostage of the imports from other Great Powers, IF we want to be a Great Power ourselves.
I read an article in Norwegian agriculture's mouthpiece Nationen about some farmer here renting land in the Ukraine.
And getting a piece of land in the Ukraine was rather high on the scale of motives for joining the SS for young men back during WW2 here. The circle is complete, I suppose.
I have to say that the EU becoming a "superpower" is a ridiculous idea right now, though. Europe's relative decline has been steep, and will continue.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 12, 2014, 11:52:40 AM
Quote from: Iormlund
I'd be very surprised to learn that we cannot feed ourselves if needed be. Countries like France, Spain or Italy produce obscene amounts of food.
Then be surprised. Western Europe does not produce nearly the adequate crops we need, in particular to feed our livestocks. Also, we need to take into account the needs of all the other nations we're adding.
We've been trying to increase our agricultural production with our own means for quite awhile, but it's been quite expensive and not always successful.
Also, we dedicate 40% of the EU budget to subsidize our inefficient farmers just to guarantee we'd have a half-decent food production base in case we'd need it. The Ukraine would solve most of this wastage AND give us access to proper crops.
For some of our food data, see here:
http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/should_world_keep_feeding_europe-113562
That data doesn't support the notion that we would be starved if we were cut off. Just that we'd have to change our feeding patterns, which is perfectly fine. If food supply became an issue we could also switch from cash crops to edible stuff and there's plenty of abandoned villages over here where one might start cultivating again.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 12, 2014, 09:20:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 12, 2014, 05:30:42 AM
I think the only reason why there are no Russian tanks yet at the Dniepr is that the Russians got surprised by the political and market reactions over the Crimea shit. With bullies like Putin's Russia (or the Soviet Union) you stand up to them, or submit to them. There is no convincing of them with kindness.
Remember that, unlike the Crimea, the weather in the Ukraine at the moment is really bad for military operations: in February-March, the ground tends to thaw during the day (becoming muddy) and freezes at night, trapping vehicles. While in April - early May it's just very muddy and hard to do anything practical in a military sense.
And the idea of the TVs showing pictures of the Russian military struggling to unstuck their armoured vehicles as their advance is turned to a crawl by the weather is hardly appealing for the Kremlin.
Umm, the Russians aren't going to be sending in the tanks rumbling across open fields.
The Ukrainian state is still in partial disarray, including the military. If the Russians invade, it will be the same as Crimea - they'll just drive in along the roads.
Besides, the weather in, say Kharkiv, seems quite pleasant right now.
http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/Kharkiv+Ukraine+UPXX0014
Ukraine should sell Crimea for cash. Perhaps be made to, since Ukraine is nearly bankrupt.
Quote from: chipwich on March 12, 2014, 12:33:58 PM
Ukraine should sell Crimea for cash. Perhaps be made to, since Ukraine is nearly bankrupt.
That was my idea! :angry:
But then it's hard to sell something that's already been stolen from you.
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:26:13 PM
The Ukrainian state is still in partial disarray, including the military. If the Russians invade, it will be the same as Crimea - they'll just drive in along the roads.
Then I'd love to see them get bushwhacked like they did in the Winter War.
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2014, 12:42:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:26:13 PM
The Ukrainian state is still in partial disarray, including the military. If the Russians invade, it will be the same as Crimea - they'll just drive in along the roads.
Then I'd love to see them get bushwhacked like they did in the Winter War.
I'm not saying that wouldn't be amusing.
But *if* the Russians invade eastern Ukraine, and *if* they are resisted, it will be Euromaidan-style - lots of barricades across important roads, lots of defenders in homemade armour with homemade weapons.
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2014, 12:42:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:26:13 PM
The Ukrainian state is still in partial disarray, including the military. If the Russians invade, it will be the same as Crimea - they'll just drive in along the roads.
Then I'd love to see them get bushwhacked like they did in the Winter War.
Russia won the Winter War. :P Also, Ukraine is not exactly Finland.
Quote from: Iormlund on March 12, 2014, 12:24:02 PM
That data doesn't support the notion that we would be starved if we were cut off. Just that we'd have to change our feeding patterns, which is perfectly fine. If food supply became an issue we could also switch from cash crops to edible stuff and there's plenty of abandoned villages over here where one might start cultivating again.
No, it's not 'perfectly fine'.
Remember, we are trying to build a strong Great Power, that can represent European interests in the world without being under the shadow of Washington or Moscow. It wouldn't show great strength to the european peoples if our 'power' resulted in a change of eating habits (like 'less meat' and 'less of a lot of stuff'), even in peacetime. In fact, it would probably anger many people about why are they in the EU in the first place.
Also, we can't be dependent on imports from the other powers if we want to be influent. Otherwise, when we have trouble with Russia, we'd be very dependent on the US. And if we are in a dispute with the US, we'd be at the mercy of Russia. Not a way to go if we want to take our place as a Great Power.
Americans know their country can put food on their table. Russians know this as well. Europeans cannot be sure of it. And that just won't do.
Also, this is just one problem. We have a lot more, besides the political and economic ones (like need of access to oil, gas, rare minerals and other stuff), and they won't go away soon.
Quote from: Barrister
But *if* the Russians invade eastern Ukraine, and *if* they are resisted, it will be Euromaidan-style - lots of barricades across important roads, lots of defenders in homemade armour with homemade weapons.
Not exactly. The Eastern Ukraine can easily be taken by road - it's very close, and few if any resistance would occur. But any move beyond Dnepropetrovsk (or even Sumy) would be resisted, and not just by mobs.
We would send all help possible to the Ukraine, and Kiev is already mobilizing what it can - they did try general mobilization of all males 18 to 40, but general logistics eventually dictated that they are now reducing that to a 'National Guard' for now.
That said, that is still some hundreds of thousands of troops, even if lacking in mobility, and be sure that they cannot be dislodged without manouvering outside roads. Not to mention that the weather can easily close this time of the year and deprive the Russians of airpower.
All it shows is that Putin learned from Yeltsin's mistakes and doesn't want a 'Winter War'. Let's just say there is a reason why Yanukovych said he'd be restaured 'soon' to power and why he's doing press conferences in Rostov (where the HQ of the Southern Military District is located).
Needless to say, the crimean referendum is a sideshow - very much a local initiative. If you remember, after the crisis but before the announcement by the crimean authorities, Putin was saying that he defended ukranian territorial integrity.
The basics is that we showed Moscow that we can outfox them in terms of diplomacy and coups. Sadly, the Maidan protesters did not accept just the Feb 21st agreement that we achieved and went full on to depose Yanukovych the next day. That gave us a chance to get all of Ukraine, but also made Moscow feel that they were duped.
So, they will now try to play to their strenghts (military power) instead of their weaknesses (diplomatic manouvers).
Which is why Merkel has just said that the Kremlin is ignoring our proposals for a contact group. :(
Why would Europe and the US be at odds? :huh:
Quote from: Solmyr on March 12, 2014, 01:25:25 PM
Russia won the Winter War. :P
They got smacked around and only gained a tiny bit of territory. And I doubt the Russians of today would be willing to tolerate a ~50% casualty rate.
QuoteAlso, Ukraine is not exactly Finland.
Don't ruin it for me :angry:
I have never, ever, heard anyone who supported european integration say that the ultimate goal was to make Europe a "great power". :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 01:42:24 PM
I have never, ever, heard anyone who supported european integration say that the ultimate goal was to make Europe a "great power". :huh:
I'd think the goal now was to make Europe "a power".
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 12, 2014, 01:38:44 PM
Why would Europe and the US be at odds? :huh:
There are issues out there. For example, the labeling of sparkling wine.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2014, 02:06:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 12, 2014, 01:38:44 PM
Why would Europe and the US be at odds? :huh:
There are issues out there. For example, the labeling of sparkling wine.
It's called champagne! :mad:
Cava! <_<
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 02:23:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2014, 02:06:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 12, 2014, 01:38:44 PM
Why would Europe and the US be at odds? :huh:
There are issues out there. For example, the labeling of sparkling wine.
It's called champagne! :mad:
Why must you always demonstrate you are from Edmonton when given the chance?
In any event, why would Europe become a superpower by subsidizing even more farmers to be unproductive?
Because we can, that's why!
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 01:42:24 PM
I have never, ever, heard anyone who supported european integration say that the ultimate goal was to make Europe a "great power". :huh:
That used to be my view, it's part of the French view.
Few combine it with physiocracy though :mellow:
Some combine it with massive amounts of whisky and call themselves Winston, though.
Europe's time is over. Gone. You Brits, the Spaniards, the French and the Dutch had your moments.
And look where it got us. Global warming, unemployment, an independent America and decolonisation. Useless bunch of grafters you were.
Now it's all China taking over. And communism and Hitler are probably on you as well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 12, 2014, 02:44:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 01:42:24 PM
I have never, ever, heard anyone who supported european integration say that the ultimate goal was to make Europe a "great power". :huh:
That used to be my view, it's part of the French view.
Few combine it with physiocracy though :mellow:
That's a new word for me today. Thanks. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Queequeg on March 11, 2014, 01:13:56 PM
Inspired by OvB being puzzled by my response. Going for #5.
Which is number 5?
You didn't place numbers in your choices.
You don't understand the 1st Law of Polling.
Anyway, my choice is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNG-gYjneeA
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2014, 12:40:54 PM
Quote from: chipwich on March 12, 2014, 12:33:58 PM
Ukraine should sell Crimea for cash. Perhaps be made to, since Ukraine is nearly bankrupt.
That was my idea! :angry:
But then it's hard to sell something that's already been stolen from you.
:hmm: Mexico managed it.
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 01:42:24 PM
I have never, ever, heard anyone who supported european integration say that the ultimate goal was to make Europe a "great power". :huh:
That's (very) old fashioned round hole thinking right there
Quote from: Razgovory on March 12, 2014, 05:08:56 AMBut the Cold War didn't end because both sides fell in love with one another. It ended when one side just fell apart.
i know. i wasn't trying to say otherwise. that in the end neither side really reconciled their differences, and in part the old cold war mentality remains to this day, makes it even worse
Is that really true outside a few small circles in each country?
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2014, 12:40:54 PM
Quote from: chipwich on March 12, 2014, 12:33:58 PM
Ukraine should sell Crimea for cash. Perhaps be made to, since Ukraine is nearly bankrupt.
That was my idea! :angry:
But then it's hard to sell something that's already been stolen from you.
We paid for California after we stole it, but the Russians just aren't classy enough to do that.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 12, 2014, 01:33:42 PM
No, it's not 'perfectly fine'.
Remember, we are trying to build a strong Great Power, that can represent European interests in the world without being under the shadow of Washington or Moscow. It wouldn't show great strength to the european peoples if our 'power' resulted in a change of eating habits (like 'less meat' and 'less of a lot of stuff'), even in peacetime. In fact, it would probably anger many people about why are they in the EU in the first place.
Also, we can't be dependent on imports from the other powers if we want to be influent. Otherwise, when we have trouble with Russia, we'd be very dependent on the US. And if we are in a dispute with the US, we'd be at the mercy of Russia. Not a way to go if we want to take our place as a Great Power.
Americans know their country can put food on their table. Russians know this as well. Europeans cannot be sure of it. And that just won't do.
I think the latest patch makes agricultural self-sufficiency much less significant for National Morale.
But I still think you need to start as another power if you want to fulfill the victory condition of "become a Great Power." That's probably not a realistic goal for the EU player.
QuoteAlso, this is just one problem. We have a lot more, besides the political and economic ones (like need of access to oil, gas, rare minerals and other stuff), and they won't go away soon.
The China player has it even worse than the EU player. Watch what he does.
Thanks, I now have Iron Maiden on the brain. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on March 13, 2014, 01:24:31 PM
Thanks, I now have Iron Maiden on the brain. :cool:
You're supposed to have The Prisoner on the brain after that exchange. :mad:
I do! :sleep:
Quote from: Savonarola on March 11, 2014, 01:39:34 PM
US and EU supports Russia's annexation of Crimea in exchange for Russian and EU support of the United States annexation of Cuba and the United States and Russia supporting the restoration of the Hapsburg monarchy in Mexico. Then partition the Ukraine into two protectorates, the east in the Russian sphere of influence and the west in the European. Everybody wins. :bowler:
This was before I learned that possessing the Ukraine would make the European Union a great power. In addition to the plan above Quebec should be made a US protectorate in order to preserve the balance of power. Once again, everybody wins; especially English Canada. :bowler: