• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

In Ukraine, the US and Europe have limited options

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,131
13,071
136
o one authoritarian regime is "mostly" fine with anothers incursion according to the one doing the incursion. Great to know!
Much as our own friends were & are fine with numerous Monroe Doctrine incursions by the US, too numerous to mention.

Russia has an enormous strategic advantage in this affair, in ways too obvious & numerous to mention. Their interests are also a lot more legitimate than our own if we consider the truth to be much of a factor. Russia & Ukraine need to re-establish a working relationship because they need each other rather badly. I trust that they will, necessity being what it is.

Or the Ukraine can go for the sucker play of letting the West use them as a foil & target in the ongoing "Great Game" with the Russians.

Figure it out, gentlemen. It's a Helluva lot easier to rave about War when it won't be happening in your own living room, a luxury that Ukrainians don't have. All they need do is examine Chechnya to understand how that works.
 
Dec 10, 2005
20,505
1,828
126
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26433309

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said there is no need yet to send Russian troops into Ukraine, but that Moscow is prepared to protect its citizens in the country.


His comments come as armed men, who Mr Putin says are not Russian troops but pro-Russian self-defence groups, surround army bases in Crimea.

Good thing the Russians haven't invaded yet :rolleyes: His comments about how Russians aren't deployed in the Ukraine are laughably transparent.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Wow, just wow. Any sane foreign policy is focused on the benefits to your country and people. The current admin has used force, even against the wishes of other countries, when it benefited us (Pakistan) and where the risk was worthwhile.

To charge blindly into this situation, against a major nuclear power, with no direct benefits to the US, is utterly asinine. When you escalate, you increase the risk of casualties, accidental or not. The moment an uniformed US or Russian solider is killed by the opposite, pressure will mount hugely to retaliate. And for what benefit to the US or US people?

When the balance of force is heavily lopsided like it is in most confrontations with the US, then the direct threat of force is a useful tactic. When the balance of forces in that particular region are essentially equal and both are nuclear powers, you damn well make sure the US has a positive end game that's worth the risk.

Otherwise we do exactly what we're doing - get international pressure, economic tools, and other non-military options in action.

How lucky are we that the above type of poster was not in authority during the Cuban missile crisis.
I totally agree right up until the last sentence. During the Cuban missile crisis Kennedy became exactly that sort, because he knew that only by threatening to start World War III immediately could he stop deployment of the nuclear missiles. Had Kennedy acted as Obama is acting now, the missiles soon would have been functional, our hands would have been tied in Asia and Europe, and the Soviet Union would probably still be intact. It was the Soviets' very public embarrassment at the hands of Kennedy that gave captive nations heart to believe that their subjugation was not necessarily permanent, and while that dream took a generation (and Ronald Reagan) to mature, it started with Kennedy and the Soviets' first real post-war reverse. Luckily for us all, Obama is not faced with such a situation and has room for diplomacy in this crisis. Nothing in particular against Obama, but he's certainly no JFK, and no matter how skilled the hand at the tiller, threatening to start World War III always entails accepting some risk of starting World War III whether one truly wishes it or not.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
4,577
3,780
136
A little too late to put back the swinging dick now. Putin played obama. Truly Putin was analyzing the chess board while obama was flicking marbles. The obama administration was fomenting the protests and putting their noses into Russia and Ukraine's business... now obama has to deal with his shortsightedness and ability to manage affairs on the world stage.
LOL...@ the Obama derangement syndrome brigade...

It seems that Ukraine outwitted Russia. Putin was expecting the chaos of the change in power to cause some Ukranian military to fire upon the Russian soldiers and give a pretext to fire back. They were hoping for ethnic Ukrainains actually oppressing or attacking Ethnic Russians - something that has signally failed to happen. This wrong-footed the Russian propaganda campaign badly, making it laughable. The total lack of military response by the Ukraine forces Russia into a neutral position even when invading. Their only choice now is when to leave.

Their aggression is naked for all to see and no-one seriously believes their propaganda (some Internet commentators aside!), their economy is already in trouble, and current events are making it far worse; they have squandered the political capital they have painstakingly assembled over the past few years, capped with the Olympics; even without official sanctions, their stability has been called into question and investors are leaving in droves.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26433309

Good thing the Russians haven't invaded yet :rolleyes: His comments about how Russians aren't deployed in the Ukraine are laughably transparent.
In my opinion he is intentionally separating Crimea from Ukraine by these statements, thus offering Obama et al "peace in our time". The remainder of Ukraine is of course much larger and better equipped than was the remainder of Czechoslovakia - although it's worth pointing out that Czechoslovakia was well-equipped with arguably the most modern tanks in Western Europe at that time.

Given that Western Europe is unprepared for war, has long depended almost totally on the USA's military strength to protect them but now would be facing war in their own backyards, and is dependent on Russia to keep the lights on, I'm betting that the Ukraine losing Crimea and being kept out of NATO is a price they are willing to pay.
 

moonbogg

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2011
9,893
1,543
126
Its about the Russian sea port in Crimea and nothing more. Its Russia's only year round sea port and is critical to keep it open.
I laugh at how the West is clowning this whole situation and can't just be honest and say Russia needs to protect the port.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
82
91
I read an article today that talked about how Russia never actually intended to give up Crimea and that, in their minds, they're just correcting an oversight from the end of the Cold War.

when Crimea was given over to the Ukraine in 1954, Ukraine was just another Soviet satellite, so giving them Crimea was a purely symbolic gesture at the time.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I read an article today that talked about how Russia never actually intended to give up Crimea and that, in their minds, they're just correcting an oversight from the end of the Cold War.

when Crimea was given over to the Ukraine in 1954, Ukraine was just another Soviet satellite, so giving them Crimea was a purely symbolic gesture at the time.
Makes sense. In any case, the Soviets murdered so many Crimeans and imported so many Russians that the area would likely prefer to be part of Russia. Of course, Russia is likely to want part of eastern Ukraine as well, to provide a land route wide enough to not be easily cut . . .

Kiev may well end up the new Berlin in Cold War Part 2.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,136
18,910
136
I just gave you the election map of 2010. You quoted the link to it. It couldn't be more crystal clear. The mob in Kiev overthrew the will of half the country.
Sorry, electoral results from 2010 also do not equate to pro-Russia.

Again, I encourage you to go research this some more.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,658
4,481
126
Its about the Russian sea port in Crimea and nothing more. Its Russia's only year round sea port and is critical to keep it open.
I laugh at how the West is clowning this whole situation and can't just be honest and say Russia needs to protect the port.
They have another Black Sea port in Novorossiysk. I think it's more about not allowing NATO to move into Sevastopol.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,658
4,481
126
Its about the Russian sea port in Crimea and nothing more. Its Russia's only year round sea port and is critical to keep it open.
I laugh at how the West is clowning this whole situation and can't just be honest and say Russia needs to protect the port.
They have another Black Sea port in Novorossiysk. I think it's more about not allowing NATO to move into Sevastopol. And also history. Russians have been fighting and dying for Sevastopol and Crimea for generations, for it to be just given away to Ukraine rubs them the wrong way.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,493
2,996
126
It seems that Ukraine outwitted Russia. Putin was expecting the chaos of the change in power to cause some Ukranian military to fire upon the Russian soldiers and give a pretext to fire back. They were hoping for ethnic Ukrainains actually oppressing or attacking Ethnic Russians - something that has signally failed to happen.
Perhaps, but they have been distracted by a Russian "invasion"

Give it time though, these divisions will last for generations to come. Nothing about this is going to vanish over night. There's plenty of time for protests and fighting in the years to come. Especially when Russians in the east get to see a "free" Crimea.
 

BUnit1701

Senior member
May 1, 2013
853
1
0
Sorry, electoral results from 2010 also do not equate to pro-Russia.

Again, I encourage you to go research this some more.
Done, and as near as I can tell it is no more contentious than W winning in 2000.

This line seems particularly important : 'After the second round of the election international observers and the OSCE called the election transparent and honest.'
 

gevorg

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2004
5,075
1
0
Ukraine already lost Crimea, without Russia firing a single bullet. NATO can only dream about such "piece of cake" invasions. Even Kosovo was much bloodier. Expect Crimea to claim as independent state in upcoming weeks. The battlefield between EU and Russia is now in Ukraine's mainland. The current mob in Ukraine's parliament are temporary, before "cleaner" puppets are placed.
 

AViking

Platinum Member
Sep 12, 2013
2,264
1
0
The problem here is that the big powers on the globe are now just doing whatever the hell they want. The US has no problems ignoring the UN and going it alone. We have no problem fabricating false excuses to flex our military might and secure things for us economically. We invade countries as we please, bomb them as we please, and send drones in as we please. Well why should Russia or China care then? China will continue to cause problems for its neighbors by disputing borders and don't be surprised if they take it a step further once Crimea is annexed by Russia or has a puppet regime.

I can totally see this from all 3 nations points of view. The problem is that all 3 points of view are wrong. What the US did was WRONG. What China and Russia are doing is WRONG.

The justifications are just a political ploy for whoever has the bigger gun or economic muscle to do whatever the hell he wants. Just make up an excuse and go. Canada you should be a US state. Georgia you should be part of Russia. Sorry Philippines, that territory belongs to China.

I don't think I'm going slippery slope on this at all. We have become reckless as a civilized world. It will lead to war because we're stupid. We elect stupid leaders. Those that don't practice democracy have equally stupid leaders.

If we want to drop borders and form new ones based on ethnicity then we should do so collectively as a group. I'm no expert but this could possibly be a good idea. After all Africa is a giant mess because of its artificial borders. However I don't really know how it could work practically since not everyone agrees. How many people is enough for a mandate? How large a territory? Can Chula Vista and Imperial Beach secede to Mexico? What about non-ethnic disputes?

We need stability and none of this stupidity that our leaders have displayed. Borders should be able to change but they should be able to do so in a rational way. This idea that borders should stay the same forever doesn't work either.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
200
106
I know we should support the sane liberal idea of isolationism.

Every country in the world will love us, as long as we become a wallflower. The middle east will become a utopia, Russia and China will go back to just minding their own borders. And everyone will be happy. The USA just needs to disappear.
Everyone hates America and her meddling ways until someone starts bullying them. Then everyone wants America to bail them out and gets downright indignant when America isn't right there sorting it.

America does need an exit strategy though from WWII. 70 years of protecting Europe and Asia's asses is a bit excessive. It's strangling the US economy.

Glad Obama is president. If this happened with Bush, we'd have "operation Ukraine freedom" and no doubt a colossal fuck up.
Sticking your head back in the sand won't work. Look at what's going on around the world. It's coming apart at the seams. Keep in mind too that Russia isn't really all that far away from North America. They're always fucking with Canada too.
 

moonbogg

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2011
9,893
1,543
126
They have another Black Sea port in Novorossiysk. I think it's more about not allowing NATO to move into Sevastopol.
Yeah, you're right. They should just hand over 50% of their port capacity for the sake of being nice. I could see the US doing something like that since we're a bunch of nice guys.
To be clear, you are arguing that the port is NOT worth securing in Russia's eyes, correct? Its a throw away port that they don't really care about? Jesus.
 
Last edited:

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
14,968
2,263
126
Ukraine already lost Crimea, without Russia firing a single bullet. NATO can only dream about such "piece of cake" invasions. Even Kosovo was much bloodier. Expect Crimea to claim as independent state in upcoming weeks. The battlefield between EU and Russia is now in Ukraine's mainland. The current mob in Ukraine's parliament are temporary, before "cleaner" puppets are placed.

Why is Vladimir Putin gloating in ATP&N?
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
26,760
3,744
126
They have another Black Sea port in Novorossiysk. I think it's more about not allowing NATO to move into Sevastopol.
Novorossiysk is pretty much at capacity with merchant ships. Russia would have to cripple one of their main trade routes to use it as a military port.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,131
13,071
136
I totally agree right up until the last sentence. During the Cuban missile crisis Kennedy became exactly that sort, because he knew that only by threatening to start World War III immediately could he stop deployment of the nuclear missiles. Had Kennedy acted as Obama is acting now, the missiles soon would have been functional, our hands would have been tied in Asia and Europe, and the Soviet Union would probably still be intact.
And the sky would have fallen, right? I do love doom & gloom right wing raving expressed as fact. It's so quaint, so predictable.

It was the Soviets' very public embarrassment at the hands of Kennedy that gave captive nations heart to believe that their subjugation was not necessarily permanent, and while that dream took a generation (and Ronald Reagan) to mature, it started with Kennedy and the Soviets' first real post-war reverse. Luckily for us all, Obama is not faced with such a situation and has room for diplomacy in this crisis. Nothing in particular against Obama, but he's certainly no JFK, and no matter how skilled the hand at the tiller, threatening to start World War III always entails accepting some risk of starting World War III whether one truly wishes it or not.
Gawd. The Soviets' intent was obviously to defend their only New World Communist toehold, Cuba. They did so admirably. It's still Marxist to this day. In that, Kennedy abandoned the long held Monroe Doctrine so that the Soviets could withdraw the missiles. US missiles in Turkey, something the Soviets bargained towards, were withdrawn not long after. They got what they wanted. We got Communist Cuba.

Not to mention that the revisionist Ronnie Worship is quite touching, particularly the way you link it to a false victory over Cuba.

Why the Hell would we threaten WW3 over something that's really none of our business, anyway? If we think about it at all, our interests, other than a nice way to bash Obama, are minor compared to the Ukrainians, Russians & the EU. They're joined economically like siamese triplets. They can sort it out w/o our meddling, I think, because they've all got too much to lose.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY