http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yCzIIFAsGk4

*yawn* anything good on tv lawlz?

Im not lawlz injust found out about the fourms and im going wild on giving the top news on the nwo or upcomming ww3

I know lawlz?

The West lied about Iraq and it will lie about Ukraine. In fact it most likely is lying about Ukraine, just to ensure that Russia doesn't gain the advantage. Frankly, the US doesn't care about Ukraine and Russia does and that should already tell Ukrainians something.

Then the US talks about the Cold War reigniting, that was embarrassing. That's how low they have to sink to try and rebuff Russian moves?

If California, Texas or New York broke away from the US, it would result in military action without hesitation. Just take that into consideration. Ukraine broke away illegally from the Soviet Union (though everyone claimed it was liberation, woohoo!) and now Russia is trying to reassert some of its lost strength.

Having 2-3 superpowers is a good thing folks. I figured the last 20 years would have taught us that already.

The West will lie.. Russia can lie.. Everybody could lie for his own profit. Where are the prooves? Actually more countries are the "West" in the crime affair then during the invasion of Iraq. The actual thing is completely different. Which advantage of Russia can legitimate such an act against the souverenity of a neighbour as long he's friendly? European non-russian states can't see any good legitimation, except probably Belarus.

Right, if California, Texas or New York were occupied, US would not hesitate to use nukes. Ukraine still does not use his military power against Putin's troops and gave up his nuclear arsenal, but Putin did the other way around. 1:0 for Ukraine versus Putin.

The foundation of Ukraine after the end of Soviet Union was illegal (seen by Soviets), but Russia as formal (illegal, non-communistic) follower of the old Soviet Union signed the Budapest treaty 1994. In reality many countries in Europe are "illegal" too since there was a big roman empire, which controlled extremly big parts, until barbarians came... I think there should have been before an empire of neandertal humans..

The globe doesn't need any superpower for to control little states or to balance out others. The earth needs less centralism, more cooperation between less powerful and more little states. Many states with weak power are a better guarantee for peace because of their lack of military abilities. "Cold war" shows perfectly how some powers can divide the world into their spheres of influence or bring the nuclear apocalypse a step closer..

You're right, small states and medium sized businesses would be ideal, but in a world that's moving towards globalization this kind of thinking is unrealistic and dangerous. Third world nations have less revenue than mega-corporations, which means they can easily be bought out or overrun if they don't dance to the developed world's tune, take a look at Sub-Sahara Africa from the 1970s-1990s. There was actually a lot of growth and development from the late 1970s until the mid-1980s and then they started opening up their economies, BOOM! recession and revolutions started happening left and right. What happened?? Western corporations started moving in and maximizing profit at the expense of the people and African economies. No one talks about that in the news, though. Happened 30-40 years ago, who cares right? Plus the Oscars are coming up!

What kind of people do you see in power? Well meaning, peace loving intellects or ambitious men and women pushing their own agenda? It's a power-play and peace loving hippies aren't gonna save the world with their songs and flowers, because while they have the right idea, most of them are under-educated idiots who wouldn't know what to do if they were given responsibility over anyone other than themselves.

Russia isn't gonna ditch its nuclear arsenal because Ukraine did. Why do you think there were nuclear disarmament talks? To increase the chances of peace? Or probably because nuclear missiles are so effective these days that one can do a Hiroshima/Nagasaki 10 fold? Instead of stockpiling all those expensive and difficult to maintain missiles the world powers come together to agree "We don't want to spend so much money maintaining 10,000 nukes, so let's cut it down to 8,000 nukes and save some money." Of course the sheeple of the world celebrated Obama's triumphant "move towards peace" success. Hurray!

Ukraine won't attack Russia because their military is underfunded, under-supplied and would be annihilated by the Russians. Also, if they did attack, Russia would have the perfect excuse to invade and annex the whole of the Ukraine, or at least a big portion of it.

I didn't say if those states were occupied, I said if they succeeded. With the number of constitutional breeches of the last two decades, states could actually make a legitimate claim towards succession.

Let me make my point crystal clear. In the big realm of things, countries don't give a sh1t about each other. The EU doesn't care if Greece or any other second-rate European economy defaults unless it causes regional and economic instability. The US only cares about Crimea because 1. it's a major positional gain for the Russians and 2. world PR. Case and point: Puerto Rico, Guam and hundreds of US military installations all over the world. Anyone who thinks the Cold War actually ended because it was declared over, has their head up their ass. There are more spies and covert operations taking place today than during the peak of the Cold War. I mean come on, this isn't even conspiracy stuff, this is stuff that shows up on the news regularly.

So the question is, do you want 1 superpower deciding the fate of the world, or 2-3? Which is better? The "small states" dream won't happen, not anytime soon at least.

The thing about occupying and succeeding is connected with each other in the crimean affair. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to bring up an american example of succeeding parts without any occupation by Canada or so. Or we're talking about some neandertal empire thousands year ago..
Crimea seems to "vote" soon for to get under the wings of Russia. An ukrainian attack as answer on the russian occupation would be suicide, but not an excuse for more russian troops.

Countries do give a shit about each other. This will be for long time the best strategy for to make the world peaceful and wealthy. Naturally it's impossible to take care of every-, but of most important things.

Russia already had their base in crimea (no positional gain). This is guaranteed by a treaty for long time. You're right, US could need few positive PR, but this doesn't let forget the american faults in foreign politics. Won't be a good reason for himself. Actually we're not talking about US - it's not US vs. Russia, it's Russia vs. Ukraine and european countries in the background - including US because of strong interests into his european partners. I don't understand why many people (including Putin) do focus on US. Probably it's easier to get a good-guy/bad-guy view, if you ignore all other countries. The diplomatical influence by US is overestimated. Europe as main trading partner of Russia and directly affected area is much more important for to solve this conflict peaceful.

There are more spies and covert operations taking place today than during the peak of the Cold War.

-> please proove it, if it's possible. Probably the increasing technical possibilities do cause it more than any conflicts.

Anyone who thinks the Cold War actually ended because it was declared over, has their head up their ass.

Anatomy is always surprising.
The last 22 years were part of a confrontation between capitalism and communism......?!
Of two opposing parties remained just one. This is HISTORY. If you mean nuclear and military deterrence, it's something different: defensive and still active.

The disarmament of nuclear weapons isn't as fast as on chemical weapons. You're right, it won't guarantee a peaceful world. But whoever disarm, whatever the reasons are, it's a step more toward less chance of self-destruction (if you don't upgrade the existing arsenal). This is honorable and Obama deserves to get praised for minus 2'000 (!) bombs. On the other side, Putin doesn't even think about reduce the biggest arsenal on our planet..

but in a world that's moving towards globalization this kind of thinking is unrealistic and dangerous. Third world nations have less revenue than mega-corporations, which means they can easily be bought out or overrun if they don't dance to the developed world's tune, take a look at Sub-Sahara Africa from the 1970s-1990s.

Ok. I didn't talked about third world nations, which were colonised by superpowers. These states didn't failed because of their seize..

Titron, I like you as a player, but you're surprisingly ignorant.

Crimea seems to "vote" soon for to get under the wings of Russia. An ukrainian attack as answer on the russian occupation would be suicide, but not an excuse for more russian troops.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. If the Ukrainian military attacks Russia in response to the occupation, the Russians will use that as grounds to invade Ukraine, ergo it would be an excuse.

This will be for long time the best strategy for to make the world peaceful and wealthy.

I was young and ideal like that once...then I realized people like that always get the Sucker's Payoff".

Russia already had their base in crimea (no positional gain).

There's a difference between a base which costs millions of dollars a year and owning it as part of your country, no? Ergo, a positional (strategic) gain. Oh and they can expand the base and the naval presence in the Black Sea.

it's not US vs. Russia, it's Russia vs. Ukraine and european countries in the background

It's Obama leading the charge. The EU leaders don't want to start a pissing match with Russia because they need Russia more than the US does. Ukraine is just happy that the US is on their side.

please proove it, if it's possible. Probably the increasing technical possibilities do cause it more than any conflicts.

I watched it in a documentary on the German History Channel, Google it or rent a book on modern espionage from your local library :P

The last 22 years were part of a confrontation between capitalism and communism......?!

Is that all the Cold War was about? You know what icebergs are? You know the analogy I'm implying? There's what the media tells you and then there's the rest of history, who do you think has got it right??

You're right, it won't guarantee a peaceful world. But whoever disarm, whatever the reasons are, it's a step more toward less chance of self-destruction (if you don't upgrade the existing arsenal). This is honorable and Obama deserves to get praised for minus 2'000 (!) bombs.

Doesn't matter if those 2,000 (or whatever) are destroyed because the remaining bombs are 10 times more effective and destructive.

These states didn't failed because of their seize..

They failed because of the evil West...or because their economies sucked and couldn't compete. Doesn't matter, I was using the example to prove my point: Countries don't give a shit about one another, unless if effects them directly.

Edit: Forgot to put one of the paragraphs in quote :P

Edited 3/7/2014 23:30:39

The Crimean situation is not just about 'strategic bases' it's about pride. I don't read the forums much, so I do not know much about what you people are sayong, but all of Russia seems to be obsessed with the 'glory days.' You know, when Russia lacked basic freedoms openly( which Russians don't seem to mind at all) and was still a police state, but they could still kick some redneck American *** and show the world who was boss, the Russians. The lack of freedoms seems to be okay with the majority as long a the military is big and undefeated, who cares about the lack of quality? You can notice a link with Soviet discontent and their defeat in the Afghan Invasion in the 80s, but now that their mind is on this new Putin golden age crap, they've forgotten the taste of defeat and just want that huge military to kill some Americans.

We, as Americans, know war doesn't always unite, but few other countries have experienced division over wars, or more or less seen it in their history books. If maybe the Russian Federation can annex Crimea, you'll see the same sensation that you saw in Argentina, when they were beating the UK in the Falklands War. All of the sudden, everybody forgets the social and economic troubles and thinks about glory of their military. Big brother can harness this and gain more control over Russia, as governments always try to do when the people are happy. That's the aim. Either bring home another republic(s) into the Russian Federation, or gain a tighter grip on the people's lives without their notice. If they can maintain the support of a blindly patriotic minded nation, nothing can stop them from annexing whatever they wish.

Edited 3/7/2014 23:54:00

We, as Americans, know war doesn't always unite, but few other countries have experienced division over wars, or more or less seen it in their history books.

Buddy, you're reading American history books, so that tells you about the quality right there. War causes divisions wherever you go, that's why Hitler had the Gestapo, to stomp the resistance at home the f**k out.

Either bring home another republic(s) into the Russian Federation, or gain a tighter grip on the people's lives without their notice.

Let me Americanize this for you.

September 11th, 2001.

Declare war on Afgahistan -> Occupation.

Patriot Acts -> Big Brother

Declare war on Iraq -> Puppet government.

But oh noes! when Russia takes over a state that has a majority Russian population it's very bad!

Wait, you said more things! Quality of life...here's yours America :)

Have some facts on poverty in America: http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx

Took this from Wikipeadia on American poverty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Measures_of_poverty

United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) figures for poverty in 2014[20]
Persons in
Family Unit 48 Contiguous States
and D.C.	          Alaska	Hawaii
1	$11,670	         $14,580	$13,420
2	$15,730	         $19,660	$18,090
3	$19,790	         $24,730	$22,760
4	$23,850	         $29,820	$27,430
5	$27,910	         $34,900	$32,100
6	$31,970	         $39,980	$36,770
7	$36,030	         $45,060	$41,440
8	$40,090	         $50,140	$46,110
Each additional
person adds	$4,060	  $5,080	$4,670

So the poverty rate is based on this chart, but I might add:

8 people living off ~40,000 USD is considered above the poverty line? BOLLOCKS!

I bet the poverty line in the US is closer to 30-40% if you rate it by German standards.

Edited 3/8/2014 00:37:52

Thanks for the sources.

Sorry, bro :/

But oh noes! when Russia takes over a state that has a majority Russian population it's very bad!

Yep, "All the other kids do it too!" sure goes down as the best argument in history. You could have taken on his point about Russian domestic politics having a shit-ton to do with this crisis. Instead, you decided it was time for some good ol' out-of-context bash on the US of A. Let me just say I would have found this quite telling if I hadn't already seen those other oversimplifying rants of yours.

Buddy, you're reading American history books

American History Books > "German History Channel". You should stop watching so much Guido Knopp.

It's funny how most western people are capable of identifying propagandistic elements in Russian communication while being completely oblivious to the same things in their domestic media. I guess it feels good to see the world in black-and-white.

Oversimplified rants...that's touching, but on the plus side, they've been more than anyone else as offered, yourself included. You don't use fine-dining etiquette in a pub.

This whole ploy is nothing more than a power-play and a well crafted/timed one at that. This is how our blue marble of a planet rolls in the cosmos, ethical or not. No the German History Channel isn't necessarily better than American History books that get passed out in high school, but a library full of them sure is and I actually visit mine on a regular basis, so yeah, simplistic my argumentation may be, but damn well informed, too.

Do I need to reiterate what Russia's Domestic/Foreign policy is at this point or has nobody been doing it in the last 2 weeks as the Crimean event has been unfolding? I don't wanna force feed anyone here, if you doubt me, do the research and challenge me instead of making a spoof attempt at undermining me by calling out my clearly sarcastic comments that I use to make jabs at Americans. And before you say something like "good ol' out-of-context bash on the US of A" realize that 1. It's not out of context and 2. I lived there long enough to know exactly what I'm talking about. Comparing Hitler to Putin? Dear Lord, American's are trigger happy for another sympathy war :P

"All the other kids do it too!"

Misinterpretation much? Russia actually has legitimate claims to Crimea as opposed to American's claims to invading Iraq. Plus, US condemning Russia on Crimea is a bunch of hypocritical bullsh*t, not to mention Pakistan and Yemen. Oops :P

Simple facts:
-1- Distance: Ukraine is far away from the US, relatively peripheral to the EU, and Russia's neighbor.
-2- Economic and political cohesion/influence: Ukraine's pipelines and the corruption tied to them makes Ukraine's economic and political structures more like Russia than the EU countries or the US. Ukraine is dependent on Russian energy (for consumption) and the flow of Russian energy resources via the pipelines (for income). Russia influences Ukraine's economy at least as much as the US influences Mexico (via NAFTA and economic imperialism). Pro-EU Ukrainians want to be more like the EU countries. But this is only because they are currently more like Russia and the Russian way benefits a minoritty at the expense of the majority's long-term well being.
-3- Demographics: Ukranian is as similar to Russian as the Romance languages are to each other. Ukraine is essentially a bilingual country divided east-west. The Crimea is pro-Russian, thanks to Russian migration, its Soviet-era ties to Russia, and the Black Sea naval bases.
-4- Willingness to help the Ukraine: The EU doesn't want to incorporate too many new countries that do not meet its stringent economic, political, legal, and other prerequisites for membership. Ukraine is the biggest European country west of the Urals and has all the Soviet or Cold War or Russian baggage. Ukraine's track to EU membership is probably more complicated and conviluted than Turkey's. And the EU can't really offer the Ukraine anything more than hope. Putin's carrots ($35 billion in loans, preferential prices from Gazprom, greater cooperation -- read, "Russification of Ukraine's economy") and sticks (what we currently see: Gazprom increases prices, no loans, spies and Russian soldiers without insignia causing an international problem in the Crimea, etc.) are more tangible. What can the US offer? Words, hope, diplomatic support, $1 billion in loans (after the coup). If the EU hopes to influence the Ukraine more and help the Ukraine become a more modern, wealthier, stabler country, it needs to offer more tangible aid.

Clearly, the Ukraine is tied to Russia, even if it doesn't like it. A war will not happen. And for any Americans to sit across the safety of the Atlantic and call for war (or even the possibility of war) is utterly ridiculous. Just because the American form of diplomacy over the years is to kill people first and ask questions later doesn't mean it is the most effective approach in the long term. Didn't we learn anything from the War of 1812 (nationalism leads to senseless war), our occupation of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War of 1898 (borderline genocide, instability), our CIA coups (vast majority led to long-term problems), the escalation and war in Vietnam (instability, borderline genocide, enormous human and financial costs), Reagan's covert operations in Afghanistan (instability, props up ISI in Pakistan, trains and arms mujahideen extremists), Clinton's small-scale preemptive wars in Africa (instability, basis of Bush's premeptive wars), Bush's preemptive war in Iraq (civil war, instability, Iran gains, enormous financial costs), the Afghanistan debacle (instability, enormous human and financial costs)? Fighting a just war is more important than just fighting a war for lack of creativity or intelligence.

Naturally, the Ukraine belongs in Russia's sphere of influence. There is no denying this. But finding a diplomatic resolution to the crisis in which the EU, the US and Russia reach a common understanding by updating the Budapest Treaty of 1994 would be the best option. Instead of the UK, US and Russia as guarantors of Ukraine's stability, it should be the EU, US, and Russia.

The path to resolving this crisis is simple: less Cold War theatrics and more diplomacy. NATO, Germany, OECD, EU diplomats, and UN diplomats are the cogs in the diplomatic machinery that will lead to a resolution to this mess, since they are the only way to get constructive bilateral negotiations between both the US and Russia as well as the Ukraine and Russia. A Putin-Obama dialogue is too mediatized, with all the great power pride and Cold War logic. Likewise, a Putin-Maidan dialogue is too problematic, since Putin claims to not recognize the legality or legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government.

Germany needs to step up, like it has, and the various organizations that interknit Europe, the US and Russia need to be used as venues of negotiation, to have less prideful saber-rattling and more discussion based on national interests, common interests, stability, and compromise.

Edited 3/8/2014 07:12:52

You'll get a better response out of me later Qi, but I'll leave you with a question.

Can Russia step down from this and withdraw from Crimea, allowing it to remain a part of the Ukraine, without the world declaring it as a Russian defeat and therefore defacing Putin and undermining his legitimacy?

I think so, but only if the negotiations are done at a more bureaucratic level (UN, NATO, OECD) and not strictly bilaterally (EU-Russia, US-Russia). I see Germany as the country best fit to influence Russia on a more personal level (Cold War history, less in your face diplomacy, Schroeder's ties to Russia, German business interests, etc.). But all bilateral discussion seems most useful as a means to steer negotiations to the bureaucratic level of European diplomacy (the UN, NATO, or OECD). The more "European" the Obama administration can make this appear (while still playing a leading role in organizing its allies), the better.

In this sense, I view negotiations a process with multiple stages.
- First stage: Crisis management, hoopla, media battle. I know what you are up to, I will punish you if you keep at it, so let's find a solution.
- Second stage: The special diplomats get on their planes to talk about when to talk and lay the groundwork for a future compromise.
- Third stage: The actual negotiations begin.
- Fourth stage: A compromise is reached. Crisis over.

We just entered stage two last week. Stage three should be beginning soon.

If it becomes a match of egos (Putin vs Obama) or national pride (the EU dictating policy to the Russian nation) played out in the international media and each country's respective national media, Putin is more likely to play hard ball.

This is why Obama is trying to avoid being too forceful with his words, and letting Kerry be more active. But Obama is a highly competitive guy, and is not ideally suited for the subtleties of this crisis. He seems unprincipled and reactionary to Putin. And when it is time to be gracious in victory, Obama gloats and makes one last stab at the opponent to convince everybody he was right. At least this is what he has done with the Republicans on numerous occasions.

Putin seeks recognition and respect. If the West can stroke his ego somewhat while it negotiates a compromise in the interests of all (Ukraine, Russia, EU, US), perhaps a resolution could be done on a more personal level.

But pushing Putin into a corner and forcing him to admit what he is really up to is probably not the best course of action. Giving Putin some wiggle room to pull back is. There is no great need for the West to fight a crusade over international opinion regarding Putin's actions and goals. Common sense is enough for most people to see through the propaganda and dissimulation. So simply telling him what they know or think to be true is enough. Putin doesn't need to admit his actions so much as know that everybody else knows what he is up to.

Yet all this hinges on a simple question: Does Russia want to annex the Crimea? The answer is probably: Russia will take as much as the West is willing to give. So by organizing a united front involving increased economic, political, and diplomatic costs, the West has changed the cost-benefit analysis of Russian intervention in the Ukraine. If the West negotiates with Russia properly, giving Russia the respect it feels it deserves, and leaving Russia its due influence in the Ukraine, I think Russia will be more willing to consider the costs of escalation and the benefits of pulling back. But if the West does not give Putin and Russia the respect they feel a superpower deserves, and tries to dictate policy to the Russians in their backyard, then a rational analysis could become overly influenced by national pride and jingoism.

Edited 3/8/2014 07:21:07