Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Ukraine 2014

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Ukraine 2014 Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 3/27/2014 2:58:21 PM   
jdkbph


Posts: 339
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: CT, USA
Status: offline
I think you're missing the point. That rule book the Chinese found in their back pocket in your scenario...? In this case that's the rule book that ALL the involved parties here in this Ukraine/Crimea thing signed up to. It's not an off the cuff whim that's generating all the outcry, it's the fact that one country seems to feel that that it's OK to disregard the rules when it suits their purpose.

Moving forward in a world economy, where the cost, effort and danger of arming to the teeth to prevent such actions is impractical, requires trust in the agreements made between countries. Russia broke that trust.

I'm all about studying the histories and trying to see things from "the other side"... trying to understand why Russians (for example) think the way they do and react to certain things the way they do. But for the life of me I just can't see how they are justifying this based on the facts I know.

JD

(in reply to Demuder)
Post #: 421
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 3/27/2014 5:19:09 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Demuder
quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy
So in 30-40 years when demographics have shifted more would it be ok for a referendum in the southwest to take the states of New Mexico, Texas, Arizona and Southern California (not as state I know) and remove them from the US and give them back to Mexico? After they were part of Mexico for a long time.

I understand you are trying to be sarcastic, but let's suppose that what you describe indeed happens sometime down the line.

Bear in mind that much of the "Hispanoisation" of Texas (and other southern states) is due to an influx of people from further south, aspiring to better lives. It's the economic strength and "soft power" of the US that attracts them. They overwhelmingly want to become Americans who gain full benefit of citizenship; sure, Hispanic Americans, but Americans nonetheless. If there were a referendum tomorrow, the outcome would probably be far more supportive of the Union even than in Sam Houston's day. However, the point is it would still be legitimate to ask - legitimately.

quote:

In fact, let's say it happens 150 years from now, so that the problem has some time to brew and fester.

Well, what would be the crisis? A period of corrupt Washington rule, where the whole country goes downhill and ordinary people everywhere become impoverished? OK, lets indulge that idea...

So, in this scenario, it's now more than a decade since the US gave up the last of its nukes in return for sovereignty guarantees by superpower Mexico and other countries. The current incumbent of the White House, President Al Yankovich, accused by many of mismanagement and corruption as well as being just plain weird, negotiates a trade deal with a neighbouring economic club, the Eurocanada Union. The population, desperate for a better life, hope - indeed expect - it will change things for the better. People in the small town of Lebanon, Kansas, start buying recipe books for paella, bigos and moussaka, and those in Green Bay can almost taste the maple syrup already!

Then, suddenly, under pressure from the current autocrat in Mexico City (let's call him El Presidente Putino for the sake of argument), the US president backs out of signing the Eurocanada deal. People are furious! This is the spark that prompts the masses to take to the streets in Washington. The protests grow, eventually prompting Yankovich to flee, and a caretaker administration (including EXISTING congressmen) takes over prior to elections. OK, the US presidential system is not the same as Ukraine's semi-presidential, but hey...

So, what happens in the the now hispanic-majority "Tejas"? Why would it feel any different from the rest of the country? Washington has served them as badly as elsewhere, though maybe the high level of local autonomy has sheltered them from the worst excesses of the kleptocrat in the White House. They're less badly off than the people in Wisconsin, but only a little. Still, maybe some would like a referendum to change sovereignty and join Mexico. That would be a legitimate thing to ask for, but there's no way it could be organised quickly nor campigned for fairly, until the chaos in Washington is resolved. Furthermore, it must still be consistent with the constitution to be accepted as legitimate both within and outside the US, as well as (most importantly) free and fair.

However, the signs are looking bad from next door. The mainstream press in Mexico refers to the new administration as Nazis and Polkists, despite the fact that they worked with those exact same congressmen until now. They claim the crisis has been caused by meddling from "The Northeast". Their TV shows uniformed members of the John Birch Society amongst the protestors in Washington. In fact it ONLY shows them, and ignores the vast throng of ordinary people. It states that these Nazis want to ethnically cleanse all hispanics from Tejas and other areas. It claims these "Nazis" and "Polkists" of "the Northeast" are entirely to blame, ignoring the fact that most countries of the NE also suffered under such regimes in history and are today utterly different. The more worldly-aware Tejanos and Mexicans know these claims are nonsense; nevertheless a proportion of people, who only watch Mexican TV, buy it.

At this point Putino returns from a well-photographed bareback hunting trip in Sonora to take charge of the situation. He calls for the Nazis to be resisted, and refuses to recognise the caretaker administration in Washington or even talk to them. He offers that Mexico will reach out to the "suffering people" of Tejas. The Mexican army masses huge forces along its northern border, carrying out "exercises" in case the Polkists try to expand their territory. The deposed Mr. Yankovich resurfaces in Monterrey, claiming he's still the legitimate president and publicly asking Mexico to invade and restore him to office.

Suddenly, the streets of Galveston (where the Mexican Navy has a large base, currently leased for 30 years ahead) are full of soldiers wearing no insignia, although they use Mexican uniforms and equipment, and the APCs have Mexican number plates and ID flashes. They mostly don't speak and turn away journalists, though brief snatches of accents from Guerrero and Oaxaca can be heard. Mexico insists they are local forces, nothing to do with them. Their presence spreads across the state, and masked, armed men storm the Tejas Capitol in Austin. They claim they're "defending" it from Polkists, but won't let journalists near. They appoint a new Governor, a certain Señor "El Gnomo" Accion-Nova once known for his tattoos, hairnet, dodgy associates and failed political career, but now wearing a suit and increasingly appearing on Mexican TV as the voice of "the Tejano people". Austin is now even weirder than normal.

Journalists everywhere are harassed and prevented from doing their job, although some manage brief snippets of US soldiers besieged within their bases. "I've disarmed them all" shouts a base commander from behind his gates, past the mysterious masked soldiers that surround his base, "as I don't want any spark or loss of life. Nevertheless we intend to peacefully remain here as long as possible. Hoo-ah!". Some English-speaking Texians are interviewed, though most hide their identity as they fear repercussions. They deeply fear the new local administration. Also interviewed are a number of Tejanos who disapprove of the new situation, but fear to voice their opinions in the current climate as they'll be regarded as "traitors". Some do want to join Mexico, but fear that this fraudulent method will rob their aspirations of any legitimacy for a long time to come. The local English-language TV stations are closed down and US network TV goes off the air for "technical reasons".

The exception is Mexican TV, whose reporters only cover cheering, smiling Tejanos happy with this new development, as well as the thuggish Nazis in Washington pulling stunts like beating up a TV executive. They claim the Texians and US authorities are driving Tejanos out of their homes, but show no coverage of this. They do show footage of "refugees fleeing into Mexico", until someone points out that it's actually a US-Canada border post on a normal day and the footage is quietly withdrawn. Nevertheless, the streets of Mexico City now have regular crowds calling for support of their Tejano "hermanos y hermanas" in their hour of need. There is an element of Mexican press that covers it more objectively, but these are the small outlets that don't have a large audience. Any that grow too large are shut down or taken over by friends of Putino. Sceptics suggest their continued existence at all is only so that Putino can claim there's a free, diverse press in his country.

Next, it is announced that there will be a referendum in Tejas - in two weeks time. The choice is between Mexico and the USA. Plenty of time for campaigning, no? Posters go up across the state, showing a choice of two maps - one with a background of the Mexican flag, the other showing bloodsoaked swastikas made out of barbed wire. The "campaigning" follows the same vein. International observers are stopped at the border, and journalists - even some Mexican ones - are harassed and only allowed to cover what the armed men will allow them. Some manage to sneak away to places they're not allowed, showing where gangs of heavily-tattooed Tejanos have left peculiar identifying marks on Texians' houses. Most Texians keep a low profile, not daring to campaign or even vote, not that they'd want to justify such a fraudulent referendum anyway. The besieged soldiers, many of whom are Tejanos and Texians, remain unable to go to the polls or participate in any way.

The result is hardly a surprise - the announced percentage in favour of unification with Mexico rivals that of a North Korean presidential vote. The remaining US bases are stormed, and US ships blocked in Galveston are seized. Mexican flags replace US ones everywhere. The worldwide community is outraged, calling it a breach of international law as well as utterly reneging on the treaty whereby the US gave up its nukes. Any respect for the impressive organisational effectiveness of the act is dwarfed by disgust at its unfairness. The one saving grace is that the whole exercise remains almost entirely bloodless, separating it from the otherwise similar annexations of the past.

Putino states that that in people's "heart of hearts" Tejas has always really been a part of Mexico. He claims that the earlier treaties don't count as the government in Washington has changed (ignoring the fact that it does so every 4/8 years anyway), and that the move is entirely consistent with international law. He sees it as a fait accompli, and reckons he can weather the diplomatic and economic storm to come.

Indeed, the fact that the response will include a military buildup on the Canadian border, as well as boycotts and sanctions, will allow him to claim he's being tough in standing up to the "militarist Northeast" who want nothing other than to destroy Mexico. His ratings may soar for a while, and he may even be out of office by the time the economic effects start to bite hard. In which case his presidency will be remembered as the "good old days" at a time when his successors have to deal with the crushing problems caused by the now-substantial sanctions, and the ever increasing likelihood that they'll have to withdraw from the occupied territory or at least reach a humiliating deal. Perhaps as well as certain other occupied territories in Guatemala, which only Mexico recognises as independent states. Their large nuclear arsenal doesn't shelter them from economic pressure.

quote:

Now try to imagine that when the crises breaks out, China and India sail in with their -by that time- mighty fleets, and say "hey boys, WE know what you should do about it, because WE found this book of International Law in our back pockets". How would that make the Mexicans or the US feel ?

They'd also be bound by that exact same international law. They would be unable to legitimately annex parts of the USA or Mexico, not that they'd ever want to. The same laws protect China from Japan grabbing Manchuria again (even if it could or was minded to), or the British from recolonising India. They gain stability and safety by existing in a world with such laws, and benefit from the prosperity brought about by defence, trade and other pacts & agreements that they can rely on to be honoured. So if they object to Mexico annexing Tejas in such a way and breaching nuclear agreements, they'd be perfectly right to do so. It would be a very big deal.

EDIT ===

As @JD says above, this international law is what Russia and all other nations have already signed up to. It's not something invented on a whim by other nations, or something new just pulled out of a back pocket.

quote:

I am not trying to say that Texas and Arizona should go to Mexico, I am not even saying that what Russia did was right. What I am saying is that sometimes -almost always in fact- the World Police intervene with no regard for the intricate social and political circumstances that lead to the crisis, but only because of their economic and strategic interests.

There is no world police. While international law is quite clear, there's no official body to enforce it. The only response to breaches are either by UN-approved moves (e.g. blue-helmeted peacekeepers), or individual countries/coalitions acting in line with such laws. Most of the time it's not an issue as many countries cooperate to keep things working as they should, e.g. anti-piracy patrols and peacekeeping forces, as well as the day-to-day cooperation between states.

While the UN is useful in many ways, one of its major failings is due to the Security Council system where any permanent member can veto anything. Hence if one of the transgressors is such a permanent member (as Russia is), the UN can do little other than send a message of disapproval by showing that transgressor to be in a minority of one. Any meaningful responses will be outwith UN decisions, though of course must themselves be consistent with international law.

quote:

Just today, I read an article in the paper that the US and EU should organize their efforts (non military ones, thank God) against Russia, so that the EU secures a safe and steady energy source. Now, being Greek and part of the EU, I am all for a steady energy supply for the future. But how does that give me the right to have a say in what Crimea does in regards to who it decides it belongs to ? It is just as absurd as China decreeing that Texas and Arizona should stay with the USA (in your example above) under the pretense of International Law, so that Mexico doesn't increase it's industrial base and suddenly becomes a contender in manufacturing.

It's not really your say as an individual; international law is quite clear on the matter. It's not linked to economic policy at all, other than maybe persuading voters in a legitimate referendum. Crimea's status in Ukraine is irrespective of any trade agreements signed by Kiev. Trade deals can be used to sweeten policies, but don't affect international law at all.

Greece, like Ukraine, Russia, USA and all EU members, is signatory to the many agreements that make up international law and conventions. Sure, the country could withdraw from them, but then it would become a pariah nation without friends, and wouldn't be in a position to stop a large neighbour (with a long history of tribal and imperial occupations) invading again. The de facto occupation of North Cyprus could become de jure if there were no such laws to prevent that; instead of working towards an eventual solution, the 1974 division, property seizure and ethnic cleansing would be permanent.

That's the point of international law - it benefits all of us. The world still has deep problems, but it's a whole lot better than before such laws existed. It brings the stability to improve economies and conditions, albeit with temporary hiccups, like in Greece recently. It allows crises and differences to be resolved in a framework of fairness and pragmatism. If everyone abandoned it, it would mean hurtling back to a troubled past instead of steadily progressing to a brighter future. Maybe Norway would cash in in its oil wealth for high-tech nuclear-armed stealth longboats, and start pillaging the shores of Europe. Spain might again grab chunks of South America, and we may even have to expect a new Spanish Inquisition. Do you really want to live in a world heading in that direction?

There could be a legitimate process of Crimea changing sovereignty (or Scotland, Catalunya, maybe even Crete ), but this is definitely not it.

< Message edited by guanotwozero -- 3/27/2014 7:56:56 PM >

(in reply to Demuder)
Post #: 422
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 3/27/2014 8:54:38 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Jeebus, Marie and the Carpenter! Are they giving out points for word count or something

_____________________________


(in reply to guanotwozero)
Post #: 423
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 3/27/2014 9:29:10 PM   
NakedWeasel


Posts: 500
Joined: 1/14/2014
Status: offline
A highly entertaining read, however! Well done, guanotwozero! There's some super-funny stuff there!

_____________________________

Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 424
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 3/27/2014 9:52:34 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Not a huge fan of political stuff these days I guess.

Mike





_____________________________


(in reply to NakedWeasel)
Post #: 425
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 3/28/2014 12:24:20 AM   
RoryAndersonWS


Posts: 1778
Joined: 6/16/2009
Status: offline
Hahaha quite a good read haha!

_____________________________


Command Developer, Warfare Sims.
Command Videos: http://youtube.com/baloogan
http://baloogancampaign.com

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 426
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 3/28/2014 1:12:54 AM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Jeebus, Marie and the Carpenter! Are they giving out points for word count or something

Err... yeah, oops! Sorry 'bout that - once I started typing the words just kept flowing...

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 427
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 3/28/2014 10:35:02 AM   
Agathosdaimon


Posts: 1014
Joined: 7/8/2012
Status: offline
http://time.com/39705/russia-invasion-ukraine-likely/

this is worrying but also not really being reported that much - so what is going on, will Russia make further incursions in Ukraine?

(in reply to Demuder)
Post #: 428
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 3/28/2014 10:43:18 AM   
Agathosdaimon


Posts: 1014
Joined: 7/8/2012
Status: offline
It was this article i read today that got me worried, but it may just be sensationalising things - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/a-rapid-russian-buildup-of-tanks-and-troops-with-tough-talk-from-president-vladimir-putin-raises-fears-war-with-ukraine-could-be-imminent/story-fni0xs61-1226867240935


(in reply to Agathosdaimon)
Post #: 429
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 3/28/2014 12:16:38 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline
Certainly Obama's concerned enough about what he knows to speak out against the current buildup.

For those trying to understand Putin's motivation and possible next steps, there's an interesting analysis here.


Prior to invading the east, there are probably a number of steps that have to happen:

1) The far-right in Kiev have got to act up, so Russian news can report on the 'Nazis' and 'chaos' there. A cynic might say that agents provocateurs are at work.

2) Notable Russian-speakers from the east must call for a form of 'self-determination' that would justify a an invasion. Former president Yanukovych has just called for that.

3) International journalists in the likely target regions must be restricted, e.g. by groups of armed 'concerned local citizens', so that the reality on the ground cannot be easily reported. This has not yet happened.

(in reply to Agathosdaimon)
Post #: 430
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 3/28/2014 1:20:48 PM   
beserko


Posts: 164
Joined: 2/10/2005
From: The United States Of America
Status: offline


_____________________________

as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns—there are things we do not know we don't know."

(in reply to guanotwozero)
Post #: 431
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 3/28/2014 5:25:55 PM   
TSkoopCRP

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 12/22/2008
Status: offline
Here's the Auto save for the scenario crash from the discussion here at grogheads about crimea 2014 http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=4065.msg246386#new

Attachment (1)

(in reply to beserko)
Post #: 432
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 3/31/2014 8:22:34 PM   
beserko


Posts: 164
Joined: 2/10/2005
From: The United States Of America
Status: offline
Well it looks like a done deal. Can you believe the gall of Russia demanding Ukraine break up into a "federation" plus everybody has to accept the Fait accompli of annexing Crimea. Oh don't forget Ukraine cannot join NATO.

What exactly did the west get out of this? Nothing . What kind of deal is this?
Putin will go after the Baltics and Moldavia next because Nato is spineless.
So much for the treaty of Budapest and international law. They will probly even drop the sanction's too. You just watch.

Give in to a bully and he will just keep coming back. You have to punch him in the nose if you ever want to be free.

_____________________________

as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns—there are things we do not know we don't know."

(in reply to TSkoopCRP)
Post #: 433
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 3/31/2014 10:27:20 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline
Nah, I doubt it. It's not within anyone's gift to give away Crimea except Ukraine itself, and I don't see that happening. Likewise I don't see the EU or the US agreeing to back any new constitutional arrangement for Ukraine that Ukraine itself doesn't want.

This time I don't think Russia will just get away with it scot-free, as there's genuine anger on the part of so many countries that have influence in the world. The only compromises are likely to be short term so as to remove the threat of further invasion, and maybe some sort of guarantee of the rights of Russian-speakers (which should have equal rights anyway). As long as Ukraine can continue as an independent country, then external helping hands can assist in fixing its economy. The recovery of Crimea is not the immediate priority, but is not something that will be abandoned either.

I do think this is a turning point as so many countries realise that Russia's not going to be a reliable partner any time soon, so a steady withdrawal from economic and political involvement will ensue until it genuinely changes.

(in reply to beserko)
Post #: 434
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/2/2014 11:51:02 AM   
OysterMike

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 2/23/2014
Status: offline
A short one.

My my, teh amount of bull,
among pro-USA posts, surely shows;
how western propaganda grows.

Makes me

_____________________________

Ambiguous oyster collector

(in reply to guanotwozero)
Post #: 435
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/2/2014 1:05:58 PM   
beserko


Posts: 164
Joined: 2/10/2005
From: The United States Of America
Status: offline
My how Russians love their prison! Beat up a defenseless country. Makes you feel good.

_____________________________

as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns—there are things we do not know we don't know."

(in reply to OysterMike)
Post #: 436
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/2/2014 3:17:41 PM   
Firov

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 3/3/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: beserko

Well it looks like a done deal. Can you believe the gall of Russia demanding Ukraine break up into a "federation" plus everybody has to accept the Fait accompli of annexing Crimea. Oh don't forget Ukraine cannot join NATO.

What exactly did the west get out of this? Nothing . What kind of deal is this?
Putin will go after the Baltics and Moldavia next because Nato is spineless.
So much for the treaty of Budapest and international law. They will probly even drop the sanction's too. You just watch.

Give in to a bully and he will just keep coming back. You have to punch him in the nose if you ever want to be free.


I’m curious. What makes you think NATO should become involved in this? What US, US ally, or NATO interests have actually been threatened by Russia’s annexation of the Crimea? The simple fact of the matter is, Ukraine isn’t a NATO member, nor is it a US ally. As such, it seems to me we really have no horse in this race.

Sure, the US, UK, and Russia were signatories to the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances which guarantees Ukraine’s borders, BUT, and this is important, that treaty doesn’t require, or even call for, military intervention on the part of the other signatories if those borders are compromised by one of the three parties through conventional means. The only direct intervention that would be required from the signatories would be if one of the of the three countries deployed nuclear weapons against Ukraine, and even that only calls for a United Nations Security Council action.

You might be able to try to make a humanitarian appeal here, but again, so far the Russian occupiers have been rather… restrained in their invasion. In fact, for the most part it has been a bloodless occupation. Russia has seemingly gone through great efforts to ensure that no lives are lost. They’re a restrictive, authoritarian government, sure, but those are hardly in short supply. So if we’re going to go in for “humanitarian” reasons, then it seems to me we’d better be prepared to invade half the world, including China, who is every bit as restrictive as the Russian Federation.

I’m not saying Russia is entirely right here. The fact is, they did violate the treaty of Budapest and have occupied territory claimed by a neighboring state. However, none of that demands military intervention on the part of any NATO members. Things would be different if Russia had occupied German, or French, or Polish territory, in which case I’d agree with you on calling for immediate and overwhelming military action, but they haven’t. From the perspective of NATO, Ukraine is an independent third party, and as such, they’re largely on their own.

All a shooting war with Russia over Ukraine is going to achieve is massive loss of life on both sides for no real gains. Aside from economic sanctions against Russia, Ukraine stands alone.

< Message edited by Firov -- 4/2/2014 4:22:13 PM >

(in reply to beserko)
Post #: 437
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/2/2014 4:44:35 PM   
beserko


Posts: 164
Joined: 2/10/2005
From: The United States Of America
Status: offline
I still insist that if this fait accompli is allowed every other ex-soviet nation better pour money into their defenses. They already know what it's like to live under Russian occupation and it was not pleasant. As Russia is now a Kleptocracy style police state run by ex-KGB types why would any other nation want to "join".
All I am saying is if Russia launches an attack on the rest of the Ukraine, Nato and the US should at least take out their air cover plus supply Ukraine with 1st class weaponry for their defense.
That fiasco in the Crimea where Putin said there were no Russian troops involved in the occupation was another one of the traditional Russian "Big Lies". The Ukrainians didn't fight back because they wanted to show who the aggressor was.
Maybe a battalion or two of units with no military markings and armed to the teeth would help with the defense of the rest of the Ukraine. As Putin says these uniforms can be bought at any surplus store!

I suppose it's just tough luck for the Ukrainians as the world will accept this as the price for "peace". It will happen again ........

I hate bullies,I always have. They are usually cowards and when faced with someone standing up to them ,they usually run.

Sorry moderators ,I am so angry about this I think I will not post anymore personal opinions on this forum. This forum is about a wonderful game that I enjoy immensely. It is not a sounding board for personal opinions.

As for freedom in eastern Europe only time will tell.

_____________________________

as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns—there are things we do not know we don't know."

(in reply to Firov)
Post #: 438
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/2/2014 5:01:18 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OysterMike

A short one.

My my, teh amount of bull,
among pro-USA posts, surely shows;
how western propaganda grows.

Makes me

I'm sure most of us here prefer accurate facts so as to best understand the situation and form realistic opinions. For that reason we should try to see through any propaganda that's there, whether "pro USA" or otherwise. Bear in mind the nature of this forum, accuracy is valued here.

Can you give any examples of what you mean?

(in reply to OysterMike)
Post #: 439
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/2/2014 5:13:28 PM   
OysterMike

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 2/23/2014
Status: offline
I swear I heard this one before...
Damn them wolves and their cheating looks, always molting, always hunting.

You find your mirror yet?

LINK1: http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/bush-war.htm
LINK2: http://yandex.com/video/search?filmId=LJeYtySPUXI&text=bush%20jr%20speech%20IRAQ
LINK3: http://yandex.com/video/search?filmId=NSYE9Mr6UXI&text=obama%20syria%20speech&safety=1
LINK4: http://yandex.com/video/search?filmId=HlflE29hUXI&text=obama%20libya%20speech

_____________________________

Ambiguous oyster collector

(in reply to beserko)
Post #: 440
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/2/2014 5:36:30 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Firov
I’m curious. What makes you think NATO should become involved in this? What US, US ally, or NATO interests have actually been threatened by Russia’s annexation of the Crimea? The simple fact of the matter is, Ukraine isn’t a NATO member, nor is it a US ally. As such, it seems to me we really have no horse in this race.

Sure, the US, UK, and Russia were signatories to the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances which guarantees Ukraine’s borders, BUT, and this is important, that treaty doesn’t require, or even call for, military intervention on the part of the other signatories if those borders are compromised by one of the three parties through conventional means. The only direct intervention that would be required from the signatories would be if one of the of the three countries deployed nuclear weapons against Ukraine, and even that only calls for a United Nations Security Council action.

You might be able to try to make a humanitarian appeal here, but again, so far the Russian occupiers have been rather… restrained in their invasion. In fact, for the most part it has been a bloodless occupation. Russia has seemingly gone through great efforts to ensure that no lives are lost. They’re a restrictive, authoritarian government, sure, but those are hardly in short supply. So if we’re going to go in for “humanitarian” reasons, then it seems to me we’d better be prepared to invade half the world, including China, who is every bit as restrictive as the Russian Federation.

I’m not saying Russia is entirely right here. The fact is, they did violate the treaty of Budapest and have occupied territory claimed by a neighboring state. However, none of that demands military intervention on the part of any NATO members. Things would be different if Russia had occupied German, or French, or Polish territory, in which case I’d agree with you on calling for immediate and overwhelming military action, but they haven’t. From the perspective of NATO, Ukraine is an independent third party, and as such, they’re largely on their own.

All a shooting war with Russia over Ukraine is going to achieve is massive loss of life on both sides for no real gains. Aside from economic sanctions against Russia, Ukraine stands alone.

I mostly agree. As you say, this has been a mostly bloodless occupation, and a NATO country is not under attack. There is no willingness amongst NATO members to go to war, and I don't reckon Putin will attack a NATO country - at present. NATO will not "rescue" Ukraine.

Nevertheless the facts remain that Moscow a) reneged on a signed memorandum regarding nuclear weapons and sovereignty, and b) is breaking international law by invading an annexing a territory that doesn't belong to it.

The excuse given is of supporting a Russian-speaking minority, one that could be used by powerful countries anywhere to annex neighbouring territories with minorities. The major historical example is of the Nazi annexation of the Sudetenland, and we know what that "new world order" led to.

This means that much of the international community is greatly concerned, as it completely disrupts the existing world order whereby agreements are adhered to and international law is respected. This very much includes the immediate neighbours to the west, most of whom are NATO members. It's thus perfectly correct that NATO now takes a defensive posture amongst its member states in the region, as Russia can no longer be relied on to honour existing agreements and protocols.

In short: if Russia can choose to invade and annex part of Ukraine (and earlier parts of Georgia), people are concerned it can do so elsewhere, including those NATO states with Russian-speaking minorities. Thus it's perfectly correct that NATO should increase readiness and meaningfully deploy within those member states, so as to reassure them they will be defended if Russia were to invade them too.

(in reply to Firov)
Post #: 441
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/2/2014 5:47:02 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OysterMike
I swear I heard this one before...

If we look on the net we can easily find all sorts of propaganda about many subjects, not just the Ukraine issue. The internet is a wild information jungle, after all

However, I presumed you were referring to here on the forum - can you point out any examples here? Or do you just mean it exists elsewhere on the net and that's what bores you?

(in reply to OysterMike)
Post #: 442
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/2/2014 8:48:39 PM   
OysterMike

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 2/23/2014
Status: offline




quote:


However, I presumed you were referring to here on the forum - can you point out any examples here? Or do you just mean it exists elsewhere on the net and that's what bores you?


What bores me is the general idea of recreation of "that" unique feeling; Watch out! Once again Russia has become worlds greatest enemy, dictator, threat, whatever; as long as it is BAD, BAD boy , so to speak. It is like one of those "hell let's talk about dinosaurs", jurrasic park sort of things. The west (mostly US) has already decorated Ukraine as another "maiden" in need of rescue, this time (since we don't have Al'Qaida here) it is our old Nemesis, oh no! It can't be.. it is Putin trying to recreate the glorious SOVIET UNION... aaaaand again we notice Poland being slightly panicked for the 10th time in the last century ...
Pfft.. please, no more.

Obviously the DOD, USAF, US Army need yet another excuse to start hoarding cash, I guess "We are always short on taxpayers money" applies here, etc., etc.

To top the cake (or bake the top) let's call the preemptive measures (legally uniting Crimea with its rightful motherland; a slight comparison, remember the elections for current president of Ukraine?) our good man Vlad has taken because of that "defensive" shield of NATO; THE AGGRESSION.

Makes me think I am reading news from parallel universe. Aggression suits "maiden" protesters just fine in a way that it is THE word to describe those "peaceful protests". Now annexation of Crimea on the other hand; was almost entirely peaceful except for a few warning shots fired from AK and an RPG pointed towards a group of lost soldiers of Ukraine; who miraculously got lost on a way to their western base, or were too drunk to find it, I guess .

The stance of western politics is: we have deployed "some" anti-terrorist missile defenses; but its nothing to worry about, it's just gonna stand here and will become a useless dust collector unless... (fill the gap).

You asked me for examples so let me name a few: BBC, Reuters, Washington post, New York Times, Styria group. These are just terrible, I read them from time to time just to see their "perspective" and often I realize just "How wrong have I been". Their general viewpoint is quite simple: the situation is bad, the Russians are not making it easy for us to annex the Ukraine in the EU so we can expand our NATO bases further eastwards.
Oh and BTW the IMF has already loaned money to Ukraine so let's all say hooray for another IMF victim (footnote: the gas derivatives have gone up 50% since the loan, this happened prior to the Russian natural gas export price raise). I guess the situation in Kiev is already hot enough they won't need the gas for a long time.

A lot of times you hear from the media that this situation is reincarnation of cold war, when did it ever stop in the first place? Signing papers to change ones idealism (supposed end of cold war) is equal to ordering a chimp not to eat banana.

By the way that flat earth society page is unique in many ways, thanks for sharing.

_____________________________

Ambiguous oyster collector

(in reply to guanotwozero)
Post #: 443
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/2/2014 9:01:19 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7104
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
And some might have noticed amount of new posters who post from same bias and usually not about the game but politics... Bad oysters?

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to OysterMike)
Post #: 444
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/2/2014 9:39:22 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Haven't looked at this string much because there is nothing game related going on.

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 4/2/2014 10:39:48 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 445
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/2/2014 11:08:20 PM   
guanotwozero

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 12/27/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OysterMike
What bores me is the general idea of recreation of "that" unique feeling; Watch out! Once again Russia has become worlds greatest enemy, dictator, threat, whatever; as long as it is BAD, BAD boy , so to speak....

Gosh, I think we're on completely different wavelengths here...

OK, as @Mikmyk reminds us, we need to keep this thread on-topic. That means the current Ukraine crisis, with information and opinion that's relevant to the game in some way. What has happened, what we think will happen, what might happen in an "alternative reality" scenario, etc. Part of that includes reporting facts as they become available, and also offering opinion on their significance as well as estimating a future course of events. That means we have to keep any facts as accurate as possible and speculation "honest", rather than resort to propaganda.

You complained of propaganda, so I presumed you meant about Ukraine on this thread. I asked you for examples, but you listed external news organisations without any specifics. I don't want to wander too far from the thread subject, but I'll tackle a few things you say:

quote:

You asked me for examples so let me name a few: BBC, Reuters, Washington post, New York Times, Styria group. These are just terrible, I read them from time to time just to see their "perspective" and often I realize just "How wrong have I been". Their general viewpoint is quite simple: the situation is bad, the Russians are not making it easy for us to annex the Ukraine in the EU so we can expand our NATO bases further eastwards.

OK, I have followed the BBC very closely on this subject and also checked out Reuters frequently, though not the others. I have not seen any such claims or opinions by the BBC or Reuters. You may think they're terrible, but so far you're not giving specific examples of any such "propaganda".

Indeed the EU cannot annex states, as it has no legal or practical method of doing so, nor any sovereignty of its own. it is a voluntary club, composed entirely of states which have applied to join and been accepted. In almost all cases since 1973, a referendum was required; the notable exception was Cyprus because of the situation in the Turkish-occupied zone. For example, a recent member is Croatia whose referendum was in 2012, and currently Serbia is going through the accession process prior to any referendum.

So, the EU cannot "annex" Ukraine. Ukraine may choose to join; if so, it must apply formally, be accepted by ALL existing members, and a referendum would be needed prior to membership beginning. Thus the only way Ukraine could become a member is by popular will of the Ukrainian people.

Similarly, NATO is a voluntary alliance, and also has no sovereignty by which it could "annex" a state. All member states are there through choice, not compulsion. Ukraine has never applied to join, and NATO has never asked it for a base.

Also, EU =/= NATO. They exist for entirely different reasons, are organised and managed separately, and have minimal interaction. NATO member Turkey is not in the EU; it has asked to join but has so far been refused. USA and Canada aren't in the EU either, and are somewhat unlikely to join being in a completely different continent. EU member Finland is not in NATO, and has not asked to join. Membership of one is not a requirement for membership of the other.

Thus to suggest that the EU wants to "annex Ukraine" so as to "expand NATO bases eastwards" seems totally detached from reality. However, if you really think that the BBC & Reuters are spreading such propaganda, can you supply links to their claims?

BTW I don't reckon we're returning to the Cold War, maybe a "Cool War", but that subject probably deserves a thread of its own.

< Message edited by guanotwozero -- 4/3/2014 12:09:55 AM >

(in reply to OysterMike)
Post #: 446
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/3/2014 1:05:16 AM   
beserko


Posts: 164
Joined: 2/10/2005
From: The United States Of America
Status: offline


_____________________________

as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns—there are things we do not know we don't know."

(in reply to guanotwozero)
Post #: 447
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/3/2014 1:06:24 AM   
beserko


Posts: 164
Joined: 2/10/2005
From: The United States Of America
Status: offline
Is that better mikmyk?

_____________________________

as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns—there are things we do not know we don't know."

(in reply to beserko)
Post #: 448
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/3/2014 2:14:47 AM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
LOL. Yes far better. Thanks!

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to beserko)
Post #: 449
RE: Ukraine 2014 - 4/8/2014 2:21:58 AM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline
http://www.janes.com/article/36140/russia-to-deploy-tu-22m3-backfire-bombers-to-crimea

A little tidbit for scenario builders....unless this was already posted in one of the essays above and I missed it. :-)

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 450
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Ukraine 2014 Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172