Just for fun, 1000 years of Europe. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=242c1c4864ab" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> DD
Turkey Warns Russia it Will Blockade Bosphorus if Violence Occurs http://ukrainianpolicy.com/turkey-warns-russia-it-will-blockade-bosphorus/
More consequences for the brutal agression of Putin's Russia? I think it is very possible. In fact, now that Putin has openly annexed the Crimean autonomous province of the Ukraine, I'll be shocked if this doesn't happen. For the interested reader: Ukraine: France warns Russia it could cancel warships deal - French foreign minister says £1bn contract for two high-tech Mistral warships could be blocked if situation escalates (from The Guardian) France might cancel a controversial deal to sell two state-of-the-art warships to Russia but only if Britain also acted against Russian oligarchs in London, according to the French foreign minister. Speaking after Russian president Vladimir Putin approved a draft bill for the annexation of Crimea before the parliament in Moscow, Laurent Fabius warned he "could envisage" blocking the €1.2bn (£1bn) sale. France is due to deliver two high-tech Mistral warships to Russia. The first, christened the Vladivostok, has already undergone sea trials from the port of Saint-Nazaire. A second, called the Sevastopol, is due to be completed by the end of next year. "If Putin continues doing what he is doing we could envisage cancelling the sales," Fabius told TF1 television on Tuesday. "This would be part of a third level of sanctions. For the moment we are at the second level. "But we will ask others, and I'm thinking namely the British, to do the same with the assets of the Russian oligarchs in London. Sanctions have to be shouldered by everyone." Fabius admitted cancelling the contracts would be "negative for the French" - and his comments drew swift criticism from Russia's deputy prime minister, Dmitry Rogozin. "France is starting to undermine confidence in it as a reliable provider in the very sensitive sector of military and technical co-operation," Rogozin, who oversees the military sector, said on Twitter. Fabius's comments mark an apparent change of tack by Paris, which had previously ruled out blocking the deal. Even as the Crimea crisis erupted, the French president, François Hollande, insisted the contract would be honoured. Asked if the deal would be cancelled last Thursday, Fabius replied: "We'd rather not reach that point." The deal, the first between Russia and a Nato country, had already raised deep misgivings among France's allies when it was signed by former centre-right president Nicolas Sarkozy in 2011, just three years after the Russian invasion of Georgia in the Caucasus. The Mistral – a 180-metre, 22,000-ton vessel – is capable of carrying 16 helicopters, four landing craft, 60 armoured vehicles, 13 battle tanks and between 450 and 700 soldiers for up to six months and will give the ageing Russian naval fleet a new lease of life. The vessel is known by the French navy as a military "Swiss army knife" for its multiple attack capabilities and use as a command centre, hospital as well as helicopter and troop carrier. The Russians have taken an option on a further two Mistral warships. In 2008, Commander Vladimir Vysotsky, head of the Russian navy, said his forces would have been victorious in Georgia "in just 40 minutes" if his ageing Black Sea fleet had been equipped with the French warships. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/18/ukraine-france-warns-russia-warship-deal These are state of the art warships with multiple uses, ships far beyond anything Russia has now in their class. This will hurt, and hurt badly, if it occurs, and I believe it will. France really has no choice.
<snip> Sanctions have to be shouldered by everyone. <snip> will not happen. France has the perfect out- they require cooperation from Britain, and likely the rest of NATO. that would require leadership, which is in short supply in the west.
I took a look at this post, basso, something I always do in other forums, but rarely do here, because I figured that you were replying to my post. How about a bet. If I'm right, and the French put a hold on the deal because of Putin's actions, you don't start threads in D&D until September. If I'm wrong, I'll take you off ignore for the same period, and won't start threads until September in any forum on the board.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...868882-aa06-11e3-8599-ce7295b6851c_story.html Here are exerpts about an important article that goes against the commonly acceptable narrative on Russia, the Cold War and the rise of Putin etc. It is by the American Ambassador to Russia during the last days of the Cold War which as he says was ended by negotiation and not because Ronald Reagan was a cowboy, though this did help Reagan and the right electorally. Is this to say Russia is a great example of human rights? No. It is just that just like our policy toward Iran and other parts of the world counterproductive belligerent US policies do if not immediately lead to reactions abroad. It is a counter to the idea that the Russians have always been backward and authoritarian and always will, sort of a near genetic defect that is said with certainty by many. The U.S. has treated Russia like a loser since the end of the Cold War. Even after the U.S.S.R. ceased to exist, Gorbachev maintained that “the end of the Cold War is our common victory.” Yet the United States insisted on treating Russia as the loser. “By the grace of God, America won the Cold War,” Bush said during his 1992 State of the Union address. That rhetoric would not have been particularly damaging on its own. But it was reinforced by actions taken under the next three presidents. President Bill Clinton supported NATO’s bombing of Serbia without U.N. Security Council approval and the expansion of NATO to include former Warsaw Pact countries. Those moves seemed to violate the understanding that the United States would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat from Eastern Europe. The effect on Russians’ trust in the United States was devastating. In 1991, polls indicated that about 80 percent of Russian citizens had a favorable view of the United States; in 1999, nearly the same percentage had an unfavorable view. Vladi*mir Putin was elected in 2000 and initially followed a pro-Western orientation. When terrorists attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, he was the first foreign leader to call and offer support. He cooperated with the United States when it invaded Afghanistan, and he voluntarily removed Russian bases from Cuba and Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam. What did he get in return? Some meaningless praise from President George W. Bush, who then delivered the diplomatic equivalent of swift kicks to the groin: further expansion of NATO in the Baltics and the Balkans, and plans for American bases there; withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; invasion of Iraq without U.N. Security Council approval; overt participation in the “color revolutions” in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan; and then, probing some of the firmest red lines any Russian leader would draw, talk of taking Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Americans, heritors of the Monroe Doctrine, should have understood that Russia would be hypersensitive to foreign-dominated military alliances approaching or touching its borders. The U.S. has treated Russia like a loser since the end of the Cold War.
This is really cherry picking. For example.... what happened in Russia between 1991 and 1999? The faith in democracy in Russia all but disapeared. The level of corruption and crime, coupled with poverty led many Russians to yearn for the old days of the Soviet Union. This had NOTHING to do with the United States, other than the USA being viewed as the beacon of the West. Also, concerning Putin, study his policies and actions as they have evolved over the years. He has changed drastically, especially after consolidating power. To say that is because of the USA is a very myopic view. Putin turned on Yeltsin after he had the power to do so, like wise he turned against the ruling class post Yeltsin, and has essentially increased his aggressive behavior as his power has increased.
"BREAKING NEWS Ukrainian serviceman is killed during attack on a Ukrainian base in the Crimean capital of Simferopol, news agency Interfax quotes a military spokesman as saying (Reuters)."
It was only a matter of time. Countries that don't like being invaded and conquered usually try to resist and when they do, people die. They should just give up, Russia conquered them fair and square and they lack the strength to fight them off.
i wasn't really getting into a pissing match over whether I'm more or less prescient than you. this is an instance where I'd be delighted to be wrong. these types of bets are just silly. how about we agree to have a beer next time I'm in Austin (probably SXSW 2015.) If Russia still occupies Crimea, you buy. if they don't I buy. in either case, you choose the beer/bar. worst case, we each get a good beer. I call that a Win/Win.
The US says a lot of things, trusting the US to keep its' word is a pretty good way to end up in trouble.
Fair enough, but I'm leaving you on ignore entirely due to your thread starting conduct down here. As I've said before, I enjoy your posts in other forums. I'll consider the beer. -
I read the same article, and nearly posted it as well. I've also been following this story via German and Israeli press which has a very different narrative than the one on American TV. Notably, I've been following Nahum Barnea, arguably Israel's best journalist that was there when the whole thing broke. Barnea's reports largely didn't square with the sensationalism from Western press, which apparently sees a communist plot anwhere Russian is spoken. I also got a lot of anecdotal reports from friends in Ukraine, mostly Israelis living there, some not, some ethnically Russsian, some ethnically Ukranian. Crimeans are overwhlemingly pro-Russian, identify as Russian, have only been part of Ukraine since Kruschev, and never liked it. That the people there want autonomy or to join the Russian Federation outright should not be a shock to anyone. Jewish people there are not big fans of the Ukranian nationalist government, which most certainly does contain elements of ultra-nationalist, nativist, classic anti-semitism. The reactions are understandably mixed about having Russians come "protect" them, but mixed they are. In any case, the efforts to frame this as "Neo-Hitler Annexes Neo-Sudentenland in Cold War Revival Against Stallwart Pro-Western Democratic Good Guy Ukranians" is the work of of people with a poor understanding of current (or past) events or the region in general. And as the article glynch shared points out, US post-Cold War policy toward Russia has been reckless and borderline r****ded.
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about the culture or mentality over there. Ukrainian men are very proud, they have pretty much nothing to live for, and are willing to die for their country especially if it means they get to fight Russians. **** is about to get real.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26637296 The Ukrainians had their IDs, weapons and money confiscated, he said. Interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk told an emergency government meeting: "The conflict is shifting from a political to a military stage. "Russian soldiers have started shooting at Ukrainian military servicemen and that is a war crime."
