Tibet was invaded long before the PRC had nukes. India wasn't in a position to take action on Tibet at the time and the US et al didn't consider it to be much of strategic interest So nukes weren't an issue with Tibet. With the Spratleys the Philippines and Vietnam have still tried moved military force into the area to oppose the PRC even though they don't have nukes. Keep in mind those countries also don't have conventional forces strong enough to oppose the PRC so nukes probably aren't a big issue they are concerned about. To answer you and Deckard hundreds of troops died on both sides so it was a fairly serious conflict. Further with the PRC, India, Russia and Pakistan they don't need ICBMS to attack each other with nukes. From PRC medium range missiles can reach several population centers in India. From India nuclear armed artillery could reach population centers in Pakistan and vice versa. That still hasn't stopped them from fighting every now and then. Yes of course but that still doesn't always prevent conflict. In the case of Crimea this is very speculative that Soviet nukes left in Ukraine could've stopped Russia from taken over Crimea. As stated earlier there were several practical issues involved with Ukraine maintaining an effective nuclear arsenal along with diplomatic pressure from many sides. On top of that even if Ukraine had functioning nukes given the Russian majority in Ukraine and that Russian forces quickly took over Crimea Ukrainian naval nukes might've fallen into Russian hands. Plus would Ukraine have been willing to use nukes on Russian forces in Crimea or on Russian soil knowing that it would've meant a even more devastating response from Russia? Or at the minimum that fallout would also kill many Ukrainians? My own speculation is that even if Ukraine had nukes they wouldn't have used them to keep Crimea.
A video of mine which I've always loved on the idea that nukes can solve everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE Anyways, rocketsjudoka is correct. The West and Russia were never going to let Ukraine keep their nukes, they were united on this as Ukraine was felt to be too unstable at the time ( which has turned out to be correct)
So much for Ukraine's anti-terror operation to retake towns or buildings held by the pro-Russian activists/militia. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...ers-as-elite-units-defect-to-pro-russia-side/
It's interesting to look back at how I was thinking about the protests as things were unfolding. This post was from right before the president fled. I still think of the conflict in this same prism -- Ukraine swung too far West and is losing their eastern territory as a result. You can't do what they did without consequences. Might be a bit of hindsight, but Ukraine might have been best off to cut a deal to essentially sell the east to Russia for money to pay off their debts and put the western part of the country in a position for eventual EU membership without the naysayers in the east. Now, Russia probably figures they'll get that territory for free anyway.
Taking a look at a map of Ukraine it appears that the eastern provinces are the most well off so selling them to Russia might economically cripple the country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukrainian_salary_map.png
Is it too late for Obama to get that $1 Bil deposit back? Ukraine has been cuckolded badly by Russia, but they are only taking advantage of the clown show that is the Ukraine. It's obvious the Ukraine military has no fight and does not recognize the authority of the current Ukraine gov't. We should just send them bread so their soldiers don't trade their gear for food. Just embarrassing. http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-tightens-grip-eastern-town-talks-073939979.html
I don't know, I think it wasn't seen as serious though. Those lands are hardly inhabitable. Skirmishes are not the same as an invading army. Of course not. That would be insane to even think they would use them. As I have stated before, they don't have to use them. Just knowing they are pointing at Russia and ready to be fired would be enough to stop Putin. He's not an idiot.
Once again hundreds of troops died and there were fears of the conflict going nuclear. Maybe that doesn't sound serious to you but I think most people would consider that pretty serious. You are clinging to the idea that if Ukraine had just kept the nukes it could fend off Russia without considering all of the factors that point to how those nukes might not have been an actual deterrent, particularly in regard to Crimea. You are ignoring all of the technical, political and other considerations involved with what it would've taken to keep and maintain the nukes. You are right Putin isn't an idiot which means that he would know under what conditions Ukraine might use nukes along with what condition those nukes would be. He didn't have to actually launch an outright invasion of Crimea, or Eastern Ukraine for that matter. He just has to foment uprising among the Russian population there.
Up until a few weeks ago, the Ukrainian army was a proxy FOR Russia. You might imagine that it is dominated by Russian speakers, infiltrators and political officers. So yeah, shooting Russian speaking citizens of the Ukraine might be a problem for them. They will probably get re-organized given a little time, NATO advisors and some urgency. And they will still have to walk a fine line between fighting 'terrorists' and being pro-Nazi, Russian national, killers. I still don't think Russia will 'invade' Ukraine with 40,000 troops. It would be economic suicide for Russia. Putin will however engage a long term harassment of the break-away government to keep it weak, increase the chances of an Eastern Ukraine split and generally payback the West for supporting the Ukraine's western drift.
Putin doesn't need to outright invade Ukraine, even the invasion of Crimea was done with irregular forces and Russian loyalists among the local population. As stated Putin isn't an idiot and an actual invasion involving Russian troops pouring across the border would both economically ruin Russia but also invite a military response from the West. He just needs to bide his time and let chaos continue in Eastern Ukraine. Eventually there will be a settlement in Russia's favor.
still Dubious about Putin's intentions? Jews in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk where pro-Russian militants have taken over government buildings were told they have to "register" with the Ukrainians who are trying to make the city become part of Russia, according to Ukrainian and Israeli media. Jews emerging from a synagogue say they were handed leaflets that ordered the city's Jews to provide a list of property they own and pay a registration fee "or else have their citizenship revoked, face deportation and see their assets confiscated," reported Ynet News, Israel's largest news website. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-ordered-to-register-in-east-ukraine/7816951/
Making jews register? Invading neighbor to protect ethnic germans errr russians. Tv propaganda? nah putin is nothing like hitler.
Most people near the situation, as well the ADL, are skeptical that this was anything but crazy radicals. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fliers-order-jews-register-east-ukraine People are too eager to jump on whatever information they hear that fits their view of the situation - but the reality remains far more complicated with a lot of misinformation floating around.
Putin's 'final destination'? On Sunday, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press." "(Russian) President (Vladimir) Putin has a dream to restore the Soviet Union," he said. "And every day, he goes further and further. And God knows where is the final destination." "The world has a reason to be concerned about Putin's intention," Yatsenyuk said. "Because what Russian Federation did, they undermined the global stability." The United States is trying diplomatic measures to reduce tensions in Ukraine. Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, told CNN's Candy Crowley on Sunday that he's seen progress to that end. He had just met with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Deshchytsia and the ambassador who heads the OSCE's special monitoring mission, along with his European Union and Russian counterparts. "I think we all reaffirmed today in this setting our collective commitment to trying to make the Geneva framework a success," he said on CNN's "State of the Union." "There are obviously some real challenges at this point," including the violence in Slaviansk. "But we also believe that there has been some progress. I'm seeing reports this morning that at least one of these (occupied) government buildings now has a Ukrainian flag flying over it," he said. "And the OSCE has monitors on the ground who are reaching out, engaging with local political elites, seeing if there's a way to de-escalate the crisis." There is "no military solution" to the crisis, Pyatt said. "It has to be solved through diplomacy." http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/20/world/europe/ukraine-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
U.S. ground troops going to Poland, defense minister says Poland and the United States will announce next week the deployment of U.S. ground forces to Poland as part of an expansion of NATO presence in Central and Eastern Europe in response to events in Ukraine. That was the word from Poland’s defense minister, Tomasz Siemoniak, who visited The Post Friday after meeting with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at the Pentagon on Thursday. Siemoniak said the decision has been made on a political level and that military planners are working out details. There will also be intensified cooperation in air defense, special forces, cyberdefense and other areas. Poland will play a leading regional role, “under U.S. patronage,” he said. But the defense minister also said that any immediate NATO response to Russian aggression in Ukraine, while important, matter less than a long-term shift in the defense postures of Europe and America. The United States, having announced a “pivot” to Asia, needs to “re-pivot” to Europe, he said, and European countries that have cut back on defense spending need to reverse the trends. “The idea until recently was that there were no more threats in Europe and no need for a U.S. presence in Europe any more,” Siemoniak said, speaking through an interpreter. “Events show that what is needed is a re-pivot, and that Europe was safe and secure because America was in Europe.” How likely is such a reversal on defense spending? Siemoniak said there was widespread support at a recent meeting of European defense ministers. “Now they’ll go back to their presidents, prime ministers and ministers of finance, and this will stop being easy,” he admitted. “But the impetus is very strong.” The strongest impetus, he said, is not even Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, but President Vladimir Putin’s bald lies about Russian actions there and his exposition of a new doctrine allowing Russia to intervene in any country where Russian-speaking populations are, in Russia’s judgment, under threat. This poses a potential danger to the Baltic nations, which are members of NATO, and even more to Moldova, Belarus and central Asian nations that are not, he said. Like President Obama, Siemoniak said it’s too soon to judge the agreement reached Thursday in Geneva to defuse tensions. He said he believes that Russia’s “special operation in eastern Ukraine didn’t go as planned” and that Putin may have decided to play a longer game. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...troops-going-to-poland-defense-minister-says/
Sorry, Judo, but Putin himself has admitted on Russian TV that the "irregulars" were in fact Russian troops, and said that they should be rewarded, the "reward" still to be determined. You will have to look up this quote from the Washington Post yourself, as I can't grab the exact link at the moment. Just do a search for "Putin admits troops in Crimea were Russian." They were Russian regular forces with the insignias removed, as was widely reported at the time. He lied then, and he is lying now. In early March, Putin denied that the well-equipped troops operating on Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and wearing green uniforms without insignia were Russian. Anyone could buy those uniforms, he said. On Thursday, when asked about the soldiers widely known as the green men, Putin acknowledged that they were Russian. Their presence had been necessary, he said, to keep order so that Crimeans could decide their future in a referendum. www.washingtonpost.com
By taking off their insignias the Russian forces are irregular forces. That is why under the laws of war combatants fighting out of uniform can be treated differently than ones who do.
Keep reaching, Judo! Calling them "irregular forces" implies something far different than Russian Army, Marine, and Special Forces troops who have merely removed insignia that would plainly show what they are... members of the Russian military, obviously acting on orders from Moscow.
I don't think you understand. Yes they could sill be taking orders from Moscow but once they take off their uniforms or from identifying themselves they are irregular forces. YOu have to ask yourself if it makes no difference why would they have bothered taking off their insignia in the first place? It makes a difference because under the laws of war there are different standards for combatants not in uniform and different diplomatic standards. This was a big issue with how we dealt with the Taliban and Al Qaeda allied fighters who even though they are part of a command and control structure weren't considered regular military. Irregular forces doesn't mean that they aren't part of a military or a command structure it also means they are not operating as a conventional military. My point is that Putin doesn't need to mount an all out invasion which would mean forces clearly identified as Russian troops. He is using special forces operating as and in tandem with local militia.
Come on Judoka. These are war crimes by the head mafia boss Putin and these "pro russians" in eastern ukraine are Russian soldiers from : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27118875 Amid Moscow's denials of being behind the unrest in eastern Ukraine, the government in Kiev released photos, also distributed by the US State Department, it said showed Russian soldiers among militants holding official buildings in eastern Ukraine. There was no immediate response to the pictures from the Russian government.
