Andriy Czarchenko Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Well I think it´s messy and all over the place and probably has mixed up some things. For example it begins with "Supreme Allied Commander Europe Gen Philip Breedlove said Nato was in particular concerned about the threat to Moldova's Trans-Dniester region." Say what? Threat by whom? Russia? Transnistria wants to be annexed by them. Shouldn´t the actual point be that to get there Russia would need to move through Ukraine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetitansbastard Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 The EU is the key; their political-desires will determine what happens; right now, they don't care. The West needs to realize that the Cold War isn't over; Russia is still dangerous. The West and East need to wake up and realize they both have a true common enemy, ASOIAF parellels?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 24, 2014 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 ttb,Russia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetitansbastard Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 ttb,Russia? not a threat to the West. the terrorists, dude, the terrorists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkaggCannibal Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 On my 7 o'clock local news, it was presented as Russia building up troops on Ukraine's eastern border to make a move on Transnistria as their goverment has asked to become part of Russia. Now, am I the only one to find this a completely wrong presentation of the current situation? If that was the case, they would be crossing miles and miles of Ukrainian territory, something that seems impossible without a Ukrainian-Russian war, all for a small strip pf impoverished land. Unless they actually want to occupy southern Ukraine, which would make Transnistria just a pretext and not the objective of Russia, since south-Ukraine is infinitely more important. Maybe it's just a small nuance for most people, but it gets me a little worked up when things are presented so vague/carelessly/plain inaccurate. Is there any chance of Transnistria becoming Russian? Me thinks not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 24, 2014 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 ttb,I simply don't think "terrorists" can match the threat that an aggressive nuclear armed Nation-state can offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 The West needs to realize that the Cold War isn't over; Russia is still dangerous. They are still capable of doing damage to Europe and Americas not seen since World War 2. Russia lost untold millions repelling the largest military assault in human history, and has spend the last 60-70 years worrying about a repeat. How do you think it feels that a military alliance devoted to opposing it has been expanded to its borders? It'd be like if Scotland left the UK, and promptly joined an international alliance targeting England. Or to put it another way: Russia sees the *West* as dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetitansbastard Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 On my 7 o'clock local news, it was presented as Russia building up troops on Ukraine's eastern border to make a move on Transnistria as their goverment has asked to become part of Russia. Now, am I the only one to find this a completely wrong presentation of the current situation? If that was the case, they would be crossing miles and miles of Ukrainian territory, something that seems impossible without a Ukrainian-Russian war, all for a small strip pf impoverished land. Unless they actually want to occupy southern Ukraine, which would make Transnistria just a pretext and not the objective of Russia, since south-Ukraine is infinitely more important. Maybe it's just a small nuance for most people, but it gets me a little worked up when things are presented so vague/carelessly/plain inaccurate. Is there any chance of Transnistria becoming Russian? Me thinks not. Why does there need to be a war if Transnistria wants to be part of Russia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetitansbastard Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 ttb,I simply don't think "terrorists" can match the threat that an aggressive nuclear armed Nation-state can offer. Wake up. Do you really think Russia wants a war w/ the west? But the "terrorists" do and are a legit threat. Not sure what other term to use...I would say "Islamic Fundamentalists??" but not sure that's fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 24, 2014 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 ttb,I think Russia would very much like take NATO and the rest of the West down a peg so that it can assert a renewed "Superpower" status. I think Putin has never been shy about wanting to see the Soviet Empire restored. That includes current members of NATO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetitansbastard Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 ttb,I think Russia would very much like take NATO and the rest of the West down a peg so that it can assert a renewed "Superpower" status. I think Putin has never been shy about wanting to see the Soviet Empire restored. That includes current members of NATO. To what end? Do you think Russia will eventually try to take over states that do not want to join them? direct answer would be appreciated, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 24, 2014 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 ttb,I think given the opportunity to offer some sort of justification such as the situation in Georgia, Crimea, and now in trans-Deinester, he will. The question is how far he believes he can safely push and whether he would risk open military conflict with NATO. I do not know the answer to the second question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetitansbastard Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 ttb,I think given the opportunity to offer some sort of justification such as the situation in Georgia, Crimea, and now in trans-Deinester, he will. The question is how far he believes he can safely push and whether he would risk open military conflict with NATO. I do not know the answer to the second question. OK. I don't think there's any chance Russia will attack NATO unprovoked. Zero chance, at least not given current conditions. If Russia wants to pursue annexing states that want to join their Federation without firing the first shot, I don't see why the West should care. Again, everyone needs to get their priorities straight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 24, 2014 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 ttb,I don't think Putin is above enginnering a justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetitansbastard Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 ttb,I don't think Putin is above enginnering a justification. Ok, I think that is totally absurd. thanks for the on point response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 24, 2014 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 ttb,Putin jus invaded and annexed a chunk of another sovereign nation on the flimsyist of justification and supported the action with a blatently fraudulent election. What makes you think Putin is above enginnering a cause for similar actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 24, 2014 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 Double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetitansbastard Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 ttb,Putin jus invaded and annexed a chunk of another sovereign nation on the flimsyist of justification and supported the action with a blatently fraudulent election. What makes you think Putin is above enginnering a cause for similar actions. We've been over this, but I would hardly call it an invasion when the government of the "chunk" asked Russia (Putin?) to come in and they are allowed to have a military presence there (has it even been established that the allowed limit was exceeded?) not that it would make a huge difference for me, just saying) I have no reason to think the referendum was fraudulent at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 24, 2014 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 The turn out in Sevestople was 123%. The vote was 97% in favor of annexation and remaining part of Ukraine was not offered as an option. How is that not blatently fraudulent. The percentage in favor should be lower based on ballot error alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arya_underfoot Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I have no reason to think the referendum was fraudulent at all. Then you've thought about it too much have you? Take a closer look at the way the "referendum" was convened and at the turnout and results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.