Ukraine mega thread

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/mykraine-meme.jpg





I know, substitute "Crimea" for "Ukraine"....

I admit, that was a little much Ivan Walton

I didnt LOL.
So what is it?
US Marines in the Ukraine or not?
Spare me the waffles.

http://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1970676_599373716821484_689474878_n.jpg

jpeg spelling fail...
Credibility shot to hell....

Just want to clarify, the Budapest Memorandum doesn't bind any party to any action. It is only as good as the value the parties that signed it are, and in the case of the US and UK, we were just there as witnesses.

In a certain way, it's like witnesses for a marriage. If one of the two decides to get a divorce the witnesses aren't obligated to prevent it by all means necessary.

The Partnership for Peace commitments create more obligations, but even there, we aren't in a fully functional mutual defense treaty. Again, putting it in non political terms, it's more like co-signing for an adult kid's car. Yes, you are obligated to repay, but only at the pure default of the primary signatories.

We want to be sure that Putin isn't going Stalin/Hitler as he gets older, but nothing that's happened should cause us to put our forces on the ground.

All that said, I think it's hilarious that a guy like AW who will balk at the most minor military cutbacks will say that 1 billion dollars in support of Ukraine won't do nothing. Pretty sure they wouldn't spend the first 10Million on sending the Thunderbirds on a tour, they probably would actually reinforce their defenses and economic infrastructure.

Just want to clarify, the Budapest Memorandum doesn't bind any party to any action. It is only as good as the value the parties that signed it are, and in the case of the US and UK, we were just there as witnesses.

In a certain way, it's like witnesses for a marriage. If one of the two decides to get a divorce the witnesses aren't obligated to prevent it by all means necessary.

The Partnership for Peace commitments create more obligations, but even there, we aren't in a fully functional mutual defense treaty. Again, putting it in non political terms, it's more like co-signing for an adult kid's car. Yes, you are obligated to repay, but only at the pure default of the primary signatories.

We want to be sure that Putin isn't going Stalin/Hitler as he gets older, but nothing that's happened should cause us to put our forces on the ground.

All that said, I think it's hilarious that a guy like AW who will balk at the most minor military cutbacks will say that 1 billion dollars in support of Ukraine won't do nothing. Pretty sure they wouldn't spend the first 10Million on sending the Thunderbirds on a tour, they probably would actually reinforce their defenses and economic infrastructure.

That's some good info about the treaty and thanks for digging that up/clarifying it.
And your military cutback comment doesnt make any sense as I lean heavily towards Libertarian values.
The Ukraine/Russia thing is so convoluted that I would still prefer to spend our tax dollars (the ones I put in the coffers) towards the Thunderbirds.

America first.

Crimea votes to join Russia, accelerating Ukraine crisis (http://news.yahoo.com/big-power-talks-ukraine-crisis-little-progress-003521587--business.html)

I thought this cnn piece was pretty informative:

Ukraine PM Yatsenyuk rejects referendum on Crimea split - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tensions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

I thought this cnn piece was pretty informative:

Ukraine PM Yatsenyuk rejects referendum on Crimea split - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tensions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

"Lavrov has criticized moves by the OSCE and NATO, which has suspended some joint undertakings with Russia, saying their actions "are not helping to create an atmosphere of dialogue and constructive cooperation."

This is the type of shit that is mind boggling. HELLOOO you invaded a fucking country with tanks, surface to air missles and 16k troops and your pissed about suspended activities. NATO should put some troops in the Ukraine, lets see what they do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/europe/for-russian-tv-channels-influence-and-criticism.html?action=click&contentCollection=Europe&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Freedom of the Press in Russia? right

NATO should put some troops in the Ukraine, lets see what they do.

i normally agree with you but i really think we should show restraint. I agree that russia's actions and statements are maddening and frustrating. but i believe thats exactly what russia wants .. to goad us in to bailing him out by resorting to military intervention.

the longer putin stays the provoker, the longer the heat will be on him and the longer the entire international community will further distance themselves from him.

he is looking really bad all on his own right now.

id let him stew in the hot pot he put himself in.

i think putin is wishing we would put boots on the ground to take some of the heat off him, accelerate the ultimate end solution (russia gets crimea) and he can move on acting as if this never happened.

let putin lay in the bed he shitted all by himself.

his only alternative is to keep pushing the boundaries to try and provoke a military response so then the int'l community will hold meetings, make him concessions to avoid all out war and he tries to go back to life as normal.

putin made a huge mistake, lets not give him exactly what he wants.

eventually after putin does all types of provocative stuff, we will have to announce we are moving nato troops, then everyone will negotiate but ..........lets make putin really be an indefensible ass for a few more weeks.