How to explain it? There isn't much mystery I think.
Careful planning, speedy operations, overwhelming force, and generally achieving at least tactical surprise against a population with no viable means to either fight or defend itself. Even the Ukrainian military garrisons were greatly overmatched.
The Russians seem to have learned from their experiences in Georgia.
Russia has had a treaty to use former Soviet military bases in Crimea, Ukraine, but Putin is now claiming that treaties with Ukraine are void. Russia doesn't have permission to occupy Crimea as it has, nor threaten to annex Crimea. Russia is also threatening a broader war on Ukraine having mobilized its army some time ago. It looks like you're the one that is out of touch. Sorry.
In September 1938, after signing away the Czech border regions, known as the Sudetenland, to Germany at the Munich conference, British and French leaders pressured France's ally, Czechoslovakia, to yield to Germany's demand for the incorporation of those regions. Despite Anglo-French guarantees of the integrity of rump Czechoslovakia, the Germans dismembered the Czechoslovak state in March 1939 in violation of the Munich agreement. Britain and France responded by guaranteeing the integrity of the Polish state.
German forces moving into Poland was an act of war to France and Britain so France had to be neutralized before German forces moved into Russia.
The Crimea is the new Sudetenland, and it is Russia that is accumulating territory.
Never underestimate a bunch of fanatics. And even the *threat* of them having nukes could easily be enough to start WWIII.
The "fanatics" in this case being in Moscow, which as repeatedly threatened its neighbors with attack, including Ukraine. And now it is back to seizing territory as has previously occurred to many of the neighbors of Russia (nee Soviet Union) in the last century: Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania. Now they try again with Ukraine.
Ukraine is capable of producing advanced intercontinental range ballistic missiles, and its missile industry is second only to Russia's among the former Soviet republics. The linchpin of this industry is the former Yuzhnoye Scientific Production Association, arguably the preeminent intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) design and production facility in the Former Soviet Union, whose capabilities are matched only by a handful of U.S. and Russian missile enterprises.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a 'coup' in Kiev has created 'a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.'
Pay no attention to that signature on the dotted line.
An interesting bit of synchronicity here. If you go to the link above you'll see this as to where the Goliath was used:
First Battle: Sevastopol
Sevastopol is in Crimea, Ukraine, where Russian troops have recently moved in as they did in Finland. In both cases, Finland and Ukraine, the Russians (nee Soviets) said they were there to fight fascism. That would be so much more convincing if they didn't have this going on:
By "Ha ha ha" do you mean "If your nation can be destroyed by YouTube and Facebook, your nation is fairly described as pathetic?" Because if so, I agree completely.
It is not the technology of streaming video and pictures on the internet that they fear so much as what they bear: Ideas. Ideas are the pebble that begin the avalanche of action. The has brought change to many nations, including some that no longer exist, for good or ill.
Yes, I love selling to criminals, you know most gangbangers love buying $1500 AR-15's and $4500 AR-50 sniperrifles,
Not in my neck of the woods. Here it's mainly muzzle loading flintlocks. They're cheap, deadly, double as a club, and provide an excellent excuse to have large containers full of mysterious powders. They also provide a nice smokescreen for escaping from drive-by shootings.
The difference between now and then is that the US Government employs shitheads like the person I responded to
You didn't respond to a "shithead," you responded as one. It is a native patois that you customarily and unnecessarily adopt.
You believe I have an 8 hour a day job in a government office spreading propaganda. I believe you are an incendiary crank that is often unable to discern truth and fact from fancy and fringe ideas. One of us is right. It isn't you.
Now does that describe the Russian movement into Crimea? The 'pretext' was actually a request from the legitimate authorities in autonomous Crimea, and the Russian troops moved in peacefully, not violently. Does not sound like what Kerry is talking about at all.
Does it describe the Russian movement? Yes.
Crimea doesn't have full autonomy otherwise it would be an independent country, not part of Ukraine.
Do you think that the autonomous state of Maine could request that the Canadian military come and restore order in it? That makes as much sense.
If Crimea needed assistance the place for it to turn would be the national government in Kiev, not a foreign country, which is what Russia is.
However it fits what the US did a few years ago in Iraq to a T.
No, it doesn't. (Part of your pro-American stand?)
Oh, and when was this vote authorizing annexation? Perhaps I missed it but it seems more likely you are talking about the authorization to use force. Not the same thing as annexation at all, and you should know that.
I've seen reports that it was further along. Strangely enough they apparently started work on it last week. Do you think they knew something?
The Crimea, however, seems very likely to request annexation, and when they do the Russians will not be able to refuse.
I don't think it is really their decision to make unilaterally. But lets say they do. Won't Ukraine be fully justified at a future time to recapture and annex Crimea for the sake of the non-Russian minorities? Think of the Tartars! It is a dangerous game that Russia is playing. There are Russian minorities in many nations, are they all an excuse to invade and annex territory now? Apparently so. In case you didn't know, Russia was threatening the Baltic nations over their Russian minorities in the 1990s.
Remember Crimea is historically Russian, it was shifted to the Ukraine administratively back in the 1950s when it would still be part of the Soviet Union either way so no one cared.
The Soviet Republics each had their own governments. Crimea would have fallen under the Ukrainian SSR. It is still a change of government. You will note that Russia implicitly accepted this by leasing the naval bases from Ukraine. It has been stable for 60 years. The land connection to Crimea runs through Ukraine, not Russia.
...with the elected Ukrainian government having been overthrown in a putsch,...
It's not a "putsch" if the parliament has the power to remove an official and does so.
I'm not sure where you think the US is displaying greater chutzpah compared to the Russians. After all, it is Russian troops invading and not the US. All the US is doing is talking, and condemning Russian actions like most of the world.
Is there a limit you would support on Russian action? Annex Crimea - OK, annex Ukraine - No? What about just Eastern Ukraine? Maybe a city or two?
I think you've got this one wrong, and I'm not sure I see the pro-American side you mentioned. Your stand is pretty much an affirmation of Russian actions and criticism of American speech.
The politics is similar to a Guantanamo Bay Naval Base
The politics of the Crimea crisis are in fact very similar to the Sudetenland Crisis. Look! People of our blood live there and our being mistreated! We must rescue them (please overlook the many other benefit we receive from "the rescue." )
The propaganda is right out of the Soviet Winter War against Finland. Look! There are fascists there too! We must defeat the fascists (please overlook the many other benefit we receive from "defeating the fascists." ) If only Russia could do something about the growing fascist movements within its borders.
The origins of the crisis is basically NATO and the US want to surround and contain Russia.
The West was happy to have Russia rejoin the family of nations after the fall of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately Russia's current leadership has looked to the past, to the Soviet Union for how they want to behave. They are rehabilitating Stalin. They have resumed probing Western defenses with bombers and submarines as the Soviet Union did. The FSB and related agencies are regaining the powers of the KGB that had been stripped from them in the interest of a freer society. Russian military spending is increasing dramatically as they reform and rebuild their military.
The empire building is under way, and they are trying to gain back key pieces of territory.
Crimea is the Autonomous Republic of Crimea with its own constituion really and it was incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR by the communist Ukrainian clown Khrushchev in 1954.
In short you acknowledge that Crimea is legally part of Ukraine, and has been recognized as that by the world for the last 60 years. Russia leased bases there, so it acknowledged it in the past too. Russia has now seized this territory by force of arms and not by negotiation.
Yes, Russians (about 60% of population) invaded Crimea the same way as the British "invaded" Gibraltar or Maledives... err wait... Falklands.
OK, Russia invaded... good. The ethnicity population doesn't really matter. Should Germany invade Russia now to protect the Volga Germans that have been so abused? Does Russia have similar claims on Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and other nations that have people of Russian blood living in them? Russia was certainly menacing them in the 1990s. Russia has many nationalities in it, I'm surprised they want to start this sort of thing lest they find themselves on the other side of the argument.
As to the Falklands, they were not inhabited when the Europeans colonized them. They are 500 km off from the mainland, very far outside Argentina's waters.
Gibraltar has been under British control since before the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. The native population has chosen to remain British in several votes in the last 50 years.
Neither of those two cases really bolsters your argument.
Slashdot Mirror
How to explain it? There isn't much mystery I think.
Careful planning, speedy operations, overwhelming force, and generally achieving at least tactical surprise against a population with no viable means to either fight or defend itself. Even the Ukrainian military garrisons were greatly overmatched.
The Russians seem to have learned from their experiences in Georgia.
I don't give a flying fuck who invaded. Starting a nuclear war over some local pissing contest is NOT an option.
Russia clearly considers it an option for many policy issues, hence the threats, and now the invasion.
A discussion of a Cold War Soviet war plan found after the end of the Cold War:
This Is How the World Could Have Ended
Russia has had a treaty to use former Soviet military bases in Crimea, Ukraine, but Putin is now claiming that treaties with Ukraine are void. Russia doesn't have permission to occupy Crimea as it has, nor threaten to annex Crimea. Russia is also threatening a broader war on Ukraine having mobilized its army some time ago. It looks like you're the one that is out of touch. Sorry.
Russia has never invaded another country without provocation and destroyed its leadership like the US did with Iraq.
You mean like Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and maybe a few others?
You may recall it was the Russians that invaded.
Do you have any limits to the extent you would permit Russia to seize additional territory? Western Ukraine? Poland? Finland? Malta? Scotland?
You're missing some history.
Invasion of Poland, Fall 1939
In September 1938, after signing away the Czech border regions, known as the Sudetenland, to Germany at the Munich conference, British and French leaders pressured France's ally, Czechoslovakia, to yield to Germany's demand for the incorporation of those regions. Despite Anglo-French guarantees of the integrity of rump Czechoslovakia, the Germans dismembered the Czechoslovak state in March 1939 in violation of the Munich agreement. Britain and France responded by guaranteeing the integrity of the Polish state.
German forces moving into Poland was an act of war to France and Britain so France had to be neutralized before German forces moved into Russia.
The Crimea is the new Sudetenland, and it is Russia that is accumulating territory.
Never underestimate a bunch of fanatics. And even the *threat* of them having nukes could easily be enough to start WWIII.
The "fanatics" in this case being in Moscow, which as repeatedly threatened its neighbors with attack, including Ukraine. And now it is back to seizing territory as has previously occurred to many of the neighbors of Russia (nee Soviet Union) in the last century: Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania. Now they try again with Ukraine.
Russia threatens nuclear attack on Ukraine - 12 Feb 2008
Russia threatens to aim missiles at Czech Republic, Poland if US installs defence shield - 20-02-2007
Half of Ukraine's electricity is from nuclear power. That have 13 reactors now, and plan to add 11 more.
Ukraine's strange love for nuclear power
Missile
Ukraine is capable of producing advanced intercontinental range ballistic missiles, and its missile industry is second only to Russia's among the former Soviet republics. The linchpin of this industry is the former Yuzhnoye Scientific Production Association, arguably the preeminent intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) design and production facility in the Former Soviet Union, whose capabilities are matched only by a handful of U.S. and Russian missile enterprises.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a 'coup' in Kiev has created 'a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.'
Pay no attention to that signature on the dotted line.
The US isn't the one invading Ukraine, is it?
An interesting bit of synchronicity here. If you go to the link above you'll see this as to where the Goliath was used:
First Battle: Sevastopol
Sevastopol is in Crimea, Ukraine, where Russian troops have recently moved in as they did in Finland. In both cases, Finland and Ukraine, the Russians (nee Soviets) said they were there to fight fascism. That would be so much more convincing if they didn't have this going on:
Russia: Far-Right Nationalists And Neo-Nazis March In Moscow
I doubt that the Ukrainians will give the sort of bloody nose to the Russians that the Finns did in the Winter War.
The Soviet-Finnish Winter War
Battlefield Scandinavia the Forgotten Front Finnish Winter War
In Soviet Russia, attacking robots help defend you.
It's a bit too modern to be Steampunk, but a sci-fi world where vacuum tubes rule? Let's call it Tubepunk.
That would be enough for the internet, which as we know is tubes.
The linked article is still there.
Goliath: The Nazi Remote-Controlled Bomb
By "Ha ha ha" do you mean "If your nation can be destroyed by YouTube and Facebook, your nation is fairly described as pathetic?" Because if so, I agree completely.
It is not the technology of streaming video and pictures on the internet that they fear so much as what they bear: Ideas. Ideas are the pebble that begin the avalanche of action. The has brought change to many nations, including some that no longer exist, for good or ill.
Nah, the Amish War Masters have acclimated them.
Yes, I love selling to criminals, you know most gangbangers love buying $1500 AR-15's and $4500 AR-50 sniperrifles,
Not in my neck of the woods. Here it's mainly muzzle loading flintlocks. They're cheap, deadly, double as a club, and provide an excellent excuse to have large containers full of mysterious powders. They also provide a nice smokescreen for escaping from drive-by shootings.
my wife's pink AR-15 variant with Hello Kitty stickers
You need to document things like that otherwise people will think you're kidding.
You may find this interesting, both the C-SPAN program and books, if you aren't familiar with them.
The donors and bundlers were in solar. Get some in fusion.
The difference between now and then is that the US Government employs shitheads like the person I responded to
You didn't respond to a "shithead," you responded as one. It is a native patois that you customarily and unnecessarily adopt.
You believe I have an 8 hour a day job in a government office spreading propaganda. I believe you are an incendiary crank that is often unable to discern truth and fact from fancy and fringe ideas. One of us is right. It isn't you.
Now does that describe the Russian movement into Crimea? The 'pretext' was actually a request from the legitimate authorities in autonomous Crimea, and the Russian troops moved in peacefully, not violently. Does not sound like what Kerry is talking about at all.
Does it describe the Russian movement? Yes.
Crimea doesn't have full autonomy otherwise it would be an independent country, not part of Ukraine.
Do you think that the autonomous state of Maine could request that the Canadian military come and restore order in it? That makes as much sense.
If Crimea needed assistance the place for it to turn would be the national government in Kiev, not a foreign country, which is what Russia is.
However it fits what the US did a few years ago in Iraq to a T.
No, it doesn't. (Part of your pro-American stand?)
Oh, and when was this vote authorizing annexation? Perhaps I missed it but it seems more likely you are talking about the authorization to use force. Not the same thing as annexation at all, and you should know that.
URGENT - Russia Annexation Proposal
I've seen reports that it was further along. Strangely enough they apparently started work on it last week. Do you think they knew something?
The Crimea, however, seems very likely to request annexation, and when they do the Russians will not be able to refuse.
I don't think it is really their decision to make unilaterally. But lets say they do. Won't Ukraine be fully justified at a future time to recapture and annex Crimea for the sake of the non-Russian minorities? Think of the Tartars! It is a dangerous game that Russia is playing. There are Russian minorities in many nations, are they all an excuse to invade and annex territory now? Apparently so. In case you didn't know, Russia was threatening the Baltic nations over their Russian minorities in the 1990s.
Remember Crimea is historically Russian, it was shifted to the Ukraine administratively back in the 1950s when it would still be part of the Soviet Union either way so no one cared.
The Soviet Republics each had their own governments. Crimea would have fallen under the Ukrainian SSR. It is still a change of government. You will note that Russia implicitly accepted this by leasing the naval bases from Ukraine. It has been stable for 60 years. The land connection to Crimea runs through Ukraine, not Russia.
...with the elected Ukrainian government having been overthrown in a putsch,...
It's not a "putsch" if the parliament has the power to remove an official and does so.
I'm not sure where you think the US is displaying greater chutzpah compared to the Russians. After all, it is Russian troops invading and not the US. All the US is doing is talking, and condemning Russian actions like most of the world.
Is there a limit you would support on Russian action? Annex Crimea - OK, annex Ukraine - No? What about just Eastern Ukraine? Maybe a city or two?
I think you've got this one wrong, and I'm not sure I see the pro-American side you mentioned. Your stand is pretty much an affirmation of Russian actions and criticism of American speech.
The politics is similar to a Guantanamo Bay Naval Base
The politics of the Crimea crisis are in fact very similar to the Sudetenland Crisis. Look! People of our blood live there and our being mistreated! We must rescue them (please overlook the many other benefit we receive from "the rescue." )
The propaganda is right out of the Soviet Winter War against Finland. Look! There are fascists there too! We must defeat the fascists (please overlook the many other benefit we receive from "defeating the fascists." ) If only Russia could do something about the growing fascist movements within its borders.
The origins of the crisis is basically NATO and the US want to surround and contain Russia.
The West was happy to have Russia rejoin the family of nations after the fall of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately Russia's current leadership has looked to the past, to the Soviet Union for how they want to behave. They are rehabilitating Stalin. They have resumed probing Western defenses with bombers and submarines as the Soviet Union did. The FSB and related agencies are regaining the powers of the KGB that had been stripped from them in the interest of a freer society. Russian military spending is increasing dramatically as they reform and rebuild their military.
The empire building is under way, and they are trying to gain back key pieces of territory.
Putin Seeks to Create Post-Soviet 'Eurasian' Economic Union
Russia is creating the same need to contain it as the Soviet Union did. It doesn't have to be that way, but it is their choice.
Crimea is the Autonomous Republic of Crimea with its own constituion really and it was incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR by the communist Ukrainian clown Khrushchev in 1954.
In short you acknowledge that Crimea is legally part of Ukraine, and has been recognized as that by the world for the last 60 years. Russia leased bases there, so it acknowledged it in the past too. Russia has now seized this territory by force of arms and not by negotiation.
Yes, Russians (about 60% of population) invaded Crimea the same way as the British "invaded" Gibraltar or Maledives... err wait... Falklands.
OK, Russia invaded ... good. The ethnicity population doesn't really matter. Should Germany invade Russia now to protect the Volga Germans that have been so abused? Does Russia have similar claims on Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and other nations that have people of Russian blood living in them? Russia was certainly menacing them in the 1990s. Russia has many nationalities in it, I'm surprised they want to start this sort of thing lest they find themselves on the other side of the argument.
As to the Falklands, they were not inhabited when the Europeans colonized them. They are 500 km off from the mainland, very far outside Argentina's waters.
Gibraltar has been under British control since before the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. The native population has chosen to remain British in several votes in the last 50 years.
Neither of those two cases really bolsters your argument.