I consider Crimea, and really the Ukraine, as part of Russia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You twit. Haven't the last several decades taught you anything? The game isn't to fight Russia militarily, old school style, the game is to get Russia entangled in military expenditure at the expense of everything else and to then bankrupt Russia - and that war is already taking its toll. Didn't Afghanistan and the days of Perestroika teach you anything about how this stuff works?

I think you're the one who's been taking it easy at school. The perestroika farce left the West much more of an idiot than Russia - yes, you told yourself you bankrupted the country, then plowed billions of your taxpayer money into aid packages (which funded lots of lots of expensive real estate around the world with zero difference to ordinary Russians), then rode high on the dumb dream of "as soon as we show these guys the free market and democracy, they'd become exactly like us!", and then...what? I guess you don't question how effective your "bankrupting" strategy is if mere decades later Russia remains easily capable of fucking its impotent, corrupt, utterly dependent neighbors up the ass. Uh-huh.

Russia's foolish Ukraine strategy is already weakening its already-fragile economy. I'm not too worried about where this is going, but obviously you seem to be in quite a twitter over it.

Russia's economy was in the crapper regardless of Ukraine. I don't care about either of these countries but I enjoy calling out the ignorant Americans and their myopic worldviews, as well as grammatical shortcomings. It's "atwitter". Not "in a twitter." Twitter is something else entirely.

Two observations that may hopefully help you in the future:

A.) You're a trolling ass.
B.) You overestimate your grasp of the English language.

You're welcome

NP here and I am really confused with your post:
1. PP is not the one needing help here, quite the opposite, IMO. Her/his arguments seem logical even if they don't support your views, and her/his reasonable questions remain mostly unanswered.
2. What makes you think s/he is trolling?
3. Why do you say that PP overestimates her/his grasp of English? Unlike you and me s/he is capable of writing in full paragraphs, and does it eloquently and clearly. I am asking it sincerely as an ESL-speaker myself. I would never detect a non-native speaker from PP's writing style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, I guess you don't know much about helicopter and tank warfare, but yes, we can hold them off just like we helped the mujahideen do it in the 70s. You sound drunk, so when you sober up we can discuss it in more detail.

Your use of "we" makes me think you're the one who's high on something. YOU can hold them off? Take that little three-point hat off your head, it makes you look even dumber than you are. Russia isn't exactly short on tanks or helicopters. And more importantly...is Afghanistan better off, now that "you" helped the majahideen? Yes, I know, you left behind such a flourishing country, the envy of the whole neighborhood. Ukraine must be positively clamoring to end up exactly like Afghanistan.

You are long on insults, short on data. And "we" is the United States government. And yes, there aren't really many good countermeasures for good AGTMs these days. And that plus their slow speed is why tanks are becoming obsolete. Which is why they are laying people off at the Bradley and at the M1 Abrams factories. This is really basic stuff.

I'd like you to address the main point - you think Ukraine is eager to be your next Afghanistan? Really? Because clearly, "your" intervention made things so massively better for that country, didn't it?

Since neither I nor anyone here offered up that main point, I see no reason to address it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, I guess you don't know much about helicopter and tank warfare, but yes, we can hold them off just like we helped the mujahideen do it in the 70s. You sound drunk, so when you sober up we can discuss it in more detail.

Your use of "we" makes me think you're the one who's high on something. YOU can hold them off? Take that little three-point hat off your head, it makes you look even dumber than you are. Russia isn't exactly short on tanks or helicopters. And more importantly...is Afghanistan better off, now that "you" helped the majahideen? Yes, I know, you left behind such a flourishing country, the envy of the whole neighborhood. Ukraine must be positively clamoring to end up exactly like Afghanistan.

You are long on insults, short on data. And "we" is the United States government. And yes, there aren't really many good countermeasures for good AGTMs these days. And that plus their slow speed is why tanks are becoming obsolete. Which is why they are laying people off at the Bradley and at the M1 Abrams factories. This is really basic stuff.

I'd like you to address the main point - you think Ukraine is eager to be your next Afghanistan? Really? Because clearly, "your" intervention made things so massively better for that country, didn't it?

Since neither I nor anyone here offered up that main point, I see no reason to address it.

Actually, you did, but it's entirely possible you haven't thought that all the way through. It's been known to happen. You said "we" can hold them off just like we helped the mujahidden in the 70s". Presumably, you'd do it to help the victim party in your mind, i.e. Ukraine. Actually, "you" would do it to advance what you foolishly think are your interests, but we'll leave that aside for now.

I responded, quite reasonably, by pointing out that whatever you did to "help" the mujahiddeen didn't work out all that dandy for the country in which you did it, i.e. Afghanistan. What makes you think Ukraine is eager to follow that path?

But it's entirely possible this was too quick a line of thought for you. That, too, has been known to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this even a question? They declared independence with a 90% yes vote, including 56% of crimea. They are not part of Russia because they formally declared it so.

what does this even mean? If the South voted to secede, do we care?

We certainly cared at one point.

The analogy is flawed. The south was never a separate nation. Ukraine was a distinct nationality from the mid 1700s.

No. Part of the Russian Empire, controlled by the Czar unil 1917, part of the USSR, controlled by Moscow, until 1990something.l

You do not seem to understand the difference between a nation and a state.

Point is, maybe 20 of the last 700 years has the Ukraine been able to make any decisions separate from Russia

That does not mean that they have no national identity. They do. And their lack of success at obtaining independence does not diminish it. This is distinct from the American South. Thus, the analogy does not work.

its a flawed analogy, but the Ukraine has only been independent for a brief instance. They are undeniably within the Russian sphere of influence. I think we need to defer to Russia here. Now we are much more powerful and more rich than Russia, and Russia is trending downwards, but you need to pick your battles.

Ukraine and Crimea have had their own distinct cultures and languages going back many hundreds of years. The Russian influence only goes back less than 100 years and was strictly an act of overt colonialism, in an era when the rest of the world was trying to reverse colonialism. The only reason there are areas in Ukraine and Crimea that have any Russian language, identity or sympathies at all is because Russians were shipped there by Soviet era regimes, most of them have no roots there, in fact many of them were not even born there. The entire Russian presence there is completely artificial.

Where did you learn your history from? Before Russian Empire took Crimea in 1783 it was part of Ottoman empire (Turks) and as for Ukraine Rusians consider their culture to start from "Kievskaya Rus'". Ukraine was actually never a separate state (at least for extended period of time in the same borders)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Uh, I guess you don't know much about helicopter and tank warfare, but yes, we can hold them off just like we helped the mujahideen do it in the 70s. You sound drunk, so when you sober up we can discuss it in more detail.

Your use of "we" makes me think you're the one who's high on something. YOU can hold them off? Take that little three-point hat off your head, it makes you look even dumber than you are. Russia isn't exactly short on tanks or helicopters. And more importantly...is Afghanistan better off, now that "you" helped the majahideen? Yes, I know, you left behind such a flourishing country, the envy of the whole neighborhood. Ukraine must be positively clamoring to end up exactly like Afghanistan.

You are long on insults, short on data. And "we" is the United States government. And yes, there aren't really many good countermeasures for good AGTMs these days. And that plus their slow speed is why tanks are becoming obsolete. Which is why they are laying people off at the Bradley and at the M1 Abrams factories. This is really basic stuff.

I'd like you to address the main point - you think Ukraine is eager to be your next Afghanistan? Really? Because clearly, "your" intervention made things so massively better for that country, didn't it?

Since neither I nor anyone here offered up that main point, I see no reason to address it.

Actually, you did, but it's entirely possible you haven't thought that all the way through. It's been known to happen. You said "we" can hold them off just like we helped the mujahidden in the 70s". Presumably, you'd do it to help the victim party in your mind, i.e. Ukraine. Actually, "you" would do it to advance what you foolishly think are your interests, but we'll leave that aside for now.

I responded, quite reasonably, by pointing out that whatever you did to "help" the mujahiddeen didn't work out all that dandy for the country in which you did it, i.e. Afghanistan. What makes you think Ukraine is eager to follow that path?

But it's entirely possible this was too quick a line of thought for you. That, too, has been known to happen.

Wow, that's a whole lot of crazy in that post. I am going to have to leave much of this aside because (1) I never spoke about which side I even said was right in the conflict, nor did I speak about "my" interests. I merely made a comment about how one could handle the soviets.

As for the mujahideen, I mentioned this only as an example. I did not say that in every single way the plan would be the same. This should be clear to you because the soviets do not occupy Ukraine, nor have they installed a government sympathetic to them, nor are the Ukrainians a tribal resistance movement operating out of the mountains.

But since you seemed so intent on understanding how to stop Russian tanks, I told you.

I am getting the idea that you don't know the first thing about war. You seem mostly a person who likes to argue points with insults, and you don't stop until the other poster tires and goes away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tatars are not originally native to Crimea. All of mankind is tribal, from other areas.

The Tatars have a far longer and more legitimate claim to Crimea than the johnny-come-lately Russians do. And they made it clear that they did not approve of Crimean annexation by Russia.

Did the Normans have a legitimate claim to Britian? The conquistadors to Mexico and Peru? So naive.

We are talking about war. Brute force.

That's what's basically happened in Crimea - and now Ukraine. It's the 800 pound gorilla throwing its weight around, trying to take whatever it can. There's zero illusion of legitimacy about it anywhere outside of Russian media.

again, for the 100th time, what are you prepared to do about it?

I'm not the poster you are sparring with, but we will arm Ukraine to stall the Russians militarily, until the combination of the oil shock and sanctions bring the domestic situation to a boil. Putin's only out will be to back off.

Are you the same PP who wrote before about Afganistan? because arming Taliban there against USSR worked so well for USA in the end... Honestly, we should just stay out of let Urope deal with this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tatars are not originally native to Crimea. All of mankind is tribal, from other areas.

The Tatars have a far longer and more legitimate claim to Crimea than the johnny-come-lately Russians do. And they made it clear that they did not approve of Crimean annexation by Russia.

Did the Normans have a legitimate claim to Britian? The conquistadors to Mexico and Peru? So naive.

We are talking about war. Brute force.

That's what's basically happened in Crimea - and now Ukraine. It's the 800 pound gorilla throwing its weight around, trying to take whatever it can. There's zero illusion of legitimacy about it anywhere outside of Russian media.

again, for the 100th time, what are you prepared to do about it?

I'm not the poster you are sparring with, but we will arm Ukraine to stall the Russians militarily, until the combination of the oil shock and sanctions bring the domestic situation to a boil. Putin's only out will be to back off.

Are you the same PP who wrote before about Afganistan? because arming Taliban there against USSR worked so well for USA in the end... Honestly, we should just stay out of let Urope deal with this one.

So you are saying that any time we give arms to someone, the result is that we end up with a Taliban? That's preposterous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Wow, that's a whole lot of crazy in that post. I am going to have to leave much of this aside because (1) I never spoke about which side I even said was right in the conflict, nor did I speak about "my" interests.

No, you'll leave it aside because you have nothing of value to say in response.

Anonymous wrote:
I merely made a comment about how one could handle the soviets.

By bringing up an example that time has so clearly showed to be a clusterfuckin' failure? A really impressive rhetorical strategy. Top-notch.

Anonymous wrote:
As for the mujahideen, I mentioned this only as an example. I did not say that in every single way the plan would be the same. This should be clear to you because the soviets do not occupy Ukraine, nor have they installed a government sympathetic to them, nor are the Ukrainians a tribal resistance movement operating out of the mountains.

But since you seemed so intent on understanding how to stop Russian tanks, I told you.

I have no interest in tanks. This conflict won't be solved by tanks.

Anonymous wrote:
I am getting the idea that you don't know the first thing about war. You seem mostly a person who likes to argue points with insults, and you don't stop until the other poster tires and goes away.

You seem like the person who doesn't know anything about Russia or Ukraine, or in fact anything beyond American tanks. That is an acceptable way to be for only one person in the world, and his name is Tom Donnelly. I can bet my firstborn you ain't him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So you are saying that any time we give arms to someone, the result is that we end up with a Taliban? That's preposterous.

She's saying that when "you" give arms to someone, the results are out of your hands. Taliban is one example. Actually, I struggle to think of an example when "you" gave arms to someone and it ended up well - for that country.

[Anonymous]

Bottom line is that if Russia wants Eastern Ukraine, they will get it. The west doesn't have the political will to fight this fight, nor is it in their own interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Wow, that's a whole lot of crazy in that post. I am going to have to leave much of this aside because (1) I never spoke about which side I even said was right in the conflict, nor did I speak about "my" interests.

No, you'll leave it aside because you have nothing of value to say in response.

Anonymous wrote:
I merely made a comment about how one could handle the soviets.

By bringing up an example that time has so clearly showed to be a clusterfuckin' failure? A really impressive rhetorical strategy. Top-notch.

Anonymous wrote:
As for the mujahideen, I mentioned this only as an example. I did not say that in every single way the plan would be the same. This should be clear to you because the soviets do not occupy Ukraine, nor have they installed a government sympathetic to them, nor are the Ukrainians a tribal resistance movement operating out of the mountains.

But since you seemed so intent on understanding how to stop Russian tanks, I told you.

I have no interest in tanks. This conflict won't be solved by tanks.

Anonymous wrote:
I am getting the idea that you don't know the first thing about war. You seem mostly a person who likes to argue points with insults, and you don't stop until the other poster tires and goes away.

You seem like the person who doesn't know anything about Russia or Ukraine, or in fact anything beyond American tanks. That is an acceptable way to be for only one person in the world, and his name is Tom Donnelly. I can bet my firstborn you ain't him.

It wasn't me who went on and on and on and on and on and on about Russian tanks. How many posts about stopping the Russian tanks rolling in? As a matter of fact, I know quite a bit about Russia. The fact that I know something about tanks does not detract from that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It wasn't me who went on and on and on and on and on and on about Russian tanks. How many posts about stopping the Russian tanks rolling in? As a matter of fact, I know quite a bit about Russia. The fact that I know something about tanks does not detract from that.

You hide it well, then. I actually don't think anyone went on - let alone on and on and on and on - about Russian tanks, stopping them or saluting them. Come to think of it, no one did. Who cares about tanks, again?

[Anonymous]

Whatever the heck Ukraine is, it is a European matter not worth getting into war over. Like we don't have enough domestic problems!

[Anonymous]

wow, nobody here care about the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. Russia violated the treaty so Ukraine may rearm itself now with nuclear warheads.