It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
Russia has no right to Crimea.
Russia has a very large naval base in Crimea. I'd say that gives them a right to be there. Or do they not have the right to secure their military assets? Also, I don't see the Crimean people gathering in mass protest to the Russian presence. Crimea used to be a part of Russia. Most Crimeans IDENTIFY themselves as Russian.
The sheer hypocrisy turns my stomach. But hey, maybe the US should send in the troops to go and save Ukrainian democracy....but we all know that won't happen because the US is only capable of attacking countries that can pose it no real military threat. The Russian bear is simply biting off more than they can chew....and they know it.
reply to post by DJW001
If Putin were competent, he could have secured Sevastopol by diplomacy.
The haste with which Putin is acting suggests that he is afraid that his time in power is limited.
Russia has not conquered anything militarily since the time of Catherine the Great.
Georgia remains an independent country, despite Russia's best efforts.
They lost Afghanistan to superstitious peasants.
DJW001
Actually, it is Russia that has a miserable record in that regard. Russia has not conquered anything militarily since the time of Catherine the Great.
BABYBULL24
Russia wouldn't have a Navy if Putin didn't respond.
He had to - i mean he doesn't have to take the whole peninsula but what is he suppose to do?
He is renting the base...they have a lease.
It would be like the Cuban's taking over Gitmo...what would we do? Well Obama would probably hand it over but that's beside the point.
reply to post by stumason
Russia has no legitimate reason to be anywhere but in it's Naval Base in Sevastopol.
Had they just allowed the transition to take place, they'd still have their base.
They want someone who dances to their tune, not someone who wants closer ties with Europe.
Also, Afghanistan isn't "unconquerable" - the British successfully subdued them in 19th century.
The first Afghan War (1839-42) began when British commanders sent a huge army of British and Indian troops into Afghanistan to secure it against Russian incursions, replacing the ruling emir with a British protege. Facing Afghan opposition, by January 1842 the British were forced to withdraw from Kabul with a column of 16,500 soldiers and civilians, heading east to the garrison at Jalalabad, 110 miles away. Only a single survivor of that group ever made it to Jalalabad safely, though the British forces did recover some prisoners many months later.
According to the late Louis Dupree, the premier historian of Afghanistan, four factors contributed to the British disaster: the occupation of Afghan territory by foreign troops, the placing of an unpopular emir on the throne, the harsh acts of the British -supported Afghans against their local enemies, and the reduction of the subsidies paid to the tribal chiefs by British political agents. The British would repeat these mistakes in the second Afghan War (1878-81), as would the Soviets a century later; the United States would be wise to consider them today.
The British fought yet a third war with Afghanistan in 1917, an encounter that neither burnished British martial history nor subdued the Afghan people.
deadcalm
Given that more than half of the Crimean pininsula are ethnic Russians....and that more than half of them are Russian speakers, I'd say that Russia has a legitimate right to be there if for no other reason than to protect it's people. The Crimeans identify themselves as Russian and their loyalties lie with Russia. If this were not so....how come you are not seeing the Crimean people rising up in protest of the Russian presence?
deadcalm
One extremely important point here is who are the people that currently control Kiev? They are ultra nationalist fascists. They have threatened to revive the Ukraines nuclear weapons program....
deadcalm
Not to mention the massive instability that they have created in the Ukraine, instability that could easily spill over into Russia.
deadcalm
I wonder what the US would do if a bunch of ultra nationalists deposed the democratically elected leader of Mexico and destabilized that country? What if those ultra nationalists were being covertly funded by Moscow, as is the case in the Ukraine with the CIA? Would they sit idly by and just watch it happen? Not likely.
deadcalm
They have their base now...as well as the whole peninsula. But just what kind of "transition" are we talking about here? A transition to what?
deadcalm
They overthrew a democratically elected leader. The west just loves democracy in theory....just not in practice.
deadcalm
The same can be said for Western interests. They want to hand the Ukraine to the vultures in the IMF so they can siphon off their wealth and slap the Ukrainians in perpetual debt slavery. Thats hardly beneficial to the people of Ukraine.
deadcalm
Still dreaming of the good ole days of the British Empire are we? You must be dreaming, because the English were never able to subdue Afghanistan....
deadcalm
The first Afghan War (1839-42) began when British commanders sent a huge army of British and Indian troops into Afghanistan to secure it against Russian incursions, replacing the ruling emir with a British protege. Facing Afghan opposition, by January 1842 the British were forced to withdraw from Kabul with a column of 16,500 soldiers and civilians, heading east to the garrison at Jalalabad, 110 miles away. Only a single survivor of that group ever made it to Jalalabad safely, though the British forces did recover some prisoners many months later.
Does that sound subdued to you? LOL. A single survivor....but being the English, they weren't gonna leave it at that...in for a penny in for a pound eh?
reply to post by stumason
None of that is even relevant.
It's the territory of the Ukraine
And we are seeing pro-Kiev demo's alongside the pro-Moscow one's, you're just choosing to ignore them.
Some are these right-wingers, but to paint them all as such is a lie and you know it.
Instead, we're just going to have a Civil War instead and instability anyway - with refugees flooding the EU too.
I would hardly call Yanukovych "democratically" elected. Not only did he fail to even get a majority (only 48% of the popular vote) but there were widespread accusations of vote rigging and fraud. Again, something you're choosing to ignore.
Considering that in Kiev there is a transitional Government,
Instead, you're happy to have them chained to Russia instead?
Not much of a choice, really, assuming you're paranoid ramblings about the IMF are even true, that is.
Rumours are that the former President has done a runner with over $70 Billion of Ukraine's cash, leaving them broke.
Secondly, the 2nd Afghan War was a victory for the Empire, so yes we were able to subdue them. The first time we just didn't take enough men and were cocky, the second time we did it properly.
According to the late Louis Dupree, the premier historian of Afghanistan, four factors contributed to the British disaster: the occupation of Afghan territory by foreign troops, the placing of an unpopular emir on the throne, the harsh acts of the British -supported Afghans against their local enemies, and the reduction of the subsidies paid to the tribal chiefs by British political agents. The British would repeat these mistakes in the second Afghan War (1878-81), as would the Soviets a century later; the United States would be wise to consider them today.
I knew you'd get it wrong, which is why I deliberately didn't mention the 2nd Afghan War in my reply to you to see if you could anything but read up on the first Wiki page you found. Try again, sunshine.
Milton Bearden served as CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, where he was responsible for that agency's covert action program in support of the Afghan resistance to the Soviet-supported government.
reply to post by DJW001
As it is, his military actions are about to cause them grief and suffering.
deadcalm
reply to post by DJW001
As it is, his military actions are about to cause them grief and suffering.
The Russian's hand was forced by US meddling in Ukraine's internal politics. This was nothing less than another US attempt at desablization and regime change....and it failed. Barry messed with the Russian's one too many times and now Putin is calling him out.
The Russians have nothing to fear from the US nor it's military. That would be biting off wayyyy more than they can chew.
reply to post by peter vlar
That's certainly one interpretation.
with the hopes that any resulting civil war would allow the Russian Federation to be in a position of maintaining their ally/puppet government
Honestly, what you seem to have been advocating in this thread in regards to Russian occupation of Crimea is the equivalent t supporting Mexico in their goal of retaking Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California who all have a large percentage of Spanish speakers and native Mexicans amongst their populations.
National sovereignty is national sovereignty
Ukranian matter Nd shod be left to the Ukranians to sort out and I believe rather strongly that between now and whenever they hold national elections in Ukraine that Crimea would likely have at least ttempted to secede from Ukraine,at which point Russiancould have formulated a legitimate reason for sending in additional troops. Just my take on it.
At the start of February, a very important conversation between Assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked, the infamous "f----the EU" recording. During the clip, Nuland and Pyatt discuss their desired outcome for the crisis in Ukraine. Now that 3 weeks have passed since the leak and events have developed, it is instructive to listen to the recording once again. (See below.) Keep in mind that this leak was made on February 2, which means the conversation occurred before that date. Viktor Yanukovych did not lose power over the Ukrainian government until more than three weeks later February 24th.
The recording reveals Nuland and Pyatt discussing whether Vitali Klitschko, sometimes referred to as “Klitsch” in the recording, should be named the deputy prime minister and seems to assume that Arseniy Yatseniuk, sometimes referred to in the recording as “Yats,” will become prime minister. Since that conversation,Yatseniuk has, indeed, become prime minister. Anybody that tells you that the US is not running the "revolution" from behind the scenes is blowing smoke.
The US military, for all its flaws, has been training for and has had one consistent mission statement for over a dozen years now, battle preparedness.
They've got some of the most experienced and battle hardened troops in the world right now with everything in place for quick mobilization as well as the largest SOC in American history giving them more tier 1 and tier 2 special forces troops than some nations have standing armies.
The only advantages I see for Russia are troop strength/numbers and the AK-47.
how did Russia fare during its last outing in the Crimea? It led to not just their defeat but the upheaval of tw entirety of Russian society because it led directly to freeing the serfs among other reforms.
As you seem to be a student of history
deadcalm
with the hopes that any resulting civil war would allow the Russian Federation to be in a position of maintaining their ally/puppet government
I take issue with that statement. Yanukovich was democratically elected by the people of the Ukraine. He was not installed by the Russians through nefarious means....as is the current transitional "government". Yanukovich and the majority of the Ukrainian people are sympathetic to Russia. This was a problem for the minority in the Ukraine that wanted the country to hitch it's post to the EU...ergo...the World Bank and IMF.
Honestly, what you seem to have been advocating in this thread in regards to Russian occupation of Crimea is the equivalent t supporting Mexico in their goal of retaking Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California who all have a large percentage of Spanish speakers and native Mexicans amongst their populations.
No...what I am saying is that the Russians have a legitimate reason for being in the Crimean penisula and the Ukraine. Without western interference, the Crimea and Ukraine would be free of Russian troops right now and we'd be debating something else. As I stated before....Russia's hand was forced due to Western meddling...and we've all seen how that turns out....can you blame the Russians for wanting to nip that in the bud?
National sovereignty is national sovereignty
Except when it comes to the US and western powers. They started this ball rolling by financing and giving logistical support to the Ultra Nationalist Fascists to overthrow a democratically elected leader. Just as they did in Iran....but what could go wrong with that?...(sarcasm). Ditto for Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The mistake here was thinking that the Russians would allow this on their own borders.
Ukranian matter Nd shod be left to the Ukranians to sort out and I believe rather strongly that between now and whenever they hold national elections in Ukraine that Crimea would likely have at least ttempted to secede from Ukraine,at which point Russiancould have formulated a legitimate reason for sending in additional troops. Just my take on it.
I whole-heartedly agree with your statement...alas, if only the US/Western powers would have kept their nose out of it. Maybe someday they will learn. I won't hold my breath though....
To illustrate my point...consider the following....this story only got a tiny bit of coverage.. but shows CLEARLY this was all planned.
Coincidence?? I think not. Ooops. In a better world the MSM would be all over this...but of course they aren't. I wonder why?
The US military, for all its flaws, has been training for and has had one consistent mission statement for over a dozen years now, battle preparedness.
[quote ] They've got some of the most experienced and battle hardened troops in the world right now with everything in place for quick mobilization as well as the largest SOC in American history giving them more tier 1 and tier 2 special forces troops than some nations have standing armies.
Not to mention that they outspend the rest of the world combined in defence spending. But tell me this....why has every military adventure they've been on since WW2 ended in abject failure? Just because you are the biggest and the strongest doesn't assure victory as the last 12 years have clearly shown. Your over reliance on your fancy technology will be your undoing. Ask the Germans...they also had a highly trained, technologically advanced army...the best in the world at the time, and they lost. In any protracted engagement with a serious adversary...such as Russia, the US would get their butts handed to them. Please bear in mind that you no longer have the manufacturing capabilities you had in WW2, which was the reason that Nazi Germany was defeated. They had better toys technologically, and a far better trained army....but the US had the power of NUMBERS. They simply out produced the Germans.
how did Russia fare during its last outing in the Crimea? It led to not just their defeat but the upheaval of tw entirety of Russian society because it led directly to freeing the serfs among other reforms.
Not well as you clearly know....a mistake they will not repeat, I can assure you. But that situation bears no relevance to where Russia is today. They are a far different country now than they were then.
As you seem to be a student of history
I certainly try to be...
Thank you for the thoughtful post...I enjoyed it and hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction.