World War 3?

Have you guys been checking the news?

Most of you know about the political issues in Ukraine the last few months and only recently the President fled the country with the people performing a coup d'etat for good reason.

As of Friday, Russia has invaded Ukraine to take back its old territory and has been condemned by many countries. US and NATO are strongly against this action. Canada has removed its ambassador from the country and left the G8 as long as Russia is still in it it will no longer partake. Poland now has moved it's troops to its borders to prepare to give aid to its neighbor country.

Things are progressing quickly every hour.
 
Russia is entering to protect the ethnic Russian minority that are being attack by others in the country. Britain is assisting.

U.S. did the same thing in the late '90s with Serbia. We're hoping Russia won't commit human rights abuses, but considering what had been going on in Ukraine this past week, no one's on Ukraine's side. This is not a territory reclamation.

Have you considered employment with Fox News? :p
 
no one's on Ukraine's side.
No one's on the Ukraine's side - except the US?

Reuters: an hour ago
The United States signaled on Sunday it could give as much financial support as Ukraine needs to get the crisis-hit country's economy back on track.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, who has urged Kiev to seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund, said Washington could lend a hand either through bilateral programs or larger international institutions.

"The United States is prepared to work with its bilateral and multilateral partners to provide as much support as Ukraine needs," Lew told a conference, adding that Washington was monitoring the situation in Ukraine with "grave concern" after Russia's intervention in Ukraine's Crimea region.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/2/live-blog-crisisinukraine.html
 
I'd love/hate to see a comparison of Crimea to Serbia. Serbia 1914 I mean. Like around June 28, 1914. If people don't see the parallels here between all the "major powers" going to war over a small place like Serbia, and a small place like Crimea, you're insane.

The 100 year thing is just a "bonus" (if you want to call it that).



Overall, it'll probably be nothing. But that's what people thought about Ferdinand too (initially).
 
No one is going to start WW3 over Crimea. Crimea is a place that has wanted to part from Ukraine for decades. They love Russia there. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that some official in the region encouraged Russian intervention because they were getting no where with the Ukrainian government in getting their independence.

However, the Us throwing their support solely behind Ukraine makes me wonder if some old wounds haven't healed....
 
No one is going to start WW3 over Crimea. Crimea is a place that has wanted to part from Ukraine for decades. They love Russia there. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that some official in the region encouraged Russian intervention because they were getting no where with the Ukrainian government in getting their independence.

However, the Us throwing their support solely behind Ukraine makes me wonder if some old wounds haven't healed....
This. Crimea used to be part of Russia and was put under Ukraine's administration for simplicity reasons. This was how it remained until like 20 years ago when Ukraine split off and took it with them. Pretty much everyone involved is seeing this as Russian reclaiming lost territory and won't intervene unless things get REALLY out of hand. No one is about to start WWIII over UKRAINE.
 
What I'm worried about is that the Russians will do something in retaliation for retaking Crimea.


Dumb American Question: where exactly IS Crimea, in relation to the Ukraine itself?

EDIT: Never mind. Uh, okay, I can understand the issue. Yeech.
 
Last edited:
Shamelessly copied and pasted from Reddit:

The situation from Russia's perspective:
Primarily Russia is securing the future of the Black Sea Fleet
, in case the Ukrainian hardline Nationalists decide to break the treaty and take the Russian naval bases in Crimea. Base reinforcement was a preventative measure to nip any such action in the bud. Had Putin not done so and if the new Ukrainian government was foolish enough to take it by force (as some were suggesting) then there would have been an unavoidable war. Russia NEEDS warm water ports in Europe, this has been the the historical catalyst for over a dozen wars for Russia, under no circumstances will they give up their naval bases in Crimea. A show of strength is intended to show their commitment to keeping those bases. That is the bottom line of this situation, the ports must stay at all costs.
Naturally Russia is not happy with the turnout of the Ukrainian revolution. The way it sees it, a violent nationalist opposition overthrew the pro-Russian majority elected President of their close neighbor and ally. As a result a significant (ethnically and politically Russian) segment of the Ukrainian population now finds itself without due representation in government. In response Crimea, a historically and ethnically Russian region, declared autonomy from the "usurper" government in Kiev. A new government that through both action and rhetoric has shown that it is both volatile and not opposed to using violence to silence its pro-Russian opposition, something that they themselves condemned when it suited them. The Crimean administration has requested Russian troops stationed in Ukraine for protection from an otherwise likely attempts by the Kiev government to violently put down the Crimean revolt until the situation stabilizes.
Now this is where the situation could have got messy. A pro-Russian"wannabe" breakaway state (at least on paper), with a majority ethnically Russian populace, being threatened with violence right on Russia's own doorstep. The situation is starting to mirror the lead up to the 2008 Russian-Georgian war. However Russia has learned from that conflict and has altered their preventative doctrine accordingly. Instead of waiting for Ukraine to attack Crimea and then inevitably counterattacking, Russia laid out its cards on the table by deploying their forces within and outside of Ukrain. Through doing so they hope to cower the Ukrainian government into inaction and avoiding war in the process.
Neither side wants a war. The only way it could happen is through rash and foolish action undertaken by volatile elements in an attempt to get an easy win where there is none. In 2008 South Ossetia looked like an "easy win" for Georgia and many paid dearly for that illusion. If prior to troop mobilization Sevastopol and other Crimean bases looked "easy" then now they most certainly do not. Using Russian troops for protection of key points of infrastructure such as the Simferopol airport only strengthens their ability to protect the interests of Russia and the Crimean people.
Russia is being very cautious in how it chooses to proceed. So far Russia is following the existing treaties to the letter. No breach of any kind has so far taken place, despite all the media sensationalism. Note that pre-Duma approval, the troops defending the Simferopol airport intentionally don't have magazines in their rifles and no armour has been deployed, their presence around the airport in the current manner does not legally constitute an act of aggression or occupation. They are legally there as an informal peace keeping force. Russian troops are present around the airport, but officially they are not the ones controlling it, the Crimeans are running the show, at least on paper. The Russian troops are currently there in a role of an enabling shield, not a sword. Russian bases have been reinforced within the levels permitted by the 1994 treaty and their troop movements both within and outside of Ukraine are legally in the clear. Russia is taking every step to ensure that they are toeing the line of international laws and treaties.
Although Putin has obtained Duma's approval to deploy troops in Ukraine, so far it is held as a chip to strengthen the Russian position. A chip that has not been cashed in. Doing so without Ukrainian provocation would undermine the Russian position. Russia already has over 20,000 troops legally present within Ukraine. Double the force that was used to defeat Georgia.
In essence this tells us several things about Russian intention:
1) Such caution is not indicative of a country that set out to illegally annex Ukraine. Even without warnings from Western Powers such action would have made no sense for Russia.
2) Russia aims to remove Ukraine's ability to silence the Crimean opposition by force, by legally deploying troops around key Crimean access points and reinforcing their bases Russia is placing their own forces as a buffer between the pro-Russian Crimean opposition and potential use of Ukrainian forces to regain control of Crimea. A Russian show of strength on Ukrainian border is meant to signal to Ukraine that trying to force Russia out of Crimea will have serious consequences. The potential for Russia to instantly pour pre-approved troops into Ukraine further leverages Kiev away from seeking a military resolution.
3) Without the option to use force Ukraine will have to rely solely diplomatic means in order to negotiate with the Crimean opposition. This is greatly advantageous to Russia, the heavy pro-Russian sentiment of the population forms a Win-Win-Win scenario with the following outcomes:
WIN 1: Russia get to use its political leverage over Crimea to ensure that the Black Sea Fleet stays in Crimea in return for facilitating the reintegration of Crimea into Ukraine.
+
WIN 2: In doing so Crimean and other pro-Russian views will have to be represented within the new government, thus Russia regains a portion of its political influence in Ukraine.
or
Win 3: Crimea agrees to split away from Ukraine following the March referendum, joining Russia as a fully or semi-autonomous region.
Russia has its foot in the door, thus Ukraine is forced to respect the rights of the Crimean people. The only way Russia loses out is if Ukraine attacks, in that event everyone loses. Russia has been trying to prevent that from happening by flexing muscles to show that any such attack would be suicide.
tl,dr: Russia wants to keep the naval bases in Ukraine as the bottom line, protect the ethnic Russian population and to force the Ukrainian government to seek diplomatic solution in regard to Crimea. Through doing so they either regain some of their political influence within the new Ukrainian government or gain control of Crimea outright. All without firing a single shot.
 
The best equivalent for US minds would be if pro-Colombian forces were to suddenly seize the Panama Canal Zone.

EDIT: For that reason alone, I'm thinking Kerry better start getting the diplomatic solution into high gear, pronto.
 
Like I said, man.

I think certain folks in the US still have an axe to grind with Russia.
That was my thinking. It sounds like they were just looking for an excuse to start some shit.

See also: Iraq, Iran, possibly North Korea. Though I don't think the U.S. really gives two fucks about North Korea.
 
That was my thinking. It sounds like they were just looking for an excuse to start some shit.

See also: Iraq, Iran, possibly North Korea. Though I don't think the U.S. really gives two fucks about North Korea.
Does anyone care about NK? Not much anyone can do it about as the leadership is bat shit. You can;t reason with crazy so better to leave them alone until something majour happens.
 
Hey, you leave Wayne Gretsky out of this!

...wait, no. Geez, I really need to learn more about sports.
Yeah man, Gretzky was a baseball player with the Green Bay Mariners. Holds the record for the most sacks on the attacking midfielders in a single season. Get it right, man!
 
:facepalm: Goddammit, my country. Fucking hell.
It's not like it's just the US. Also from LittleSin's link:

President Obama spoke separately this afternoon with Prime Minister Cameron of the United Kingdom, President Komorowski of Poland, and Chancellor Merkel of Germany. The leaders expressed their grave concern over Russia’s clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law and a threat to international peace and security. The leaders stressed that dialogue between Ukraine and Russia should start immediately, with international facilitation as appropriate.

The leaders affirmed the importance of unity within the international community in support of international law and their support for the Government of Ukraine, including its territorial integrity and its efforts to move forward with elections in May so that the Ukrainian people can continue to determine their own future in this historic hour. The leaders also pledged to work together on a package of multilateral and bilateral financial assistance to help Ukraine as it pursues urgently needed reforms to stabilize its economy. The leaders agreed to continue to coordinate closely, including bilaterally, and through appropriate international organizations.

The President reaffirmed the United States’ longstanding and continuing commitment to security and democracy in Eastern Europe.
Sounds like there's a lot of countries not happy with Russia here.
 
The thing that "gets" me here is how much (from first glance at least) that Crimea resembles Tibet. Don't see the parallels? Here's a breakdown for you. Thank you wikipedia.
  1. Crimea was conquered by Russia in 1783 - Tibet was conquered by China in 1951 - Both regions beside a much more powerful neighbor get invaded and 100% dominated politically.
  2. In 1945 Stalin deports the indigenous Crimean Tartar majority and moves in Russians - China has been moving people INTO Tibet ever since they conquered it, and if they've been deporting as well, please post that. It wouldn't surprise me, but I have no specific knowledge.
  3. Decades later, when the political situation has changed, Crimea is loyal to Russia, as they are now majority Russian - Decades later, Tibet can never be its own nation again, as the majority of the people are not "traditionally" from Tibet.
It's a nasty little strategy that requires dominating a region for decades, but DOES work because later how do people call for independence when they're no longer the majority? It's worse because many of the people the "traditional people" are speaking out against, were born there. Your country is basically forever after gone and subject to the larger nation/empire. How many other examples throughout history have done the same where a large nation expands control this way?
 

Dave

Staff member
All I know is that Poland is really freaking out right now and Czechoslovakia is making parallels between the actions of Putin's Russia and Hitler's Germany.

And the US just can't win. If we go in, we're using our Western influence and getting involved in another foreign conflict. If we do nothing we are weak and Obama is weak. Seriously, nothing the US does will be the right thing to do.

And my son is now in the Army in a combat field.
 
All I know is that Poland is really freaking out right now and Czechoslovakia is making parallels between the actions of Putin's Russia and Hitler's Germany.
Yeah, this is the problem. Even if you give Russia the greatest possible benefit of the doubt, what they're doing is ticking every mental checkbox every single country in that region has for "shit is about to fall on us in the form of someone else's tanks".
 
And my son is now in the Army in a combat field.
Oh don't worry. If it's Russia & China vs NATO, it won't matter. Everybody has nukes. With those, being a civilian vs military doesn't matter much.


I wish that came off less gallows humour, but I guess that's what it is, so "meh." It's not a "nice" topic.
 
No one is going to start WW3 over Crimea. Crimea is a place that has wanted to part from Ukraine for decades. They love Russia there. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that some official in the region encouraged Russian intervention because they were getting no where with the Ukrainian government in getting their independence.

However, the Us throwing their support solely behind Ukraine makes me wonder if some old wounds haven't healed....

World War I started over the assassination of one archduke.
 
World War I started over the assassination of one archduke.
I'm more like WWI started because of a series of treaties, partnerships, and co-defense packs that obligated all the countries involved to fight it out or lose all credibility in the world. The death of the archduke was simply the first domino in a long chain of stupid decisions.
 
I'm more like WWI started because of a series of treaties, partnerships, and co-defense packs that obligated all the countries involved to fight it out or lose all credibility in the world. The death of the archduke was simply the first domino in a long chain of stupid decisions.
The Archduke was the flick after Europe set up the dominoes for years.
 
Russia's gonna win this one for one simple reason: "They realized that to be in power, you didn't need guns or money or even numbers. You just needed the will to do what the other guy wouldn't." - Kaiser Soze

Except that in this case they HAVE the guns AND the numbers AND the will to use them. Everybody else won't. Russia wins.

The only way this changes IMO is if people even talk about something more than economic sanctions. Then things might change. Otherwise, it's all just talk. Talk didn't stop the USSR in Hungary in 1956, didn't stop them doing whatever the hell they wanted in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and didn't stop their most heinous act, the Holodomor- an artificial famine in Ukraine (yes, the SAME Ukraine) that killed over 7.5 MILLION people in 1932-33. I don't expect any different here in terms of what Russia will/won't do. They'll do whatever the hell they want in anything they perceive as "their" sphere of influence until somebody at least puts guns on the table.

But we won't, because we're all (rightly) afraid of nuclear war. So Crimea will be theirs.
 
Top