The Ukraine

[angle]

I've seen 10 year old children troll better than you. Best keep quiet when the adults are talking.

Was that an example of high quality "trolling", fit for a ten year old child? Thank you, much appreciated. I do feel schooled.

Same as the Russians.

Really? Can you please provide proof of Russian military involvement in the conflict.

Plenty of neo-nazis fighting on their side too.

I presume that by "their side" you mean the Donbass region? Once again, please provide proof of this claim.

Besides, Russia (or the USSR) would know a thing or two about siding with the Nazis, wouldn't they? At least until 1941, that is.

When did USSR side with nazis? As with previous statements, please do back this up with actual facts, because at present it seems that you are talking out of your butthurt arse.

We should at least agree that this is a good thing, as long as they are killing each other.

Well, this says a lot about your moral values, mental state and level of intellect to boot.

[pzkpfw]

When did USSR side with nazis?

You missed his "At least until 1941, that is.".

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov...ibbentrop_Pact

Ask Poland how that went.

[oldrider]

Brother Nates cousin on Russia. Stephen

Another good history lesson -- easy to verify and critique too!

Already coming true here: http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...ussia/?utm_sou

[angle]

You missed his "At least until 1941, that is.".

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov...ibbentrop_Pact

How does a non-aggression agreement equal to an alliance (as that what "siding with" means)? Non-aggression pacts were very common during that time and all major players in Europe had similar pacts with Nazi Germany for quite a number of years, including UK and France. USSR was the last state to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany.

Ask Poland how that went.

How what went? The non-aggression pact between Poland and Nazi Germany that was signed in 1934? It did not go too bad for Poland at first, especially when it invaded Czechoslovakia side by side with the German Nazis in 1938. Polish dreams of invading Russia again were cut short though, since Poland was so useless in the military sense that it was more of a nuisance than an ally and it was easier for Germany to take over Poland then support it.

[pzkpfw]

How does a non-aggression agreement equal to an alliance (as that what "siding with" means)? Non-aggression pacts were very common during that time and all major players in Europe had similar pacts with Nazi Germany for quite a number of years, including UK and France. USSR was the last state to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany.

Yeah, except France and Britain didn't invade Austria or Czechoslovakia (or Poland) to grab a piece of them when Germany went in. There was more to the Germany/USSR pact than "non-aggression".

You can say that's not "siding with", but you're just using weasel words.

How what went? The non-aggression pact between Poland and Nazi Germany that was signed in 1934? It did not go too bad for Poland at first, especially when it invaded Czechoslovakia side by side with the German Nazis in 1938. Polish dreams of invading Russia again were cut short though, since Poland was so useless in the military sense that it was more of a nuisance than an ally and it was easier for Germany to take over Poland then support it.

Missed the point. See above.

[Hans]

Yeah, except France and Britain didn't invade Austria or Czechoslovakia (or Poland) to grab a piece of them when Germany went in. There was more to the Germany/USSR pact than "non-aggression".

You can say that's not "siding with", but you're just using weasel words.



Missed the point. See above.

Oh they did much more than just have a non-agression pact. The Luftwaffe was built up and trained almost entirely on Soviet territory in secret, as Germany was still not allowed an airforce.
And not to forget that Barbarossa was a reaction to Stalin preparing for a drive eastwards. The only reason why Germany captured so much territory so quickly is that the Red Army was deployed in an offensive posture when the Germans invaded.

[oldrider]

Not everyone is enthusiastic about American congress decision to declare war on Russia!

Serious shit for the world? ... Link here: http://drsircus.com/world-news/psych...eid=783acdf144

[awa355]

Not everyone is enthusiastic about American congress decision to declare war on Russia!

Serious shit for the world? ... Link here: http://drsircus.com/world-news/psych...eid=783acdf144

This from the same blog site. http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...arm-of-us-law/

[R650R]

http://russia-insider.com/en/history...against_russia

[Hans]

http://russia-insider.com/en/history...against_russia

The author of this article may have some points.

However:
Taking territory is one thing, holding it is another. What exactly would the Russians do when the advance stops? Remember that the USSR would have lost against the Germans badly, had it not been for massive material support from the USA.

I forgot to ask: Why would the author be analysing a hypothetical offensive action by Russia? I thought they were supposed to be the peaceful party in this, opressed by the evil western world? Surely an analysis of a defensive action would have been more fitting?

[R650R]

The author of this article may have some points.

However:
Taking territory is one thing, holding it is another. What exactly would the Russians do when the advance stops? Remember that the USSR would have lost against the Germans badly, had it not been for massive material support from the USA.

I forgot to ask: Why would the author be analysing a hypothetical offensive action by Russia? I thought they were supposed to be the peaceful party in this, opressed by the evil western world? Surely an analysis of a defensive action would have been more fitting?

I think the article goes into that supply chain aspect which is an issue for all forces no matter what nation...

But we've seen from the past that Russias methods are to storm in at lightning pace, do some pest control and reinstall the status quo.
Making excuses and faking truck/car bombings from insurgents so they have an excuse to linger and build permananet bases and install puppet govts is more the western style.
Just look at the awesome way they handled the CIA puppet sakesvieeli in Georgia, they were in and out while the west was still deciding what their response would be.

The Russians could completely roll Ukraine in a day or two and NATO wouldn't do squat as Russia has already stated it would go nucluer in response to an attack by a superior force as they cant compete with the wests smart bombs and stealth attacks. The article is probably examining this option as the west is constantly provoking.
But Putin is smart, he is letting this CIA engineered uprising in Ukraine fester so that the imposters will be exposed and the local people will take care of the problem.

[yokel]

With the fall in oil price it'll be interesting to see whats Russia's next move?

[Brian d marge]

With the fall in oil price it'll be interesting to see whats Russia's next move?

if russia demanded energy payments in gold its game over

barclays league division1
eastern block one west combined nil

[Swoop]

if russia demanded energy payments in gold its game over

The issue is that there are no customers for Russian oil (grandly oversimplified statement, yes, but you get the idea).
If vast quantities of oil are not being moved out of Russia, then Putin's objective of re-instating the USSR gets a knock back.
He's already having to kiss chinese arse economically, and he doesn't realise how badly that can backfire.

The rebuild of the Russian military has taken a serious hit.

[Katman]

He's already having to kiss chinese arse economically.....

And we're not?