[QUOTE]With Ukrainian troops launching a major assault on a rebel stronghold Friday, just a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin warned Kiev to withdraw its troops from the east and south of the country, it looks like the Ukraine crisis is entering a new stage.
As The Post's Michael Birnbaum reported from Moscow, "it seemed possible that even a small spark could ignite a tinderbox regional conflict."
Given this escalation, The Washington Post is publishing a new map that shows, using information from the Royal United Services Institute and our own analysis, recent troop movements in the region. The graphic illustrates how military exercises conducted by Russia have left a big build-up of troops on Ukraine's border. It also shows Ukraine's own military moves to its borders with Russia and Moldova's Russian-dominated enclave, Transnistria.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/05/02/map-how-ukraine-and-russia-are-moving-toward-war/[/url]
[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2014/05/RUSI-600_promo-1.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Killer900;44710114]Shit...this bad?[/QUOTE]
Could be. Or it might mean nothing.
Truth is, no one knows where this clusterfuck of legendary proportions is going anymore. War might happen, war might not happen. At any rate, things cannot continue this way. Something will happen, something will come to a head eventually.
How comes Russia seems to be bringing almost no tanks?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44710169]How comes Russia seems to be bringing almost no tanks?[/QUOTE]
There are tanks, the map isn't showing them.
I really hope a war doesn't breakout because chances are that the U.S and NATO will get involved in it one way or another or the fuckheads we have for leaders in Washington D.C will try to rush us into a war, even if it possibly means World War III and the end of the world because honestly I think they don't give a damn shit anymore.
On the other hand if Russia invades and defeats Ukraine and NATO doesn't get involved, Putin may get cocky and go after the Baltic States, Poland, or who knows what.
Ukraine has every right to protect its borders and Russia has no right to march right in thinking he owns the place
How many tanks and troops does Ukraine have?
[QUOTE=seano12;44710197]How many tanks and troops does Ukraine have?[/QUOTE]
Not enough, Russia would take Eastern Ukraine in tops 3 to a week.
The good news is that Poland is still Poland.
The bad news is that this Ukraine is right next to Poland.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44710169]How comes Russia seems to be bringing almost no tanks?[/QUOTE]
Because if you've ever played World of Tanks you'd know that one KV-1 will do.
Hoenstly we (the US) should provide troop support and possibly a lend lease act as well. That's the only way this would be remotely fair.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;44710290]Hoenstly we (the US) should provide troop support and possibly a lend lease act as well. That's the only way this would be remotely fair.[/QUOTE]
This is what my dad keeps suggesting, but I think Obama has already said we're not going to give any military aid to Ukraine, only humanitarian aid. Although that might change quickly if Russia sends it's tanks smashing through the border.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;44710290]Hoenstly we (the US) should provide troop support and possibly a lend lease act as well. That's the only way this would be remotely fair.[/QUOTE]
Yes that would be the fair thing to do but unfortunately the world is not fair and most Americans are extremely war weary. It isnt going to happen.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;44710290]Hoenstly we (the US) should provide troop support and possibly a lend lease act as well. That's the only way this would be remotely fair.[/QUOTE]
Why should Americans risk their lives in a nation halfway around the world for no reason?
This is going to turn out to be one of three things; either
A-The most severe turn-around of Russian agenda in recent history; or
B-The greatest proxy war in recent history; or
C-The greatest world war in recent history.
Hint: [sp]Option A is very unlikely[/sp]
[QUOTE=Explosions;44710347]Why should Americans risk their lives in a nation halfway around the world for no reason?[/QUOTE]
No reason? I can cite a few historical examples that would be good measure, including the annexation of the Rhineland as well as the example of napoleon. Both conflicts could have been avoided if the united states showed initiative, but the reasoning here would be a few large treaties as well as helping a potential ally and future buyer of american goods stop an encroachment of a much larger (A lot larger) enemy of theirs.
I didn't know we still had a whig party against war, when war is just.
The reasoning i use is if people were to have fought those whom tried to violate other nations sovereignty, the world could have become a very different place. When you take up a period of isolation in times of crisis, all that ends of happening is america as a whole gets drawn back in. Look at the Napoleonic wars, as well as both world wars.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44710347]Why should Americans risk their lives in a nation halfway around the world for no reason?[/QUOTE]
I understand the we (the US) have some shitty wars in our past (Iraq) and we're extremly war weary but now is the time to stand up for good. I totally support fighting the Russians because they're in the wrong and I will gladly give my life to the cause it if comes to it.
No country deserves to be destroyed because they refuse to be a slave.
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;44710377]I understand the we (the US) hasve some shitty wars in our past (Iraq) and we're extremly war weary but now is the time to stand up for good. I totally support fighting the Russians because they're in the wrong will gladly give my life to the cause it if comes to it.
No country deserves to be destroyed because they refuse to be a slave.[/QUOTE]
There was way more justification to invade Iraq than there ever would be for intervening in Ukraine. You could use that same catchphrase to refer to the Iraqi people and now you've just supported invading Iraq.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44710347]Why should Americans risk their lives in a nation halfway around the world for no reason?[/QUOTE]
Traditionally I'd agree, but we have a chance to gain a fairly decent ally and currently a major military power has gone batshit insane and begun taking territory very close to already existing allies. We now are stuck in the precarious position of determining how much force we need to show to keep Russia from attempting to annex any further territory.
I don't know what the correct answer here is. Maybe offering to station units inside Ukraine with strict orders to maintain currently existing territory only. Just let Russia have what they've taken. I'm really not sure at all.
Whatever happens, I get the feeling that if we let it go, Russia will just try and take more territory.
in the next few years this will either mark:
-the Second Cold War
or
-World War 3 (hopefully no nukes involved. i dont want to play fallout irl)
[QUOTE=Explosions;44710387]There was way more justification to invade Iraq than there ever would be for intervening in Ukraine.[/QUOTE]
Not really, Iraq was not really as an active threat to us whereas Russia invading Ukraine puts all of our Eastern NATO allies at risk.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44710387]There was way more justification to invade Iraq than there ever would be for intervening in Ukraine. You could use that same catchphrase to refer to the Iraqi people and now you've just supported invading Iraq.[/QUOTE]
So where do you draw the line? Could Russia annex half of Europe before you thought differently? The whole of Europe? All other continents other than North America? It seems to me that a plane in your backyard is not the only just cause of war, sometimes you must look to your neighbors yard to assist.
[QUOTE=minilandstan;44710244]The good news is that Poland is still Poland.
The bad news is that this Ukraine is right next to Poland.[/QUOTE]
Tha bad news is that the last time they were attacked they used horses angainst the panzers :v: .
Iraq had invaded its neighbors multiple times and had a massive military at the time. All of these justifications to fight Russia could be applied directly to Iraq.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44710347]Why should Americans risk their lives in a nation halfway around the world for no reason?[/QUOTE]
Shit happening in a country halfway around the world can quite easily become something bigger. If you want an example look how World War I started. You can only ignore something for so long before it becomes too big to ignore even if you want to continue ignoring it.
[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;44710442]Shit happening in a country halfway around the war can quite easily become something bigger. If you want an example look how World War I started.[/QUOTE]
The U.S. should have never gotten involved in that sanguinary conflict.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44710447]The U.S. should have never gotten involved in that sanguinary conflict.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I don't think anyone should have been involved in that conflict, because then it wouldn't be called a conflict.
[QUOTE=ExtReMLapin;44710423]Tha bad news is that the last time they were attacked they used horses angainst the panzers :v: .[/QUOTE]
Actually, that's a common misconception. They actually charged against German infantry in a surprise attack to stall their advance to allow other Polish troops to retreat, and then later German armored cars came along which required the Polish calvary to retreat. However, even then, they did actually possess anti-tank weapons which would be able to penetrate early German tanks. Nonetheless, the charge actually was a strategic victory as it allowed the Polish troops to retreat without resistance. The whole myth came along after war correspondents noticed Polish horses and bodies and tanks that came in after the battle (evidently, no actual tanks were used during the battle, only armored cars, but I might be wrong), and it was assumed that the calvary actually charged at them with lances and sabres which was propagated by Nazi Germany and later the Soviets, and was even taught by American History classes through the 1990s. But the point is that they never actually charged against tanks, and even if they did they were actually equipped in a way that they would not be grossly unprepared for them.
In other news... WW1 is nearing it's 100th anniversary :suicide:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
