You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 06:09:28 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Ukraine  (Read 13715 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Scribbles

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #550 on: September 02, 2014, 06:33:17 AM »
Funny. I thought it was the other way around. NATO facing off with Russia in a conflict they have no part in.

When a territory near Nato allied nations is annexed, they have every right to show concern.

Quote
Ukraine would NOT be stable, even if Putin had stayed out. Ukraine hasn't been stable for 20 years and will not be for another 20 years in their current form.


Over two thousand people wouldn't be dead if Russia hadn't sparked civil war and while the country might not have been stable in the past, Putin has done nothing but destabilize the country further with his actions.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #551 on: September 02, 2014, 06:35:18 AM »
First of all, the writer should state the facts in a neutral way, he didn't do that. NATO is spelled with capitals since it's an abbrevation and third of all...
          Eh.  I really don't think caps or no caps make much difference.  Most of us know what the organization does.  There are lots of big acronym abbreviations that I often just get sick of writing in caps.  Holding down keys on words you're using a lot can get really old.

Quote
Terrible journalism, Kazakhstan is perfectly safe.
         You know, you often love to bring up what people said, even if they didn't sign any agreement on it, years ago when talking about East Germany.  Personally, I would suspect Kazakhstan is safe for the moment simply because it seems to make Russia happy...

          But Putin sure isn't taking any chances with that speech.  Compare to something he said to George W. Bush in 2008 (and wasn't that the same year parts of Georgia got snipped off?):

         "You have to understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a country. Part of its territory is in Eastern Europe and the greater part was given to us."

         The guy (or his speechwriters, no idea) comes up with quite a mix though, I gotta say.  In that one little blurb about Kazakhstan he hints yet again we'll intervene for Russians wherever the heck we want, excuses it with past imperial history of Russia from the times of the czars (the never were a country business), and oh but don't worry as long as you give us the resources we want maybe we'll leave you alone, and hmm the Kazakh leader is actually kind of an authoritarian who's been dominating his country for an awful long time with some cult of personality and you gotta wonder what else that place has besides him (sounds rather like Putin himself really, maybe this is his way of btw expressing admiration?)...
 
« Last Edit: September 02, 2014, 06:36:58 AM by kylie »

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #552 on: September 02, 2014, 11:20:46 AM »
What a bit of terrible journalism. I can't and won't take anything like this serious.

First of all, the writer should state the facts in a neutral way, he didn't do that. NATO is spelled with capitals since it's an abbrevation and third of all, nowhere does he give any proof that Romania has fears of being invaded. I think he means Moldova, which is a completely different country.

Terrible journalism, Kazakhstan is perfectly safe.


This article is probably even worse than the one from the Guardian. No fact, dozens of typing errors, etc. So Russia's upgraded some of it's ancient bombers? We all know that what Putin says are hollow and empty words. When he said he would retreat the troops, nobody believed him. So when he's threatening with nuclear weapons (IF he even did that) why should we take that seriously??? NATO's a bit selective at what they do or do not belief, just to provoke.


Funny. I thought it was the other way around. NATO facing off with Russia in a conflict they have no part in.

Ukraine would NOT be stable, even if Putin had stayed out. Ukraine hasn't been stable for 20 years and will not be for another 20 years in their current form.



On a slightly different note, the 'rebels' have asked Russia for help to keep the biggest nuclear plant in Europe from meltdown. Pretty sure nothing of this was mentioned in the American news? A meltdown in a rebel controlled area is not very interesting but a nuclean threat from Putin is much more exciting no?

And on another different note, Obama's a bit late according to Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-nato-haelt-niederlage-fuer-kiew-fuer-sicher-a-989308.html
It says NATO believes Ukraine has lost the battle already and the best they can do is retreat their troops alive from the Russian controlled area's.

I am not sure what I find more amusing - the fact that you try to use typos and the lack of caps on the word NATO as a reason to discredit and disbelieve two legitimate news sites or the fact that you try to say we shouldn't believe Putin and his threat of nuclear war just because he lied out his ass about retreating his troops that he claimed were not even IN Ukraine to begin with.

Take a moment to think on that. It behooved him to lie to the world and say first, that he had no troops in the Ukraine. Then he said he would retreat (and admitting with that statement that he WAS indeed in the Ukraine - a sovereign country that he had no business in) and, of course he didn't. Now, you claim that he is lying about nuclear weapons/war because - in your opinion - all of his previous lies show that he is lying this time. Actually, no. It behooves him to bring up the spectre of nuclear war because it's a threat no one wants to face.

"Stay back or I'll kill us all!" Hate to say it but your man Putin is an insane egomaniac that needs to be put down before he does something really effing stupid. Like push the button to launch a nuclear war.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #553 on: September 03, 2014, 12:20:52 AM »
Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac
"Stay back or I'll kill us all!" Hate to say it but your man Putin is an insane egomaniac that needs to be put down before he does something really effing stupid. Like push the button to launch a nuclear war.

          He does appear to have a certain commonality with Kim Jong Un's behavior (and much of that North Korean dynasty):  He keeps swinging back and forth between bellicose rhetoric and claiming to pursue negotiations (perhaps even, claiming to make agreements? judging by the widely conflicting claims that pop up after his people attend these things).  And then all the denials...  But Putin is more brazen about shrugging once he has created "facts on the ground" and switching from denial into nonchalant, 'Oh yeah we did huh.  So what of it now.'

          It's easy for him to do this sort of thing when Nato (yes I'm tired of caps) has said it won't go to war over Ukraine.  He's making a big show of destabilizing here, outright attacking there, intimidating someone else over there, all the while criticizing the US loudly as if it all weren't about the countries he's running over at all...  Trying to see how much he can handle, and who might regard him as a champion of "balance to American power" (for all the noise he makes in the process).

           I prefer to assume he isn't insane enough to launch a nuclear first strike.  But it does make life more complicated, now that he's inspired the West to put more troops in the Baltics -- which is probably something he didn't want.  Unless he assumed that was going to happen anyway too.  Who can say for certain if he's going to end up calculating enough to only apply pressure in places the West will not actually choose to help defend. 

           And other issues also may creep up, such as a reduction in cooperation on tracking nuclear weapons...  Which might make it easier for someone else to do something nasty, or even make it more difficult to guess who might be smuggling a weapon around with or without whose approval.  It's nice to hope that I'm just not an expert and Russian nuclear stockpiles should be more secure than that.  But with less information in the open and now a history of Putin obviously attempting to conceal one kind of conflict until he gets what he wants?  People may find reason to be more paranoid about other things, too.  It's a doomsday scenario.  Even states like North Korea, Iran, Syria (for missiles I think at least?) and Pakistan have managed to sell nuclear weapons and missile technology between them without handing it over to something like Al Qaeda so far.  So let's hope it doesn't come to that!  (How much of the talk about "loose" nukes is itself Russian propaganda?  I could wonder about that, too...)
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 12:29:01 AM by kylie »

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #554 on: September 03, 2014, 12:44:37 AM »

Seriously though, I don't think the two are comparable...
          I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say.  I said how I think they have shared certain patterns of behavior more or less in common. 

          Of course I know they're not twins, and I'm sure you could find some real differences of personal and national capabilities...  Their official rhetoric isn't exactly the same, I know...  But in reference to how they've been dealing with the West in certain conflicts, I think there's something there.  I could go on a bit but... 

         How would you say they're not comparable that matters here?  (Or is it seriously in the video?  Because I like the animation quality but I wasn't all that taken with it for the subject...  And you did say "seriously" afterward, which kind of pushes it aside.)

« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 12:48:03 AM by kylie »

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #555 on: September 03, 2014, 01:00:07 AM »
          Perhaps you were trying to be facetious?

          But I can barely take South Park -- it's not that the jokes are bad (I suppose some are quite good)...  But something about the aesthetics of the imagery really turns me off (strikes me as rather intentionally crass even?) and I don't want to watch very long.   It's weird:  I think the animation itself isn't so bad, but the characters somehow make me go "eww, who do you think your audience is, but anyway I can't focus."  Same problem here.

« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 01:01:36 AM by kylie »

Offline Scribbles

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #556 on: September 03, 2014, 01:00:51 AM »
I edited that comment out before you replied, I made it simply to distance myself from the portrayal of the animation but realized you might quickly jump it thinking I was responding to yourself.

The animation isn't part of the debate, I'm not trying to be facetious, it's just an attempt to lighten the mood in a very grim thread...

Anyway, you seem to be offended by it so I've removed it...
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 03:23:57 AM by Scribbles »

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #557 on: September 03, 2014, 05:23:34 AM »
         No, I thought the message was probably funny.  I get that it started with some sort of comparison.  I did watch a little of it.  There's just something about the presentation of the characters that, personally I couldn't finish.  It's not about being offended.  Heavens, feel free to post it. 

         It was just really not my style of particular messenger.  I liked the animation but couldn't get into the characters and feel or pace of it.  Probably some others will find it impossible to stop watching.  That's fine too. 

          More on topic and at some risk of appearing to be flogging the Guardian too much (that's the British use of flogging, as in selling something), I thought this column by Hale had an interesting take on Putin's position, more as a desperate and local distraction for the consumption of domestic politics.  Hale also concludes that while Putin has taken Crimea, he may face a bind about what to do next that won't raise another round of opposition from one corner or another within Russia.

Quote
Putin’s actions in Ukraine are best understood through the lens of his domestic political considerations. Russia is not a simple dictatorship in which whatever he says goes, no matter what. Stability there depends heavily on public support for the leadership. The USSR and eastern Central Europe show that control over media cannot by itself generate support for a regime.

This is why events in Ukraine posed such a danger to Putin. With his regime’s popular support dropping since the 2008-09 global financial crisis, massive protests erupted in Moscow in late 2011 that he and his associates clearly perceived as a major threat to their political survival. They regrouped, found new bases of support, and went on the offensive against protest leaders.

The protests faded. But suddenly, demonstrators in next-door Ukraine succeeded in toppling Viktor Yanukovych, a leader openly backed by Putin, opening up the possibility that Russia’s own protest movement could be revived. And there was also the possibility that Putin could lose the faith of his current supporters by appearing helpless to protect his ally, not to mention Russian-oriented populations in Ukraine’s East who feared the revolution would not serve their interests. All this could have served as fodder for challenges from both the liberal and nationalist segments of society.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 05:28:38 AM by kylie »

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #558 on: September 03, 2014, 06:00:06 AM »
Just as an aside, it seems obvious by now that this is actually a war going on, even though most of the involved parties - Ukraine, Russia, Europe, the US - have their own reasons for wanting to avoid defining it that way. The Ukrainian government doesn't want to call it a war as that would give the separatists the status of a recognized partner in war (instead of just rebels and criminals) and this, in turn, would give them a bit of leverage with, like, the Red Cross and perhaps OSCE. And of course Russia doesn't want to see it as a war they are in either.

Offline Scribbles

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #559 on: September 03, 2014, 06:46:28 AM »
Nobody ever wants to be the initiator in a war, that just looks bad to your allies and your population...

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #560 on: September 03, 2014, 07:07:55 AM »
Nobody ever wants to be the initiator in a war, that just looks bad to your allies and your population...

Nods, but this time they don't even want to admit it's already started sometime ago. ^_^

Offline Zakharra

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #561 on: September 03, 2014, 08:54:22 AM »
What a bit of terrible journalism. I can't and won't take anything like this serious.

First of all, the writer should state the facts in a neutral way, he didn't do that. NATO is spelled with capitals since it's an abbrevation and third of all, nowhere does he give any proof that Romania has fears of being invaded. I think he means Moldova, which is a completely different country.

Terrible journalism, Kazakhstan is perfectly safe.

 Denial is more than just a river. You've flat out saying you refuse to consider -any- news source outside of Russian news sources as valid news.


 
Quote
This article is probably even worse than the one from the Guardian. No fact, dozens of typing errors, etc. So Russia's upgraded some of it's ancient bombers? We all know that what Putin says are hollow and empty words. When he said he would retreat the troops, nobody believed him. So when he's threatening with nuclear weapons (IF he even did that) why should we take that seriously??? NATO's a bit selective at what they do or do not belief, just to provoke.


Funny. I thought it was the other way around. NATO facing off with Russia in a conflict they have no part in.

Ukraine would NOT be stable, even if Putin had stayed out. Ukraine hasn't been stable for 20 years and will not be for another 20 years in their current form.

 It sounds like rhetoric that was common by the USSR and Putin was KGB so it might stick and since he's playing to his home crowd, it might resonate with them and be the reason why he might say things like that. Especially if it works. He is coming across as being very confrontational.

 Ukraine's current instability is a large part Russia's fault with its meddling.

 One thing I'd like to ask, in Ukraine, who's opinion counts for more? The eastern areas that support/want to be closer to Russia or the western areas that want to be closer to the EU? From the angle of your previous posts, it looks like you think the western areas should have had been ignored when it comes to the direction the country went in. As if the eastern parts had the more important opinion.


 
Quote
On a slightly different note, the 'rebels' have asked Russia for help to keep the biggest nuclear plant in Europe from meltdown. Pretty sure nothing of this was mentioned in the American news? A meltdown in a rebel controlled area is not very interesting but a nuclear threat from Putin is much more exciting no?

  If the rebels hadn't rebelled in the first place, the nuclear plant wouldn't be under threat of a meltdown. And if Russia actually used its nukes, I'd think that would be retaliated against by the West and several parts of Russia would be radioactive wastelands.

 
Quote
And on another different note, Obama's a bit late according to Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-nato-haelt-niederlage-fuer-kiew-fuer-sicher-a-989308.html
It says NATO believes Ukraine has lost the battle already and the best they can do is retreat their troops alive from the Russian controlled area's.

 Let's hope NATO is wrong there and Russia does get its fingers singed.

Offline Sabby

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #562 on: September 03, 2014, 09:06:37 AM »
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm notoriously naive when it comes to world politics. Aren't nuclear weapons allowed as a form of deterrence rather then a standard war weapon? If a leader has nukes and is making people uneasy that he may use them in some fashion other then nuclear deterrence, isn't there some kind of protocol about it?

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #563 on: September 03, 2014, 10:04:45 AM »
Nobody ever wants to be the initiator in a war, that just looks bad to your allies and your population...
Unless you can convince your population that "the other side" left you no other choice.

Offline lovelylilT

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #564 on: September 03, 2014, 11:39:43 AM »
I live in Sieverodonetsk until few weeks ago. The separatists, many were horrible. But the Ukraine army, the soldiers, they act more worse. They both destroy parts of city, and terrorize everyone who lives there. The building where I start my dance studio, it's shot by Ukraine soldiers, all windows broken. They say separatists stay in building, which is lies, but they laugh and smile when they say that to me and other shop owners. Both sides are terrible.

I didn't want leaving my home, I love it very much. But when I'm afraid they shoot me or my daughter, I know I need going. And I thought maybe separatists shoot me, or Ukraine army. I don't trust either.

For leaving, I needed paying bribe to Ukraine army. Otherwise they wouldn't let me go. I'm in Russia now, but I wish I could be safe, at home.

For anyone who says, "if you want being part of Russia, why don't you move there?" I don't have words. The Ukraine government, it's corrupt mess. Yes we don't think Putin is saint, but we want being part of Russia more. We don't want war, we only want fair chance, for leaving. We never get fair elections of vote. If majority wants leaving I think that should be allowed. And, if majority wants staying that's okay. Scotland gets vote for leaving UK, why can't Luhansk and Donetsk get vote for leaving Ukraine? Why is one ok but other isn't?

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #565 on: September 03, 2014, 12:06:29 PM »
I live in Sieverodonetsk until few weeks ago. The separatists, many were horrible. But the Ukraine army, the soldiers, they act more worse. They both destroy parts of city, and terrorize everyone who lives there. The building where I start my dance studio, it's shot by Ukraine soldiers, all windows broken. They say separatists stay in building, which is lies, but they laugh and smile when they say that to me and other shop owners. Both sides are terrible.

I didn't want leaving my home, I love it very much. But when I'm afraid they shoot me or my daughter, I know I need going. And I thought maybe separatists shoot me, or Ukraine army. I don't trust either.

For leaving, I needed paying bribe to Ukraine army. Otherwise they wouldn't let me go. I'm in Russia now, but I wish I could be safe, at home.

For anyone who says, "if you want being part of Russia, why don't you move there?" I don't have words. The Ukraine government, it's corrupt mess. Yes we don't think Putin is saint, but we want being part of Russia more. We don't want war, we only want fair chance, for leaving. We never get fair elections of vote. If majority wants leaving I think that should be allowed. And, if majority wants staying that's okay. Scotland gets vote for leaving UK, why can't Luhansk and Donetsk get vote for leaving Ukraine? Why is one ok but other isn't?

The issue with Scotland is a fair bit different. Scotland was it's own -sovereign country- before James V (James I) took the throne of England and merged the countries. Cities within a country are not sovereign nations. You cant just ask a country to shave off part of it's borders to allow dissenting civilians to become citizens of another country. If the citizens are not happy then they can pack up their belongings and move to the country of their preference. Does that suck? Yes. But what the rebels want forces those who want to remain in Ukraine to suck it up and become Russian. Who has the better right?

Answer: The sovereign nation of Ukraine and it's citizens.

Offline Dashenka

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #566 on: September 03, 2014, 01:24:26 PM »
You cant just ask a country to shave off part of it's borders to allow dissenting civilians to become citizens of another country. If the citizens are not happy then they can pack up their belongings and move to the country of their preference.

So the people of Mexico have every right to come to the US illegally? They are not happy in Mexico so they pack up their belongings and move to the country of their preference. Yet when they get there, they get arrested for being illegal.

Ukraine was a sovereign nation as well. Then it got absorbed into the USSR and now it's a sovereign nation again. Many of the people in the east are Russian or of Russian ancestry but they've lived there for their entire life.

They want to be part again of the nation they used to be part of.

Saying they should pack their stuff and move is a little ignorant Opheliac. Donetsk, Luhansk, all those cities are their HOMES. It's just in the wrong country.

Offline lovelylilT

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #567 on: September 03, 2014, 02:18:54 PM »
Much of Ukraine is part of Russia back to time of tsars. Only in 1990 it becomes own country. Much of Donetsk and Luhansk are Russian for many hundreds of years. And many people there always think themselves Russian, not Ukraine.  Much of those regions have long proud Russian histories, as well as Ukraine.

With "if you don't like it, leave" you make things sounds so simple. They aren't.

Offline Dashenka

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #568 on: September 03, 2014, 02:20:57 PM »
On a rather worrying and provocative note.... 200 AMERICAN soldiers are training with the Ukrainian army, in Ukraine.

Nice one you Obama ****, you just sparked WW3...
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 02:33:15 PM by Dashenka »

Offline Sabby

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #569 on: September 03, 2014, 02:27:24 PM »
Nice one you Obama cunt, you just sparked WW3...

...oh yeah, such a dangerous act. I mean, putting soldiers in place because of a developing situation is just so unreasonable, he's practically tempting the apocalypse. Oh, wait, he's not the unpredictable egomaniac with access to nuclear weapons. You'll defend Putin right up until he glasses a small country, and you'll probably defend him after. It's getting ridiculous just what you'll say Dash.

Offline Valerian

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #570 on: September 03, 2014, 02:29:39 PM »
According to this, it's an annual exercise and no live ammunition will be fired.

Quote
A Pentagon spokesman, Col. Steve Warren, said it will be a peacekeeping exercise with training through Sept. 26 in convoy operations, patrolling and methods of countering improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.

Also, please watch the language -- remember this is the public part of the site.  And let's watch the personal attacks as well, all right?  Disagree all you like, just be civil about it.

Offline Dashenka

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #571 on: September 03, 2014, 02:32:47 PM »
...oh yeah, such a dangerous act. I mean, putting soldiers in place because of a developing situation is just so unreasonable, he's practically tempting the apocalypse. Oh, wait, he's not the unpredictable egomaniac with access to nuclear weapons. You'll defend Putin right up until he glasses a small country, and you'll probably defend him after. It's getting ridiculous just what you'll say Dash.

I don't agree with Putin at all. But you have to agree that in an already volatile situation, sending AMERICAN troops to do a training is hardly a smart move is it? Sure Putin did it and see what it brought us. So just because did it, Obama does it as well?

 
According to this, it's an annual exercise and no live ammunition will be fired.

Also, please watch the language -- remember this is the public part of the site.  And let's watch the personal attacks as well, all right?  Disagree all you like, just be civil about it.

I didn't mean to get personal. Just find it an extremely provocative move by the American government. I do apologize for the language and if I got personal. Obviously I didn't mean to.

Offline Sabby

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #572 on: September 03, 2014, 02:37:11 PM »
I don't agree with Putin at all.

You have a perplexing way of doing things if you're not trying to defend Putin then, as a brief backscroll will demonstrate. I know you're defensive towards your country, but you're just coming across as irrational and confrontational.

Offline Avis habilis

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #573 on: September 03, 2014, 02:39:44 PM »
And let's watch the personal attacks as well, all right?  Disagree all you like, just be civil about it.

Offline Dashenka

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #574 on: September 03, 2014, 02:42:57 PM »
Im not defending Putin, I'm condemning the actions the EU, US, NATO and everybody are taking towards Russia and NOT towards the seperatists or the Ukrainian army, shelling civilian buldings.

As lilT said, the army is shelling and destroying buildings just as much as the rebels do. The rebels and Russia get the blame but the Ukrainian army are treated as holy. And now the Americans are sending 200 men to train with that exact army.

Did it occur to the US that this action might be seen as an aggressive move?