Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy
If, when defending your support for Donald Trump, and your response is,
"But but but... HILLARY!!!", then you lost the argument before you even began.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
You took a road video which was uploaded to VK (equivalent to Russian Facebook), with a specific title which states where the footage was taken:
"трасса Краснодар-Новороссийск, колонна войск РФ в Крым"
/"road Krasnodar-Novorosiysk, Russian army column into Crimea"
...and "inferred" from what you supposedly haven't seen in the video that is was taken in Crimea?!?
The up-loaders of the video stated exactly where it was taken - road Krasnodar-Novorosiysk. These forces might end up in Crimea but the footage wasn't taken there.
Last edited by Fallenangel; 03-07-14 at 09:14 PM. Reason: Grammar
Click me > My Artsy Stuff
"You’ve got one life, there’s no save-point and you’re going to die. Go out like a ****ing man!" - Brad Rigney
Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy
In theory? Certainly. The Russian elites believe the collapse of the USSR was the "worst catastrophe in the 20th century", Putin even literally said that. The USSR's influence reached westwards to East Germany. And Russia is following a "Machtpolitik" that wants them to become a world power once again -- and in order to achieve that, it has to break American influence in Europe and the Middle East. So in their wildest dreams, they have designs beyond Crimea without any doubt.
However, I am not sure about Russia's military capacities (though I suggest it's not as broken as many keep repeating, as if this was still the 90s and as if the West hadn't massively disarmed too), I don't know how realistically the Russian elites view their own capacities and situation, I don't know how many risks they're willing to take. In the ideal case, they know very well that attempting to realize their abovementioned "wildest dreams" is unfeasible and unprofitable and thus are very well content with Crimea.
On the other side, and I don't know how far this goes into conspiracy theory territory, you can read from both American and Russian sources (such as Zbigniew Brzezynski on the American side and high-rank Russian militaries) that both sides are fighting a geostrategic war: The US are doing their best to roll back Russia (and have been doing so at latest since Yugoslavia and NATO enlargement 1999), trying to get the former Soviet states out of Russia's sphere of influence, and attack Russia's influence whereever they can (first Serbia 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Ukraine 2004, Georgia 2008, Syria 2013 and now Ukraine), encircling Russia. Some Russian strategists even claim it is the American goal of destroying Russia on the long run, and it's a fight for the mere physical survival of the Russian state whether Russia manages to escape this Western entanglement. Brzezynski IIRC even said that on the "Eurasian Chessboard", Russia's capacity to ever rise again and defend itself stand and falls with its power over Ukraine.
If that's true -- or at least when that's how Russian strategists view it --, I'm afraid Russia is willing to take a damn lot of risks and even do very stupid things to make sure it will even "survive".
"Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."
A little perspective goes a long way.
Let's look at the Russia/Ukrainian situation as if the region involved were Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Here are the players:
Russia = Canada
Wisconsin = Ukraine
Green Bay = Crimea
U.S. = Europe
Let's suppose Canada owned an oil pipeline that ran through Wisconsin and into the U.S. Let's call that pipeline "Keystone". Wisconsin also leases shipping ports at Lake Superior from Canada. Let's say that Wisconsin had a lot of ethnic Canadians who lived there who still felt some loyalty to Canada. Here's the scenario:
Wisconsin has a long history of activist turmoil brought on by mistrust from a corrupt government. Wisconsin's governor is pro-Canada, but its legislature is pro-U.S. The Wisconsin government falls apart and their Governor get's ousted by its legislature. Canada gets concerned and sends its troops down into Wisconsin's capital city of Green Bay (I know it's actually Madison, but work with me here) to protect its national security interests - the pipeline and the shipping port. Would Canada be justified in its actions given the history of civil unrest that occurs there?
Maybe, maybe not. I'd say it depends on if it believed that the pipeline and/or the shipping ports were being threatened. And that's part of the problem here. They aren't nor have then been, but "protecting ethnic Russians and Russia's national security interests" is the justification Vladimir Putin is using to "occupy" Ukraine. In all actuality, Putin merely wants to bring the Ukraine back into the Russian fold. Why? OIL!
Putin knows that if the Ukraine joins the EU it will lose upwards of 30% of its oil exports which currently go to EU countries. The Ukraine is sitting on two major oil/natural gas deposits and the EU would love to get out from under Russia's thumb for oil imports. Thus, Ukraine is the prize and Putin believes that if he can convince the world that a majority of the Ukrainian citizens want back into Russia governance, the world will have no choice but to let it happen. Problem is, without the pipelines or shipping ports being threatened, he really has no justification for sending Russian military into another sovereign country.
Now, while all these political voices are calling for President Obama to take a stronger stance against Putin - all but calling for military action - there's really nothing President Obama can do short of pushing NATO to do what has done: condemn Putin's actions, impose sanctions, freeze assets and seek for Russia to be kicked out of the G8. Until Russia goes against a vote by the Ukrainian people and, thus, its government to align itself with the EU and not w/Russia OR Russia all-out invades Ukraine ahead of such a vote, there's really nothing the U.S. or the world can do. The scuttling of ships at the seaport is akin to a naval blockade, but unless Russia stops all freight from entering or leaving the port by military force, again there's really nothing anyone can do about it.
"A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground