Kind of confirms the hunch that Russia doesn't have the resources fight Ukraine and then occupy Eastern Ukraine and/or are unwilling to eat the sanctions from the West that would follow, if they did so.
Also since they are probably using agent provocateurs to stir up shit, they might not be willing risk losing those personnel and having their BS confirmed, once Ukraine starts cracking down (some of those shitheads are probably going to eat a lethal dose of lead or get caught before Russia can react).
I think that is more likely what's going on here; Russia thought it could pull another Crimea, Ukraine called the bluff, and now Russia has to either try to end this right now peacefully (hence the Security Council meeting) or risk the real chance that the "pro-Russian supporters" get ousted as Russian operatives and get caught red-handed, which is probably worse-case scenario in their eyes short of NATO intervention.
Why? I mean, I'd like to believe that, but you had those supposed 'militia' in Crimea going off-script and admitting that they were Russian soldiers, and no one gave a shit about it. Why would this time be any different?
Depends on the nature of the resolution. If it's only shit that Russia wants, than they will be told to kindly fuck off. If it's UN peacekeepers, with no one from Russia, it might have a chance, but I would not be surprised to see Russia's government continuing to be a belligerent little shit and refusing to even entertain that idea because it would squelch much of it's BS.
Depends on the nature of the resolution. If it's only shit that Russia wants, than they will be told to kindly fuck off. If it's UN peacekeepers, with no one from Russia, it might have a chance, but I would not be surprised to see Russia's government continuing to be a belligerent little shit and refusing to even entertain that idea because it would squelch much of it's BS.
There's no way the Russians are gonna ask for UN forces right on their doorstep in Ukraine.
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Okay, my theory for what happens. Russia insists on having Peacekeeper forces in Ukraine, thinking one of the other security council members will veto just on principle of opposing Russia, which they can use as a propaganda victory. Instead, however, the idea proceeds, with modifications--no Ukrainian and no Russian members to maintain impartiality, e.g.
Depends on the nature of the resolution. If it's only shit that Russia wants, than they will be told to kindly fuck off. If it's UN peacekeepers, with no one from Russia, it might have a chance, but I would not be surprised to see Russia's government continuing to be a belligerent little shit and refusing to even entertain that idea because it would squelch much of it's BS.
There's no way the Russians are gonna ask for UN forces right on their doorstep in Ukraine.
Kind of confirms the hunch that Russia doesn't have the resources fight Ukraine and then occupy Eastern Ukraine and/or are unwilling to eat the sanctions from the West that would follow, if they did so.
Also since they are probably using agent provocateurs to stir up shit, they might not be willing risk losing those personnel and having their BS confirmed, once Ukraine starts cracking down (some of those shitheads are probably going to eat a lethal dose of lead or get caught before Russia can react).
I think that is more likely what's going on here; Russia thought it could pull another Crimea, Ukraine called the bluff, and now Russia has to either try to end this right now peacefully (hence the Security Council meeting) or risk the real chance that the "pro-Russian supporters" get ousted as Russian operatives and get caught red-handed, which is probably worse-case scenario in their eyes short of NATO intervention.
Why? I mean, I'd like to believe that, but you had those supposed 'militia' in Crimea going off-script and admitting that they were Russian soldiers, and no one gave a shit about it. Why would this time be any different?
Mainly because Ukraine is now doing something about it. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if Russian soldiers identifying themselves as "pro-Russian militia" open fire on Ukrainian troops, and are found out, that isn't just violating Ukraine's sovereignty, it's a false flag operation, which I believe makes it a war crime.
...though I didn't know someone on the ground actually admitted to the ruse in Crimea. That info does make me believe it's more likely a half-hearted attempt to say "we tried peace" before beginning with Crimea Part 2.
Kind of confirms the hunch that Russia doesn't have the resources fight Ukraine and then occupy Eastern Ukraine and/or are unwilling to eat the sanctions from the West that would follow, if they did so.
Also since they are probably using agent provocateurs to stir up shit, they might not be willing risk losing those personnel and having their BS confirmed, once Ukraine starts cracking down (some of those shitheads are probably going to eat a lethal dose of lead or get caught before Russia can react).
I think that is more likely what's going on here; Russia thought it could pull another Crimea, Ukraine called the bluff, and now Russia has to either try to end this right now peacefully (hence the Security Council meeting) or risk the real chance that the "pro-Russian supporters" get ousted as Russian operatives and get caught red-handed, which is probably worse-case scenario in their eyes short of NATO intervention.
Why? I mean, I'd like to believe that, but you had those supposed 'militia' in Crimea going off-script and admitting that they were Russian soldiers, and no one gave a shit about it. Why would this time be any different?
Mainly because Ukraine is now doing something about it. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if Russian soldiers identifying themselves as "pro-Russian militia" open fire on Ukrainian troops, and are found out, that isn't just violating Ukraine's sovereignty, it's a false flag operation, which I believe makes it a war crime.
You're correct. Under Geneva such operatives are subject to whatever penalties the aggressed-upon government feels are justified, up to and including summary execution.
Posts
Why? I mean, I'd like to believe that, but you had those supposed 'militia' in Crimea going off-script and admitting that they were Russian soldiers, and no one gave a shit about it. Why would this time be any different?
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
There's no way the Russians are gonna ask for UN forces right on their doorstep in Ukraine.
Panicked, Russia vetoes its own motion.
Cue laugh track. Roll credits and ending theme.
Not just UN, but potentially Americans.
Yea, that ain't happening.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/189127/from-ukraine-with-love-2-the-crimea-is-not-enough?new=1
Mainly because Ukraine is now doing something about it. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if Russian soldiers identifying themselves as "pro-Russian militia" open fire on Ukrainian troops, and are found out, that isn't just violating Ukraine's sovereignty, it's a false flag operation, which I believe makes it a war crime.
...though I didn't know someone on the ground actually admitted to the ruse in Crimea. That info does make me believe it's more likely a half-hearted attempt to say "we tried peace" before beginning with Crimea Part 2.
You're correct. Under Geneva such operatives are subject to whatever penalties the aggressed-upon government feels are justified, up to and including summary execution.