Russia knows there is no coherent western response from Europe, NATO and the US to it's aggressive actions in Ukraine.
It is exerting it's influence and authority in the region, displaying what it can and will do in order to ensure local polities are aware of that. Classic imperial power play. I doubt they actually want that much concrete territory or anything other than what they currently have, although sole control of access to Azov would be of strategic use to them.
Control of the sea of Azov solidifies their control of the Donbass, with the eventual aim to cut it off from the rest of Ukraine entirely. This looks like more on a long term play to divide Ukraine and annex the eastern regions.
I don't think the Ukraine have declared war on Russia. It seems they're debating declaring martial law, not war, and requesting international support.
I mean, yeah. There's no version of this where Ukrainian forces try to escalate this that doesn't end with Russia bordering Poland again. They're going to prepare for Russia's next move, not make their own.
Yeah, there's a few reports that the Ukraine have declared war, but I think they're mistranslated.
Ukraine didn't declare war when Russia annexed Crimea, and unofficially seized the Donbas which resulted in heavy fighting and a bunch of deaths.
They're not going to declare war over a few boats and injuries.
It isn't just about boats, its about Ukraine being blockaded out of the Sea of Azov.
What makes you think its a permanent blockade? I've been reading but details seem pretty sparse still.
Well given they went and spent a bunch of time and money building a bridge from Russia to the Crimea just before they started the blockade it would seem that they’re planning for the long term.
I mean, what makes you say there is a blockade at all? A blockade is a long-term project; seizing ships, or closing off a shipping lane briefly doesn't count.
They’ve closed Crimea’s borders on land and sea. I posted this useful map from the co-chair of the European Commission for Foreign Relations yesterday.
They have blocked all land and sea access except theirs to the Ukrainian territory they illegally annexed four years ago, having first spent months building a bridge across the sea to access it themselves. They rammed Ukrainian boats, fired on Ukrainian naval vessels, seized the vessels and wounded and captured Ukrainian sailors.
They haven’t even bothered to pretend it was some Ukrainian freedom fighters this time. They have done all this in their own name.
If you can come up with some reason why a coordinated Russian military operation stretching across the entire Crimean peninsula by both land and sea is just some quick temporary thing then I’d love to hear it. Are they bored, perhaps? Showing off, maybe? Felt their military exercises were getting a bit stale? Fancied a bit of drama?
+8
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Technically, they claim the 3 ships entered Russian waters, but it's pretty clearly a line of bullshit
I don't think the Ukraine have declared war on Russia. It seems they're debating declaring martial law, not war, and requesting international support.
I mean, yeah. There's no version of this where Ukrainian forces try to escalate this that doesn't end with Russia bordering Poland again. They're going to prepare for Russia's next move, not make their own.
Yeah, there's a few reports that the Ukraine have declared war, but I think they're mistranslated.
Ukraine didn't declare war when Russia annexed Crimea, and unofficially seized the Donbas which resulted in heavy fighting and a bunch of deaths.
They're not going to declare war over a few boats and injuries.
It isn't just about boats, its about Ukraine being blockaded out of the Sea of Azov.
What makes you think its a permanent blockade? I've been reading but details seem pretty sparse still.
Well given they went and spent a bunch of time and money building a bridge from Russia to the Crimea just before they started the blockade it would seem that they’re planning for the long term.
I mean, what makes you say there is a blockade at all? A blockade is a long-term project; seizing ships, or closing off a shipping lane briefly doesn't count.
They’ve closed Crimea’s borders on land and sea. I posted this useful map from the co-chair of the European Commission for Foreign Relations yesterday.
They have blocked all land and sea access except theirs to the Ukrainian territory they illegally annexed four years ago, having first spent months building a bridge across the sea to access it themselves. They rammed Ukrainian boats, fired on Ukrainian naval vessels, seized the vessels and wounded and captured Ukrainian sailors.
They haven’t even bothered to pretend it was some Ukrainian freedom fighters this time. They have done all this in their own name.
If you can come up with some reason why a coordinated Russian military operation stretching across the entire Crimean peninsula by both land and sea is just some quick temporary thing then I’d love to hear it. Are they bored, perhaps? Showing off, maybe? Felt their military exercises were getting a bit stale? Fancied a bit of drama?
All I'm looking for is some evidence of a blockade, because I haven't seen it reported anywhere and I've already demonstrated the bridge you mention is not preventing the passage of ships.
I don't think the Ukraine have declared war on Russia. It seems they're debating declaring martial law, not war, and requesting international support.
I mean, yeah. There's no version of this where Ukrainian forces try to escalate this that doesn't end with Russia bordering Poland again. They're going to prepare for Russia's next move, not make their own.
Yeah, there's a few reports that the Ukraine have declared war, but I think they're mistranslated.
Ukraine didn't declare war when Russia annexed Crimea, and unofficially seized the Donbas which resulted in heavy fighting and a bunch of deaths.
They're not going to declare war over a few boats and injuries.
It isn't just about boats, its about Ukraine being blockaded out of the Sea of Azov.
What makes you think its a permanent blockade? I've been reading but details seem pretty sparse still.
Well given they went and spent a bunch of time and money building a bridge from Russia to the Crimea just before they started the blockade it would seem that they’re planning for the long term.
I mean, what makes you say there is a blockade at all? A blockade is a long-term project; seizing ships, or closing off a shipping lane briefly doesn't count.
They’ve closed Crimea’s borders on land and sea. I posted this useful map from the co-chair of the European Commission for Foreign Relations yesterday.
They have blocked all land and sea access except theirs to the Ukrainian territory they illegally annexed four years ago, having first spent months building a bridge across the sea to access it themselves. They rammed Ukrainian boats, fired on Ukrainian naval vessels, seized the vessels and wounded and captured Ukrainian sailors.
They haven’t even bothered to pretend it was some Ukrainian freedom fighters this time. They have done all this in their own name.
If you can come up with some reason why a coordinated Russian military operation stretching across the entire Crimean peninsula by both land and sea is just some quick temporary thing then I’d love to hear it. Are they bored, perhaps? Showing off, maybe? Felt their military exercises were getting a bit stale? Fancied a bit of drama?
All I'm looking for is some evidence of a blockade, because I haven't seen it reported anywhere and I've already demonstrated the bridge you mention is not preventing the passage of ships.
The bridge isn't attacking Ukrainian ships, the Russian Navy is.
+12
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Also, if it's letting Russian ships past, it's still a blockade.
I don't think the Ukraine have declared war on Russia. It seems they're debating declaring martial law, not war, and requesting international support.
I mean, yeah. There's no version of this where Ukrainian forces try to escalate this that doesn't end with Russia bordering Poland again. They're going to prepare for Russia's next move, not make their own.
Yeah, there's a few reports that the Ukraine have declared war, but I think they're mistranslated.
Ukraine didn't declare war when Russia annexed Crimea, and unofficially seized the Donbas which resulted in heavy fighting and a bunch of deaths.
They're not going to declare war over a few boats and injuries.
It isn't just about boats, its about Ukraine being blockaded out of the Sea of Azov.
What makes you think its a permanent blockade? I've been reading but details seem pretty sparse still.
Well given they went and spent a bunch of time and money building a bridge from Russia to the Crimea just before they started the blockade it would seem that they’re planning for the long term.
I mean, what makes you say there is a blockade at all? A blockade is a long-term project; seizing ships, or closing off a shipping lane briefly doesn't count.
They’ve closed Crimea’s borders on land and sea. I posted this useful map from the co-chair of the European Commission for Foreign Relations yesterday.
They have blocked all land and sea access except theirs to the Ukrainian territory they illegally annexed four years ago, having first spent months building a bridge across the sea to access it themselves. They rammed Ukrainian boats, fired on Ukrainian naval vessels, seized the vessels and wounded and captured Ukrainian sailors.
They haven’t even bothered to pretend it was some Ukrainian freedom fighters this time. They have done all this in their own name.
If you can come up with some reason why a coordinated Russian military operation stretching across the entire Crimean peninsula by both land and sea is just some quick temporary thing then I’d love to hear it. Are they bored, perhaps? Showing off, maybe? Felt their military exercises were getting a bit stale? Fancied a bit of drama?
All I'm looking for is some evidence of a blockade, because I haven't seen it reported anywhere and I've already demonstrated the bridge you mention is not preventing the passage of ships.
I honestly don’t know what else I can say here. I don’t see how you can see the Russian military firing on and seizing Ukrainian ships and blocking access to waters they’re required by international treaty to keep open, after months of harassing vessels coming from Ukrainian ports, the same ports that are vital to Ukrainian steel and grain exports, as anything other than a blockade.
Let’s see if you’re right and the Ukraine, the EU and the UN are worrying over nothing and it all turns out to be some giant silly mistake. Because it bloody well looks like the culmination of months of intimidation, planning and military action to me.
If you fire on some ships under a flag then you probably don't have to stop anyone else to be counted as blockading. In fact, you probably don't get the chance.
No ship with a blue and yellow flag is going to try those straights, captains will redirect to other ports. The de facto blockade of merchant shipping was in place when they opened fire initially.
There probably won't be reports of other Ukrainian vessels there being stopped because other Ukrainian vessels won't go there.
+13
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I don't think the Ukraine have declared war on Russia. It seems they're debating declaring martial law, not war, and requesting international support.
I mean, yeah. There's no version of this where Ukrainian forces try to escalate this that doesn't end with Russia bordering Poland again. They're going to prepare for Russia's next move, not make their own.
Yeah, there's a few reports that the Ukraine have declared war, but I think they're mistranslated.
Ukraine didn't declare war when Russia annexed Crimea, and unofficially seized the Donbas which resulted in heavy fighting and a bunch of deaths.
They're not going to declare war over a few boats and injuries.
It isn't just about boats, its about Ukraine being blockaded out of the Sea of Azov.
What makes you think its a permanent blockade? I've been reading but details seem pretty sparse still.
Well given they went and spent a bunch of time and money building a bridge from Russia to the Crimea just before they started the blockade it would seem that they’re planning for the long term.
I mean, what makes you say there is a blockade at all? A blockade is a long-term project; seizing ships, or closing off a shipping lane briefly doesn't count.
They’ve closed Crimea’s borders on land and sea. I posted this useful map from the co-chair of the European Commission for Foreign Relations yesterday.
They have blocked all land and sea access except theirs to the Ukrainian territory they illegally annexed four years ago, having first spent months building a bridge across the sea to access it themselves. They rammed Ukrainian boats, fired on Ukrainian naval vessels, seized the vessels and wounded and captured Ukrainian sailors.
They haven’t even bothered to pretend it was some Ukrainian freedom fighters this time. They have done all this in their own name.
If you can come up with some reason why a coordinated Russian military operation stretching across the entire Crimean peninsula by both land and sea is just some quick temporary thing then I’d love to hear it. Are they bored, perhaps? Showing off, maybe? Felt their military exercises were getting a bit stale? Fancied a bit of drama?
All I'm looking for is some evidence of a blockade, because I haven't seen it reported anywhere and I've already demonstrated the bridge you mention is not preventing the passage of ships.
I honestly don’t know what else I can say here. I don’t see how you can see the Russian military firing on and seizing Ukrainian ships and blocking access to waters they’re required by international treaty to keep open, after months of harassing vessels coming from Ukrainian ports, the same ports that are vital to Ukrainian steel and grain exports, as anything other than a blockade.
Let’s see if you’re right and the Ukraine, the EU and the UN are worrying over nothing and it all turns out to be some giant silly mistake. Because it bloody well looks like the culmination of months of intimidation, planning and military action to me.
I think the issue is technical and perhaps semantic. An actual blockade is certainly cause for war and NATO action, which is why Russia benefits from just skirting close to it. If they're still allowing trade vessels to pass it's not a blockade even if they harras them and slow them.
casually I'd call it a blockade, but for international reaction the technical difference is important.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited November 2018
NATO would not be involved.
Also, it absolutely would be a blockade if Russian trade vessels were allowed through.
Fencingsax on
+7
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Russia is already arming the Taliban, and Afghanistan is already pretty well isolated since the country is so unstable that no one can or wants to do business there.
You're talking as if Afghanistan is some stable US backed democracy already when half the country is under control of insurgents. We can worry about Afghanistan's geopolitical prospects after it isn't on the verge of reverting to the Islamic Emirate.
You're talking as if you don't know what bilateral agreements Afghanistan is actually party to with its neighboring countries.
Yes, Russia is already arming the Taliban, but not nearly as much as they could if they wanted to fuck with us. You remember that time we started giving the Mujahideen MANPADS?
You remember how I keep talking about GIROA's desperate need for helicopters, and how much of our strategy hinges on giving them Blackhawks?
Bilateral agreements mean jack shit when the government can't control half its territory.
The Taliban is already winning with what they have. You're making no sense.
Neither of these (exaggerated) claims in any way justify the hope that the gains of legalizing opium would outweigh the cost of the Taliban becoming massively better-equipped and the government losing its flimsy external trade balance.
The Afghan government is already completely dependent on US aid money and US military support. I cannot give a shit about their "trade balance" when they're on the verge of total collapse.
The immediate concern is cutting the Taliban's popular support and economic base so that efforts to push them back actually result in long term gains, instead of just sowing the seeds for the next Taliban offensive.
Any success by the US in turning back the Taliban advance would be enough reason for Russia to give them more support. It doesn't matter if its involves drugs to Russia or not, they're there to oppose US geopolitical strategy.
If US geopolitical strategy involves creating the #1 narcostate on the Eurasian continent, their opposition will become radically more aggressive.
I simply cannot understand how anyone can dismiss antagonizing Russia, China and every neighboring country - not to mention Europe - as a nonissue.
Afghanistan already is the #1 narcostate. US geopolitical strategy worsened it with the invasion, though I doubt that was intentional.
Legitimizing opium production is not going to open the floodgates, because they are already wide open. There is no control over the area. Afghanistan opium makes up the vast, vast majority of the world supply.
Your opposition to this idea makes no sense unless you think the situation is not what it already is. This idea has international support, the biggest problem might just be that it won't work. There will probably be some international opposition for various reasons, but it won't be because it would increase the supply to Russia and the EU. Because there are already no obstacles to that.
I don't think the Ukraine have declared war on Russia. It seems they're debating declaring martial law, not war, and requesting international support.
I mean, yeah. There's no version of this where Ukrainian forces try to escalate this that doesn't end with Russia bordering Poland again. They're going to prepare for Russia's next move, not make their own.
Yeah, there's a few reports that the Ukraine have declared war, but I think they're mistranslated.
Ukraine didn't declare war when Russia annexed Crimea, and unofficially seized the Donbas which resulted in heavy fighting and a bunch of deaths.
They're not going to declare war over a few boats and injuries.
It isn't just about boats, its about Ukraine being blockaded out of the Sea of Azov.
What makes you think its a permanent blockade? I've been reading but details seem pretty sparse still.
Well given they went and spent a bunch of time and money building a bridge from Russia to the Crimea just before they started the blockade it would seem that they’re planning for the long term.
I mean, what makes you say there is a blockade at all? A blockade is a long-term project; seizing ships, or closing off a shipping lane briefly doesn't count.
They’ve closed Crimea’s borders on land and sea. I posted this useful map from the co-chair of the European Commission for Foreign Relations yesterday.
They have blocked all land and sea access except theirs to the Ukrainian territory they illegally annexed four years ago, having first spent months building a bridge across the sea to access it themselves. They rammed Ukrainian boats, fired on Ukrainian naval vessels, seized the vessels and wounded and captured Ukrainian sailors.
They haven’t even bothered to pretend it was some Ukrainian freedom fighters this time. They have done all this in their own name.
If you can come up with some reason why a coordinated Russian military operation stretching across the entire Crimean peninsula by both land and sea is just some quick temporary thing then I’d love to hear it. Are they bored, perhaps? Showing off, maybe? Felt their military exercises were getting a bit stale? Fancied a bit of drama?
All I'm looking for is some evidence of a blockade, because I haven't seen it reported anywhere and I've already demonstrated the bridge you mention is not preventing the passage of ships.
I honestly don’t know what else I can say here. I don’t see how you can see the Russian military firing on and seizing Ukrainian ships and blocking access to waters they’re required by international treaty to keep open, after months of harassing vessels coming from Ukrainian ports, the same ports that are vital to Ukrainian steel and grain exports, as anything other than a blockade.
Let’s see if you’re right and the Ukraine, the EU and the UN are worrying over nothing and it all turns out to be some giant silly mistake. Because it bloody well looks like the culmination of months of intimidation, planning and military action to me.
I think the issue is technical and perhaps semantic. An actual blockade is certainly cause for war and NATO action, which is why Russia benefits from just skirting close to it. If they're still allowing trade vessels to pass it's not a blockade even if they harras them and slow them.
casually I'd call it a blockade, but for international reaction the technical difference is important.
Ukraine isn't a NATO member.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Obviously. But it is a member of PfP, and more importantly any likely UN action or Minsk Protocol action will involve NATO. Didn't mean to imply war though, that referred to the Ukraine itself. Just pointing out that NATO, the EU, the UN and the signers of Minsk2 are talking. It is to Russia's benefit to keep it at talking, so skirting the edge is important.
The thing is, Europe is kind of a clusterfuck, NATO is dealing with it's foremost member playing footsies with putin. and the UN has been a pretty feckless body at coralling russias actions historically.
Simply put: if no one came when russia straight up annexed territory and everyone was able to do something, they're not going to do it now.
I don't think the Ukraine have declared war on Russia. It seems they're debating declaring martial law, not war, and requesting international support.
I mean, yeah. There's no version of this where Ukrainian forces try to escalate this that doesn't end with Russia bordering Poland again. They're going to prepare for Russia's next move, not make their own.
Yeah, there's a few reports that the Ukraine have declared war, but I think they're mistranslated.
Ukraine didn't declare war when Russia annexed Crimea, and unofficially seized the Donbas which resulted in heavy fighting and a bunch of deaths.
They're not going to declare war over a few boats and injuries.
It isn't just about boats, its about Ukraine being blockaded out of the Sea of Azov.
What makes you think its a permanent blockade? I've been reading but details seem pretty sparse still.
Well given they went and spent a bunch of time and money building a bridge from Russia to the Crimea just before they started the blockade it would seem that they’re planning for the long term.
I mean, what makes you say there is a blockade at all? A blockade is a long-term project; seizing ships, or closing off a shipping lane briefly doesn't count.
They’ve closed Crimea’s borders on land and sea. I posted this useful map from the co-chair of the European Commission for Foreign Relations yesterday.
They have blocked all land and sea access except theirs to the Ukrainian territory they illegally annexed four years ago, having first spent months building a bridge across the sea to access it themselves. They rammed Ukrainian boats, fired on Ukrainian naval vessels, seized the vessels and wounded and captured Ukrainian sailors.
They haven’t even bothered to pretend it was some Ukrainian freedom fighters this time. They have done all this in their own name.
If you can come up with some reason why a coordinated Russian military operation stretching across the entire Crimean peninsula by both land and sea is just some quick temporary thing then I’d love to hear it. Are they bored, perhaps? Showing off, maybe? Felt their military exercises were getting a bit stale? Fancied a bit of drama?
All I'm looking for is some evidence of a blockade, because I haven't seen it reported anywhere and I've already demonstrated the bridge you mention is not preventing the passage of ships.
I honestly don’t know what else I can say here. I don’t see how you can see the Russian military firing on and seizing Ukrainian ships and blocking access to waters they’re required by international treaty to keep open, after months of harassing vessels coming from Ukrainian ports, the same ports that are vital to Ukrainian steel and grain exports, as anything other than a blockade.
Let’s see if you’re right and the Ukraine, the EU and the UN are worrying over nothing and it all turns out to be some giant silly mistake. Because it bloody well looks like the culmination of months of intimidation, planning and military action to me.
I don't know what you think I'm arguing here, if you can read my posts as saying this is all a big mistake. Obviously it isn't, its a bit escalation and could lead to more.
I've been looking quite diligently, and the only country I've found to call this a blockade is Estonia: and they were calling it a blockade before Russia seized the ships. I'm keeping an eye on these ship tracking websites: I see non-Russian vessels coming to and from the strait but I haven't caught any moving through it yet. Apparently the Russian port authority says the strait is open again, but I don't have a solid source for that one yet.
yeah, the literally dozens of videos of grown men, and teenage boys clashing with riot geared police and throwing rocks, sure counters the attempted narrative of that single still image.
provide sources for claims like this and lose the snark
yeah, the literally dozens of videos of grown men, and teenage boys clashing with riot geared police and throwing rocks, sure counters the attempted narrative of that single still image.
provide sources for claims like this and lose the snark
yeah, the literally dozens of videos of grown men, and teenage boys clashing with riot geared police and throwing rocks, sure counters the attempted narrative of that single still image.
provide sources for claims like this and lose the snark
What is breaking news live? An unverified twitter account which is supposedly a news wire, with less than 100k followers, and no mutual followers from any of the journalists I follow sure doesn't seem terribly credible.
It doesn't inspire confidence when your key sources of news seem to be from the alt-right bullshit mill.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Take a look at the riot shields. They say "POLICIA FEDERAL." Those are not ICE or any Texan department supporting them.
Structure on the left resembles one in numerous videos of the 2015 Mexico City riot, though I cannot find an exact match. However, accepting them at face value as presented actually makes the arument worse. This is a clash outside of US borders involving foreign nationals and foreign police.
The US is signatory to two major treaties that expressly list tear gas as a banned chemical weapons, with limited exemption for domestic riot control, but not exempting use for entry or access control (i.e. its use on immigrants is a war crime), and closing all exemptions when the weapon causes harm beyond your own borders. Under US recognized law, use outside of US borders or in attack or support of foreign police or military, is a war crime. One we have prosecuted, bombed, invaded, and dronestruck (dronestriked?) For.
What is breaking news live? An unverified twitter account which is supposedly a news wire, with less than 100k followers, and no mutual followers from any of the journalists I follow sure doesn't seem terribly credible.
The account also has a history of being hoodwinked and having to walk back claims. They posted a picture of supposed flooding in Houston last year that was actually a 2013 mock-up of theoretical flooding at LaGuardia.
I mean I don't find the idea that some people threw rocks very difficult to believe; with such a large crowd confronting a large security force it seems likely that clashes would occur somewhere.
edit - that said why are we even talking about this in this thread; isn't it more of an immigration thing than a foreign policy thing? Plus with that Ukraine/Russia stuff going down I'd think we'd have plenty to talk about.
yeah, the literally dozens of videos of grown men, and teenage boys clashing with riot geared police and throwing rocks, sure counters the attempted narrative of that single still image.
provide sources for claims like this and lose the snark
okay so "provide sources" means you still have to follow our rules about identifying twitter accounts and give some information beyond just posting a tweet
Firing tear gas over an international border seems like something of a foreign policy issue, I dunno.
Meh, its not like Mexico is complaining about it. Its immigration at its core, I think it would fit better there.
I actually spent a couple hours last night trying to figure out where exactly the rock throwing and the tear gassing was going on. It looked like the gas was being deployed on the US side, because (according to google maps) the US border runs along the southern line of the river/aqueduct/no-mans-land, not through the middle of it. So (and I'm far from certain about this) it seems like breaching the first fence already put the migrants on US soil, which is where they got gassed. Though if anyone has anything concrete on the matter I'd love to see it.
maybe none of this would be happening if immigrants and asylum seekers were processed properly, like by an immigration system that wasnt intentionally obtuse and haphazard, causing unnecessarily long delays in processing which lead to desperate and vulnerable people being pushed past the breaking point
Frankly the absolute frustration and breakdown of the basic laws, policies and processes allowing for (or where necessary restricting) human movement, is the intended point of republican policy going back decades. And getting to stomp on the heads of asylum seekers when their intentional (and avoidable) neglect inevitably leads to outbursts of frustration like this is what they wanted all along.
Republicans are approaching immigration and asylum the same way they approached the war on drugs, repress, criminalise, brutalise, and then ignore.
If a tiny portion of the money wasted on ICE this year, and the pointless shameful mobilisation of the military to the border, was used to support the system effectively in order to process these claims at a reasonable speed this wouldnt be happening.
maybe none of this would be happening if immigrants and asylum seekers were processed properly, like by an immigration system that wasnt intentionally obtuse and haphazard, causing unnecessarily long delays in processing which lead to desperate and vulnerable people being pushed past the breaking point
Frankly the absolute frustration and breakdown of the basic laws, policies and processes allowing for (or where necessary restricting) human movement, is the intended point of republican policy going back decades. And getting to stomp on the heads of asylum seekers when their intentional (and avoidable) neglect inevitably leads to outbursts of frustration like this is what they wanted all along.
Republicans are approaching immigration and asylum the same way they approached the war on drugs, repress, criminalise, brutalise, and then ignore.
If a tiny portion of the money wasted on ICE this year, and the pointless shameful mobilisation of the military to the border, was used to support the system effectively in order to process these claims at a reasonable speed this wouldnt be happening.
It's not actually. The current stuff you are seeing is a product of the Republican establishment losing control of the party to the base. The establishment republicans were all set to do some sort of immigration reform mega-deal, in part to try and not lose every minority in the US. But since so much of the Republican party coalition is white supremacists, even the parts that weren't couldn't get the deal done and they basically got beaten into line.
Or, more generally, it's a lot more complicated then just "the GOP has always been against immigration" and it's only recently that they've really gone so hardcore nativist in policy. Shit, the Koch fuckheads have been trying to push the other way, just as an example.
The bridge isn't attacking Ukrainian ships, the Russian Navy is.
The bridge has denied it very strongly.
Why would the bridge do such a thing?
I mean, what I meant to say was why wouldn't the bridge do such a thing.
Still waiting for the cringe inducing response to the Ukrainian incident from the President.
I mean, Obama could be warm and conciliatory to Putin, but he also had a capacity for strength and intolerance for bullshit.
Here's the progressive apologist Democrat at his finest.
Here's the conservative strongman Republican doing his thing.
Obviously, those are curated for my enjoyment of the lols, but I've never seen Trump have Obama's response to Putin, only people critical of Putin. It's sad how much of Putin's bootpolish the tell-it-like-it-is MAGA man will eat.
It kind of looks like Putin is trying to send a message to all the former SSRs that used to be part of Russia- he's showing that nobody will come to save them if they try and hold them off, and wouldn't it be just such a good idea if they decided to come back when he asked nicely? NATO and the U.S. won't get involved (Ukraine's not a member and Trump is busy licking the polish off Putin's boots).
It's a classic show of strength. Make an example out of one of your enemies and the rest will fall all over themselves to avoid the same fate. How many of the smaller ones will return to the fold now that Putin is making an example of the Ukraine?
Posts
Control of the sea of Azov solidifies their control of the Donbass, with the eventual aim to cut it off from the rest of Ukraine entirely. This looks like more on a long term play to divide Ukraine and annex the eastern regions.
They have blocked all land and sea access except theirs to the Ukrainian territory they illegally annexed four years ago, having first spent months building a bridge across the sea to access it themselves. They rammed Ukrainian boats, fired on Ukrainian naval vessels, seized the vessels and wounded and captured Ukrainian sailors.
They haven’t even bothered to pretend it was some Ukrainian freedom fighters this time. They have done all this in their own name.
If you can come up with some reason why a coordinated Russian military operation stretching across the entire Crimean peninsula by both land and sea is just some quick temporary thing then I’d love to hear it. Are they bored, perhaps? Showing off, maybe? Felt their military exercises were getting a bit stale? Fancied a bit of drama?
And of course it doesn’t explain why they’ve mobilized to block access across the land borders too.
All I'm looking for is some evidence of a blockade, because I haven't seen it reported anywhere and I've already demonstrated the bridge you mention is not preventing the passage of ships.
The bridge isn't attacking Ukrainian ships, the Russian Navy is.
I honestly don’t know what else I can say here. I don’t see how you can see the Russian military firing on and seizing Ukrainian ships and blocking access to waters they’re required by international treaty to keep open, after months of harassing vessels coming from Ukrainian ports, the same ports that are vital to Ukrainian steel and grain exports, as anything other than a blockade.
Let’s see if you’re right and the Ukraine, the EU and the UN are worrying over nothing and it all turns out to be some giant silly mistake. Because it bloody well looks like the culmination of months of intimidation, planning and military action to me.
No ship with a blue and yellow flag is going to try those straights, captains will redirect to other ports. The de facto blockade of merchant shipping was in place when they opened fire initially.
There probably won't be reports of other Ukrainian vessels there being stopped because other Ukrainian vessels won't go there.
I think the issue is technical and perhaps semantic. An actual blockade is certainly cause for war and NATO action, which is why Russia benefits from just skirting close to it. If they're still allowing trade vessels to pass it's not a blockade even if they harras them and slow them.
casually I'd call it a blockade, but for international reaction the technical difference is important.
Also, it absolutely would be a blockade if Russian trade vessels were allowed through.
Afghanistan already is the #1 narcostate. US geopolitical strategy worsened it with the invasion, though I doubt that was intentional.
Legitimizing opium production is not going to open the floodgates, because they are already wide open. There is no control over the area. Afghanistan opium makes up the vast, vast majority of the world supply.
Your opposition to this idea makes no sense unless you think the situation is not what it already is. This idea has international support, the biggest problem might just be that it won't work. There will probably be some international opposition for various reasons, but it won't be because it would increase the supply to Russia and the EU. Because there are already no obstacles to that.
Ukraine isn't a NATO member.
Obviously. But it is a member of PfP, and more importantly any likely UN action or Minsk Protocol action will involve NATO. Didn't mean to imply war though, that referred to the Ukraine itself. Just pointing out that NATO, the EU, the UN and the signers of Minsk2 are talking. It is to Russia's benefit to keep it at talking, so skirting the edge is important.
Also obviously. I didn't think I needed to specify.
Simply put: if no one came when russia straight up annexed territory and everyone was able to do something, they're not going to do it now.
I don't know what you think I'm arguing here, if you can read my posts as saying this is all a big mistake. Obviously it isn't, its a bit escalation and could lead to more.
I've been looking quite diligently, and the only country I've found to call this a blockade is Estonia: and they were calling it a blockade before Russia seized the ships. I'm keeping an eye on these ship tracking websites: I see non-Russian vessels coming to and from the strait but I haven't caught any moving through it yet. Apparently the Russian port authority says the strait is open again, but I don't have a solid source for that one yet.
Here's a video showing them throwing rocks.
Where and when was that video taken?
And can we have a news source more reliable than one that seems to only be on twitter and gab?
If this is supposed to inspire confidence in the response of firing tear gas over the border you kind of failed.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Structure on the left resembles one in numerous videos of the 2015 Mexico City riot, though I cannot find an exact match. However, accepting them at face value as presented actually makes the arument worse. This is a clash outside of US borders involving foreign nationals and foreign police.
The US is signatory to two major treaties that expressly list tear gas as a banned chemical weapons, with limited exemption for domestic riot control, but not exempting use for entry or access control (i.e. its use on immigrants is a war crime), and closing all exemptions when the weapon causes harm beyond your own borders. Under US recognized law, use outside of US borders or in attack or support of foreign police or military, is a war crime. One we have prosecuted, bombed, invaded, and dronestruck (dronestriked?) For.
The account also has a history of being hoodwinked and having to walk back claims. They posted a picture of supposed flooding in Houston last year that was actually a 2013 mock-up of theoretical flooding at LaGuardia.
Tap the breaks until we get a legit news source.
A right-wing meme that will never die?
I mean I don't find the idea that some people threw rocks very difficult to believe; with such a large crowd confronting a large security force it seems likely that clashes would occur somewhere.
edit - that said why are we even talking about this in this thread; isn't it more of an immigration thing than a foreign policy thing? Plus with that Ukraine/Russia stuff going down I'd think we'd have plenty to talk about.
okay so "provide sources" means you still have to follow our rules about identifying twitter accounts and give some information beyond just posting a tweet
please reread the rules
Meh, its not like Mexico is complaining about it. Its immigration at its core, I think it would fit better there.
I actually spent a couple hours last night trying to figure out where exactly the rock throwing and the tear gassing was going on. It looked like the gas was being deployed on the US side, because (according to google maps) the US border runs along the southern line of the river/aqueduct/no-mans-land, not through the middle of it. So (and I'm far from certain about this) it seems like breaching the first fence already put the migrants on US soil, which is where they got gassed. Though if anyone has anything concrete on the matter I'd love to see it.
This can be discussed in more than one thread, there are absolutely foreign policy implications here
Frankly the absolute frustration and breakdown of the basic laws, policies and processes allowing for (or where necessary restricting) human movement, is the intended point of republican policy going back decades. And getting to stomp on the heads of asylum seekers when their intentional (and avoidable) neglect inevitably leads to outbursts of frustration like this is what they wanted all along.
Republicans are approaching immigration and asylum the same way they approached the war on drugs, repress, criminalise, brutalise, and then ignore.
If a tiny portion of the money wasted on ICE this year, and the pointless shameful mobilisation of the military to the border, was used to support the system effectively in order to process these claims at a reasonable speed this wouldnt be happening.
It's not actually. The current stuff you are seeing is a product of the Republican establishment losing control of the party to the base. The establishment republicans were all set to do some sort of immigration reform mega-deal, in part to try and not lose every minority in the US. But since so much of the Republican party coalition is white supremacists, even the parts that weren't couldn't get the deal done and they basically got beaten into line.
Or, more generally, it's a lot more complicated then just "the GOP has always been against immigration" and it's only recently that they've really gone so hardcore nativist in policy. Shit, the Koch fuckheads have been trying to push the other way, just as an example.
The bridge has denied it very strongly.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
Why would the bridge do such a thing?
I mean, what I meant to say was why wouldn't the bridge do such a thing.
Still waiting for the cringe inducing response to the Ukrainian incident from the President.
I mean, Obama could be warm and conciliatory to Putin, but he also had a capacity for strength and intolerance for bullshit.
Here's the progressive apologist Democrat at his finest.
Here's the conservative strongman Republican doing his thing.
Obviously, those are curated for my enjoyment of the lols, but I've never seen Trump have Obama's response to Putin, only people critical of Putin. It's sad how much of Putin's bootpolish the tell-it-like-it-is MAGA man will eat.
It's a classic show of strength. Make an example out of one of your enemies and the rest will fall all over themselves to avoid the same fate. How many of the smaller ones will return to the fold now that Putin is making an example of the Ukraine?
I can has cheezburger, yes?